This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 1, 2012 11:06 PM. The previous post in this blog was Friends don't let friends eat Einstein Bagels. The next post in this blog is A different kind of high. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Cops list 21 arrested in Portland May Day

Today's May Day mischief on Portland streets has resulted in at least 21 arrests. Police report that they picked up protesters on a variety of charges, including assaulting a public safety officer, interfering with a police officer, disorderly conduct in the second degree, resisting arrest, and criminal mischief. Here's the list released tonight:

19-year-old Robert P. Oliver
47-year-old Angela Irene Hammit
30-year-old Blair Jacob Stuwe
26-year-old Levi James Talbot
18-year-old Justin Natzel
28-year-old Lauren Marie Foree
32-year-old Danielle Reynolds
40-year-old William Roy Cook
47-year-old Neill Seigel
21-year-old Adrian Liwanag
22-year-old Adrian Vincent Guerrero
19-year-old Carlos Gabriel Benavides-Montes
20-year-old Damien Santori Phillips
18-year-old Eugene Ryan
43-year-old Joseph Bennie
20-year-old Karyn Mariko Smoot
21-year-old Kyle Wade Dolan
21-year-old Samuel Gates
52-year-old Theresa Sayles
25-year-old Dane William Kingsley
15-year-old male

The average age of those arrested today was just under 28 years old -- the same as it was when the Occupy squatters were cleared out of Lownsdale Square last November. This time, no one over 52 was arrested; in November, there were two arrestees in their 60's and one in his 80's.

Blair Stuwe and Angela Hammit, below, were in both groups, according to police.


Comments (16)

I'm only surprised Ms. Hammit doesn't appear on LinkedIn or Facebook. She's clearly not afraid to get noticed and has such a serious demeanor.

She looks like Debra Messing without makeup. Or conditioner.

Can we be at least a little less shallow than that?

How about this...

I applaud these rather strange fellows for taking it upon themselves to act on behalf of the American people. Who put their freedom on the line for the causes of equality, fairness and social mobility.

Call it a plea for handouts if you want. Debate their tactics as you will. But greater opportunity is a just cause. It's American. It's necessary for a free society. It's good for democracy.

That cause is worth a few broken windows, surely. As long as they aren't mine. :-)

I'm struck by the self-defeating behavior.

Are you trying to persuade people to support your cause or are you alienating the majority in the center (and even people with different political views on certain subjects, but, who agree with you on numerous issues)?

Are your actions ones that will lead to finding common ground and building a political agenda of reform which reaches across old political divides? Or do your actions just reinforce old stereotypes and divisions?

General Electric paying no taxes on 14 billion Dollars in profits. Apple paying little tax by using shell games among different countries. (And, yes, I understand and acknowledge corporations have an obligation to share-holders to legally minimize their taxes and individuals have a self-interest to do the same.)

Bankers bailouts (paid & rewarded for failure) where there was not one criminal prosecution after the mortgage fraud and financial crisis. Continued offshoring & outsourcing resulting in lost jobs and declining wages for the working class and the middle class. The middle class being squeezed by inflation and the working working class being hammered by inflation, threatening manyu peoples' ability to prepare for retirement.

There are reasons to be politically active and use your First Amendment rights.

But here's the thing:

If I wanted to splinter and divide America and discredit those who see the above and think something is wrong, I would form a protest movement that instead of persuading by raising consciousness & conscience, in reality repels the majority by disrupting businesses and their customers which turns people off and allows ridicule and mockery by your political opponents.

It matters how you protest.

If I didn't know better, I'd think these protest tactics were thought up by GE, Apple, and the banks, plus other mega international corporations because the results is alienation for everybody from everybody (political paralysis).

What do I mean?

The protesters are frustrated because they aren't being successful in persuading and raising consciousness to what they perceive as injustice. The majority end up thinking (who knows, maybe not a majority in Portland?) the protesters are jerks. The small business owners (who might support part or all of your agenda) are frustrated because their business and customer's experience is disrupted, causing lost profits (in a tight economy) or a bad shopping experience for their customers.

The customers being frustrated by a bad shopping experience.

And, many observers, such as myself are frustrated because we know there are legitimate issues of equity and failed economic policies, which aren't being addressed by our two party system.

Who told all these people (many well-meaning folks) the only way to raise consciousness & conscience was to make an ass of themselves and alienate?

A march (non-disruptive) and rally with signs and speakers, which informs and educates would be much more persuasive and productive.

A few more things: Go home at the end of the march & rally and clean up any garbage (a little camping etiquette, leave it as good or better than you found it).

Follow-up with organizational outreach to facilitate political action (ideally with specific demands or a list of action items).

Remember what your purpose is.

You want people to agree with your demands, not be turned off by your antics and disruptions.

If I were GE, Apple, or the banks, I would be happy with the results, yesterday: Alienation of everybody from everybody and no cohesive gathering together of Americans concerned with what is befalling America, business as usual with no prospect of a majority willing to stand up to those taking advantage of the system (a current system shaped by special interests). And, no organized majority to demand the system be changed for the good of the common interest.

If I wanted to defeat groups opposed to my agenda I'd get them to take actions that turn-off other people.

Yesterday was a good day for GE, Apple, and the banks!

Believe me, there are people gleeful that protesters are acting badly so they can ridicule and mock the protesters and, more important, ignore the legitimate issues those protesters might have.

To most people, the important issues are mom, apple pie and the flag.

Right on the money Jim. And your first impression is correct; a majority of them are jerks.

For their tactics and actions they have become the target of anger. They are the 1% who disrupt the lives of the 98%, while expressing their vitriol and hatred for the corporate 1%. The unaffected fat cats are having a good laugh indeed.

Best photo award goes to one I saw from Seattle Occupy. The dingdong breaking the window at the Nike store is wearing a pair Nike sneakers.


I worked downtown for a decade, generally wearing a suit/tie and wingtips. I was frequently derided by street urchins (usually after I politely declined their entreaties) for such shallow reasons as my clothes, my gait, or my disinterest in looking their way.

Most of those who live on the streets, and many of those who act out in "Direct Action", are shallow, immature, and mentally ill or addicted. I'm just reflecting back what they've demonstrated.

And she does look JUST like Debra Messing on a bad day.

The ironic thing is that they have banned any mention of Alex Jones or Ron Paul, but anarchists in black face masks are A-OK.

Something seems might fishy about that type of exclusion, when we need all hands on deck.

The American revolutionaries had all sorts of differing viewpoints, but managed to work together to fight off a common enemy.

I don't see that type of inclusion with the "Occupy" movement.

Reuters is reporting that for Occupie, their time is up. Unlike previous "movements", they have no coherent message, as I pointed out in commenting on the interview with the girl from Scio: utterly incoherent, and laughable. When people start laughing, you've lost.

Moreover, despite early characterizations of it as a "grass-roots movement", it is anything but: AFL-COP, Teamsters, and SEIU are all funding and otherwise supporting them. Moreover, much as they despise corporations, it seems unlikely that they built the cameras, computers, and other equipment that they use every day - corporations did that. And as the head of GE figures prominently in the Obama administration, one might think that they'd target GE, rather than the local Starbucks.

These folks lost credibility with the 99% because they have no message and no plan - and they blew it big-time when they showed themselves to be "fair-weather protesters"; taking the six months between October and May off. Locally, they made themselves irrelevant when they planned to "occupy Oswego Lake", then called it on account of rain.

These folks are a far cry from the civil rights protesters of the '60's.

Whether you agree with their tactics or not, if you don't think the Occupy movement has raised awareness of things like equity and failed economic issues, you're being deliberately obtuse. And if I were turned off by their "antics and disruptions," it doesn't mean that I will then automatically side with those against whom they protest. We human beings are capable of more nuanced thinking than that aren't we? Well some of us, anyway.

As far as inclusion goes... you're kidding right?  If all you see is a bunch of smelly, unemployed hipsters and anarchists (who have generally not been welcome in the larger, peaceful OWS movement) you haven't been paying attention and need to expand your worldview beyond Portland. I seem to remember nurses, veterans, and union members marching in OWS demonstrations last fall, to name just a few groups off the top of my head. 

Re: that alleged "exclusion" of Ron Paul and Alex Jones from the movement...

The unofficial website of OWS not only banned the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones, but also the likes of Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke. Sounds like good policy if you want any credibility at all.

OWS also says they "do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all." And  "have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul?" They go on to specify why they have seemingly singled out Paul: "The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand." No kidding?

People complained just as much about the dirty, smelly hippy war protesters of the 60's. Civil disobedience and protest have a long history in the USA. Just like mom, apple pie and the flag.

Evans and Bartender make very good points.

Tactics may differ but the goal is universal. I welcome all allies at this point.

The question is, what is the true goal ?

"The unofficial website of OWS not only banned the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones, but also the likes of Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke. Sounds like good policy if you want any credibility at all."

I disagree. If you think banning certain viewpoints (ooohh evil conspiracy theory - like JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman) gives you credibility, then you are playing the judge, jury, and executioner game. Let an idea stand on its own merit and disregard it with truth and reasoning.

Otherwise, Occupy seems more like Red China with smelly armpits.

Yes indeed. Choosing to not host any and every idea out there - no matter how outlandish - on your website is most certainly EXACTLY like Red China. Is Jack then also playing the "judge, jury, and executioner game" when he moderates comments to his blog?

And again with the smelly armpits. Like I wrote earlier, there's all types associated with OWS. Kind of hard to discern that, or their scent for that matter, from the comfort of your living room or office isn't it?

"Is Jack then also playing the "judge, jury, and executioner game" when he moderates comments to his blog? "

I don't speak for Jack, but I think the only thing that gets moderated around here is profanity and personal threats.

And who decides what is "outlandish"? The "unofficial" central committee?

Perhaps "outlandish" wasn't a good word. How about "tangentially unrelated"? But those are my own opinions and I shouldn't presume to speak for whoever is moderating the (again, unofficial) website, or the movement as a whole either. Neither should you.

I don't speak for Jack either. But I do know he deletes comments for reasons other than the two you listed. Including being off topic, on occasion. I know that from personal experience. ;)

Clicky Web Analytics