.
I’m seeing two sorts of images related to Anaheim today that I don’t want to see right now. One is a fictional image presented by protesters in cartoons, which I don’t want to see because I think it’s counterproductive. The other is a real image presented by police on the streets, which I don’t want to see because it’s massively counterproductive.
I understand why cops are dressed this way and why Disney is portrayed this way, but both are counterproductive.
I’ve already written about why we should not have the sort of massive police over-response that you see on the left and for the sake of completeness within this story I’ll repeat it again below. What I want to focus on first, though, is the use by protesters of images portraying Disney as fascist and militaristic. These images are not nearly as bad, not in the same zip code of bad, as the reality shown in the first image. But they’re not helpful right now either. Here’s why.
While we people often say that “Disney is Anaheim,” that’s an exaggeration. Disney is not Anaheim. Disney may control Anaheim’s governance and economy, but it’s a separate entity. Right now, that’s very fortunate for us, because the Anaheim City Council and the Anaheim Police Department may have painted themselves into a corner (or may soon do so) regarding how they respond to protesters (and, for that matter, real or alleged gang members.)
Disney hasn’t.
Disney is a separate entity with, frankly, more to lose than anyone due to this civil unrest. Even if it has instructed the police and sheriffs and the federal government to do every single thing that they’ve done so far, it is and is still perceived as a separate entity. That means that Disney can change its mind without loss of face. And, unless the plan to cow protesters into submission turns out to work, that is probably what is ultimately going to need to happen.
Disneyland can say to everyone — “this civil strife is bad for business. Let’s ratchet it down.”
I am not by any means arguing that Disney is a friend to protesters. I am saying that it may, as things worsen, turn out to be a useful ally despite the likelihood that it has been fully apprised of and approved the plans for suppression we’ve seen in force over the past 10 days. If Disney says “cool it,” Establishment Anaheim will chill.
At some point that will become a good business decision for Disney. You wouldn’t get a lot of interest, for example, in visiting Disneyland Juarez. The notion that Anaheim is a mostly Latino city, that it’s a place where a riot can happen, that it’s a place where cops need to come out into the streets in camouflage and riot gear — that’s going to hurt Disney and Anaheim generally, both rich and poor. (That’s the stupidest thing about A.P.D. and its pals sending out cops dressed like that. Is that where you want to vacation? They should have sent out people dressed in “Three Little Pigs” costumes, who friends working at Disneyland years ago told me were able to suppress rowdy parkgoers in an emergency by rushing at them from opposite sides with their hard heads bowed, a maneuver known as the “pig sandwich.” Having the protesters accompanied by pigs and dwarves in costume would not scare off tourists.)
We need to understand, though, that Disney’s calling for peaceful mediation is less likely to work if Disney is already being portrayed as fascist. At that point, they might as well say “to hell with it.” The heavy hand of satire that protesters hope to use to cow Disney is likely to backfire for the same reason that shooting rubber bullets at protesting neighbors backfired. The use of force — and I hope I don’t need to point out that I don’t equate these two actions, but for the record I DO NOT — always has its attractions, but it’s often a fool’s choice, especially in a scenario where both sides can lose.
So I suggest that protesters place a moratorium on “Disney as fascist” and “Heil Mickey” images until and unless Disney has decided that it is implacably set on suppressing dissent so that it can have its lovely and peaceful park. If it’s possible to make them the peacemaker, and to give the A.P.D. and Council cover for ratcheting down the level of hostilities, that should be the goal. (Of course, if your goal as an activist is to make Anaheim the flashpoint for global revolution this year, you’ll of course disagree with me — but in that case you’re bonkers.)
I don’t criticize those who have published such images so far; I think of that as more like brandishing a weapon rather than firing it. But the point of what awaits Disney if things continue to deteriorate has been made. The weapon belongs back in its holster.
Now I have to talk to the A.P.D. (and OCSD and others on site), the Council, and — if it’s appropriate — Disney itself.
As I said earlier this morning, your approach to this situation is not going to work. People are not going to be cowed. They may get more sneaky and subtle, but they’re not going to stop now that you’ve ratcheted up the tension. Disney is too easy to sabotage (literally and figuratively); people whose dignity as well as pocketbook are under attack have too little to lose. Eventually, you’re going to start going after Latino park-goers or something based on ethnic profiling, and there will be press conferences and lawsuits, and things will quickly get ugly. None of this is a threat; I remain firmly committed to non-violent and non-destructive protest. But you’d have to be blind not to be able to read the writing on the wall. This offensive does not end well — or soon.
I don’t blame anyone for taking or publishing pictures like the one at the left. It’s news. It’s huge news — and people need to be able to report it. Don’t even think about trying to suppress it. It would just make things worse.
You need to change the actual reality of what’s happening on the streets. We in the protest movement are doing our damnedest to keep people on the right side of the law. Arresting them for technicalities or absurdities — they were attacking horses? — will just make you look worse and worse. It will also make you a worthier target in the eyes of people who otherwise might grumble at you sometimes but never rouse themselves to oppositional action.
When I showed up at the rally yesterday and announced myself as a legal observer, I had discussions with two seemingly smart, decent, and humane men, one from Homeland Security and the other a Lieutenant in command of the station itself. They seemed to get it. They acknowledged that protesters could call police all sorts of vile things and it was legal. I was asked to keep an eye out for people who might want to escalate into violence — rock throwing and the like (though is it too much to ask for the cops to overlook a few empty plastic bottles as a cause for attack?) — and I did so; I and another legal observer also tried to make sure that protesters were not blocking the sidewalks, even though sidewalk blocking is not such a major deal as to call forth a massive police response.
People like me, like Duane Roberts, like many I saw from Kelly’s Army, from non-local Occupies, from the community — we’re doing what we can to keep the protesters on this side of the law. We know that that’s more effective. If you’re secretly rooting for us to fail, you’re being stupid, because again this is a situation in which both sides can lose. We don’t want that and neither should you.
Please attend to and consider this: our success in keeping things calm at rallies depends on your cooperation in not arresting people after rallies for piddly offenses. It is much harder to get people to cooperate if they know that once the cameras are off and they’re fingered by infiltrators (or however it works), they’re likely to be arrested anyway. If you see a rock thrower or window breaker, I want you to arrest them. Most people who were at the rally, I suspect, are fine with that. (After all, they put the rest of us in danger.) But if you arrest people for not walking on the sidewalk, etc., you’re just escalating the situation. Stopping the march before it gets to Disneyland is your call, but I don’t see reports that people there did anything more than be obnoxious to you, which must not become a criminal offense. Let people blow off their steam. Don’t make things worse.
If the A.P.D. and its partners continue to crack down, then we will see more people blaming Disney — a logical and prominent target — and that will hurt us all. However much you like your camo and riot gear and grenade launchers and what-the-hell, now is not the time to strut your stuff. We need to deescalate. You need to cooperate in that.
And Disney — if the police et al. won’t do it on their own (and we all realize that it goes against their instincts to use shows of force to quell rebellion), then it falls on you to tell them that you want them to do it. You can be the savior of the day — or you can sink down with the rest of it. Ask your PR department which is better.
Update: OC Weekly links to this video of the arrest of people who had been walking from the end of the march on Harbor to Anna Drive. In case you haven’t seen it there, it’s seriously worth a look.
Buzzkiller!
Probably. Show the graphics in private with friends. If Disney lines up firmly on the wrong side, though, then this analysis will have expired.
The problem is that many if not most people think that – unless you live in OC – that Disneyland is in Los Angeles or “Southern California.” Regionally, nationally and internationally Disneyland is not closely associated with Anaheim. If you ask people in anywhere but OC where D-land is located, probably less than 10% would answer Anaheim.
Well, skally, I think you’re just wrong here.
If most Americans didn’t already know Disneyland was in Anaheim, which I’m pretty sure most of them did, they do now. Every national news story out there on Anaheim now, clarifies, “the town best known for hosting Disneyland.” Every TV, radio and news story. They’re inseparable.
Here is a discussion thread from mouseplanet.com (not affiliated with Disney) which supports my supposition. They ask the question – “Do you associate Disneyland with Los Angeles ?” Here is a typical response of many:
“People who aren’t from the “LA Area” … don’t know where “Anaheim” is, but any idiot can find LA on a map.”
http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?4353-Do-you-associate-Disneyland-with-Los-Angeles
I have the advantage of having lived in about ten other states for at least a season, and I think that people did indeed know that Disneyland is in Anaheim, along with the Angels. OC is better known than you may think.
ah ha! … gotcha GD – why do you think they are the “Los Angeles” Angels?
That’s a relatively recent switch. (And isn’t it “Los Angeles Angeles of Anaheim near Los Angeles”?) I grew up with them as the California Angels, but for a long time they were the Anaheim Angels (and they still play in Anaheim Stadium.)
Disneyland might want to commission a national poll on where people think it is.
“(And isn’t it “Los Angeles Angeles of Anaheim near Los Angeles”?)”
No GD, It is the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim – Anaheim is the after thought.
The acronym that MLB uses is “LAA” – Los Angeles Angels.
“Disneyland might want to commission a national poll on where people think it is.”
I believe that Disney is just fine with the world thinking that D-land is in LA.
Joke wasn’t obvious enough for you, skally?
Anaheim is just a little less populous than Oakland. If it’s less known, it’s probably not much less known. This would be an interesting research project — especially if there is data about how well know each city was back during the time when the Raiders had left Oakland.
skallywag your wasting your time with diamond he knows everything and IS NEVER WRONG ====== IN HIS DEMENTED MIND
Interesting. 35,477 people attended Sundays Angel game, they didn’t seem to let the “murder” affect their decision. Compare that to after Brian Stowe was beaten at Dodger stadium (a brown on white crime) attendance dropped precipitously.
I am sure my next comment will draw some here into an arguement that doesn’t need to happen yet:
These were not nice men, they were not law abiding citizens, these were violent criminals. I agree that this is not China, where such people are put to death. I have done some background on the victims, I have searched court records. Running from the police was not a wise move for them,considering thier background and record.
To compare this to the Kelly Thomas beating is irresponsible and disingenuous at best. A blatant baiting tactic at worst.
But the opposition (I don’t even know who they are) certainly scored points lining up the streets.
It occours to me that it’s just noise. There is NO LEADER willing to take this on, because there is nothing to take on. If it turns out to be a bad shoot. then thats what it is. Bad guys get shot all the time. Football players get tackled and stockbrokers lose money. Thats the nature of the business.
If you deal drugs in alleyways, run from police and have a record of gun possession, what did you expect to happen? Seriously, If the guy was gunned down in error, then let due process take it’s course. But, this is theatrics.
The conflict is about ten days old. Give it time.
‘Less, you may be right about their arrest record and their demonstrated nature. Nevertheless, the Diaz killing, if it happened as described by witnesses, was a summary execution. Not an accidental shooting, not an “error.” A murder.
You can’t do that. Whatever Diaz had done to prompt the shooting, if anything, he had the right to a trial. He had the right not to be thought of as someone who, having been shot in the butt and fallen to the ground, it was OK for the cops to shoot in the head and let lie on the ground for a while — so as to “save everyone money” (or whatever they might have thought) and subvert the legal process.
In the respect of the innocence of the victim, this (if it did happen that way and if you’re right about their records) was not as bad as the Thomas killing. In the respect of the guilt of the killer, it was worse. Imagine if, after tasing Thomas to what he thought was insufficient effect, Jay Ciccinelli had pulled out his gun and shot him square in the head.
To dismiss the reaction as theatrics is to think that the parents of Anna Drive have no reason to complain — including about being shot point blank with less lethal weapons themselves. That’s callous — and it gets us where we now are.
if you are so called DOING NOTHING and a policeman comes bye . WHY DO YOU RUN ..
Maybe I’ve been exercising my right to take a video of police misconduct and they to confiscate my phone and destroy the evidence. That’s just one possibility.
The attack on Bryan Stow was percieved as a brown on white crime but turned out to be a white on white crime.
There have been two murders at Angel Stadium in the past five years – two more than have occurred at Dodger Stadium – but that has not affected attendance because Arfe Moreno and Orange County’s political and corporate interests have done a very good job of covering up the darker side of OC – until now.. Or conveying the message that crime and violence only occur in Santa Ana and Garden Grove and not in the rest of the county.
I sense it will soon become impossible to manage OC’s image in this fashion just like it became impossible for Los Angeles to manage its image in this fashion 50 years ago.
which goes back to what i said a few days ago..you do not run from the cops. no running, no shooting
Sadly, “no running, no shooting” is not a dependable equation. I can think of situations in which a corrupt cop (and I have no information that these cops were that) could want to silence someone — it happens.
One reason for not summarily executing someone — aside from morality and all that — is that it leaves one open to speculation for why you did it. I don’t think that it’s likely that the cops who shot him in the head was himself involved in drugs or acting for rival gangs — but that sort of thing is not unprecedented and if I were investigating I’d certainly be asking those questions! Better to have brought him in alive.
DIAMOND IN HIS THINKING , YES DIAMOND DID BUSH BLOW UP THE TOWERS TOO .. YES GREAT MONDAY MORNING QB DIAMOND .. POLICE ARE TRAINED IF THE SUBJECT WAS RUNNING FROM THEM AND REACHES FOR HIS WAISTBAND .. DIAMOND WOULD HAVE BROUGHT HIM ALIVE .. AND WHAT IF HE DID HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT OTHER GUY THAT WAS SHOT .. MR DIAMOND MIGHT NOT BE HERE TODAY .
No, Bush did not blow up the towers. Don’t paint me with that brush.
Let’s concede for the sake of argument that they had a legitimate right to shoot him in the butt, even though there’s no evidence I’ve heard that suggests he was reaching into his waistband. The bigger controversy is whether, after dropping him face down onto the ground, they had the right to then shoot him in the head.
You think that they do, don’t you?
You never ran from the cops as a kid ? I think that’s un-American.
You just can’t shoot somebody in the ass, and then shoot them in the back of the head because they can outrun you. It’s like the cops are on safari, but their not using cameras.
That last video needs to go viral, global.
*There is a concept…..if you lay on the ground immediately, cover your head with both hands and pray…you will have a 50-50 chance of survival.
The reality however can be anything…….if……the fix is in. If you are a drug dealer,
if you are a bad guy, if you are politiclally dangerous…….there are no guarantees in life or in the alternative.
We are all hear on a wing and a prayer folks. We all need to keep our minds right and when we meet authority……we need to be as complaint as possible.
when we meet authority……we need to be as compliant as possible.
I can’t believe somebody on the Orange Juice Blog actually typed those words.
I can’t believe an NRA member actually typed those words.
Wait … what was the reasoning again for the Second Amendment, supposedly? To cower in compliance to all authority? Jesus, I hope you guys are drunk and didn’t really mean that.
To be fair, Vern, that’s what the Founding Fathers did when they faced the Redcoats! (I suppose I could be misremembering.)
With due respect to Ron (whom I have come to like), this points to the difference between the fake resistance of the Tea Party movement and the real resistance of the left-wing (whether Occupy or otherwise.)
Tea Partiers came to rallies brandishing and bragging about their guns and their willingness to use them — which was easy to do because no one with power was actually, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, trying to take their guns. They were bringing guns to political rallies for causes they opposed!
Can you imagine what would happen if Occupiers and other protesters showed up at these rallies with legally bought and held arms, proclaiming their right to bear those arms under the Second Amendment? They would not merely be arrested for carrying signs offending Disney and the cops in the street. They’d be shot to death.
That’s the difference between real political resistance — I won’t even say “revolutionaries” because I’m not one, but I do believe in resistance and critique and reform — and the play-acting at being oppressed that we’ve seen from the Tea Party. Come to think of it, “Tea Party” was the perfect name for it — like children miming the actions of adults.
I’m sure that there are honorable exceptions; I did see some of Kelly’s Army out there, for example — unarmed, so far as I can tell. But the going just got tough and a lot of self-proclaimed “government resisters” took off for safety.
Next time someone thumps their chest about the Second Amendment, I’m going to ask them where they were in Anaheim where a militarized police force started arresting protesters. Maybe that will be too subtle for them.
What the cops really hate is for you to “stand your ground” peacefully and look them in the eye.
And if you are ordered to disperse as part of an unlawfull assembly – do so. Then get a permit for a lawfull protest and do that.
I did run from cops when I was a kid – but times have changed.
Well, you sound like someone who also disagrees with the Winships’ philosophy of unquestioning “compliance!” Thank you.
PS I’m glad you didn’t get shot in the back of the head back in the day. Why do you think that might have been?
Like I said – “times have changed.”
Wrong answer. They did shoot fleeing kids back then just like now. Just not white ones like you.
Well said, skally! There’s a place for you in Occupy if you want it. (I will not hold my breath waiting for you!)
If you lay on the ground with your hands over head make sure that the chalk is no longer in those hands. You better swallow it, instead of throw it in the bushes.
Greg, I think that you might be on the verge of “becoming a revolutionary”. Maybe you have been for some time now.
P.S. Most but not all gun enthusiasts are not patriots or revolutionaries. They are paranoids! It is our responsibility to be responsible conscientious activists, not pathetic paranoids. Occupiers and Right Wingers tend to act like pathetic zealous freaks at times. “Wing nuts”!
but That’s o.k. because all the other zombies might start to come back to life with a rational purpose soon.
I don’t think that we should give up our gun rights. We obviously need those rights now more than ever.
No, not a revolutionary and I’ll tell you why.
Look at the lovely people we have had around us in the Occupy movement. Few would survive in a real revolution. (It would be violent. We’ve had a taste of it this past two weeks.) We’re not equipped for it; not violent and rapacious and cold-blooded enough. Bukharin doesn’t prevail after a violent revolution; Lenin does for a while, then Stalin, then several others until you get to a reforming revolutionary like Gorbachev, but the pressures give way and he is eventually supplanted by a Yeltsin — and a Putin finds his way into power and you end up once again with a sort of unbridled economic kleptocracy under what one hopes is a relatively benign monarch.
Following a revolution generally comes the time of the warlords. Think about the activists you know. “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.” That show is less of a fantasy than the notion that something, led by someone, better than what we have now would emerge from a revolution. We object to a few drone strikes that kill civilians along with their targets? That would be child’s play compared to what we’d anticipate after a revolution. (The armies and the weapons don’t go away, you know.)
And the point of any revolution worth the name should not be to survive, but to impose a system of governance and to do it well. How long before we even got something in place half as well thought out as our admittedly flawed Constitution? Approximately never. Have you read The Handmaid’s Tale? A Gilead is more likely than some sort of paradise.
No, I’m sorry — there may be another revolution in this country someday but it would not end up in a way that you or I would like. We have a decent, certainly very improvable but decent, governmental and constitutional structure to start with; we have a general (if often theoretical) respect for the rule of law, and the ones with the least respect are the ones with the most guns; within the memory of a 40-year-old we had a political culture that was built on principles of general equality and justice. We won’t likely roll the dice of revolution and get to a point with the potential for just reform that we have here and now.
I think that in general to call oneself a revolutionary is to flatter oneself. I’m content to seek evolution towards justice, liberty, compassion and peace through our current framework — not through revolution. To be a decent Custodian of our Constitution and the rights (as amended) it recognizes is exalted enough a position for me; I hope only that I, and we, are worthy of the title.
I agree with you Vern.
F*** Corrupt, Manipulated, Polluted, Cowardly,. Unoriginal Compliance!
all for the meaningless and suicidal World Order for the Paper Pushing, Parasitic, Do-nothing, Finance Culture, Wannabe Elites.
They need to get a job!
or get out of the F-ing way of the real people of this Earth.
What a silly essay. Do you think the purpose of the protests is to end police brutality against the protesters?
No, the purpose is to demand that police follow the law in their interactions with the public, period.
I regret if this becomes a “right to protest” issue. I can see why police would rather focus upon that than on the substance of our criticism, but I want to keep the spotlight directly on that focus.