Marching with Occupy Portland against the NDAA

As a single mom of two with a bleeding disorder and asthma who has watched encounter after encounter between largely peaceful protesters turning to violence with swinging batons and rampant use of pepper spray, marching or supporting Occupy through any direct means has been a risk-filled proposition.   One baton blow to the head, my brain could hemorrhage.  One blast of their potent pepper spray, my swine flu damaged, asthmatic lungs could cease.  In short, for me, marching with Occupy, should things go wrong, meant possible death.  Death is a pretty good deterrent, especially when you have two amazing kids counting on  your life.  Even the minimum of getting arrested would mean that both of my kids would be without their mom for the maximum two days of detainment that has been happening to arrested protesters.  As any parent knows, the moment your child is born, your life isn't so much about you anymore, it's about them.  For my little family, that changed with the passage of the National Defense Authority Act.

The NDAA is a dreadful act.  Packaged in with the regular annual budget is legislation that directly impacts U.S. citizens through the possible deprivation of habeas corpus and due process.  I have listened to both Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Rand Paul discuss this act and how it will possibly affect US citizens.  I encourage anyone reading this blog post to do the same.  It's a very un-American act that jeopardizes the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  I would say that one can tell when a law is bad when you see people saying something reasonably critical of Congress and then, state that they could be indefinitely detained for the saying of it.  Anything that inhibits free speech in such a way is toxic to our country. That is the essence of these acts, however.  With mere suspicion of being sympathetic to a terrorist organization and others with intentionally ambiguous language as to just whom, a U.S. citizen may be indefinitely detained without charge or trial.  It reminds me so much of the conversation that I had with the Russian girl, Maria, so long ago.  I can almost hear her voice as she explained to me why she didn't call the police after her apartment was robbed: "If there is something that they don't like about you, you could just disappear."  For a country who has had a long history of hatred toward Communism, we just took a step towards behaving like a Communist country. 

As I watched, read and listened to all the discussion of the NDAA, I was filled with a terrible anxiety.  I've raised my children to be out of the box, critical thinkers and to be outspoken when they view something as being unjust.  To me, every citizen in the U.S. should do those things to be good citizens, who make wise decisions when it comes time to vote or speak.  Under the NDAA, however, I may have raised my children to be future detainees.  To worsen the scenario, under the guidelines of critical problem solving skills and thinking, my children and I have discussed a variety of real life subjects including such subjects of the Iraq War, Al Qaeda and the overall issues within the Middle East and their sources.  Worse yet, to force a change of perspective, I have frequently reminded them that one country's terrorists are another country's freedom fighters because looking at an issue, a horrific instance, shouldn't be purely about emotionally reacting to what has been the end result, but also should include a understanding of the reasons why it occurred in the first place. 

This is critical thinking and it's sad that, for saying that, I could be detained.  It's tragic that, should my children repeat it, they could be detained.  The one thing that I gleaned from my time as a Talented and Gifted student (a program sponsored by the National Defense Education Act for National Security, mind you) was to question everything.  In essence, the very thing that my country once encouraged for certain gifted individuals may have become the very thing that they want to quash today.   With these realizations and the understanding that my children may be in real, future jeopardy, I chose to march against the NDAA.  What mother wouldn't put her life in jeopardy in order to protect her children?  It may surprise some of my readers, but this was something that my children and I discussed together before I made the final decision to go.  After assurances agreed upon for me to make an escape should trouble erupt either in the form of violence or possible arrest, we all agreed that I needed to march and make my voice heard not just for myself, not just for my children but for the love of my country and its Constitution.

When I arrived at the site of the march's beginning, I was sorely disappointed.  There were a lot of what I would call "average concerned citizens" but they were peppered with the clearly indigent, both young and old.  In fact, during the rally, two of these spoke very aggressively and, unlike the prior speakers before the group where everyone repeated what they said, the "human mic" died off.  Attendance has been a growing problem for Occupy Portland.  This is most likely why.  It's really rather sad because these men probably have a number of justifiable grievances to make them so angry.  They are the most downtrodden of us all in a sense.  It was also interesting to note that the police present at the time moved forward when these individuals started to speak.  They also were deliberately trying to cause issues during the march.  One of them, with a notable tattoo across his face, stood in the middle of traffic and taunted the police.  Another, when I called out stop as most of the marchers were waiting for the traffic lights to avoid blocking traffic, berated me with a slew of obscenities for doing so.  As he and I went back and forth verbally, I was thinking to myself, "don't you know that I am here for you too?  If I held any less conviction or hadn't lived downtown for two years and learned a thing or two about handling individuals like you, I would have gone home."

Things did not improve when the individual who berated me for calling out "stop!" began the chant, "Whose street? OUR STREET!".   Keeping an ever watchful eye on the police escorting us, I again noted a discernible change in their demeanor.  They didn't like the chant and, frankly, neither did I.  It is too proprietary.  These aren't Occupy's streets--they are streets that belong to the public at large from the shoppers and restaurant goers to the street musicians on the corners.  Furthermore, this was a march in protest of the NDAA--not an Occupy march per se.  "Whose streets? Our streets" do not inform the public as to what is wrong with our country and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with the NDAA.  It is no wonder that people are muddled about what Occupy represents.  The blame does not solely fall upon poor media representation but rests upon the protesters who begin that particular chant.  This isn't about streets.  It's about corruption.  Last night was certainly not about streets, it was about the threat of indefinite detainment.

Not long after that particular chant began, word started spreading through the march that we were taking a bridge.  Again, I balked.  What the hell is the point of taking a bridge?  Again, it's too proprietary, has nothing to do with the NDAA, and only distances our voices from people that can actually hear what we were supposed to be down in Portland talking about.  There was no way in hell that I would be "taking a bridge".   In my mind, civil disobedience has its place only when it definitely can be related to the cause for dissent.  When, soon after,  word came through the marchers that someone had been "unlawfully arrested", I knew it was time to leave.  I carefully leaned my friend, Mary's, NDAA sign against a building and glided out of the march without getting a second glance from the officers watching the protesters.  It's rather sad that I didn't even get a second glance.  To them, I was not one of the marchers.  I was just some graceful, clearly well bred woman walking down the street.  My mother raised me with books on my head just for that purpose. 

That I left the march without issue or second glance from the police should indicate that the police have already stereotyped just who is an "Occupy protester".  On October 6th, there were upwards of 10,000 people marching in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.  Last night, I would say that there was perhaps 100 marching in protest for the preservation of our Constitution.  That is not good.  If I had to hazard a guess, Occupy has become alienated from moderates and, as I stated earlier, the blame does not solely fall upon poor media representation but also on Occupy, itself, for not doing better self policing.  The more aggressive individuals that were the cause for police response went unchecked.  I would clearly identify them as provocateurs, who are not being paid by some corporation to defame a protest group, but instead, are hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot by directly undermining the people who are willing to make a stand for them.   These individuals feel abandoned by Occupy Portland and I would state that they are working against it in retaliation.  I would say that they are winning.

This is something that Occupy Portland really needs to consider and deal with.  I am a moderate across the board.  The only other time I have ever protested anything was alongside my mother for a bill that threatened Roe v. Wade possibly 20 years ago.  I am not  normally an activist.  However, the issues that are raised by Occupy are very real and serious issues within our country.  The NDAA is frightening.  These factors promoted the motivation within me to become activist again.  However, it is wholly disheartening to see that Occupy has let itself be undermined by provocateurs and that moderates, like myself, have abandoned it probably due to that very reason.  Just as damning is the abandonment of Occupy by moderates like myself so that the protesters left have allowed police to stereotype in the first place.  Would these provocateurs have nearly as much voice or power within the movement if they were outnumbered 100 to 1?  I don't think so.   Occupy Portland has itself stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place and saying "oh just ignore Metal", one of these provocateurs,  isn't going to get them out of it.   Aggression brings discomfort, a question of safety, and embarrassment.  Yes, the issues are extraordinarily important but when the voice of the protest becomes polluted, then it's not airing those issues appropriately.  It is no longer a place where people who are deeply concerned about those issues feel comfortable or well represented. 

Not everyone can overlook these things simply because of patriotism.  I would call myself a strong patriot.  One branch of my family ancestry dates back to Jamestown.  We're pre-Mayflower.  The number of my ancestors who have served my country from its inception is staggering and a sacrifice of blood that does not get overlooked by me.  When I marched last night, it was an acknowledgement of my ancestor's sacrifices in the name of freedom.  I would not shame them by fearing my own security at the expense of liberty.   However, if the medium is rendered ineffectual or has become polluted or gets diverted (whose streets? our streets), then it's back to choosing my battles.  I want to protect our Constitution that so many have died for.  I want to protect my government and legislation from the money that has allowed the rampant corruption of it.  Just give me a medium from which to do so--pure and to the point.