This Massacre Was a Hate Crime - UCSB, Isla Vista, Feminism and One Alumnus's Thoughts

An abandoned shoe in Isla Vista in 2008

Friday night there was a stabbing and shooting in my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara. I heard the news via facebook mere minutes after a young man drove through the center of Isla Vista in a black BMW shooting.

For those unfamiliar with the community, UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) is adjacent to an area call Isla Vista which has just shy of 2 square miles of unincorporated county land with no clear governance. In this small beachside community 23 thousand students live – most are UCSB students but there are also community college students from Santa Barbara and other youth also live in the area. As an area with almost entirely student residents and extremely high real-estate prices most houses have 6-8 residents. Isla Vista is known for it’s party life as students have much more freedom there than other universities where there are more individuals living in dorms.

The Beach

But returning to Friday night – as I sat watching facebook and more facts emerged it was clear this wasn’t just random carnage – yet the media has been slow to name this attack as what I see it as: a hate crime against all women.

In a disturbing video that was on You Tube and since taken down the killer, Elliot Rodger, states his intent clearly:

“If I can’t have you girls, I will destroy you. [laughs] You denied me a happy life and in turn I will deny all of you life, it’s only fair. I hate all of you.

—All you girls who rejected me, looked down upon me, you know, treated me like scum while you gave yourselves to other men. And all of you men for living a better life than me, all of you sexually active men. I hate you. I hate all of you. I can’t wait to give you exactly what you deserve, annihilation.”

This is not a standard crime. This clearly wasn’t just about one girl – it was about every member of the community. It was meant to instill fear in all. A hate crime is a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime and this fits the bill.

As the killer’s sexism was called out, online Men’s Rights Activists rushed to say #NotAllMen are like this. However this took the focus away from the fact that even if not all men are killers, all women have experienced sexism, gendered bias and violent attacks like this are common, and the hashtag #YesAllWomen began to trend.

Statements like:

#YesAllWomen bc every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One.

#YesAllWomen bc “Text me and let me know you got home safe” is standard, necessary and normal.

#YesAllWomen “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” – Margaret Atwood

As a national and international media jumped into the coverage, as an alumni, I instead watched Facebook. I graduated from the Film & Media Studies program and the annual Reel Loud Film Festival meant I could expect many alumni friends were visiting for the weekend. And while there was a gut wrenching shock and fear to think of bullets flying through my community combined with the fear that perhaps I knew a victim – I can’t say I was totally surprised that it could happen there.

As a student at UCSB, my first week was colored with fear. Not of change or being in a new place, but of hate crimes. The first time I picked up the campus newspaper I discovered there had been a hate crime against gay male students. It wasn’t the last time I’d learn of instances of hate on campus.

My first protest at UCSB in the aftermath of hate crimes in 2008 against gay students

As a student organizer I spent a lot of time engaging with uncomfortable dialogs. Whether it was to address homophobia, racism, sexism, sexual assaults, environmental issues or more – UC Santa Barbara provided a space where students voices had many outlets. While many did not engage as much in politics preferring to enjoy the beaches, the party life, focus on academia or other pursuits… those worlds often meshed in odd ways.

Local law enforcement at the “Deltopia” street party in Isla Vista

Students embracing the local party life

Election Day showcases the engagement many students have even though the community is unincorporated

Student organizers working to address racism on campus

 

While the community was generally friendly and almost any individual was a beer away from being a casual friend, it also wasn’t uncommon that I’d hear slurs like “faggot” directed at gays or “slut” directed at women. When I walked home I’d often call friends to “talk me home” if I didn’t have a friend to walk with.

During the Take Back the Night Protest in which women marched to reclaim the night as safe – several male students yelled rape threats. The very act proved our actions we needed and as much as we craved safety it was by no means present already.

Take Back the Night Protest

Janelle Monae performing prior to the Take Back the Night Protest

 

In an article for the campus newspaper my senior year I wrote the following:

“The tragedy of the situation is that in I.V., we’ve accepted the norms that allow our streets to be unsafe and our fellow students to be targeted. Even during our celebrations within their designated safe space, we are never fully safe. Often times the problems of Isla Vista are brushed off as some excuse the hate speech as drunken antics and taunts not meant to offend or be taken seriously. However, the reality is the same slurs that are used by drunken folks in aggressive outbursts are occasionally heard in classrooms and on campus, and the oppression from ignoring the severity of the problem contributes to the lack of safe spaces for the queer community attending our school.

Whether spoken in ignorance or malice, hate speech hits a nerve. It makes for unsafe spaces, and verbal harassment leads to the same degradation that enables other types of harassment and assault. In Isla Vista, I often observe the contrasting dichotomy of the sun-soaked ideal paradise and the very real problems that constantly plague the queer community and other minorities. As tempting as it is to ignore reality and enjoy the beachside bubble, we have to address these problems.”

Although this was written specifically to address the hate crime against LGBT students – those words feel far too fitting an applicable for women today in Isla Vista. 

As an alumni I have so many fond memories, strong friendships, experiences that helped me learn and grow. The streets the shooter drove down I’ve walked, biked, and stumbled down many times. I’ve gone to parties at places where I’ve now seen twitter photos of body bags resting. It’s shocking to see the violence but the root cause isn’t shocking. There was always violence against women. There was objectification. There were very real problems regarding rape. The sense of entitlement to others bodies didn’t start in Santa Barbara and is by no means limited to there.

But as the national debate goes on and CNN loops the killer’s video my heart is heavy as I think of the place that was my home.

Last time I visited UCSB was to celebrate the graduation of some of the individuals I was lucky to mentor and share time with. In the Student Resource Building while I was there someone wrote on the wall of the women’s restroom a cry for help. And the community responded with words of encouragement, resources they could go to, reminders that the original writer was not alone. When I think of UCSB I think back to that space often, and two years after graduating the wall was even more crowded with messages of support. The community has never been perfect, but there is support for those in need and a community willing to work to improve itself. Let’s hope that helps the families of the slain and injured in healing.

The notes on the wall of the girls bathroom in the Student Resource Building

 

Further Reading:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-transcript-ucsb-shootings-video-20140524-story.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/05/lets-call-isla-vista-killings-what-they-were-misogynist-extremism

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/node/014194/isla-vista-shootings

https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen

http://dailynexus.com/2010-05-06/hate-speech-creates-unsafe-environment-iv/

http://time.com/114043/yesallwomen-hashtag-santa-barbara-shooting/

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.

An Evening in the California Theater

Today I saw two films at Cinequest, both screened in the California Theater.

First "L!fe, Happens" a charming buddy film about two roommates and how their lives change when one has to adjust to having a baby while the other remains committed to her professional ambitions. While it had all the elements of a cheesy romantic film including handsome crush, awkward misunderstandings, nerdy/quirky side kick best friend, and accessory characters with easy to predict side stories - it was much more about the two girls relationship with each other than it was about either of their lovers, a refreshing change that was enjoyable to watch. After the film during the Q & A portion the two co-writers, who doubled as director (Kat Coiro) and lead actress (Krysten Ritter) were equally engaging. They both credited the honesty of the film as it's draw and the collaborative process of writing together to the point they don't remember who wrote what as what drove the film to be at it's core an honest and endearing film. They drew a strong round of applause from the audience when they pointed out while female driven comedies like Bridesmaids are great, the reality is women are more than a majority of the population and the media should reflect this more. They also commented on how it is strange to them how the timing worked as they are always being asked about how it feels to be coming in on Bridesmaids' coat tails despite the fact that they began writing years before that film. Overall I highly enjoyed this program and based on the amount of laughter heard from the audience I'm sure I'm not the only one. Also the men sitting near me were laughing too - so men don't be scared off by the idea of a female driven comedy, it's worth the time! (I hate that I feel compelled to justify that... I don't think that factors into any discussion of films quality being because they're male driven yet it seems to always be in the picture when there are ladies in control...)

I also found it strange how low their IMDB ratings are (4.9) until I looked into it and saw that is the weighted average. The mean of the ratings was 7.3 and the median was 9.5 - however due to a large number of people ranking it a 10, some of those votes were assumed spam and thus the average tries to correct for that. However 50% of the viewers loving it does not surprise me as when you look at the ratings breakdown women under 18 all voted 10 of 10 and women 18 - 29 averaged a 9.7. Thus the demographics of the majority of high ranking raters were young women which fits perfectly with the protagonists of the film. I would also say IMDB's ranking algorithm is off to rate this film so lowly, and I hope viewers don't find this number deters them from seeing the film.

Following that I saw Dorfman. Which was proceeded by the presenting of an award and then the interview portion of the programming. A choice that makes sense from a programming perspective (An audience will wait to see the film, but after the film is less likely to wait for a Q & A after 11pm) but it also irked me. I personally feel a good film speaks for itself, so to see the people talk about the process before the content was shown made me feel disrespected as an audience member. If I wanted to see someone interview or lecture a famous filmmaker I'd seek that programming out, but if I buy a movie ticket I am first and foremost there to watch a film - so anything else is a distraction. But I digress. First Elliott Gould was given his award and allowed to speak, then producer Leonard Hill, writer Wendy Kout and Director Bradley Leong came out. However Bradley Leong need not have come out as Leonard Hill and Wendy Kout dominated the discussion with most questions addressed directly to them, and the only open questions quickly being answered by them as well. (No offense meant to Mr. Leong, I just found his presence on stage was unsupported by the others and thus he was mostly a prop - the one time I noticed him trying to answer Leonard Hill cut him off)

The reason I mention this dynamic is I found my greatest annoyance when watching the film Dorfman was it felt off balance. The general story is about a Jewish girl who looks after her father, works for her brother's firm, has been head over heels for a friend of her brothers for year but ends up in unbalanced relationships where they all take her for granted. While helping her brother's friend/potential love interest by cat sitting his loft in LA, she finds herself pushed out of her comfort zone, meeting new people, learning about her city and finding her sense of self amongst the men in her life. But watching the film I found the difference between Elliott Gould's performance and the rest of the cast jarring. His presence was greater, the shots with him seemed longer and the cuts seemed to have a different rhythm. He did what he did, and though he acted well - it didn't seem to mesh well with the others on set in that they all seemed to have a similar rhythm. It felt to me as if they were all preforming a stand up sketch and he was an improv actor thrown into the mix - its not that the other actors were bad or he was bad - it just felt mismanaged and ill suited to be in the same film. It wouldn't surprise me if in his shots he had more artistic control than the other actors who probably followed the director. Because all of their performances fit well, the brother, the love interest, the neighbor, the model friends, parents etc... They all felt like they were in the same B romance film, while Gould felt like he wandered out of As Good As it Gets or any other quirky comedy poking fun at life. While I found this film less enjoyable, my parents seemed to enjoy it more than I - so if you see it - I'd love to hear what your thoughts were and compare notes!

State of the Union gut reactions...

Personally I wasn't too impressed with the SOTU. It felt too focused on the military and banking without addressing the elephant in the room of #OccupyWallSt; there were too many military points without addressing increased militarization of civilian police. And given the number of on going battles on a state level against roe v. wade - to see the only points he made on women being about equal pay seemed very passive. I was about to be excited when he talked about distrust of congress and if he'd said campaign finance reform instead of insider trading I'd write a check to OFA right now, but elimination of insider trading won't change legislation. Definitely glad to see the Dream Act get a shout out - but beginning and ending with Bin Laden and not mentioning any civil liberties after passing NDAA makes it seem like the Dream Act will be the token part of the agenda for progressives and he'll be on a hard center right track till the election. 

Edit: How could I forget?!?! YAY TEACHERS!

My thoughts on the two Salanders – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies

*The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will be abbreviated GWDT to save time.

When looking at the difference between Niels Arden Oplev’s original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and David Fincher’s American interpretation it is clear that Fincher made an engaging, dynamic, and visually stunning movie, however the American interpretation of GWDT also changed the gender dynamics in a way which made Lisbeth Salander a very different character. This is not to say Noomi Rapace’s original performance was better than Rooney Mara’s Salander – only that they were very different. Much has been said already about how Rapace’s Salander was more stoic and Mara’s more vulnerable so I won’t emphasize that point as much. However the thing which made the gender dynamic so dramatically different was the difference in Michael Nyqvist’s Mikael Blomkvist with Daniel Craig’s Mikael Blomkvist and the directors’ framing of their relationship with each other.

One of the things that made Oplev’s GWDT so exciting to me was to see a female protagonist who was self defined. For all the abuse Salander has been subjected to she refuses to be a victim. Her detachment keeps her in a position of power, and while she’s shown in pain in many parts of the film – trying to cleanse her self after being sexually harassed, physically limping after being raped, frustrated with her lack of fiscal control – ultimately she asserts control and doesn’t ever ask for help. She brings a camera to record the rape, sodomizes the assaulter, tattoos a warning to all future women, blackmails him and reclaims her life. With Blomkvist she knows everything about him before he meets her and while she’s initially surprised to find him in her apartment, she knows about the case and has already engaged by researching the case and emailing him a clue he’d missed before he invites her to join in solving it. If he didn’t offer – she’d still be looking at the case and working on solving it. Her role wasn’t defined by him. Even when they have sex, he is basically her human dildo and while he consents, he’s not in control of the situation. The recurring flashbacks to her lighting the match and throwing it onto her gas soaked father continually show us Salander has been taking control of her life since her childhood and has no qualms with serving a harsh justice to those who seek to hold control over others.

However in Fincher’s GWDT this Salander is much less in control. It is not just Mara’s performance of a more vulnerable and emotionally expressive Salander, it is the construction of the film around the character. We don’t see the young Salander’s defiant match striking – and that visual reminder of her strength is lost. When we are introduced to the history of abuse, it is in a much quieter more vulnerable moment after Blomkvist has been attacked by Martin Vanger when he asks her about her past. That element of her story is introduced to us not in relationship to Salander and her motives, but in relationship to Blomkvist and his question.

This dynamic is repeated in many instances throughout the film. When he enters her apartment he immediately takes control of the situation having the element of surprise, ordering her to send her girlfriend out and then within the same meeting saying, “I want you to help me catch a killer of women.” It is once again Blomkvist with the control, Salander’s desire for justice being used to convince her to join the case. He already knows that it is a killer of women, and uses this as bait to enlist her help – rather Oplev’s interpretation which puts Salader in control as her natural desire to solve puzzles leads Blomkvist to learn about the other deaths.

When Salander and Blomkvist begin to have a sexual relationship – she already knows about his open relationships and doesn’t care. Oplev show’s Salander initiating the relationship, Blomkvist consenting but not taking much control, and the emotional bond is more his fondness for her growing with her gradual trust. It is he who wants to sleep in her bed, smiles more and is left desiring more than what they have. In Fincher’s interpretation while it begins the same way with Salander undressing and getting in bed with Blomkvist, Blomkvist clearly takes control, and as he consents he turns over and becomes the dominant partner. While Oplev leaves Blomkvist as the human dildo, Fincher has a much more assertive and masculine Blomkvist.

In both interpretations after Martin Vanger nearly kills Blomkvist, Salander saves him. In Oplev’s interpretation she stays just long enough to make sure he’s okay before chasing down Vanger. After Vanger drives off the road, the adult Lisbeth lights a cigarette, tossing the match and watching the killer burn visually connecting her actions to the childhood motif. She is once again in control. In Fincher’s interpretation she asks, “May I kill him?” After she gets permission she begins the chase which results in the crash. When she watches him burn she does so without lighting the fire. This once again is a fundamentally different interpretation of Salander. Core to Salander’s strength in Oplev’s film was that she doesn’t ask for permission, she takes action and does what she thinks is right regardless of others. Furthermore when in Fincher’s film she doesn’t light the match – she ends up being once again the spectator of violence not the acting agent responsible for ending it.

Later when the Wennerström plotline is resolved – the same dynamic appears again in Fincher’s interpretation. Salander asks Blomkvist if she should help before acting. He doesn’t know what specifically she’s doing regarding the hacked account– but he approves her participation before action is taken. Whereas in Oplev’s interpretation she’s already begun to follow that case and just gives him the evidence. She’s solving the case because she wants to – not for Blomkvist, though she gives him her research to clear his name while she goes off to hack the accounts. In Fincher’s film Salander asks for his permission and works with Blomkvist – and their relationship continues as they work together. She acts as his partner not a free agent.

The ultimate difference in how I left feeling about the films came to the closing impression of Salander. In Fincher’s film Blomkvist is with his editor Berger and again it is Salander who backs away hurt, throwing away the jacket she’d specially made for him before racing off into the night as the film ended. Meanwhile in Oplev’s film Salander has just finished resolving the Wennerström affair, and Blomkvist smiles seeing the security footage realizing it was Salander. She meanwhile walks along a sunny promenade on the Cayman Islands. In Fincher’s closing Blomkvist is happy as his life has been restored to where it was before he was sent to jail while Salander once again a sad loner. In Oplev’s film Blomkvist is happy as he’s restored his name and he’s also happy for Salander for being the one to take things into her own hands. Salander is also left in a better place as she’s now made millions, served justice and is left in an island paradise. Both characters in Oplev’s film have success in their objectives and are completely independent at the end. In Fincher’s film Blomkvist has his plotlines happily resolved whereas Salander’s happiness is dependent on Blomkvist and so she is left without.

The cumulative effect of all these moments made Oplev’s Salander a much stronger character than Fincher’s Salander. Not because of the interpretations and quality of the acting of Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara– but because of the framing of the story. If Mara had been in Oplev’s film and was vulnerable but didn’t ask for permission it would have more strength and control over the narrative than if Rapace had been equally strong in Fincher’s film while asking for permission.

Random Thoughts

I need to post about #OccupyOakland’s events from yesterday. But that would take a lot more mental energy than I currently have due to being out for so many hours yesterday, getting home late, watching the livestream deteriorate as things turned violent, waking up early for the first day of working at a new temp job with UPS and I think this deserves a much more nuanced analysis than what I’m seeing in written, broadcast, and grassroots citizen journalist coverage.

Earlier on Facebook I posted:

“There are agitators at #OccupyOakland. And the vast majority find them very frustrating. But as long as we're showing photos of some protesters breaking things, can we also share the photos of some protesters fixing things? Just to be you know... fair and balanced and all that jazz?”

Accompanying this is a link to the following photo (Originally posted by Susan Quinlan)

And I think that sums up a lot of my attitude without going into the 11 hours I photographed yesterday… Which I will do later. Though I can’t promise when as I’m also trying to upload and organize my photos from the event.

But the scale of the problem was revealed to me not only in Port of Oakland, but today at my UPS training for the season job as a driver helper. In the room we had a law student, recent business graduate, army reservist and veteran, retired postal worker of 27 years, laid off postal employee of 6 years, and a few others I didn’t get a chance to speak to in depth long enough to learn their backgrounds. This is for a manual labor job that starts at minimum wage, is seasonal, and only a pretty qualified pool of people was able to access. What does that mean for those who are not in the 30% of Americans who went to college?  

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.

RIP Steve Jobs

My facebook wall is flooded. My twitter stream is overwhelmingly monolithic in perspective. Google is simply and elegantly stating the truth. Apple has a simple image, minimalistic text, elegantly design. It begins to hit home: Steve Jobs is dead.

He is a man who’s influence is bigger than perhaps any contemporary will ever be able to say. I could say what I admire, the innovation, the relentless creativity, the artistry, the culture he created for technologists and the interest in what people could do with technology rather than how technology could be applied to old problems. 

I definitely admire the man.  And earlier today I posted on my facebook wall some of the inspirational things he said to Stanford's class of 2005.

"Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."

"You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle."

I will likely look to his quotes for inspiration again as I have often done in the past. But that doesn’t mean that his inspiring me and the Silicon Valley community I am a part of negates other effects he’s also had.

He acknowledges in 1985 in an interview part of the cost of new technology is old technology is obsolescent. I understand that. But it irks me how much the planned obsolescence is a part of Apple’s design. Simple things like the ability to change a battery without sending it back to the store makes all apple products irreparable, which is horrible for the environment. I am perfectly find with my iPhone seeming inadequate when the next generation comes along, but the inability to choose to use it because it will die in few years time is another story. There is no good way to get rid of it either- while the clean design and compact size are wonderful when I’m using it, the reality is after it’s life the only way to separate those components involves toxic waste which is generally outsourced to China or India – causing a great deal of harm to those who’ve never used his products.

I hate the human toll of ewaste and digital manufacturing. And although he created a culture of creativity for designers where innovation was central, where the budget for juice was over a hundred thousand annually – he also turned a blind eye to the use of conflict materials supported by slave labor. He turned a blind eye the suffering of those building his products when toxic materials were used by Wintek and when conditions were so bad at Foxconn that workers were driven to suicide. Meanwhile in his own offices LGBT employees were treated with respect and Apple was one of the first corporations to stand for marriage equality and against Prop 8 here in California. And the children of the next generation will grow up knowing about ewaste and environmental degradation due to watching Wall-e in their youth. So it’s complicated. He simultaneously pushed forward with radical change and made the computer and the tools it offers accessible to millions of households forever changing how digital media is made, received, distributed, what possibilities exist in film, music, and graphic arts and more – but as many before him, he left a wake of destruction out of sight and out of mind for those using his products.

He is indubitably one of the most visionary men of our era, and any one man could embody how the digital era has changed our way of life, it is him. And that is worthy of reflection. He might be part of a destructive capitalistic society - but he is also brilliantly disrupting elements of it. And inspiring the next generation of technocrats to think creatively, disruptively, and vivaciously. Unlike Bill Gates, he was never one to donate to charities or tackle social problems, but those things he did do, he did well and with passion.

Beginning in elementary school I’ve worked with iMacs. In junior high when running for one of the student council positions my slogan was “iNagrani, uVote4Me” (Thanks to Molly for coming up with that one!) Although my first mp3 player was not an iPhone, it was influenced by one. And I later was given an iTouch which I’ve used fondly ever since. I have an iPad that I carry around and has helped me by carrying emergency maps to help while navigating through Europe & Central Asia. My iPhone has become the way to check in with the world, read the news, and make all my morning calls before getting out of bed. Growing up in Silicon Valley the techies have always been household names and part of the conversational landscape- and so while I unfortunately never got to meet Mr. Jobs, I will miss him. His influence on my local community, the global community, the possibilities of technology and the digital era can never been forgotten.