Ted Rall for October 28, 2011

I was just commenting on the Oliphant editorial as to the similarity between what is happening with the Non-violent OWS protest and the 1969 Police riot’s in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention, which of note were initiated by the then Democratic Governor of Chicago, Richard Daly. An old French proverb notes: The more things change the more they are the same. To keep in mind is that both Gandhi and King Jr. caused change to happen, each in their respective Countries, as may the OWS eventually do here in the U.S. If they do generate change, the pro and con merits of any changes, like Gandhi’s and King’s, will be a point of debate for the generations.

If I get this right, it seems kind of silly. Is Rall suggesting that they shouldn’t be non-violent? If he thinks it’s a bad thing for liberals to espouse non-violence (though I never noticed that they do), then is he saying the it would be a good thing for non-liberals to espouse violence? Maybe I’m confused, but this seems not well thought out.

When has REAL change ever come about in any human system without extreme violence? Answer me that. Violence is ALWAYS the answer. It just happens not to be the BEST answer. But it is always the answer.

Actually, the strip seems a bit behind the times. Unnecessary use of force by the police against innocent protesters put OWS into the mainstream media, and now the Oakland cops, by fracturing a veteran’s skull, have managed to swing a large segment of the public behind the Occupations. Times have changed since the recording video camera was developed.

See also http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-livestream-ended-how-i-got-off-my-computer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland (http://tinyurl.com/3eubraw). Stuff is really happening, which the use of force would inevitably thrust back into the same hopeless pit we were in before September 17th.

I optimistically disagree with you. Every social change starts small. OWS is not against wealth; it is against greed, disparity, and exploitation. No civilization where those are the paramount values has yet survived.

I appreciate Rall’s point, but we do live in a police state. Violence from OWS will only bring down quickly escalating violence from the police, who are itching to beat up some “dirty hippies.” There’s no possible way to win or even make a dent on that level. I’m proud of OWS’s ingenuity in the creative ways they’ve found to fight back so far.

It’s all about core values. The Occupy movement is dedicated by and large to non-violence as that is the only way they can gain favor in this struggle. That is not to suggest that a movement as inclusive as this will not have a few miscreants amongst them. On the other hand, the police (as representatives of the state) as well as the Wall Street marketeers have violence at their core, economic and/or physical.

George Washington defeated the British troops with non-violent protest, right?

Al OW wants is TV coverage. To get a message out that they don’t even know. they admi it freely about the coverage.

True. During the October Crisis (martial law in Canada, no less), the RCMP burnt farm buildings and blamed it on the FLQ. Some cops also commited arson during the Kananaskis protests.

churchill was wrong