Chris Matthews Speaks At The World Affairs Council, I Remember Why Media Fails

The stage at the fairmont

The real reason for the event, book sales

About a minute away from me asking a few questions.

Chris Matthews, MSNBC's host of Hardball, spoke tonight in San Francisco at the Fairmont where the World Affairs Council held a program with him discussing: "Will Politics in Washington Ever Work Again?" The discussion was moderated by Michael Krasny.

As the World Affairs Council summarized on its website , "Chris Matthews sits down with Michael Krasny to discuss a political heroism that once was and the lessons it offers for today's political climate."

I found this premise flawed. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think when you start with the idea the past is better you're taking a rose tinted view that prohibits an even handed critical and grounded conversation. Given the event was hosted by a public radio host and featured a TV news show host, I think evenhanded critical and journalistic coverage would be reasonable to expect. So when the event started with such a flimsy premise it seemed off.

I'm first going to offer my own thoughts on the event which are largely based on a conversation with Mr. Matthews afterwards. But if you watch the video linked to this article you can see some key moments in the evening which I've marked out based on the time stamp when viewing.

After the talk I went to talk to Mr. Matthews as I had a few follow up questions. I waited until after everyone who'd bought books had a chance to purchase a book so I wouldn't be interrupting their experience of the event.

His characterization of the youth of today seemed problematic to me. (During the talk his comments on the reason behind so many uninsured youth put the blame on youth entirely without consideration for unemployment, increases in the cost of living without wage increases, rent increases, student debt increases etc... And when coupled with his advice that youth's role in politics should be helping politicians get elected it displayed an assumption that youth aren't engaged or participating in the process) I asked given the high youth turnout in recent elections coupled with harsher circumstances being the actual reasons for many uninsured and under insured youth, did he actually believe that youth turnout was the problem? And if so how? Especially given the high youth presence both as voters and also on the campaign trail in recent elections, wouldn't that characterization be unfair? Rather than offering a more comprehensive answer or context for his former comments he said "fine we disagree"

His personal response to me was, "Either be a critic or an activist" which I found frustrating as he's a journalist and should be able to answer a follow up question regarding his own comments.
I continued to ask - Okay if we disagree, given that you've got a large platform and claim to care about race and war, could you invite a younger journalist like Rania Khalek (I did name drop her as I think she's a great writer with insights mainstream media could benefit from) on your show when discussing some of these issues so even if you disagree, youth issues can get voiced on those topics?
He asked who she was and what she wrote for, so I explained she's an Independent Journalist who writes on a blog called Dispatches from the Underclass. And if he checks out her work he should be able to tell why I think she'd be a good voice to discuss issues on his show. He replied "I don't like bloggers, who's her editor?"

I mentioned some people would rather NOT work for Comcast or another multinational media conglomeration and thus blogs are an attractive option. Which he rolled his eyes at.
At this point I was a bit taken aback. And I pretty much gave up. The assumption that an editor is needed for content to have value basically says either you're mainstream media or you have no value. Given in his talk he name dropped his agent - the feeling he was more entertainment than news, and less interested in content than personalities was too strong for me to bother continuing. He seemed equally frustrated by me asking questions at all so perhaps it was best that I left then. Which I did...
But the event was well organized by the World Affairs Council in their normal 1 hour forum with room for audience questions - and while I find Mr. Matthew's bias frustrating (much like I find mainstream media bias frustrating) it made me glad that the internet exists and we can find alternative media sources.

If you want to see the video I've marked some highlights....

Most importantly I'd say is at 47:13 minutes into the video where you can watch his own statement on watching media. SUMMARY: (not quote - my comments from here on out will be in brackets) If you get your news from any one of these sites you're stupid; you should seek more information and make up your own mind. While referencing the bias of his network he without prompting brings up the owners to deny they have influence.

At 36:30 you'll see his comments on killing Arabs & Islamic people on TV every night since 2011 as being bad policy.
[I guess Afghanistan and Iraq aren't being counted here? As the US has been at war for much longer... While I agree this is problematic, I also find the abridge timeline he voiced problematic as if he can't remember a decade worth of war, or is only absentmindedly giving incorrect dates it's problematic. Either it's purposeful erasure of history or he doesn't know the history. Unless we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's talking only about the Arab Spring and not general US foreign policy - but his voicing would mislead viewers so that is still irresponsible. All in all it makes me question why is he considered the expert? ]

At 37:00 he states, "Trying to find good guys in Syria is very difficult"
[Not sure how well this statement reflects on the millions of civilians being hurt by violence today.]

At 41:20 you can hear his perspective on drones. (Foreign readers, not this justification of military use isn't coming from the government, it's coming from the media so most Americans are receiving this news with a similar bias.)

At 1:03:00 you'll hear his advice to those in their 20s & thing they should look forward to in politics: "Do something yourself and find a politician you believe in and help him or her ... It's not a spectator sport"
[I found this frustrating as it doesn't acknowledge huge numbers of youth already involved ranging from campaign staff on the ground to the folks behind web tactics which have completely changed campaigns]

At 1:13:39 He comments on youth enrollment in "Obamacare" and a few seconds later at 1:14:20 he comments using the assumption youth/younger voters think they're invincible and "want someone else to pay for it"

At 1:22:20 is the shout out to his Agent Ari Emanuel for his highly paid job saying it's a pretty good gig. [I guess this is more entertainment then given Emanuel's agency's focus?]

Overall thoughts on the night:

After meeting someone from a liberal network who claims to care about issues of race and war, I found his analysis on both flimsy at times and his dismissive attitude of youth particularly seems odd given youth are very much effected by race issues, and are often times the soldiers serving abroad. While he made some good points, much of the talk was pretty obvious to anyone watching, reading, or following the news. Regarding the stated topic of political heroism and the lessons from it: it didn't feel like they were discussing lessons learned as much as their version of a better political past with no prescriptive solutions to undo current troubles. However if you're looking for entertainment - he was certainly a watchable character.

 Originally posted on Oximity.

Google Introduces Chromecast - Threatens Apple TV and RoKu with Cheaper Streaming Content

Wednesday Google announced on it's company blog a new streaming device to bring all your favorite web and video content to your TV, Chromecast.

Chromecast has several key features which will make it highly competitive even with competitors already on the market. It's cheaper with a highly affordable price point of $35, it is compatible with phones, tablets, and laptops, it can work with Netflix, Youtube, Google Play with more apps promised to come soon and developers have already been outreached to.

The ability to use Apple products along with Windows products has been sited as competitive advantage, however Apple TV is PC compatible - though alternative smart phones are not cross compatible as they are with Chromecast. With 44% of Americans using tablets, and 84% of tablet web usage on iPads it is much more important for Google to be mobile and tablet compatible with Apple than the reverse.

Apple TV allows mirroring your computer screen so you can view on your laptop screen the same thing you're seeing on your TV which Chromecast doesn't allow. Meanwhile Chromecast allows multitasking so while you can use your phone as a remote control you're also able to continue tweeting, sending emails or whatever else you'd like without it interfering with your streaming content. The lack of a direct mirror feature with the benefit of multi-tasking makes for an expected trade off with Apple having a more controlled user experience and Google offering the more typical PC user experience of greater customization.

Additionally Chromecast has announced a beta feature to allow you to use a tab within your Chrome browser to directly stream to your TV. While Apple TV allows users to use iPhoto or Picasa, if Chrome works well - that opens the door directly to all sorts of web content already available. Unlike the Apple TV model which still users the Apple Store, partner organizations and programs as a gatekeeper on content. This more open ecosystem could prove attractive to those more interested in web-series, niche content, etc. as opposed to the mainstream TV content Apple has already partnered with. (ESPN, NBA, MLB, Sky News etc...) For example Al Jazeera has a live stream one could use this feature to view even though that content isn't available to many US TV watchers.

The Chromecast device is already available for $35 on Google Play, Amazon.com and BestBuy.com and it will soon be in Best Buy stores across the U.S. In a promotion almost worth the cost of the divice (two-thirds the cost actually...) 3 months of Netflix (Valued at $23.97) is included.

Comparatively the most popular streaming devices currently are Apple TV and Roku. Apple TV costs $99, and Roku devices cost between $49.99 and $99.99 depending on the model.

Given I personally don't own a TV and already use streaming content on a desktop, laptop, tablet and phone for entertainment - I'm probably not going to be in the market for any of these devices (though my parents do own a Roku box) however I look forward to seeing how this devices challenges Apple along with the reaction of mainstream content providers to compete with the freedom of web based flexible viewing especially given the increasing rise of Netflix as a source of original content.

Natalie Portman Got Paid, Court Rules Hollywood's Unpaid Interns Should Too

Memo to Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc Interns: 
Quit your coffee fetching! If you're doing work, you're an employee and should be paid.


If you've ever worked an unpaid internship at some point while fetching coffee, making copies and doing other work for your employer it might have occurred to you that you were actually just working an entry level job. And Federal District Court Judge William H. Pauley III would probably agree with you. On Tuesday the judge ruled that Fox Searchlight should have paid two interns on the movie “Black Swan,” because they were essentially regular employees.

When evaluating if the studio environment of Fox Searchlight Pictures met the criteria to offer unpaid internships the judge used Department of Labor standards.

Those six standards are as follows (language abridged but feel free to check the DOJ document above):
1. Even if internships occur on site, they must be in an educational environment.
2. Internships are for the benefit of the intern.
3. The intern cannot displace regular employees, but can be supervised by staff.
4. The employer does not get an immediate advantage from the presence of the intern. It is expected sometimes interns may actually slow operations.
5. Interns are not entitled to jobs when the internships are over.
And lastly - if all those criteria are met 6. The employer and intern understand the intern is not entitled to wages.

However in the case of on set interns which Hollywood has come to depend on - and in this case of Fox Searchlight Pictures the interns are working in a professional environment not and educational setting, are displacing production assistants who normally do coffee fetching and other such work, the employer does get an immediate advantage through their work, and the intern tends not to benefit. In fact the only part of these type of internship arrangements Fox Searchlight seemed to be in compliance with was the expectation the interns were not entitled to jobs or wages.

The film this case debated, Black Swan, cost approximately $13 million  to make and grossed $270 million worldwide, with $2 million going to Natalie Portman who earned an Oscar for her performance as the lead. Meanwhile the average Production Assistant at Fox earns $12.13 an hour. These unpaid interns on a hugely profitable film in what has been ruled a violation of both federal and New York wage laws, saw nothing for their contributions.

In ruling on this case, Judge Pauley also granted class certification to another group of unpaid New York interns working in Fox Entertainment Group. Such a case could completely change the way companies treat their unpaid interns, and if millennials are lucky will allow some of those entry level jobs to begin paying again.

Microsoft Demos How to Be Sexist Jerks to Gamers at E3 (TRIGGER WARNING)

"I can't even block correctly and you're too fast," she says.
He replies, "Just let it happen. It will be over soon."
The audience laughs
"Wow, you like this," the man continues.
"No, I don't like this," she replies.

It might sound like the dialog you'd hear regarding a sexual assault you might be surprised to know it was on stage Monday at a gaming conference Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3.
One of the producers of Killer Instinct, a man, got on stage with an Xbox Community Manager, a woman, and proceeded to play in front of the crowd. While the remarks were not scripted - the fact that they happened on a stage representing the company in an industry already known for misogyny is deeply illustrative of the attitudes.

Sadly for Microsoft the sexist language is far from their biggest problem at E3 with their own console failing to make waves in the same way that rival Sony did with their new PS4, which by allowing users to use old games and delivering a price point of $399 is $100 cheaper than the Xbox.
Even that news managed to find a way to be expressed with rapey language on twitter...


Even just noting that there were no female protagonists in any Microsoft demo received sexist backlash.
Clearly it's not Microsoft's day, and they've got a lot to respond to - but if they want to take a page out of Nintendo's old playbook and get sales number boosted by women gamers, they're going in the wrong direction. One man on twitter summarized it well:

You Don't Have Digital Privacy Thanks To PRISM

If you reconsidered using Verizon after discovering that the NSA was collecting your phone records, you should probably turn your computer off now. In another stunning publication the Guardian reported today about a program called PRISM which has been monitoring 9 large tech companies and thus most likely your email.

This program allows the NSA direct access to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. To put that in perspective, When you're at work if you're using Google Apps for Business (like I do) you're being monitored. If you were an early internet user and still have your Hotmail, AOL or Yahoo email addresses - you're being monitored. If you're purchasing books or music through iTunes, you'd be monitored. Vacation pictures on Facebook? You're monitored...

The worst part of this all, Congress voted on allowing this in the Protect America Act without much of a debate voting quickly on a Friday in 2007 to avoid being seen as soft on terrorism. That program which lacked judicial oversight to begin with - has since been expanded into what we learned of today.

While those companies denied knowledge of the program and didn't know what PRISM was until this report came out earlier today, the reality is even those companies don't have the best track record with defending users privacy rights as shown in this EFF Report. Whether it is not requiring a warrant for content or not telling users about government data requests- it's hard to trust either the companies individual use of data and how such data is shared with third parties willingly, so when even that level of data security is frequently compromised without users being notified it's an even greater breach of trust when those companies don't know they're also being watched.

Previous scandals such as the Google WiSpy scandal, AOL search leak, Facebook App's Privacy issues and iPhone tracking illustrate those companies whether through a desire for more data, a lack of respect for users, negligence in managing data or interest in helping advertisers - are all guilty of having breached users trust in the past. And this doesn't even include what happens when all of that data is being tracked by the government.

Now the comments by Senator Ron Wyden in May of 2011 can be seen in context I think most will agree: "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry."

I know I am. Though I'm hopeful now that this abuse has come to light we can begin a serious conversation about privacy rights in a digital age.

Aaron Swartz Continues to Make the Internet More Open

Internet Activist Aaron Swart's project with The New Yorker launched Wednesday. Strongbox lets users share information, messages, and files with writers and editors anonymously.

Months after his suicide, Internet activist Aaron Swartz continues to make the world a more open place. Wednesday the New Yorker announced the launch of a project he helped develop with them, Strongbox, a tool that allows sources to anonymously submit information, messages and evidence with writers and editors.

Strongbox uses a Tor network to protect the transportation of data by redirecting packets through a distributed anonymous network in a series of encrypted steps so no machine in the pipeline knows where the packet came from before arriving. Because any computer within the pipeline can see no more than one hop in the circuit, even a compromised path can't be used to connect the information's source and destination.

Once a user accesses Strongbox, they can upload files or send messages using a randomly generated user name. That anonymous ID can either be used only once to send information to a writer or editor, or the user if they're willing to follow up, can use the ID to access messages and questions from editors and writers who might have further questions.

Within their privacy promise regarding Strongbox they state that, "Strongbox servers are under the physical control of The New Yorker and Condé Nast in a physically and logically segregated area at a secure data center. Strongbox servers and network share no elements in common with The New Yorker or Condé Nast infrastructure."

The final step to access the files involves writers and editors downloading files onto a thumbdrive, using a separate thumbdrive with an encryption key on a laptop without a harddrive that regularly wipes its memory, and then accessing the information on that seperate machine. This allows physical air space between the network that sent the message, and the machine that actually opens the documents.

Strongbox is the first use of Aaron Swartz's Deaddrop code which he finished in the month before his suicide on January 11th of  this year. The code for Deaddrop as well as Strongbox is open source in a fitting tribute to his work.

Aaron Swartz defended the use of anonymous communication on his blog years before in 2008 saying, "In 1787, when America’s framers wanted to argue for its Constitution, they published their arguments (the Federalist Papers) anonymously. Whistleblowers have released everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Downing Street Memos. Anonymous speech is a First Amendment right."

Given the increasing usage of the Internet for everything from our daily communication, work, commerce, socializing and an ever expanding world of applications in our daily lives, digital privacy should be a huge concern. Especially after the recent compromise of the AP phone records, the importance of Strongbox offering journalists a new safer tool to protect sources is more obviously needed than before. And luckily for us, Aaron Swartz was tackling the problem before his death.

As Swartz said, "Here’s to anonymity — and more tools protecting it."

Angelina Jolie Opens Up About Why She Got a Mastectomy

Actress, director, and humanitarian Angelina Jolie is no stranger to the public eye. But in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday, she brought the media's attention to an issue Hollywood doesn't normally talk about: breast cancer.

After Jolie discovered she had a defective BRCA1 gene which sharply increased the likelihood of getting breast and ovarian cancer, she opted to have a preventative double mastectomy to reduce her odds of having breast cancer from 87% to roughly 5%.

In the op-ed, Jolie states her reason for sharing her choice with the world: "For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices."

And like any good spokeswoman, she also made sure in her piece to go beyond her personal story to share data regarding the issue: "Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women."

While normally I would wish privacy upon anyone undergoing difficult health situations, I hope the media honors Jolie's choice to speak out about this issue and does so in as factual a manner as possible, to help other women learn more about breast cancer and the health choices they can make.

Picture Credit: Gage Skidmore
Originally posted here.

Meme Alert: Ryan Gosling Won't Eat His Cereal: Ryan McHenry Created Viral Vine Video

Filmmaker Ryan McHenry was recently doing what many folks do when they first encounter a new app or service: figuring out what to do with it. The young filmmaker, who previously won a BAFTA for his short film, Zombie Musical, had a few friends using Vine, the short video app from Twitter, but hadn't posted very much.

When McHenry had the idea while watching Drive and eating cereal to make the first "Ryan Gosling won't eat his cereal" clip, he just wanted to make his friends laugh. And the first two films did just that.

However when his third clip was posted to Vine's Popular page, the one man meme began to take off with every clip afterwards seeing thousands of views, he told Entertainment Weekly.

We'll see if single-handedly developing a meme and getting media coverage from Entertainment Weekly to HuffPost Live will help McHenry in getting support and coverage for his first feature film, but Ryan Gosling will almost certainly be in the news again soon with his latest film, Only God Forgives out this July.

Originally posted 2 days ago on PolicyMic.

Third Time's the Charm

On my third day of actually seeing films I finally seemed to get it right. I took today easy on the film side due to that whole it's a weekday and I should be an adult and do professional things. But I took the time to catch two films and I finally chose a selection that left me satisfied and BOTH films could finally pass the Bechdel test. (Gadzooks! Other odd exclamations of shock and surprise!) This was probably aided by the fact that the first film was directed by a woman, and the second was co-written by a woman. See what having women in the conceptualization does to a film? It makes the women actually worth watching! Sigh of relief.

Alright let's dive in.

I started the evening with Sweet Talk. This was an unconventional story and romance. Within the first 3 minutes it had already passed the Bechdel test and I sighed in relief that I wouldn't have to spend the whole movie looking for a well crafted female character, after all, there she is! The protagonist. Delilah arrives at work - answering a phone sex line. And Samson, is a frustrated writer seeking inspiration when he calls her. Delicately crafted as they let their imaginations run wild, confront their limitations, and create an encounter that keeps you glued to the screen well past when the lights turn on. Go see it. And if it doesn't make it to a theater near you - pester Netflix to get it on a small screen for you. It's the sort of film that inspires conversation, and feels almost European despite being filmed in LA. (I mean this as a compliment... Sorry LA.)

I followed up with City Baby. This film felt like a cross between a mid-twenties/thirties coming of age story and an awkward love letter to the city of Portland, youth, insecurities, and the process of accepting one's self. The best compliment I can offer this film is it feels real. Set against the backdrop of the Portland music scene we see Cloey, as she deals with love life, best friend's plans to move away, and the challenges of supporting herself and figuring out her life. We see the boy who never grew up still playing in his band, the professional who lives large, the indie actress, the hairdresser, the mechanic, the awkward family dynamics - it feels like a more elegant sexy version of daily life. Folks in the Mission - this is your kind of film. It hasn't sold out, it's smart, but still well constructed. And the performances are well worth watching.

SPOILER ALERT - STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T LIKE SPOILERS!

However to be frank - my favorite part was something beyond the film - the audience's reaction. At one point in the film, our protagonist models for a female photographer, and has a one night stand with her while avoiding thinking of her ex and the rebound. This scene was well done in that it didn't make a big deal of gender at all - it was just a hook up like any other hook up might happen. And the audience didn't make a big deal of the fact that the protagonist could now be read as bi or fluid - it was just part of her and no big deal.

This is something that shouldn't be a big deal. But to see bisexuality in a film as just normal, and not being made into an exotic performance or a falling into sin or other huge plot point is so damn rare I wanted to applaud the film makers and audience for just being cool. Seriously. Go audience at Cinequest! Thank you. That made my night. And for that alone - I want people to watch this. Go watch a film where sexuality is done in an honest way and oh by the way it's a film you should see anyways.

Goodnight all.

Cinequest Continues

Yesterday evening at Cinequest I saw an incredibly powerful and well made film, an entertaining short, and a feature which was underdeveloped and all too predictable. Sadly I saw the films in that order - and so ended with the least inspiring film of the night...

To begin with I saw the feature We Were Children. This film tells the powerful and tragic story of a childhood marred by state sponsored abuse as it follows the stories of two Aboriginal children in Canada taken from their families to be placed in the Indian Residential School system where they are isolated from their cultures and placed in religious schools. This film is uniquely constructed with interviews and voice overs from Lyna Hart and Glen Anaquod each telling their personal stories combined with reenactments bringing the stories to life visually from their childhood perspectives.

The story is told in a harsh and honest way including beatings, sexual abuse, language isolation, malnourishment of the children, and how they preserved despite the suffering they were made to endure. The priests and nuns are shown both in moments of empathy as well as in their most despicable moments abusing those they are tasked with teaching. The vulnerability of the children and the knowledge that this abuse is not limited only to Canada, but is a much larger problem spanning churches and schools around the globe make this a very relevant film for all audiences. Furthermore the Indian Residential School system was abolished not even a decade ago, so the social effects of the discrimination and abuse endured for generations is an ongoing issue in Canada today.

You will likely not enjoy watching this film. It feels disgusting to acknowledge how perverse what these children were made to endure. But it is for that reason you should watch this film. It is a story that must be heard. I think it would be a very useful tool for teachers of history in high schools and universities as it provokes discussion and engagement in equal parts a very visceral way and an intellectual way (And for those who read my last post on cinequest - this passes the Bechdel test with flying colors.)

I then left Camera 12 to head to the San Jose Rep to watch a short film and a feature film.

The short, David Sedaris's The Learning Curve, was witty, enjoyable and fun much like the source material. Given it was a short and told from the point of view of a male protagonist, I'm not surprised at all that it failed to pass the Bechdel test, but it was a well done short with a good sense of pacing, well timed laughs, enough quirks to have it's own visual style and it was well acted.

However I ended the evening on a lesser note with Leave of Absence. This one just felt flat...

As Cinequest's guide described the film:

In a comedy where the mantra “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” plays true, the question is: Is it ever too late to “figure it all out”? Jason (Jason Thompson, General Hospital) is a thirty-something college graduate happily cohabitating with his girlfriend, but unhappily working as a waiter. When a doctor orders him to take a FMLA (Family Medical Leave of Absence) for thirty days, Jason finds himself with a newfound freedom – to slack. His loving and supportive girlfriend Heather (Heather Case Miller, American Pie: Band Camp) encourages him to find a new job but Jason instead lounges with his friends Acer and Clarke. As days tick by Jason must decide: what life does he want to live, and will Heather be there with him? – Terra Wood-Taylor

... And to be honest, that was all there was to it. It didn't develop much beyond that synopsis and it felt self indulgent for the male parts and the girl friend felt like a caricature of every nagging girlfriend stereotype. It was written, directed and produced by Jeff Prugh and Jason Thompson - and unlike Michael Ferrell of Twenty Million People - it wasn't pulled off successfully. I think they would have benefited immensely from outside feedback to help flesh it out because it was an idea that could have resonated well given how many in our current generation are facing the challenge of figuring out their lives in trying circumstances, but its execution didn't do much for the initial idea. Added strike against it - does not pass the Bechdel test. Boo.

Scattered Thoughts on the Occupy Movement.

I seem to fall somewhere between the two main trains of thoughts I see up on facebook walls, peppering my twitter feed, dominating the opinion pages and otherwise publicly being declared. There are those saying the movement is a time waste and naïve – often based on economics, lack of political tactics, haphazard strategy, etc. And the other side is so refreshed by the sight of action that their perspectives are unapologetically bold in their support. Which isn’t to say there aren’t more nuanced perspectives out there – only that they aren’t the ones I seem to be encountering daily.

When the protests began I hoped the novelty would wear off soon and substance would come. The procedural running of meetings to achieve consensus complete with hand motions for a point of order, voting agreement or disapproval etc. reminded me of my first high school congress tournament with my Speech and Debate team – I could see the objective of rules to regulate the conversation but I found the dialog utterly disconnected from reality. So we all agree – now what? Consensus in general assemblies meant little in terms of future actions, just as the results meant little in my high school debates.

Later watching the police brutally attack protesters in New York with punches to the face, unprovoked pepper spray and kettling tactics it was surreal. The UC fee hikes had introduced me to those tactics and I must confess I am rather scared of pepper spray and batons as my encounters with them have not been pleasant. I’m sure activist friends who were with me when I was at such protests can attest – I’m a coward. I want to be close enough to the action to get the photos but I’m pretty useless when things are chaotic. I’m short enough to get lost in the shuffle and when I can’t see what’s happening I get worried. Regardless of my own dislike of chaotic situations, I went out to San Francisco again to see what the local movement looked like – did it have the same vibe as what I was observing remotely from video clips, photos and live streams from Wall Street?

I was disappointed. If you had told me the entire San Francisco contingent in those early days was simply the kids from the Haight who’d relocated I’d believe you. Several of the people I spoke to at the event had come out from Florida to go to the Blue Grass Festival and decided to stay on. This wasn’t a movement dominated by local San Franciscans asking to be heard. There were a handful out there – but it wasn’t a majority, and the loudest voices definitely weren’t locals (in the discussions I had.) I admit, I’ve gone out of state for a few days of GOTV work in proceeding elections, but there’s something different to me about being invited by campaign organizers to remind people their voices matter and physically occupying a space while claiming to represent the people in that space. The difference between co-opting versus supporting matters to me, especially in the early phases of a movement.

Other things also frustrated me. When there are only a few dozen people and you’ve made a rule through consensus I expect you to respect it. Seeing a man packing a bowl and getting high under the sign that set the rules No Drugs, No Alcohol, and No Smoking annoyed me. I have no problem with an 18 year old who’s legally allowed to serve in the military having a beer. I don’t think our government’s drug policy is logical at all and if you want to protest that – have at it! (I personally have chosen to respect it – and didn’t drink till 22, but my perspective doesn’t need to dictate your actions) But what frustrated me was that those in camp reached consensus that the camp would be drug and alcohol free, and yet some of those people who participated in making the rule didn’t respect it. This wasn’t a rule imposed by a higher power years before your birth, it was your community with your participation. If you’re going to do civil disobedience to change a law but can’t respect your own rules, why bother? If you’re going to ignore rules regardless of who makes them, why should the rules matter to you?

At Occupy San Jose I found much more to respect. It was a smaller delegation but rather than people asking me where to find a good cup of coffee and asking for directions – there was debate on whether the city ordinances should be respected as the protest was meant to target a national issue, however the ordinances would affect the action plan. The debate was much more nuanced and action oriented when I went – precedent of past protests was discussed as well as the cost in both public perception and use of time. It felt more concrete in how they were establishing their role, which to me is essential for being relevant. If you don’t have a concrete aim to be achieved – when will the fight be over? Are you planning on camping out forever?

When I made my way to Occupy Oakland I found it was like Occupy San Jose in the community being predominantly local, but as it was much larger it also had greater diversity. By diversity I’m refereeing to socio-economic status, racial representation, gender expression, orientation of couples holding hands etc- there was a much wider segment of society being represented. Like in San Francisco there were the occasional joints and drinks being served – but like San Jose they were being very methodical about running their General Assembly, and due to the size were breaking into groups of 20 for both discussions and voting to get an accurate headcount and make sure concerns were aired.

The day I came to Occupy Oakland was right after the camp had been forcefully disbanded by police, and after the tear gassing and pepper spraying of protesters who tried to return – so there was a much greater awareness of the cost of attendance and the possibility of force, even though the police were not present that evening.

However despite mostly agreeing with where protesters attitudes were coming from, still I found myself irked later in the evening when Mayor Quan came to address the assembly. When it came to being angry at her, I understand that. When it came to being physically assaulted by police I understand the anger. But far too many complained that she wasn’t listening, and when she came angry individuals ran towards her shouting she was not welcome. To me it meant the chance for a dialog was never made possible. If angry people run at me shouting, I’d leave – and I can’t blame Mayor Quan for doing as much.

Don’t get me wrong here, it was stupid of the city to use such violent tactics to clear the camp. It was even stupider to use tear gas in the name of public safety to clear a crowd that was mostly milling about (to be fair there were some trouble makers). That being said on the protesters side it was stupid to not stop other protesters from throwing paint canisters on police. They don’t know if you’re throwing water, paint or gasoline that you plan to follow with a match – so obviously they’re going to be more likely to use force when it seems like elements of the group are willing to fight. It was also stupid of protesters to not take advantage of the moment to engage with mayor and actually talk it out. Even if the protesters disagreed with everything she might have said, to let her talk would have made them the grown ups, the responsible ones. Undue force and irrationality would be pegged squarely on the city; but if a Mayor can’t walk into a public square without being verbally harassed with people chasing her – she’s got much more ground for future force.

That being said the evening ended on a much more peaceful note – live music being played, a community celebrating their presence, dancing, and I don’t recall the last time I felt so comfortable in a space. A man told me about his fears for his daughter who at age 5 had already seen several homicides in their neighborhood. I met young people who cheerfully invited me into their group. A woman made soup to hand out in cups – so when I stayed several hours longer than expected I was not hungry. I’ve been to a fair number of political spaces – but the common thread amongst most conventions and networking events is I’m miserable. I love the people I meet working phone banks, walking precincts etc – but political spaces always make me feel marginalized, so to see a movement so open armed is also a positive sign.

However as I see it the inability for the movement to self manage itself is the biggest hurdle to getting full support- because I’m not the only one that agrees that the problem of economic injustice is huge, that the government is being corrupted with money, that lobbyists exert too much control, that those in the financial industry who crashed the economy should be better regulated etc… a lot of the things being said in any of these three cities general assemblies I and many others agree with. And I like a lot of the people I’ve met. But if we’re talking about the principle of an idea not the implementation such agreement becomes meaningless to the larger issue.

The reality is we’re several weeks in and most of the general assemblies that I’ve been to are still working out group norms, talking about procedurals, and trying to figure out what the group stands for. To be fair – society hasn’t had a lot of these conversations in a long time, and it will take time to bring the discussion around, but I’m getting stir crazy. I want to see the movement DO something more than organize the tents and camp. At first I was impressed by having trash, compost and recycling separated and by having the first aid tents. But it’s been too long for that to feel good. It feels like the frustration I had with the congress tournaments in High School or the UN re-enactments at conferences, great dialog, what does it mean?

Last year I thought the Rally to Restore Sanity was an awesome way to bring together moderate Americans and those with a sense of humor to say the political machine was broken – but that was a feel good action that didn’t actually change anything but the media dialog. The dialog change was needed but it didn’t change any policies or the behavior of politicians. It made people aware that things had gotten too heated – but it wasn’t until Congresswoman Giffords was shot that the point was truly absorbed and the media coverage changed. My fear is that OccupyWallStreet could be something in those lines- a press event raising awareness for a serious issue that that despite it’s good intent needs a tragedy to make it’s point. The topic has been successfully raised (statistically we can prove this), the microphone (human or otherwise) is ready, but the elephant in the room is the lingering question, “Now what?”

I’ll be going to Oakland tomorrow to see what happens in the strike. Maybe my thoughts will change then… I’ll let you know.