some videos

by

16 Responses to “some videos”

  1. Schwarz/Rot Says:

    Big solidarity from your comrades in NYC!

    Generalize the struggle! OCCUPY EVERYTHING!

  2. jasper Says:

    What y’all are doing is amazing keep it up! I’d love to know how other students can support. I’m very active in Students for a Democratic Society and I’d love to find ways for our chapters to support your current action. you can e-mail me or find me on facebook(I’m one of like two Jasper Conner’s).

    Solidarity from DC!

  3. Julia Says:

    Good job guys! As a former CSU student, I’m shocked at how the university systems in California have been completely betrayed by the state government. You show them!

    • k7cycas Says:

      Thanks, Julia. And its not just the university systems — the entire public sector is being robbed by our own elected representatives. Its up to you, too!

  4. Tyler Says:

    Solidarity from Toronto!

  5. Melissa Rachel Black Says:

    Photos from today’s strike at UC Santa Cruz: http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissarachelblack/sets/72157622449721648/

  6. Richard Martin Oxman Says:

    I just sent two emails directly to Steve of OCCUPY CALIFORNIA in an effort to join hands in solidarity… in a hands on way… since I’m a short distance from the campus. Beyond that though, I want everyone to know that before we heard about OCCUPY CALIFORNIA… we had a thing going called TOSCA (Taking Over the State of California). In short, we intend to put twelve unaffiliated, non-politician citizens into the Sacred Seat in Sacramento in 2010… legally and non-violently… as per http://oxtogrind.org/archive/364. Many high profile (worldwide) figures — such as Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti and Bill Blum — are on board with us with their imprimaturs; see http://oxtogrind.org/archive/336 for a short list. However, we want grassroots connections immediately… so that we can move expeditiously with our agenda… and help with the priorities embraced by OCCUPY CALIFORNIA. Contact 831-688-8038 in Aptos, California or TOSCA.2010[ATATATAT]YAHOO.com.

  7. Richard Martin Oxman Says:

    While I’m waiting for my previous comment to be approved for posting, I’m going to add some stuff from the top of my head… which is bursting with energy for OCCUPY CALIFORNIA. First of all, I want to underscore that we’re not into following any of the old paradigms for protest/change. If the TOSCA plan at http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/07/taking-over-post-arnold-california/ and http://oxtogrind.org/archive/364 seems like it’s doing that… then you’re not really getting what it’s about. No petitions. No more contacting disingenuous representatives. No more marching in circles. No more participation in the electoral arena along traditional lines. No more generic communications. No more getting your head bashed in. No more arrests. There’s plenty of $$ out there for one and all to have access to both affordable education AND decent health coverage. For EVERYONE. That’s part of what we’ll be addressing. BUT… one of the most important aspects of TOSCA is that we’re going to do what we’re doing on a ZERO BUDGET. We’re going to create a watershed in history without any fund raising. To make a very important point… which I don’t believe I have to spell out for you. We may fail. But, then, we’ll fail again. And, then, as Beckett says, fail again better. But… I don’t think we’re going to fail to secure that gubernatorial seat for our mutual purposes. And, as I pointed out to Steve of Occupy California tonight, the Guv has enormous influence on everything from The Regents of the UC System to… you’re not going to believe what the Guv can do UNILATERALLY in the state. Aside from the release of prisoners. Aside from placing a moratorium on the death penalty. There’s lots more that can be done without any negotiations with gangster politicians. Let’s have a rendezvous tomorrow, yes? Call 831-688-8038 or email tosca.2010[atatat]yahoo.com. Best, The Ox

  8. Ricardo Dominguez Says:

    Hola all,

    Let us know what help you might need.

    Perhaps a Virtual Sit-In? We can help.

    I would like to offer another one for us to consider as a
    possibility – Electronic Civil Disobedience. Below you will find a section from
    Mapping the Repertoire of Electronic Contention by Sasha Costanza-Chock
    (Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania).

    Download the entire text here:
    http://www.thing.net/~rdom/ucsd/MappingECD2001.doc

    III. Electronic Civil Disobedience

    ECD can be located on the matrix above as a set of disruptive electronic
    tactics that are effective primarily at achieving mobilization and
    cultural outcomes. While several other forms of contentious electronic
    action also involve mass participation, such as online petitions or email
    campaigns, these are not based on simultaneous or synchronous
    participation. In addition, these types of collective electronic action
    would be classified as conventional rather than disruptive. Other
    electronic tactics that are classified as disruptive do not require mass
    collective action, but typically can be implemented by an individual or a
    very small group.

    (Here is a little Mexican Sci-Fi musical dance number for you to enjoy while you read:
    Que Viva Mexico!)

    However, ECD lies in a strange zone both conceptually and legally. At the
    moment, there is a kind of framing battle taking place around this
    tactic, with corporate and government actors pressing to cast ECD as a
    form of ‘cyberterrorism’ (see Denning 2001; NIPC 2001; Paul 2001) and
    with some SMOs, activists, intellectuals, and free speech advocates
    trying to locate ECD as a new form of legitimate protest activity (see
    Critical Art Ensemble 1994, 1996; Electronic Frontier Foundation 2001;
    Dominguez 2001). It is an interesting moment to examine the ways in which
    activists who are developing and using these techniques are linking or
    not linking with SMOs, and to look at how various kinds of SMOs perceive
    ECD and choose whether or not to use it. To paint a more detailed picture
    of these processes, I will now focus in on two instances of ECD. I chose
    the first example, the Virtual Sit-In for a Living Wage @ Harvard
    University, in order to highlight the ways in which ECD can be linked to
    actions in the ‘real world’ and to point out the internal debate around
    tactics that often takes place within and between social movement actors.
    I include the Netstrike for Vieques to illustrate the dynamics of
    cross-movement diffusion of the electronic repertoire.

    Virtual Sit In for a Living Wage @ Harvard University

    Background
    In the spring of 2001, approximately 30 students from the Harvard
    University Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) occupied University
    administrative offices in an attempt to force the University to comply
    with a City of Cambridge living wage ordinance that tied minimum salaries
    to a cost of living formula. Several hundred employees on Harvard’s
    janitorial staff were receiving below the living wage, and the
    administration was increasingly employing temp workers who not only
    received below living wage but also received no benefits. To top it all
    off, Harvard announced that it had just reached an unprecedented 18
    billion dollar endowment. PSLM members who were not inside the occupied
    offices, together with other supportive students, built a tent city
    outside the occupied building that served as a home base from which
    rallies, music events, film screenings, and media visits were managed. In
    the third week of the action, as media attention seemed to reach a plateau
    and administration officials continued to refuse to negotiate with
    activists, a group called the Electronic Disturbance Theater offered to
    help the PSLM escalate their tactics by adding a ‘Virtual Sit-In’ to the
    building occupation.

    Actors
    The major groups involved were the PSLM, the Harvard administration, the
    Harvard student and professor supporters, student groups such as Students
    Against Sweatshops, various local and national media, various local and
    national unions including Communication Workers of America, nonprofits
    including Justice for Janitors, and the Electronic Disturbance Theater.
    Actors did include direct beneficiaries of the proposed policy changes
    (Harvard employees), but a majority were what McCarthy and Zald have
    termed conscience constituents (McCarthy and Zald 1977).

    Action
    After two meetings during which the Electronic Disturbance Theater
    explained and demonstrated the ECD technique to PSLM, both groups came to
    a consensus decision to use the tactic. Initially, opinions within the
    PSLM were mixed, with some students immediately excited about using the
    virtual sit-in as an escalation tool but others voicing either skepticism
    about the usefulness of such an action or fear about the possible
    repercussions. Concern was articulated both in terms of whether there
    might be adverse affects on student and faculty computer systems that
    would alienate potential supporters of the Living Wage campaign, and in
    terms of a fear that the media might frame the electronic action in terms
    of ‘hacking’ or ‘cyberterrorism,’ undercutting the legitimacy of the PSLM.
    In response to these concerns, it was decided that the action should not
    be targeted at Harvard University servers directly, since that might
    interrupt student access and decrease support for the campaign. In
    addition, it was determined that the action would be announced as an
    Electronic Disturbance Theater operation in support of the Living Wage
    campaign, not as a PSLM action per se. Electronic Disturbance Theater
    agreed with this logic and built a virtual sit-in targeting the websites
    of 8 major corporations with board members who were also on the Harvard
    Board of Trustees, the body ultimately responsible for financial
    decisionmaking at the University. The virtual sit-in tool automatically
    sent repeated requests for nonexistent pages called
    ‘living_wage@Harvard.now’ to the targeted corporate servers for as long as
    participants kept their browsers open. The theory was that large numbers
    of participants would flood corporate target servers with requests,
    slowing access to their sites and filling server logs with
    ‘living_wage@Harvard.now not found’ messages. A press release about the
    action went out to local and national media on the day of the Virtual
    Sit-In.

    Outcomes
    The immediately observable outcome was in terms of mobilization. The
    Virtual Sit In for a Living Wage attracted around 600 participants during
    the course of the 12 hour action. At around 5pm Communication Workers of
    America (CWA) national office in Washington DC called the Electronic
    Disturbance Theater to say that they had received an email about the
    action and had decided to participate. In terms of political outcomes, it
    is impossible to quantify the degree to which the action contributed to
    the Harvard administration’s partial capitulation to the Progressive
    Student Labor Movement (PSLM), which took place one week later with the
    decision to create a review committee that would include administrators,
    professors, students, and employees. The Virtual Sit-In was not mentioned
    by any administration officials in any public communications, although it
    was clear that they were aware the action took place. A story about the
    action did go out on the AP wire, but there can be no doubt that any
    direct policy impact the Virtual Sit In had was dwarfed by the physical
    sit in, which received sustained national press attention and had a
    long-term physical presence in the center of the campus. In addition, from
    the point of view of the PSLM it could be argued that the Virtual Sit In
    had the negative effect of causing some degree of internal disagreement
    and apprehension, at least initially. This would align with a criticism of
    ECD as a distraction from ‘real’ action.
    Consistent with my proposed tactic-outcomes matrix, the most effective
    outcome here was not in terms of policy but rather mobilization,
    especially the participation by Communications Workers of America. This
    also led to cultural outcomes: for example, a positive report on the
    virtual action was sent out the next day by the CWA national office to
    750,000 telecom workers. This in turn increased the already massive flood
    of emails and phone calls expressing solidarity from around the country,
    helping to strengthen the resolve of students inside and to build ‘moral
    pressure’ on the Harvard administration. In addition, CWA became
    interested in the possibility of incorporating virtual sit-in tactics into
    their own action repertoire. This was another kind of cultural outcome:
    diffusion of tactics. To illustrate this last point, I will provide a very
    brief description of a second ECD action, the Netstrike for Vieques.

    Netstrike for Vieques
    About three months after the Virtual Sit-In for a Living Wage, in May
    2001, CWA collaborated with Electronic Disturbance Theater and the
    Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques (Comite Pro Rescate y
    Desarollo de Vieques, or CPRDV) to help launch a ‘netstrike’ in support of
    civil disobedients who were attempting to force a halt to US Navy military
    exercises on Puerto Rico’s ‘baby sister’ island. While about 30 activists
    broke onto the Navy’s target range and forced delays in scheduled bombing
    practice, over 1,300 participants from around the world used a web-based
    tool developed by the Electronic Disturbance Theater to flood http://www.navy.com
    with protest messages. The Netstrike for Vieques used the Navy’s own
    online enlistment form, filling required ‘name,’ ‘address,’ and other
    fields with requests that the Navy cease bombing and honor demands by
    Viequenses and many other prominent Puertoricans (including the Mayor of
    Vieques, the Mayor of San Juan, and the Governor of Puerto Rico) for a
    public referendum to decide the fate of the US military presence. Several
    hours into the action, at around 4pm, CWA sent out a call to action to its
    750,000 members. Nearly a thousand people joined the action during the
    next hour. At 5pm, Electronic Disturbance Theater received a phone call
    from the administrator of http://www.navy.com, who demanded that the action be
    brought to a halt. According to the administrator, the Netstrike had
    “completely flooded our enlistment database with thousands of messages,
    and now our site is starting to crash (Dominguez 2001).” The administrator
    warned EDT that unless the action ended, participants would risk federal
    prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, potentially facing
    large fines and up to 5 years imprisonment. After consulting with CWA and
    CPRDV, Electronic Disturbance Theater called an end to the action and
    declared it a victory. An article about the action went out on the AP
    wire. Electronic Disturbance Theater culled organization names from
    hundreds of emails sent by supporters in over 20 countries and created a
    list of participants that was published on the Netstrike site and
    forwarded to the listservs of both CWA and CPRDV. It is worth noting here
    that several days later, the Navy announced plans to begin phasing out its
    operations in Vieques over a 3 year period.

    How do these two ECD actions compare in terms of outcomes? The Netstrike
    for Vieques had greater effects in the category of mobilization than the
    Virtual Sit-In for a Living Wage, with more than twice as many people
    participating in the action. In addition, the actual disruptive effects of
    the Netstrike were confirmed by Navy web administrators, while the actual
    disruptive effects of the Living Wage action on the 8 targeted corporate
    servers were negligible. In terms of cultural outcomes, the Living Wage
    action resulted in some degree of press coverage (AP wire) and
    distribution of an action report by CWA, and also served to pique CWA
    interest in adopting the tactic for its own campaigns. The Netstrike for
    Vieques resulted in a greater amount of coverage, with an AP article, two
    radio interviews, postings to a dozen indymedia.org sites in both Spanish
    and English, postings to other alternative web news sites, an article in
    the indymedia weekly broadsheet that went out to over a hundred
    alternative print publications around the world, and several email reports
    that went out to CWA’s 750,000 members and to CPRDV’s listserv (Dominguez
    2001). Direct policy outcomes could not be claimed by either action,
    although it could be argued that each added some small degree of pressure
    on the target to respond to policy demands made by activists. In both
    cases, it is interesting that the targets did in fact yield policy
    concessions within days of the action, although no one would claim that
    these electronic disturbances played more than a very small peripheral
    role in much larger ongoing campaigns.

    Another interesting difference was the degree to which internal debates
    took place about whether to use the tactic, with some PSLM members raising
    serious doubts but with CPRDV embracing the action more enthusiastically.
    Although it is difficult to disentangle the various factors that might
    influence the diffusion of ECD, or of the repertoire of electronic
    contention more generally, it might be useful to turn here to a discussion
    of political opportunity structures.

  9. Richard Martin Oxman Says:

    It’s great that Dominguez has jumped in here with his electronic stuff, but WHY hasn’t anyone contacted me regarding http://oxtogrind.org/archive/364 TOSCA joining hands in solidarity? I trust all is well on the other end. Best, The Ox at tosca.2010[atatatatatat]yahoo.com.

  10. Katy Says:

    I’m a student at CaƱada College in Redwood City. Anyone else in community college want to organize and show solidarity? Please contact me:

    rose.katy5@gmail.com

  11. develop psychic Says:

    Pretty excellent posts. I just came across your site and wished to say i have really took pleasure reading through your blog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again shortly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: