Recent Changes for "UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action" - Davis Wiki

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2009-11-20 07:34:55

grammar/spelling. deleted inappropriate promotion of an individual. neutralized.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 6:	Line 6:
- [[Image(1May07_UCD_Intersection.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Occupying the La Rue / Russell Intersection")]]On Tuesday May 1, ["2007"] people gathered at UC Davis for a day of action. May 1st is International Workers Day, and just as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6612605.stm rallies and protests were held throughout the nation and world], the struggle was fought on our campus. As a way of bringing attention to several important issues, UCD students joined in solidarity to address the interconnectedness of campaigns being fought on campus, with the principle issues addressed being:	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_Intersection.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Occupying the La Rue / Russell Intersection")]]On Tuesday May 1, ["2007"] hundreds of people gathered at UC Davis for a day of action. May 1st is International Workers Day, and just as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6612605.stm rallies and protests were held throughout the nation and world], the struggle was fought on our campus. As a way of bringing attention to several important issues, UCD students joined in solidarity to address the interconnectedness of campaigns being fought on campus, with the principle issues addressed being:
Line 10:	Line 10:
- * ["Services for International Students & Scholars" Support of Immigration Rights] with opposition towards [wiki:wikipedia:Real_ID_Act REAL ID] and the its forum taking place at Freeborn that same day.	+ * ["Services for International Students & Scholars" Support of Immigration Rights] with opposition towards [wiki:wikipedia:Real_ID_Act REAL ID] and its forum taking place at Freeborn that same day.
Line 12:	Line 12:
- End the war, recognize no human is illegal, and support the workers! By understanding the connections between our individual conditions of life and the lives of people everywhere in the word we are able to come together and organize across all borders, while recognizing that the foundation of May 1st is a worker's day. This Davis event was recognized by the [http://www.maydaymovement.blogspot.com/ National May 1st Movement for Worker and Immigration Rights].	+ End the war, recognize no human is illegal, and support the workers! By understanding the connections between our individual conditions of life and the lives of people everywhere in the world we are able to come together and organize across all borders, while recognizing that the foundation of May 1st is a worker's day. This Davis event was recognized by the [http://www.maydaymovement.blogspot.com/ National May 1st Movement for Worker and Immigration Rights].
Line 22:	Line 22:
- 12:30 ... ["Davis College Republicans"] countered with ["Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag"]. CCR Chair Ryan Clumpner and approx. 10 others were present. - 2:00 ... The march returned to campus and headed to Mrak where workers successfully demanded to meet with administration. Demonstrators continued to chant and people used the microphones to talk about the different issues locally and globally.	+ 12:30 ... Approximately 11 ["Davis College Republicans"] countered with ["Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag"]. + 2:00 ... The march returned to campus and headed to ["Mrak Hall"] where workers successfully demanded to meet with administration. Demonstrators continued to chant and people used the microphones to talk about the different issues locally and globally.
Line 72:	Line 72:
- May 1^st^ in the US is the presidentially proclaimed unobserved holiday of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Day%2C_U.S.A. Law Day] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day Loyalty Day]. These were given to May 1 in order to break worker solidarity and to discourage workers from striking. On May 1, 2003 Bush's declared the war in Iraq to be over with [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/ his speech] in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Much debate has occurred in the last four years as to what "Mission Accomplished" really means, but there is no question as to what it represents. For many, this sign symbolized successfully preventing the use of WMDs with very few US Military casualties, the quick and timely end to the reign of terror, and the return of U.S. troops to American soil. Four years later, it is apparent to some that not only was the Military's mission unsuccessful, the very reasons used to justify U.S. occupation were lies used to deceive the American public and the entire world.	+ May 1^st^ in the US is the presidentially proclaimed unobserved holiday of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Day%2C_U.S.A. Law Day] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day Loyalty Day]. These were given to May 1 in order to break worker solidarity and to discourage workers from striking. On May 1, 2003 Bush declared the war in Iraq to be over with [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/ his speech] in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Much debate has occurred in the last four years as to what "Mission Accomplished" really means. For some, this sign symbolized successfully preventing the use of WMDs with few US Military casualties and the return of U.S. troops to American soil. Four years later, it is apparent to others that not only was the Military's mission unsuccessful, the very reasons used to justify U.S. occupation were lies used to deceive the American public and the entire world.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JoePomidor — 2009-01-20 17:38:18

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 61:	Line 61:
- "That whether this or that theory, this or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted was not a matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the tendency of progress seemed to be Anarchism-that is, a free society without kings or classes-ta sociey of sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of natural order.	+ "That whether this or that theory, this or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted was not a matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the tendency of progress seemed to be Anarchism-that is, a free society without kings or classes-ta society of sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of natural order.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2008-08-21 17:22:38

link fixes

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 123:	Line 123:
- {How long is the meeting going to last, I want to come but will probably be thirty minutes late.} (Still ["Davepoole"], sorry for any confusion. I am going to be on timeish it turns out. I wish to help you guys, though I am not a communist and outrightly oppose such a system, I still am quite concerned over more relevant actions which corrupt what should be a relatively pure capitalist system, the rule of law is not being upheld.)	+ {How long is the meeting going to last, I want to come but will probably be thirty minutes late.} (Still ["Users/Davepoole"], sorry for any confusion. I am going to be on timeish it turns out. I wish to help you guys, though I am not a communist and outrightly oppose such a system, I still am quite concerned over more relevant actions which corrupt what should be a relatively pure capitalist system, the rule of law is not being upheld.)
Line 152:	Line 152:
- * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a mailing list, discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafes" coffee shop] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]	+ * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a mailing list, discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafes" coffee shop] and discuss the issues face to face? --["Users/JabberWokky"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-07-07 23:57:46

made pic smaller so page looks better.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- ='''''"From Iraq to Mrak, We're Taking this Shit Back!"'''''= -	+ = '''''From Iraq to Mrak, We're Taking this Shit Back!''''' =
Line 4:	Line 3:
- [[Image(1May07_UCD_Freeborn.jpg, right, 430, thumbnail, "Protesting the REAL ID Meeting")]]
Line 6:	Line 4:
	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_Freeborn.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Protesting the REAL ID Meeting")]]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-07-07 09:58:05

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 109:	Line 109:
	+ ==5/8/2007== + California Aggie Editorial: + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/08/Opinion/Guest.Opinion-2897085.shtml Editorial: Food-service worker protests will continue to escalate, if necessary] +

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2007-06-19 17:24:26

link fixes

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 16:	Line 16:
- Check out the daviswiki [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Photos photo page] specially created for this day's events. Have more? Feel free to add them.	+ Check out the daviswiki ["/Photos" photo page] specially created for this day's events. Have more? Feel free to add them.
Line 113:	Line 113:
- [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Talk Debates are on the Talk Page]	+ ["/Talk" Debates are on the Talk Page]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-06-19 07:58:41

table of contents.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- = '''''"From Iraq to Mrak, We're Taking this Shit Back!"''''' =	+ ='''''"From Iraq to Mrak, We're Taking this Shit Back!"'''''=
Line 5:	Line 5:
- \|\|<bgcolor='#E0E0FF'>'''Photos'''\|\| - \|\|'''["/Photos" Photos of the event]'''\|\| - [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Talk Debates are on the Talk Page]
Line 10:	Line 7:
-
Line 19:	Line 15:
	+ =Photos= + Check out the daviswiki [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Photos photo page] specially created for this day's events. Have more? Feel free to add them.
Line 27:	Line 25:
-
Line 61:	Line 58:
- ===History:===	+ ==History==
Line 78:	Line 75:
- ===Political Action:===	+ ==Political Action==
Line 91:	Line 88:
- ===5/1/2007===	+ ==5/1/2007==
Line 98:	Line 95:
- ===5/2/2007===	+ ==5/2/2007==
Line 107:	Line 104:
- ===5/3/2007===	+ ==5/3/2007==
Line 112:	Line 109:
- ===5/9/2007===	+ ==5/9/2007==
Line 114:	Line 111:
	+ + =Debates/Discussion= + [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Talk Debates are on the Talk Page]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2007-06-03 18:14:08

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 25:	Line 25:
- 12:30 ... ["Davis College Republicans"] countered with Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag. CCR Chair Ryan Clumpner and approx. 10 others were present.	+ 12:30 ... ["Davis College Republicans"] countered with ["Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag"]. CCR Chair Ryan Clumpner and approx. 10 others were present.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

BrentLaabs — 2007-05-19 00:57:59

+nec rho

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 112:	Line 112:
	+ ===5/9/2007=== + Comic ["Nec Rho Omicron"] runs [http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/55000368/?qo=4&q=by%3Agalaxyspinner&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps a strip] about the event and the counterprotest. +

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

KatieDavalos — 2007-05-17 23:21:04

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 153:	Line 153:
- * organizers of the rally, protest, and civil disobedience were in communication with the Davis Police Department during the week prior in order to ensure that nothing memorable occured between the police and the protestors. also, the organizers also assigned their own 'safety' officers to make sure no one gave police a reason to act aggressively. in fact, when speaking to the police, organizers were told that they could expect the officers to wear their riot gear, and to realize that the police would use 'whatever force necessary' to prevent escalation. I think that although the police, both DPD and UCPD, were mindful of handling the situation, a large part of participant's safety can be credited to the people who organized the event itself. there will be articles coming out this week talking about something to this effect, with more information.	+ * organizers of the rally, protest, and civil disobedience were in communication with the Davis Police Department during the week prior in order to ensure that nothing memorable occured between the police and the protestors. also, the organizers also assigned their own 'safety' officers to make sure no one gave police a reason to act aggressively. in fact, when speaking to the police, organizers were told that they could expect the officers to wear their riot gear, and to realize that the police would use 'whatever force necessary' to prevent escalation. I think that although the police, both DPD and UCPD, were mindful of handling the situation, a large part of participant's safety can be credited to the people who organized the event itself. there will be articles coming out this week talking about something to this effect, with more information. --["Users/KatieDavalos"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

KatieDavalos — 2007-05-17 23:20:46

comment response

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 153:	Line 153:
	+ * organizers of the rally, protest, and civil disobedience were in communication with the Davis Police Department during the week prior in order to ensure that nothing memorable occured between the police and the protestors. also, the organizers also assigned their own 'safety' officers to make sure no one gave police a reason to act aggressively. in fact, when speaking to the police, organizers were told that they could expect the officers to wear their riot gear, and to realize that the police would use 'whatever force necessary' to prevent escalation. I think that although the police, both DPD and UCPD, were mindful of handling the situation, a large part of participant's safety can be credited to the people who organized the event itself. there will be articles coming out this week talking about something to this effect, with more information.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGreenwald — 2007-05-05 08:06:08

Fixed Link

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 95:	Line 95:
- ["People's Vanguard of Davis"] Article:	+ ["The People's Vanguard of Davis"] Article:

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-04 04:37:47

Comment added.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 151:	Line 151:
	+ ------ + ''2007-05-04 04:37:47'' [[nbsp]] I would like to go on record saying that both the UC Davis Police Department, as well as the City Police Department did a superb job of handling the march and acts of civil disobedience. I am glad, that with the exception of some booing, the crowd was also very respectful of the police. There were a few moments that I could tell officers had a itch to be more aggressive while at the intersection of Russell and Anderson, but they did not do anything memorable - other than assure no one got hurt. UCD Police Chief Annette Spicuzza personally told me she just wanted everyone to be safe and even said that she hoped it did not rain on the marchers. Compared to [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cooper4may04,0,1702858.story?coll=la-opinion-center What the LAPD did on May Day] the City of Davis really should be commended. --["Users/RobRoy"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-04 03:42:28

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 104:	Line 104:
- People's Vanguard of Davis Article on the ["Davis College Republican" Davis College Republican's] Demonstration:	+ People's Vanguard of Davis Article on the ["Davis College Republicans" Davis College Republican's] Demonstration:

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-04 03:41:55

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 24:	Line 24:
- 12:15 .... March in solidarity with contracted out food-service workers, immigrant rights, and anti-Iraq war. Began at MU patio, circled the MU quad, proceeded to Freeborn Hall to protest ["Real ID Town Hall" REAL ID], continued to the entrance of campus, turned left on Russell, and stopped at Russell and Anderson for an act of '''civil disobedience'''.	+ 12:15 .... March in solidarity with contracted out food-service workers, immigrant rights, and anti-Iraq war. Began at MU patio, circled the MU quad, proceeded to Freeborn Hall to protest ["Real ID Town Hall Meeting" REAL ID], continued to the entrance of campus, turned left on Russell, and stopped at Russell and Anderson for an act of '''civil disobedience'''.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-04 03:41:16

updating a few notes, adding links

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 54:	Line 54:
	+ They were planning to hold a game of ["INS Capture the Flag"], confirmed as opposing by press release.
Line 147:	Line 148:
	+ * you can be there and not spend money, free water is always nice, it was raining that day.. maybe it is just because I am one of those zombies. ~Dave
Line 148:	Line 150:
	+ Sorry about deleting the mention of the republican action, I didn't want a pointless debate to start unless I knew for certain that they intended to be opposition (though i would also like to get the ["I Found It"] people classified as opposing). In any case, it was confirmed by some of my sources today that it was mentioned in their press release. ~Dave

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-04 01:02:49

moved around pictures. gave it more magazine vibe. revert if you disagree.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 11:	Line 11:
- On Tuesday May 1, ["2007"] people gathered at UC Davis for a day of action. May 1st is International Workers Day, and just as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6612605.stm rallies and protests were held throughout the nation and world], the struggle was fought on our campus. As a way of bringing attention to several important issues, UCD students joined in solidarity to address the interconnectedness of campaigns being fought on campus, with the principle issues addressed being:	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_Intersection.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Occupying the La Rue / Russell Intersection")]]On Tuesday May 1, ["2007"] people gathered at UC Davis for a day of action. May 1st is International Workers Day, and just as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6612605.stm rallies and protests were held throughout the nation and world], the struggle was fought on our campus. As a way of bringing attention to several important issues, UCD students joined in solidarity to address the interconnectedness of campaigns being fought on campus, with the principle issues addressed being:
Line 20:	Line 20:
- [[Image(1May07_UCD_Intersection.jpg, left, 400, thumbnail, "Occupying the La Rue / Russell Intersection")]] - [[Image(1May07_UCD_Sit-in.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Civil Disobedience for Workers' Rights")]] - - -
Line 26:	Line 21:
	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_PeacefulArrests.jpg, right, 360, thumbnail, "The Civil Disobedience in support of contracted out food-service workers becoming UC employees consisted of stopping traffic at Russell and Anderson and resulted in the arrest of twenty-four people. They sat in a circle of solidarity while their supporters chanted on the corners of the intersection.")]]
Line 30:	Line 26:
- [[Image(1May07_UCD_Mrak.jpg, right, 300, thumbnail, "The march moved on to ["Mrak Hall"].")]]
Line 32:	Line 27:
- ====== - [[Image(1May07_UCD_PeacefulArrests.jpg, 360, thumbnail, "Peaceful Arrests")]][[Image(1May07_UCD_PeacefulArrests2.jpg, right, 360, thumbnail, "Final Arrest")]]
Line 35:	Line 28:
- The Civil Disobedience in support of contracted out food-service workers becoming UC employees consisted of stopping traffic at Russell and Anderson and resulted in the arrest of twenty-four people. They sat in a circle of solidarity while their supporters chanted on the corners of the intersection.	+ +
Line 41:	Line 35:
	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_Sit-in.jpg, right, 400, thumbnail, "Civil Disobedience for Workers' Rights")]]
Line 66:	Line 61:
	+ [[Image(1May07_UCD_PeacefulArrests2.jpg, right, 360, thumbnail, "Final Arrest")]][[Image(1May07_UCD_Mrak.jpg, right, 300, thumbnail, "The march moved on to ["Mrak Hall"].")]]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-04 00:46:50

added media. anyone else wanna add stuff?

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 95:	Line 95:
-
Line 108:	Line 107:
-
Line 112:	Line 110:
	+ ===5/3/2007=== + California Aggie Articles: + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/03/Opinion/Editorial.Food.Workers.Civil.Disobedience-2893231.shtml Editorial: Food Workers' Civil Disobedience] + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/03/CampusNews/Uc.Davis.Professors.Discuss.Immigration-2893195.shtml UC Davis Professors Discuss Immigration]
Line 113:	Line 115:
- - [[comments]]	+ [[comments(Comentarios Sobre el Dia Especial!)]]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 17:23:00

i'm down for attending a discussion group.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 149:	Line 149:
	+ * ok. i'm down for discussing stuff. i prefer a place where we don't have to spend money. like at a park or something. --["Users/JessicaRockwell"] + -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JabberWokky — 2007-05-03 16:57:31

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 148:	Line 148:
- * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a mailing list, discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafe"] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]	+ * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a mailing list, discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafes" coffee shop] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JabberWokky — 2007-05-03 16:56:50

+mailing lists, another common way to debate

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 148:	Line 148:
- * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafe"] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]	+ * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a mailing list, discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafe"] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JabberWokky — 2007-05-03 16:55:30

Note about talk pages and the suitability of wiki for debate.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 148:	Line 148:
	+ * Keep in mind that Talk Pages are generally temporary and traditionally deleted once the debate ends. The wiki format is a poor forum for debate (unlike software designed for it such as blogs or discussion forums which deal with all the attribution, threading and archiving issues). You might look into setting up a discussion forum or BBS rather than trying to use a wiki format (a poor tool for the job). Even better, since everybody here is local, why not host an event at a local ["cafe"] and discuss the issues face to face? --["JabberWokky"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-03 16:26:09

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 143:	Line 143:
	+ * Statements have been made by DCR on television and on their websites and the links above say it was a counter protest so I think it is clearly obvious. Campus Crusade happened to be there at the scene but only to advance their "Found It" campaign and were not involved in the protest. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] +

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 16:23:17

link

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 7:	Line 7:
	+ [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Talk Debates are on the Talk Page]
Line 143:	Line 144:
- how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good	+ how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good, but let's try to improve the content of this page. + [http://daviswiki.org/UCD_May_1%2C_2007:_Day_of_Action/Talk Debates are on the Talk Page]. this includes: may 1, immigration, blocking roads as a tactic, etc.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 15:55:51

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

No differences found!

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 15:54:53

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 144:	Line 144:
- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: ----- - ----- - ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: ----- - - - * ''changing the laws to make immigration easier for those who want to come to this country'' is not IGMFY. If my position was IGMFY, it would be "send them all home and don't let any more in." --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG] - * Oh, I am sorry, David, for the misinterpretation. Then you would most certainly agree that events like this May Day one are certainly necessary to publicize the need for immigration reform as well as worker's right improvements. Always remember these two things: 1) Making the world a better place is an offensive thing. 2) All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. --["Users/RobRoy"] - * I think what is going on is that too many people are trying to stuff words in my mouth or make assumptions about my opinions that are not true. I have no problem with the demonstrations, just the manner in which some were carried out. For example, I objected to blocking the busy intersection as opposed to having the rally in a highly visible space that would actually better help the cause. Like I said previously, pissing people off rarely wins them over. However, some people here like to bend words and read into things that do not exist. Some people took that to mean I am against the event period. So, my position was distorted to: I am against immigrants, I am for slavery, etc., which couldn't be farther from the truth. --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG] - * Ok, well, as I said, I am sorry for the misinterpretation. I am just saying, the America I know and love is not afraid to sacrifice convenience to improve the world. An hour of traffic chaos is nothing compared to an excursion across the US/Mexico border. --["Users/RobRoy"] - ------ - how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is go - ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 15:53:43

rob and david: your discussion has been moved to talk page under "immigration"

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 143:	Line 143:
	+ how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good
Line 144:	Line 145:
- how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good	+ ----- + ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: -----
Line 152:	Line 154:
	+ ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-03 15:52:35

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 149:	Line 149:
	+ * Ok, well, as I said, I am sorry for the misinterpretation. I am just saying, the America I know and love is not afraid to sacrifice convenience to improve the world. An hour of traffic chaos is nothing compared to an excursion across the US/Mexico border. --["Users/RobRoy"]
Line 151:	Line 152:
- ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 15:49:10

moving debate to talk page

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 145:	Line 145:
- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: ----- - A somewhat general comment on various ideas floating around on the discussion section of this page. first, to respond to the folks who have written of the "disturbance" to their day, of their tardiness to class and what not. It is striking to me how, although the ''content'' of what is said, i.e. that you should take up your grievances by other means, such as talking with the administration, the ''form'' is the exact same stuff as, say, white supremacists used during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, or conservatives during the early part of the century regarding labor rights and unions. Back then the rhetoric was a bit more blatant: the racism was explicit, and the class bias against working people upfront. But the message is essentially the same: if you have problems, there are institutions that have means of fixing your problems, so dont go out into the streets and disturb anyone. Had they listened to this, the 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, weekends and the Voting Rights Act would have no meaning today because they wouldnt exist. Fundamentally it is a difference in analysis. Whereas the conservatives of old times (and today), white supremacists and people having a problem with yesterdays march see the current problems as mere aberrations in the system, I see the problems as inherent to the system. It is, thus, not the system which will fix itself, but rather the people at the margins, those most affected by the inequalities ''built in to the system.'' And is it for this reason that we must go into the streets. - - - Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.- ["Users/josh"] - - * Students who are apathetic or don't agree with the message of the march are indeed disrupted by the protests and thus do not appreciate being late for class and possible midterms. Ironically the protest only punishes the very community that may be supportive of them by disrupting the operations of the city. That's why the pro life movement goes to San Francisco to protest instead Phoenix. So its a strategic decision to which the organizers must be held responsible for their decisions, not some grand philosophical argument. One must balance the pros of getting your message out to the cons of having the city and students unhappy with you and less sympathetic. As for the law most people play this game called democracy and civil disobedience is cheating in that you try to push your view on the majority through force rather than reason and logic. Perhaps it was righteous to defy the law but at the same time expect to be arrested and charged. If your cause is righteous then your arrest is something to celebrate. However, the effort will receive a backlash by the community if these guys continue to break the law. And since we are talking about white supremecists let's consider that the Confederacy couldn't get their man into the presidency so they decided they were going to...break the law rather than deal with Lincoln. It's a case by case basis with no generalizations. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] - - * nowhere in any of my comments did I ever say that the law is to be obeyed in all instances and at all costs, which many here seem to be reading out of my comments. -["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself. - ["Users/josh"] - * Excuse me, I would like people to refrain from saying such things, I doubt anyone here is in any sort of self denial. Nobody has the right to simply set such an effigy (straw man), especially when the real person stands here. Request perhaps next time, clarification.~ DavePoole - * I said to make immigration "easier", not "more fair". I don't see how these laws relate to laws allowing slavery. Your judgement of me was wrong and not necessary. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * If that one guy said you must follow the law because it is the law, he must be a retard. Laws can be just and unjust, just like everything else that is human. --["BrentLaabs"] - * I agree. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * his comment was sarcastic, on one side, and telling of how ideology works, on the other. it is no wonder that he then, one page later, quotes Kafka's ''Trial'' as follows: "'No', said the priest, 'it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it a necessary.' 'A melancholoy conclusion,' said K. 'It turns lying into a universal principle.' And Id say that you do not see how your argument relates to slavery because your very argument is inscribed within an ideology of obedience. on the confederacy, to see it as simply "they couldnt get their man into the presidency" is simply not historically accurate. the civil war's basis is not there, but rather in the gradual economic marginalization of the south runing back years, but that is another thing altogether. Again, it is the same thing as before: "those black people shouldnt be out in the streets demanding for equal rights! if they want them, they should ask the justice system for them and stop disrupting the business of stores who only sell things to white people." and just as before, had they listened to this logic, legal segregation would still exist in the south (economically and spatially it still very much exists). Another thing i find interesting is that, and I must admit I am guessing here, most people i have met in life that run this line of logic have ''never'' been involved in any type of social justice movement. they, thus, have no idea what it is like to undermind power and hierarchy. - ["Users/josh"] - * I honestly don't see any conflict with his argument. He is in support of people wishing to change the law, he also supports the greater needs of society for peace and order. I just say that protests which disrupt the necessary elements in people's lives, like blocking intersections without permit (yes you can get a damn permit to protest in this nation, it is so people have time to redirect buses and accommodates them into the function of the city system) etc, are a bit well unjust in themselves. I am putting you on the defensive in asking by what right you had to make the driver and passengers of that bus, and in those cars, late to their classes, jobs, friends, families, meetings etc. ? Just to ask. ~["DavePoole"] - ----- - Here's my proposal. Seeing as how there is so much inequality between the United States and Mexico, it is not suprising that so many people want to cross the border. If I were suddenly to become a Mexican citizen, it would take me about ten seconds to decide that I was coming up here. These immigrants come up here to feed their families, and to send their money back home. It sounds good for the families of those who come up here, as remittances make sure their families are fed. But can we really afford for all of this money to leave the U.S. economy? - - The answer is no. But there is one simple way to solve the problem, keeping economic progress for all Americans and improving the lives of Mexicans. We must simply annex the entire country of Mexico, and join the Estados Unidos de Mexico with the United States of America. They're both called the United States, and should be united! - - Now you may be thinking that this would be difficult, but just 140 years ago we managed to take a good third of Mexico, with a much smaller army than we do today. With the tanks, aircraft, and artillery of today, a war against Mexico could be easily won by our modern military. And would they treat us as liberators? You bet! Just think of how many of them want to voyage north of the border to become citizens -- what if they could be U.S. citizens just by being at home? - - So I urge you, and all of those who are running for President, to seriously consider the annexation of such a wondrous land as Mexico. We could reduce the amount of oil we import, reduce the amount of people crossing our border, protect a much, much smaller southern border, and offer Mexicans what they deserve: The American Dream. Our future is right there, and we have only to walk it together with our southern neighbors. --["Users/BrentLaabs"] - Also we would gain additional ports on the west coast, and a better staging point to take out those commies in Cuba. Personally I have always favored imperialism, war, and violence as a means to a practical solution. But of course we should make sure we preserve the identity of the Mexican states, culture, traditions and local laws, and their tacos, their delicious tacos. ~Dave - - * Great, just what we need: another imperialist war assuming "we" know best what "they" need/want, and more bone-headed (sarcastic?), unproductive, insensitive comments on this site. An alternative would be taking a good look at our own inadequacies (perhaps you know the "plank in your own eye" parable?). --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - * hey, at least this one would be on honest ground. We don't need to know what is best, only better, clearly we offer a better life as they are coming here, that would be the logic at lest. Plank in our eye, stick up our ass, and always talking about our wood, ''sumus viva viri''. ~DavePoole - * Checking assumptions such as "clearly we offer a better life as they are coming here" by having conversations (in which listening is actually involved) with people who migrate can be illuminating: there are many reasons -- many different experiences and perspectives -- to learn about once having moved beyond overly-simplistic, faulty logic. Of course people leave and arrive for a reason, but it's not so clear-cut as the worse-better dichotomy. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - * Yes, but the only way our current administration can positively effect a location is to send in troops, reform the government in its own image, and manage a small military force there. That has been the way for the last many years. At least my idea proposes we be more frank about it and actually annex the territory. We are still a federal system, they should still have votes, heck with the numbers they would be a major political power. By expanding this idea more, we should just continue on south to take the rest of the continent, thusly gaining a solidarity of the American people. It isn't about the logic of what is wrong in people's lives, it is how can we most effectively interfere so we can fix whatever is wrong in the aftermath. Oh and did someone mention oil? ~DavePoole - * It wouldn't necessarily solve the problem as the southern Mexican border is still rarther long and we would have to enforce immigration along the entire coast line of the country. I do however find it amusing that when I talk to middle class Mexican pen pals they tell me of the illegal Central American immigrants in their cities and how they take Mexican jobs and what not. If we had wanted the whole country we should have done it in the 1840's so that we would have had decades to correct Mexico's economic structure but no, the Whigs in Congress had to order a troop withdrawl. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] - DP and Steve: let's look at what policies the US government is implementing that creates this migration. For all the US gov's rhetoric of "free-trade" and "liberalization", there isn't much being done on the US' end. if the US is serious about liberalizing trade, then it should end agricultural subsidies, and other industrialized countries should as well. we are taking away the comparative advantage of other countries, specifically industrializing countries, and forcing their rural workers to the city. once there they encounter extreme difficulties such as competition for labor, disease, crime, etc. this then forces them to come to the US. --["Users/JessicaRockwell"] - I agree that the agricultural subsidies should end to create fairer competition, that and food aide should be withdrawn little by little from poor nations so that poor countries' economies can begin to compete and grow capital. But these sorts of "real" solutions are hard to create high amounts of enthusiasms for marches, and the same people who want to liberalize immigration in the US are the same who demand fair trade. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] - * Dave: It's hard to tell if you actually believe what you are saying or if you're just baiting or being facetiousness. For example, "the '''only''' way our current administration can positively [a]ffect a location is to send in troops, reform the government in its own image, and manage a small military force there." Puhleez. I think debate is more useful and interesting when folks stick to honestly expressing their own thoughts. And as we all know, tones don't come through email / wiki very well, so straightforward works a lot better. Humor is fine when done respectfully. (I put this comment in the thread and not on his user page because I think it's worth saying to everyone.) --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - ------ - ''2007-05-02 23:44:09'' [[nbsp]] A question about strategy: Does anyone know why the La Rue/Anderson/Russell intersection was strategically chosen for the sit-in, compared to, say, somewhere on campus (within the jurisdiction of the campus police) or downtown (where more bystanders would have been encountered)? (Anyone's theories are welcome of course, but ideally someone who has actual facts will respond as well.) --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - I would assume because it is close to campus, and the intersection of two relatively major roads in Davis, thusly gaining the most attention. Also there are few routes around the intersection as such it may prevent people from simply driving around it as could be done down town. I personally would have chosen E and First, as more people would be passing through here during lunch and thusly it would have disrupted the greater number of people thereby gaining the most attention. Just a thought. ~DavePoole - ------ - ''2007-05-03 13:46:05'' [[nbsp]] Why are we arguing about this? We are in America. We got ours. Fuck everyone else. Immigrants today, shit, they should have known better. They should have crossed the border back in the day - when you didn't need a passport because the 17th Century INS were the native Americans and they didn't have guns - suckas! Now let's All go to church and worship a guy put on a cross for committing a crime. Stop quoting history, we should know that law and order is always correct because MIGHT IS RIGHT. Now pardon me while I put my fingers in my ears and ignore your arguments because you are going to use morality and compassion - and doing that is just showing your weakness. --["Users/RobRoy"] - * Ah, the heavily practiced concepts of ["NIMBY"] and IGMFY. Seems to be popular in Davis. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * David, is your argument not an IGMFY? --["Users/RobRoy"]	+ -

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 15:46:17

moved most comments to talk page.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 113:	Line 113:
- -
Line 120:	Line 118:
- I hate to ask, what is the benefit of this event? I don't see the relationship between the proposed actions and how is it to benefit these multifarious causes. Just curious, what is the relationship? Why walk out on that day? do we oppose the university? ~["users/Davidpoole"] - * Ideally, professors and thus would join with immigrants and workers by canceling classes and going out to the rally themselves. I know this sounds completely idealistic for UC Davis since we're so apathetic and prefer to have professors who do research about social issues and don't incorporate any activism. this should be an observed holiday. there should be no school. but since there is, we will try to make a statement. while most profs and thus will not cancel classes we can still urge them to postpone midterms and homework assignments to create less intimidation for the walk-out. as for your question regarding May 1^st^, the history behind May 1^st^ was explained and i don't see why you're questioning the action taking place on this date. as i stated, it is an international holiday and last year had national significance for the worker and immigrant movement. this is an important date and will have significance for the Davis community. (taken from comment on DP's userpage). --["Users/JessicaRockwell"] - ------ - ''2007-04-07 09:23:00'' [[nbsp]] For a protest to be effective, it has to focus on a specific issue. This thing sounds like it's targetting a dozen problems at once. --["Users/GeoffJohnson"] - * In the last four years, what was the most successful protest on campus as measured by number of students in attendance? I appreciate your comment. as a member of the UCD activist community your feedback is important to me. - * I would tend to think that you would want to measure success by the results the event brings about (Did it change opinion? Did it cause a change in action? etc.) and not simply the number of people who show up. Especially with such a convoluted event. With so many issues on the table, when people show up, you can no longer say we drew ''x'' people because of cause ''y''. Unless you poll each person as to why they are there, you have no measure of success of any kind for each particular issue. -["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * Promotion for change requires a multi-pronged effort. The basic progression, from my viewpoint, is this: 1) awareness 2) education 3) critical thought. This process leads to a change that activists feel should happen. Rallies and days of action such as this promote awareness of issues in our society that need to be addressed. Ideally this would be followed up by programs to provide more information and educate those that are interested in learning more about the issues and finding out what they can do. Finally the process of critical thinking is necessary to consciously understand and apply those changes to society. Because this is such a long process it is difficult if not impossible to see the changes that occur because 1) people are impatient and have short term memory and 2) most students are only in school for 4 or 5 years. Also, because this day of action is only part of the process, it is difficult for different parties to judge the success of such an event. Arguably, noted commenters such as ["Users/DavidGrundler"] and ["users/Davidpoole"] can be cited as accomplishments of such an event before it has even taken place. They have been made aware of issues, whether they agree with them or not, instead of remaining apathetic and unaware. Thus, the effectiveness and success of such an event is relative and depends on the assessor. --["Users/EricWu"] - * I agree. However, keep in mind that my awareness is from the involvement in the dialog here, and not from the event itself. Many of the students that may participate in the walk-out will not have been privy to the discussion herein. After ["Users/KatieDavalos"]'s comments on the talk page, I have a much better feeling about the intention behind the event. Hopefully, after their next planning meeting tomorrow, we will have more information in re: the event, and we can clean up this page with more details and a plan of action. - ------
Line 131:	Line 120:
- ------ - ''2007-04-10 22:16:50'' [[nbsp]] I guess I will find out tomorrow, but what is direct action? I am honestly curious as to what the plan is. --["Users/DavidPoole"] - Direct action is working to directly solve a problem. For example, workers striking after being offered a crappy contract. In this case, it is probably protesting. --["Users/WilliamLewis"] - Direct Action is precisely that. The first hour is ideally filled with speeches and performances, and we would like to keep the rally going by marching and protesting. Also, the walkout at 11:30 is an example of direct action. More ideas will be discussed at the meeting tonight. --["Users/KatieDavalos"]
Line 151:	Line 136:
- ''2007-05-01 12:55:23'' [[nbsp]] I agree about the comment that states this protest takes on too many issues. I would have liked to participate in the event because of the environment and war issues, but when the event was described in my class, the person stated that they were also for helping and protecting illegal immigrants (which I do not agree with). This event might sit well with the liberal/hippie types on campus, but for those of us who are not liberal (I myself am a libertarian), it's much more difficult to march with this crowd. I hope next year, if such an event takes place, they will narrow it down to an event or two that people are not likely to be split on (i.e. only taking on the war, only the environment, only immigration issues, etc). --["Users/NatalieMcNear"] - - I am neither liberal, nor hippie, but i recognize the interconnectedness of thse issues. It's about human rights, and its about respect. Worker and Immigrant rights are very closely tied campaigns, and cities all across the country, even the world, rallied today in support of these two groups. The war in iraq exploits both of these groups, and it is imperative that we recognize the local and global significance of these connections if we ever hope to create change. I think the numbers at the rally today speak for themselves. --["Users/KatieDavalos"] - * - ''2007-05-01 18:46:04'' [[nbsp]] When every group is fighting to get their cause recognized, its like they're all fighting against each other for attention. When you band together, you can do a lot more. Besides that, it 'is' all about human rights, and tries to show people that you can't pick and choose who deserves fair treatment and who doesn't. I say good on them for recognizing the power of teamwork. --["Users/AllisonEriksen"] - ------
Line 162:	Line 141:
- ''2007-05-01 20:39:56'' [[nbsp]] If you wanna break the law by entering this country illegally at least have enough respect to communicate your feelings in the English language. While we're at it, we should legalize drugs too because they'll enter America anyway! --["Users/MehdiKhan"] - * Would communicating their feelings through an interpretative dance be acceptable? --["Users/JimEvans"] - * The point is that some of the protesters seem to consider California to be Mexican territory and refuse to recognize American law and customs. This is shared by a few radicals, probably not the majority of marchers. And then there is the possibility that some people may not know English in which case they should be informed. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] - * The imprecise posting seemed ironic given the message. I wish that learning a new language was easy. --["Users/JimEvans"] - ------ - ''2007-05-01 21:39:26'' [[nbsp]] I don't mind you guys protesting, but your blockage of the Russell/Anderson intersection made probably a thousand people late to class. I had to wait 40 minutes for the bus until the protest cleared. You should be respectful of those who need to get to class, what if someone had a midterm? I hope for the nuisance, you at least accomplished your goal. --["Users/PrishaGupta"] - * Now we're starting to get to one of the main points of why [wiki:wikipedia:Civil_disobedience civil disobedience] and [wiki:wikipedia:Direct_action direct action] are sometimes necessary to make [wiki:wikipedia:Democracy democracy] work. In this case, many more people are now more aware '''because of''' the slight inconvenience of being knocked (if only briefly) out of either complacency or lack of awareness (or both); this, in turn, may help address the issues of [wiki:wikipedia:Power_%28sociology%29 power] that created the situation. Concerns about midterms and blocking emergency routes and such are just [wiki:wikipedia:Hyperbole hyperbole]. There are more important things in the world than being on time to class, and, by the way, class (and society) itself only continues to function because of the invisible structures and people that prop it up, some of which are thus made more visible through direct actions. You can learn about these [wiki:wikipedia:Hyperlink hyperlinked] ideas in classes at UCD, but to truly understand them I suggested participating and learning from [wiki:wikipedia:Experiential_education experience]! --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - * My experience suggests that you rarely win people over by pissing them off. There was no reason to block a busy intersection other than to disrupt others. You could have made your point and had just as much attention and coverage as you did without being disrespectful to others. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * My experience on the other hand suggests that people have been talking about this event for the last two days and it has gotten tremendous coverage and exposure and thus it has raised awareness. Will that translate to support? Not necessarily, but I suspect it has. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"] - * I don't feel anyone is disputing that. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * Sometimes anger ("pissing people off") can be constructive, and sometimes that's what it takes to get people's attention and to create positive change. I understand that people were inconvenienced and upset, but most of the people who are complaining about it seem to be taking this non-violent "collateral damage" way too personally instead of seeing themselves in the context of a larger picture. But, yes, as a strategy it has its pros and cons, and of course people will continue to disagree not only about the tactics, but about the issues themselves. Long live free speech and may goodness prevail. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"] - ------ - ''2007-05-01 22:11:42'' [[nbsp]] "No Human is Illegal" is one of the dumbest slogans I have heard in a while. Either you break the law or you don't. Humans aren't legal or illegal, but their actions are. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * Then why do we refer to humans as "illegal aliens" or "illegals"? --["BrentLaabs"] - * "illegal aliens" or "illegals" is referring to people who are actively breaking the law by maintaining an illegal presence in this country. It is their action that is illegal. We are not calling them "illegal humans". Likewise, we don't call murderers "illegal humans" either. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * I would also add that the notion of "legality" is not exactly sacrosanct. Legal immigrants have been coming into the US through a system implemented by the 1965 Immigration Reform Act (also known as the Hart Cellars Act). This system created a system based on "family reunification" and employment requirements. (And since this was during the Cold War, "high-skilled" professionals were preferred.) In other words, the US never opened up its doors out of some sense of goodwill-- The government wanted to build the country's economy and industrial infrastructure, and thus wanted and needed LABOR from other countries. The original quotas (120,000 people per hemisphere) have since been increased. However, they're STILL not sufficient enough to facilitate the economic demands of the country. (And even the staunchest opponents of immigration reform would agree that the bottom line is, we still need the labor of immigrant workers.So the question isn't so much about whether or not people are here "legally," but whether or not the law is reflective of the realities of what's going on in the country. If you need people's labor, then why not offer them a legal mode of entrance? This becomes an ETHICAL question, not a legal one. - One final note: The news and politicians love to throw around the "fact" that there are 12 million illegal immigrants living in the US. What they always fail to mention is that there are also at least 6 million legal immigrants backlogged and waiting for their entrance because the current system is OUTDATED. So, you might find a legal immigrant from the Phillippines who has to be separated from her family for 15 years because current immigration law isn't allowing her family into the country, simply because the current LEGAL process is so damn slow. So, when protestors today were holding up signs about no longer wanting to see separated families, this is an ethical question that affects "legal" and "illegal" immigrants alike. - -- ["Users/CatherineFung"] - * But those people are often called "illegals", not just their actions. --["Users/JimEvans"] - * What is "illegal" referring to then? Have you ever heard them referred to as "illegal humans"? --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * "Hey, let's pickup some illegals to do some roofing" (pick some strawberries, mow someone's lawn, cook someone's dinner). It's referring to the person, not their act. --["Users/JimEvans"] - * And if you asked someone who said that why they are calling them "illegals", would they tell you "because they are in this country illegally" (referring to an act), or would they tell you "because they are illegal humans"? Sure, "illegals" might be used as a noun to refer to illegal immigrants, but the term "illegal" is a result of their action and not some concept of "illegal humans". --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * Ever gone over the speed limit? That's illegal. And is more dangerous to society than crossing a border. But no one calles speeders, illegals. The term illegal is meant to be derogatory. And whether or not you think it is, the perception by many is that it is derogatory. -["JimSchwab"] - * There is a bit of a tension also between legal and illegal immigrants as well to note, and there is a great economic difference between the two, you generally need to pay minimum wage, income taxes, and various other annoyances to employ them, all that blasted paperwork. Unless they do not have a green card (or they are being payed under the table) where it is all merely social contract of how much you pay them. It is like fruit, there is the normal and then the organic, it isn't like we call the normal stuff inorganic is it? I think this is just an evolution of the language, it can be said in a derogatory fashion, it doesn't mean that it is always said with such a meaning, nor does it change the reference of the word. I think it would be just simpler to allow freer immigration, then again, that would imply people were immigrating to a different country, those who feel this is still an extension of Mexico, well it may cause a bit of tension, if we just annexed Mexico most of these problems would just go away. ~["DavePoole"] - * I think the message behind the slogan is not to correct the English language but means to say that any person may cross a border and have no law against it. For instance my slogan is that "No fruit is inorganic" which basically means that I refuse to recognize that there is a legal difference between organic and inorganic fruit. I suppose illegal immigrant is short for "Immigants that have illegally entered the country and continued to live in the country illegally." --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] - * I concur with JimSchwab's and JimEvans's points that the word "illegal" has taken on a connotation that refers to far more than just the act of entering the country through unregulated means. The term is not only derogatory, it's also dehumanizing: "illegal ALIEN" being the prime example of dehumanizing rhetoric. In addition, the term has taken on a xenophobic tenor. It's impossible to tell just from looking at a person whether or not he/she is a citizen, a legal resident, or an illegal resident. But let's face it-- For a lot of Americans, "illegal alien" is synonymous with "Mexican" now, just as "terrorist" is synonymous with "Middle Eastern." - I'm less concerned with semantics and more concerned with this argument that so many opponents of immmigration seem to be using, which is that the law is the law, end of story. (DavidGrundler's first comment seems to echo this sentiment.) The point I was trying to make with my last comment was that if the laws of a country are supposed to reflect its values, then ours should have been changed a long time ago. Economic need and desire are driving immigration patterns-- Even some of the most conservative people in this country have no problems hiring a gardener without checking for his/her documents. And it's this kind of hypocrisy that upsets me the most. Even with all our talk of America being the land of opportunity, our actions suggest that what we believe is, "We want your labor, but we don't want your lives." -- ["Users/CatherineFung"] - * You may call it dehumanizing and derogatory, but I completely disagree. What do you call an immigrant who violated immigration law and continues to live in this country in violation of the law? Why is it derogatory to call someone what they are? Is it derogatory to call a convict a convict? How about calling a felon a felon? To me, "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" are simply terms that describe the truth of their situation. There are plenty of derogatory terms one could use to describe this group of people, but I wouldn't use those terms and I don't think most others here would appreciate that. I'm not against changing the laws, I'm against the blatant disregard of law. I'm not against immigration or immigrants. I'm not even against illegal immigrants, just illegal immigration. You completely misinterpreted my sentiment. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery. --["Users/JessicaRockwell"] - * I find your statement and your insinuation of my support for the mechanism of slavery abhorrent and disingenuous. Your statement does not justify further response. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * It is not the words it is how they are used. When someone uses the term illegal alien, it is similar to soldiers referring to 'the enemy'; it does somewhat remove the humanity from the statement, it is a euphemism, when you do reduce people to numbers and statistics, it becomes extraordinarily easy to delete them from a spread sheet, in my humble opinion. Now, to refer to a terrorist, or an illegal alien, doesn't necessarily mean an Arab or Mexican (I know plenty of illegals from many other countries), however that is really an issue of context anyway. When speaking generally, it will usually mean Hispanics and Latinos (oh yes I am such a sexist) because they are majority of illegal immigrants. (as a personal note, I am a citizen to three nations, the other two frequently are crossed into illegally by Americans to purchase goods and services not so readily available) In any case, these people are not slaves, they have rights as human beings despite any circumstance, the police cannot beat them, they are entitled to a proper trial, etc. so lets not jump the gun with weighted terms Miss Rockwell. I see David's point honestly, I am from the Santa Ana area, with a high percentage of unreported citizenry (nearly 1/3 of the city), and many great places to find Tacos and mariachi bands; and for the most part, there is that general sentiment, that they are outright disregarding the law, which stands as a social contract between all people, it would be the same for speeders, pot smokers, or loiters, they are people all in violation of the laws. So I ask David, given the situation, what do you think would be the best solution to the problem of illegal immigration? (which is honestly a dangerous business, I know many that have crossed the deserts, it isn't an easy crime to commit.) ~DavePoole Sorry for the ramblingness. - * I'll be the first to admit that it is a complex problem that I obviously do not have all of the answers to. I would support a system that is two fold: changing the laws to make immigration easier for those who want to come to this country, and rigorously enforcing the laws and the border enforcement. --["Users/DavidGrundler"] - * I guess any other question of morality would be pointless as it would merely result in an economic choice of the individual crossing the border. I would like to point out that it is more difficult to patrol the border effectively than it is probably worth economically. If we just made it a less viable alternative, perhaps requiring a green card or realid in order to send money to Mexico, then we can just make legal access to the country a better alternative. I personally would like to see less risk to those crossing the borders, despite everything, people dying in the desert is hardly a good thing to promote in such an interest. ~DP - ------ - ''2007-05-02 03:51:46'' [[nbsp]] I would have supported the UC Davis employees, because I think they get screwed for the work they do, and I think Immigrants who come to the U.S. Legally should be entitled to all the rights that a citizen deserves. I did not attend however, because of how these issues mixed with protest of the Iraw War and support of Illegal Immigration. My friend said his class was rudely interrupted by someone quite in favor of Illegal Immigration and it ticked him and his professor off. I also recieved an e-mail prior to this event, from the listserv, "quepasa@ucdavis.edu", that all Hispanic Davis students are defualted placed upon, denouncing the proposed game that DCR wanted to do. That ticked me, because of their insinuation that the game was disrespectful and insensitive to the plight of the Illegal Immigrant. --["Users/CarlosOverstreet"] - - ------
Line 201:	Line 143:
	+ ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: ----- + how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good + ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: -----
Line 246:	Line 191:
	+ ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-03 15:34:37

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 243:	Line 243:
- * I think what is going on is that too many people are trying to stuff words in my mouth or make assumptions about my opinions that are not true. I have no problem with the demonstrations, just the manner in which some were carried out. For example, I objected to blocking the busy intersection as opposed to having the rally in a highly visible space that would actually better help the cause. Like I said previously, pissing people off rarely wins them over. However, some people here like to bend words and read into things that do not exist. So, my position was distorted to: I am against immigrants, I am for slavery, etc., which couldn't be farther from the truth. --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG]	+ * I think what is going on is that too many people are trying to stuff words in my mouth or make assumptions about my opinions that are not true. I have no problem with the demonstrations, just the manner in which some were carried out. For example, I objected to blocking the busy intersection as opposed to having the rally in a highly visible space that would actually better help the cause. Like I said previously, pissing people off rarely wins them over. However, some people here like to bend words and read into things that do not exist. Some people took that to mean I am against the event period. So, my position was distorted to: I am against immigrants, I am for slavery, etc., which couldn't be farther from the truth. --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-03 15:32:13

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 243:	Line 243:
	+ * I think what is going on is that too many people are trying to stuff words in my mouth or make assumptions about my opinions that are not true. I have no problem with the demonstrations, just the manner in which some were carried out. For example, I objected to blocking the busy intersection as opposed to having the rally in a highly visible space that would actually better help the cause. Like I said previously, pissing people off rarely wins them over. However, some people here like to bend words and read into things that do not exist. So, my position was distorted to: I am against immigrants, I am for slavery, etc., which couldn't be farther from the truth. --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-03 15:23:32

response

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 242:	Line 242:
	+ * Oh, I am sorry, David, for the misinterpretation. Then you would most certainly agree that events like this May Day one are certainly necessary to publicize the need for immigration reform as well as worker's right improvements. Always remember these two things: 1) Making the world a better place is an offensive thing. 2) All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. --["Users/RobRoy"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-03 14:56:20

comment added

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 241:	Line 241:
	+ * ''changing the laws to make immigration easier for those who want to come to this country'' is not IGMFY. If my position was IGMFY, it would be "send them all home and don't let any more in." --["Users/DavidGrundler" DG]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-03 14:51:05

response

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 240:	Line 240:
- ------ - how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good, but let's also make the content of this page better.	+ * David, is your argument not an IGMFY? --["Users/RobRoy"] + ------ + how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is go

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 14:35:42

comment: how about we add content to this page, not just debate.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 240:	Line 240:
	+ ------ + how about we add stuff to this page? for example: someone can include the aggie articles from today, youtube videos, davis enterprise article, etc. arguing about what happened is good, but let's also make the content of this page better.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-03 14:18:18

Comment added

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 239:	Line 239:
	+ * Ah, the heavily practiced concepts of ["NIMBY"] and IGMFY. Seems to be popular in Davis. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-03 13:47:11

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 238:	Line 238:
- ''2007-05-03 13:46:05'' [[nbsp]] Why are we arguing about this? We are in America. We got ours. Fuck everyone else. Immigrants today, shit, they should have known better. They should have crossed the border back in the day - when you didn't need a passport because the 17th Century INS were the native Americans and they didn't have guns - suckas! Now let's ALL go to church and worship a guy put on a cross for committing a crime. Stop quoting histyory, we should know that law and order is always correct because MIGHT IS RIGHT. Now pardon me while I put my fingers in my ears and ignore your arguments because you are going to use morality and compassion - and doing that is just showing your weakness. --["Users/RobRoy"]	+ ''2007-05-03 13:46:05'' [[nbsp]] Why are we arguing about this? We are in America. We got ours. Fuck everyone else. Immigrants today, shit, they should have known better. They should have crossed the border back in the day - when you didn't need a passport because the 17th Century INS were the native Americans and they didn't have guns - suckas! Now let's All go to church and worship a guy put on a cross for committing a crime. Stop quoting history, we should know that law and order is always correct because MIGHT IS RIGHT. Now pardon me while I put my fingers in my ears and ignore your arguments because you are going to use morality and compassion - and doing that is just showing your weakness. --["Users/RobRoy"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

RobRoy — 2007-05-03 13:46:05

Comment added.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 237:	Line 237:
	+ ------ + ''2007-05-03 13:46:05'' [[nbsp]] Why are we arguing about this? We are in America. We got ours. Fuck everyone else. Immigrants today, shit, they should have known better. They should have crossed the border back in the day - when you didn't need a passport because the 17th Century INS were the native Americans and they didn't have guns - suckas! Now let's ALL go to church and worship a guy put on a cross for committing a crime. Stop quoting histyory, we should know that law and order is always correct because MIGHT IS RIGHT. Now pardon me while I put my fingers in my ears and ignore your arguments because you are going to use morality and compassion - and doing that is just showing your weakness. --["Users/RobRoy"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-03 11:38:42

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 233:	Line 233:
	+ * Dave: It's hard to tell if you actually believe what you are saying or if you're just baiting or being facetiousness. For example, "the '''only''' way our current administration can positively [a]ffect a location is to send in troops, reform the government in its own image, and manage a small military force there." Puhleez. I think debate is more useful and interesting when folks stick to honestly expressing their own thoughts. And as we all know, tones don't come through email / wiki very well, so straightforward works a lot better. Humor is fine when done respectfully. (I put this comment in the thread and not on his user page because I think it's worth saying to everyone.) --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-03 11:11:35

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 232:	Line 232:
	+ * I agree that the agricultural subsidies should end to create fairer competition, that and food aide should be withdrawn little by little from poor nations so that poor countries' economies can begin to compete and grow capital. But these sorts of "real" solutions are hard to create high amounts of enthusiasms for marches, and the same people who want to liberalize immigration in the US are the same who demand fair trade. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-03 10:23:18

liberalizacion ahora! the us should end agricultural subsidies.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 231:	Line 231:
	+ *DP and Steve: let's look at what policies the US government is implementing that creates this migration. For all the US gov's rhetoric of "free-trade" and "liberalization", there isn't much being done on the US' end. if the US is serious about liberalizing trade, then it should end agricultural subsidies, and other industrialized countries should as well. we are taking away the comparative advantage of other countries, specifically industrializing countries, and forcing their rural workers to the city. once there they encounter extreme difficulties such as competition for labor, disease, crime, etc. this then forces them to come to the US. --["Users/JessicaRockwell"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-03 09:53:24

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 230:	Line 230:
	+ * It wouldn't necessarily solve the problem as the southern Mexican border is still rarther long and we would have to enforce immigration along the entire coast line of the country. I do however find it amusing that when I talk to middle class Mexican pen pals they tell me of the illegal Central American immigrants in their cities and how they take Mexican jobs and what not. If we had wanted the whole country we should have done it in the 1840's so that we would have had decades to correct Mexico's economic structure but no, the Whigs in Congress had to order a troop withdrawl. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-03 09:39:23

bleh reply. you should really support a better life for our southern friends.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 229:	Line 229:
	+ * Yes, but the only way our current administration can positively effect a location is to send in troops, reform the government in its own image, and manage a small military force there. That has been the way for the last many years. At least my idea proposes we be more frank about it and actually annex the territory. We are still a federal system, they should still have votes, heck with the numbers they would be a major political power. By expanding this idea more, we should just continue on south to take the rest of the continent, thusly gaining a solidarity of the American people. It isn't about the logic of what is wrong in people's lives, it is how can we most effectively interfere so we can fix whatever is wrong in the aftermath. Oh and did someone mention oil? ~DavePoole

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-03 08:42:21

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 228:	Line 228:
	+ * Checking assumptions such as "clearly we offer a better life as they are coming here" by having conversations (in which listening is actually involved) with people who migrate can be illuminating: there are many reasons -- many different experiences and perspectives -- to learn about once having moved beyond overly-simplistic, faulty logic. Of course people leave and arrive for a reason, but it's not so clear-cut as the worse-better dichotomy. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-03 00:03:58

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 227:	Line 227:
	+ * hey, at least this one would be on honest ground. We don't need to know what is best, only better, clearly we offer a better life as they are coming here, that would be the logic at lest. Plank in our eye, stick up our ass, and always talking about our wood, ''sumus viva viri''. ~DavePoole

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-03 00:00:14

response

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 172:	Line 172:
- * Sometimes anger ("pissing people off") can be constructive, and sometimes that's what it takes to get people's attention and to create positive change. I understand that people were inconvenienced and upset, but most of the people who are complaining about it seem to be taking this non-violent "collateral damage" way too personally instead of seeing themselves in the context of a larger picture. But, yes, as a strategy it has its pros and cons, and of course people will continue to disagree not only about the tactics, but about the issues themselves. Long live free speech and may goodness prevail. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]	+ * Sometimes anger ("pissing people off") can be constructive, and sometimes that's what it takes to get people's attention and to create positive change. I understand that people were inconvenienced and upset, but most of the people who are complaining about it seem to be taking this non-violent "collateral damage" way too personally instead of seeing themselves in the context of a larger picture. But, yes, as a strategy it has its pros and cons, and of course people will continue to disagree not only about the tactics, but about the issues themselves. Long live free speech and may goodness prevail. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]
Line 225:	Line 225:
	+ + * Great, just what we need: another imperialist war assuming "we" know best what "they" need/want, and more bone-headed (sarcastic?), unproductive, insensitive comments on this site. An alternative would be taking a good look at our own inadequacies (perhaps you know the "plank in your own eye" parable?). --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:53:09

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 93:	Line 93:
- 5/1/2007	+ ===5/1/2007===

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:52:54

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 92:	Line 92:
- ==''For UCD's Action''==	+

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:52:44

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 101:	Line 101:
- 5/2/2007 - The Aggie: - * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/TwentyFour.Arrested.In.FoodService.Employment.Protests-2891595.shtml Twenty Four Arrested in Food Service Employment Protest] - * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/illegal.Immigration.Capture.The.Flag.Thwarted.By.Protesters-2891596.shtml Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag Thwarted by Protestors] - * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/Uc.Davis.Hosts.Town.Hall.Meeting.On.Real.Id.Act-2891597.shtml UC Davis Hosts Town Hall Meeting on Real ID Act]	+ ===5/2/2007=== + The California Aggie Articles: + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/TwentyFour.Arrested.In.FoodService.Employment.Protests-2891595.shtml Twenty Four Arrested in Food Service Employment Protest] + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/illegal.Immigration.Capture.The.Flag.Thwarted.By.Protesters-2891596.shtml Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag Thwarted by Protestors] + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/Uc.Davis.Hosts.Town.Hall.Meeting.On.Real.Id.Act-2891597.shtml UC Davis Hosts Town Hall Meeting on Real ID Act]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 23:50:00

added aggie articles to media

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 93:	Line 93:
- 5/1/2007 ["The California Aggie"] Articles:	+ 5/1/2007 + + ["The California Aggie"] Articles:
Line 96:	Line 98:
- - 5/1/2007 ["People's Vanguard of Davis"] Article:	+ ["People's Vanguard of Davis"] Article:
Line 100:	Line 101:
- 5/2/2007 People's Vanguard of Davis Article on the ["Davis College Republican" Davis College Republican's] Demonstration:	+ 5/2/2007 + The Aggie: + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/TwentyFour.Arrested.In.FoodService.Employment.Protests-2891595.shtml Twenty Four Arrested in Food Service Employment Protest] + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/illegal.Immigration.Capture.The.Flag.Thwarted.By.Protesters-2891596.shtml Illegal Immigration Capture the Flag Thwarted by Protestors] + * [http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/05/02/CampusNews/Uc.Davis.Hosts.Town.Hall.Meeting.On.Real.Id.Act-2891597.shtml UC Davis Hosts Town Hall Meeting on Real ID Act] + + + People's Vanguard of Davis Article on the ["Davis College Republican" Davis College Republican's] Demonstration:
Line 102:	Line 110:
	+ +

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:48:42

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 217:	Line 217:
	+ I would assume because it is close to campus, and the intersection of two relatively major roads in Davis, thusly gaining the most attention. Also there are few routes around the intersection as such it may prevent people from simply driving around it as could be done down town. I personally would have chosen E and First, as more people would be passing through here during lunch and thusly it would have disrupted the greater number of people thereby gaining the most attention. Just a thought. ~DavePoole

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:45:48

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 184:	Line 184:
	+ * I guess any other question of morality would be pointless as it would merely result in an economic choice of the individual crossing the border. I would like to point out that it is more difficult to patrol the border effectively than it is probably worth economically. If we just made it a less viable alternative, perhaps requiring a green card or realid in order to send money to Mexico, then we can just make legal access to the country a better alternative. I personally would like to see less risk to those crossing the borders, despite everything, people dying in the desert is hardly a good thing to promote in such an interest. ~DP

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-02 23:44:09

Comment added.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 214:	Line 214:
	+ ------ + ''2007-05-02 23:44:09'' [[nbsp]] A question about strategy: Does anyone know why the La Rue/Anderson/Russell intersection was strategically chosen for the sit-in, compared to, say, somewhere on campus (within the jurisdiction of the campus police) or downtown (where more bystanders would have been encountered)? (Anyone's theories are welcome of course, but ideally someone who has actual facts will respond as well.) --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:42:49

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 213:	Line 213:
	+ Also we would gain additional ports on the west coast, and a better staging point to take out those commies in Cuba. Personally I have always favored imperialism, war, and violence as a means to a practical solution. But of course we should make sure we preserve the identity of the Mexican states, culture, traditions and local laws, and their tacos, their delicious tacos. ~Dave

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:39:50

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 204:	Line 204:
	+ * I honestly don't see any conflict with his argument. He is in support of people wishing to change the law, he also supports the greater needs of society for peace and order. I just say that protests which disrupt the necessary elements in people's lives, like blocking intersections without permit (yes you can get a damn permit to protest in this nation, it is so people have time to redirect buses and accommodates them into the function of the city system) etc, are a bit well unjust in themselves. I am putting you on the defensive in asking by what right you had to make the driver and passengers of that bus, and in those cars, late to their classes, jobs, friends, families, meetings etc. ? Just to ask. ~["DavePoole"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 23:35:15

made steve's comment separate from josh's. added josh's name to comment.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 193:	Line 193:
- Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here. - - Students who are apathetic or don't agree with the message of the march are indeed disrupted by the protests and thus do not appreciate being late for class and possible midterms. Ironically the protest only punishes the very community that may be supportive of them by disrupting the operations of the city. That's why the pro life movement goes to San Francisco to protest instead Phoenix. So its a strategic decision to which the organizers must be held responsible for their decisions, not some grand philosophical argument. One must balance the pros of getting your message out to the cons of having the city and students unhappy with you and less sympathetic. As for the law most people play this game called democracy and civil disobedience is cheating in that you try to push your view on the majority through force rather than reason and logic. Perhaps it was righteous to defy the law but at the same time expect to be arrested and charged. If your cause is righteous then your arrest is something to celebrate. However, the effort will receive a backlash by the community if these guys continue to break the law. And since we are talking about white supremecists let's consider that the Confederacy couldn't get their man into the presidency so they decided they were going to...break the law rather than deal with Lincoln. It's a case by case basis with no generalizations. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"]	+ Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.- ["Users/josh"] + + * Students who are apathetic or don't agree with the message of the march are indeed disrupted by the protests and thus do not appreciate being late for class and possible midterms. Ironically the protest only punishes the very community that may be supportive of them by disrupting the operations of the city. That's why the pro life movement goes to San Francisco to protest instead Phoenix. So its a strategic decision to which the organizers must be held responsible for their decisions, not some grand philosophical argument. One must balance the pros of getting your message out to the cons of having the city and students unhappy with you and less sympathetic. As for the law most people play this game called democracy and civil disobedience is cheating in that you try to push your view on the majority through force rather than reason and logic. Perhaps it was righteous to defy the law but at the same time expect to be arrested and charged. If your cause is righteous then your arrest is something to celebrate. However, the effort will receive a backlash by the community if these guys continue to break the law. And since we are talking about white supremecists let's consider that the Confederacy couldn't get their man into the presidency so they decided they were going to...break the law rather than deal with Lincoln. It's a case by case basis with no generalizations. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 23:34:25

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
	+ * Excuse me, I would like people to refrain from saying such things, I doubt anyone here is in any sort of self denial. Nobody has the right to simply set such an effigy (straw man), especially when the real person stands here. Request perhaps next time, clarification.~ DavePoole

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-05-02 23:27:11

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 202:	Line 202:
	+ * his comment was sarcastic, on one side, and telling of how ideology works, on the other. it is no wonder that he then, one page later, quotes Kafka's ''Trial'' as follows: "'No', said the priest, 'it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it a necessary.' 'A melancholoy conclusion,' said K. 'It turns lying into a universal principle.' And Id say that you do not see how your argument relates to slavery because your very argument is inscribed within an ideology of obedience. on the confederacy, to see it as simply "they couldnt get their man into the presidency" is simply not historically accurate. the civil war's basis is not there, but rather in the gradual economic marginalization of the south runing back years, but that is another thing altogether. Again, it is the same thing as before: "those black people shouldnt be out in the streets demanding for equal rights! if they want them, they should ask the justice system for them and stop disrupting the business of stores who only sell things to white people." and just as before, had they listened to this logic, legal segregation would still exist in the south (economically and spatially it still very much exists). Another thing i find interesting is that, and I must admit I am guessing here, most people i have met in life that run this line of logic have ''never'' been involved in any type of social justice movement. they, thus, have no idea what it is like to undermind power and hierarchy. - ["Users/josh"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 23:06:13

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 201:	Line 201:
	+ * I agree. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

BrentLaabs — 2007-05-02 23:03:47

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 200:	Line 200:
	+ * If that one guy said you must follow the law because it is the law, he must be a retard. Laws can be just and unjust, just like everything else that is human. --["BrentLaabs"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 23:01:55

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 198:	Line 198:
- * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself. - ["Users/josh"]	+ * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself. - ["Users/josh"] + * I said to make immigration "easier", not "more fair". I don't see how these laws relate to laws allowing slavery. Your judgement of me was wrong and not necessary. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

BrentLaabs — 2007-05-02 22:59:14

Comment added.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 199:	Line 199:
	+ ----- + Here's my proposal. Seeing as how there is so much inequality between the United States and Mexico, it is not suprising that so many people want to cross the border. If I were suddenly to become a Mexican citizen, it would take me about ten seconds to decide that I was coming up here. These immigrants come up here to feed their families, and to send their money back home. It sounds good for the families of those who come up here, as remittances make sure their families are fed. But can we really afford for all of this money to leave the U.S. economy? + + The answer is no. But there is one simple way to solve the problem, keeping economic progress for all Americans and improving the lives of Mexicans. We must simply annex the entire country of Mexico, and join the Estados Unidos de Mexico with the United States of America. They're both called the United States, and should be united! + + Now you may be thinking that this would be difficult, but just 140 years ago we managed to take a good third of Mexico, with a much smaller army than we do today. With the tanks, aircraft, and artillery of today, a war against Mexico could be easily won by our modern military. And would they treat us as liberators? You bet! Just think of how many of them want to voyage north of the border to become citizens -- what if they could be U.S. citizens just by being at home? + + So I urge you, and all of those who are running for President, to seriously consider the annexation of such a wondrous land as Mexico. We could reduce the amount of oil we import, reduce the amount of people crossing our border, protect a much, much smaller southern border, and offer Mexicans what they deserve: The American Dream. Our future is right there, and we have only to walk it together with our southern neighbors. --["Users/BrentLaabs"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-05-02 22:55:57

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

No differences found!

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-02 22:55:20

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 192:	Line 192:
- Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here. - ["Users/josh"]	+ + Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here. + + Students who are apathetic or don't agree with the message of the march are indeed disrupted by the protests and thus do not appreciate being late for class and possible midterms. Ironically the protest only punishes the very community that may be supportive of them by disrupting the operations of the city. That's why the pro life movement goes to San Francisco to protest instead Phoenix. So its a strategic decision to which the organizers must be held responsible for their decisions, not some grand philosophical argument. One must balance the pros of getting your message out to the cons of having the city and students unhappy with you and less sympathetic. As for the law most people play this game called democracy and civil disobedience is cheating in that you try to push your view on the majority through force rather than reason and logic. Perhaps it was righteous to defy the law but at the same time expect to be arrested and charged. If your cause is righteous then your arrest is something to celebrate. However, the effort will receive a backlash by the community if these guys continue to break the law. And since we are talking about white supremecists let's consider that the Confederacy couldn't get their man into the presidency so they decided they were going to...break the law rather than deal with Lincoln. It's a case by case basis with no generalizations. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] +

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-05-02 22:54:15

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
- * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself.	+ * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself. - ["Users/josh"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-05-02 22:53:33

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 194:	Line 194:
	+ * you are for changing immigration law to make it a bit more fair, yet while the law is unfair, it should be obeyed. It seems like I am not misreading, but rather reading what youd like to not see in yourself.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 22:49:24

added josh's name to his comment.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 192:	Line 192:
- Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.	+ Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here. - ["Users/josh"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 22:46:11

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 193:	Line 193:
	+ * nowhere in any of my comments did I ever say that the law is to be obeyed in all instances and at all costs, which many here seem to be reading out of my comments. -["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

josh — 2007-05-02 22:40:59

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 186:	Line 186:
	+
Line 188:	Line 189:
	+ ------ + A somewhat general comment on various ideas floating around on the discussion section of this page. first, to respond to the folks who have written of the "disturbance" to their day, of their tardiness to class and what not. It is striking to me how, although the ''content'' of what is said, i.e. that you should take up your grievances by other means, such as talking with the administration, the ''form'' is the exact same stuff as, say, white supremacists used during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s, or conservatives during the early part of the century regarding labor rights and unions. Back then the rhetoric was a bit more blatant: the racism was explicit, and the class bias against working people upfront. But the message is essentially the same: if you have problems, there are institutions that have means of fixing your problems, so dont go out into the streets and disturb anyone. Had they listened to this, the 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, weekends and the Voting Rights Act would have no meaning today because they wouldnt exist. Fundamentally it is a difference in analysis. Whereas the conservatives of old times (and today), white supremacists and people having a problem with yesterdays march see the current problems as mere aberrations in the system, I see the problems as inherent to the system. It is, thus, not the system which will fix itself, but rather the people at the margins, those most affected by the inequalities ''built in to the system.'' And is it for this reason that we must go into the streets. + + Secondly, it is interesting to read the comments on immigration. I think ["Users/CatherineFung"] hit the nail on the head perfectly when she wrote about ["Users/DavidGrundler"] argument as "the law is the law." This relates, of course, directly with my first paragraph, but I though I'd take it a bit further here. [wiki:wikipedia:Slavoj_Zizek Slavoj Žižek] is correct when he comments that "we must obey it [the law] not because it is just, nor even beneficial, but simply ''because it is the law.''" He continues by saying that "this tautology articulates the vicious circle of its authority, the fact that the last foundation of the Law's authority lies in its process of enunciation" (''The Sublime Object of Ideology'', p. 37). Here Žižek writes the logic, whether known or not, of Grundler above. He is for changing laws that are not sufficient or old or racists or whatever, but as long as these old, racists laws exist, they should be obeyed. The complete obedience to authority, in what ever form, simply because it is authority is unbelievable. but then again, sometimes people have the desire to be repressed, just as some genuinely desired to live under fascism (Guattari and Deleuze make an interesting argument about this in ''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia''). Taking Grundler's argument back in time, he could very well be the white obedient person to the law during slave times in the south. extreme? i dont think so. the white, law abiding person would have said something like the following: "well, i dont like slavery, and i think these laws should be changed, but as long as they exist as they do, those run away slaves should be returned to their masters. It is, after all, the law. They are, after all, moving illegally." In this situation the ridiculousness of the argument is oh so apparent. I think that even Grundler would agree. Yet when transferred to the contemporary situation something happens: the person obedient to authority because it is authority recognizes within themselves their own fault, and changes the content of their argument, and retain the same form. and the form is oh so essential here.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-02 22:34:18

I think it's pretty clear

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 56:	Line 56:
	+ Opposition Groups + * ["Davis College Republicans"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 22:24:24

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 181:	Line 181:
	+ * I'll be the first to admit that it is a complex problem that I obviously do not have all of the answers to. I would support a system that is two fold: changing the laws to make immigration easier for those who want to come to this country, and rigorously enforcing the laws and the border enforcement. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 22:18:37

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 179:	Line 179:
	+ * I find your statement and your insinuation of my support for the mechanism of slavery abhorrent and disingenuous. Your statement does not justify further response. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 22:13:11

tried to clean up edit conflict. don't know where * for david's comment goes.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 178:	Line 178:
- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: -----
Line 180:	Line 179:
- ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: ----- -
Line 183:	Line 180:
- * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery. --["JessicaRockwell"] - ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 22:09:12

Comment added.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 187:	Line 187:
	+ ------ + ''2007-05-02 22:09:12'' [[nbsp]] Until there is a statement that the Davis College Republicans were in opposition or counter rallying against this movement, I will delete anything to that effect (aside the news stories of course, those are still relevant etc.). I don't care about either group, but if they are being claimed in opposition as for holding a demonstration that day, then those ["Campus Crusade for Christ"] would also be in opposition for holding a demonstration/gathering/rally of sorts in a similar matter, regardless of content. So is there any statement? --["Users/DavidPoole"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 22:07:08

repost of my response to david. show me how my response is flawed. don't delete.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 178:	Line 178:
	+ ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Other version: ----- + * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery. --["Users/JessicaRockwell"] + ----- /!\ Edit conflict! Your version: -----
Line 181:	Line 184:
	+ ----- /!\ End of edit conflict -----

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 22:06:12

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 58:	Line 58:
- * ["Davis College Republicans"]	+

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 22:06:02

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 57:	Line 57:
- Opposition Group	+

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 22:05:52

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 54:	Line 54:
	+ * ["Davis College Democrats"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidPoole — 2007-05-02 22:04:24

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 177:	Line 177:
	+ + * It is not the words it is how they are used. When someone uses the term illegal alien, it is similar to soldiers referring to 'the enemy'; it does somewhat remove the humanity from the statement, it is a euphemism, when you do reduce people to numbers and statistics, it becomes extraordinarily easy to delete them from a spread sheet, in my humble opinion. Now, to refer to a terrorist, or an illegal alien, doesn't necessarily mean an Arab or Mexican (I know plenty of illegals from many other countries), however that is really an issue of context anyway. When speaking generally, it will usually mean Hispanics and Latinos (oh yes I am such a sexist) because they are majority of illegal immigrants. (as a personal note, I am a citizen to three nations, the other two frequently are crossed into illegally by Americans to purchase goods and services not so readily available) In any case, these people are not slaves, they have rights as human beings despite any circumstance, the police cannot beat them, they are entitled to a proper trial, etc. so lets not jump the gun with weighted terms Miss Rockwell. I see David's point honestly, I am from the Santa Ana area, with a high percentage of unreported citizenry (nearly 1/3 of the city), and many great places to find Tacos and mariachi bands; and for the most part, there is that general sentiment, that they are outright disregarding the law, which stands as a social contract between all people, it would be the same for speeders, pot smokers, or loiters, they are people all in violation of the laws. So I ask David, given the situation, what do you think would be the best solution to the problem of illegal immigration? (which is honestly a dangerous business, I know many that have crossed the deserts, it isn't an easy crime to commit.) ~DavePoole Sorry for the ramblingness. + * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery. --["JessicaRockwell"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 21:52:36

If you leave an incendiary comment, at least have the gumption to sign it.

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 177:	Line 177:
- * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JessicaRockwell — 2007-05-02 21:42:55

response to david's comment

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 177:	Line 177:
	+ * i'm not against changing laws that enslave people, i'm against the slave's blatant disregard of the law in their attempt(s) at escaping slavery.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-02 21:25:10

Revert to version 269 (I'm bored, don't take off half the fun).

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 53:	Line 53:
	+ * ["Action Blue College Democrats"] + + + Opposition Group + * ["Davis College Republicans"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

BrentLaabs — 2007-05-02 21:15:42

Revert to version 267 (not important).

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 53:	Line 53:
- * ["Action Blue College Democrats"] - - - Opposition Group - * ["Davis College Republicans"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-02 20:55:53

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 53:	Line 53:
- * ["ABCD"]	+ * ["Action Blue College Democrats"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

SteveOstrowski — 2007-05-02 20:55:03

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 53:	Line 53:
	+ * ["ABCD"] + + + Opposition Group + * ["Davis College Republicans"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 20:54:27

replied to comment

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 169:	Line 169:
- - * I concur with JimSchwab's and JimEvans's points that the word "illegal" has taken on a connotation that refers to far more than just the act of entering the country through unregulated means. The term is not only derogatory, it's also dehumanizing: "illegal ALIEN" being the prime example of dehumanizing rhetoric. In addition, the term has taken on a xenophobic tenor. It's impossible to tell just from looking at a person whether or not he/she is a citizen, a legal resident, or an illegal resident. But let's face it-- For a lot of Americans, "illegal alien" is synonymous with "Mexican" now, just as "terrorist" is synonymous with "Middle Eastern." - I'm less concerned with semantics and more concerned with this argument that so many opponents of immmigration seem to be using, which is that the law is the law, end of story. (DavidGrundler's first comment seems to echo this sentiment.) The point I was trying to make with my last comment was that if the laws of a country are supposed to reflect its values, then ours should have been changed a long time ago. Economic need and desire are driving immigration patterns-- Even some of the most conservative people in this country have no problems hiring a gardener without checking for his/her documents. And it's this kind of hypocrisy that upsets me the most. Even with all our talk of America being the land of opportunity, our actions suggest that what we believe is, "We want your labor, but we don't want your lives." -- ["Users/CatherineFung"]	+ * I concur with JimSchwab's and JimEvans's points that the word "illegal" has taken on a connotation that refers to far more than just the act of entering the country through unregulated means. The term is not only derogatory, it's also dehumanizing: "illegal ALIEN" being the prime example of dehumanizing rhetoric. In addition, the term has taken on a xenophobic tenor. It's impossible to tell just from looking at a person whether or not he/she is a citizen, a legal resident, or an illegal resident. But let's face it-- For a lot of Americans, "illegal alien" is synonymous with "Mexican" now, just as "terrorist" is synonymous with "Middle Eastern." + I'm less concerned with semantics and more concerned with this argument that so many opponents of immmigration seem to be using, which is that the law is the law, end of story. (DavidGrundler's first comment seems to echo this sentiment.) The point I was trying to make with my last comment was that if the laws of a country are supposed to reflect its values, then ours should have been changed a long time ago. Economic need and desire are driving immigration patterns-- Even some of the most conservative people in this country have no problems hiring a gardener without checking for his/her documents. And it's this kind of hypocrisy that upsets me the most. Even with all our talk of America being the land of opportunity, our actions suggest that what we believe is, "We want your labor, but we don't want your lives." -- ["Users/CatherineFung"] + * You may call it dehumanizing and derogatory, but I completely disagree. What do you call an immigrant who violated immigration law and continues to live in this country in violation of the law? Why is it derogatory to call someone what they are? Is it derogatory to call a convict a convict? How about calling a felon a felon? To me, "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" are simply terms that describe the truth of their situation. There are plenty of derogatory terms one could use to describe this group of people, but I wouldn't use those terms and I don't think most others here would appreciate that. I'm not against changing the laws, I'm against the blatant disregard of law. I'm not against immigration or immigrants. I'm not even against illegal immigrants, just illegal immigration. You completely misinterpreted my sentiment. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

CatherineFung — 2007-05-02 20:29:37

comment added

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

No differences found!

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2007-05-02 19:47:19

link fix

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 51:	Line 51:
- * ["Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)"]	+ * ["Students for Justice in Palestine"] (SJP)

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AndrewPeake — 2007-05-02 19:44:19

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 52:	Line 52:
	+ * ["LEAD"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

CatherineFung — 2007-05-02 19:18:43

comment added

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 168:	Line 168:
	+ + * I concur with JimSchwab's and JimEvans's points that the word "illegal" has taken on a connotation that refers to far more than just the act of entering the country through unregulated means. The term is not only derogatory, it's also dehumanizing: "illegal ALIEN" being the prime example of dehumanizing rhetoric. In addition, the term has taken on a xenophobic tenor. It's impossible to tell just from looking at a person whether or not he/she is a citizen, a legal resident, or an illegal resident. But let's face it-- For a lot of Americans, "illegal alien" is synonymous with "Mexican" now, just as "terrorist" is synonymous with "Middle Eastern." + I'm less concerned with semantics and more concerned with this argument that so many opponents of immmigration seem to be using, which is that the law is the law, end of story. (DavidGrundler's first comment seems to echo this sentiment.) The point I was trying to make with my last comment was that if the laws of a country are supposed to reflect its values, then ours should have been changed a long time ago. Economic need and desire are driving immigration patterns-- Even some of the most conservative people in this country have no problems hiring a gardener without checking for his/her documents. And it's this kind of hypocrisy that upsets me the most. Even with all our talk of America being the land of opportunity, our actions suggest that what we believe is, "We want your labor, but we don't want your lives." -- ["Users/CatherineFung"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2007-05-02 16:51:31

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 149:	Line 149:
- * Now we're starting to get to one of the main points of why [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience civil disobedience] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action direct action] are sometimes necessary to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy democracy] work. In this case, many more people are now more aware '''because of''' the slight inconvenience of being knocked (if only briefly) out of either complacency or lack of awareness (or both); this, in turn, may help address the issues of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29 power] that created the situation. Concerns about midterms and blocking emergency routes and such are just [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole hyperbole]. There are more important things in the world than being on time to class, and, by the way, class (and society) itself only continues to function because of the invisible structures and people that prop it up, some of which are thus made more visible through direct actions. You can learn about these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink hyperlinked] ideas in classes at UCD, but to truly understand them I suggested participating and learning from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_education experience]! --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]	+ * Now we're starting to get to one of the main points of why [wiki:wikipedia:Civil_disobedience civil disobedience] and [wiki:wikipedia:Direct_action direct action] are sometimes necessary to make [wiki:wikipedia:Democracy democracy] work. In this case, many more people are now more aware '''because of''' the slight inconvenience of being knocked (if only briefly) out of either complacency or lack of awareness (or both); this, in turn, may help address the issues of [wiki:wikipedia:Power_%28sociology%29 power] that created the situation. Concerns about midterms and blocking emergency routes and such are just [wiki:wikipedia:Hyperbole hyperbole]. There are more important things in the world than being on time to class, and, by the way, class (and society) itself only continues to function because of the invisible structures and people that prop it up, some of which are thus made more visible through direct actions. You can learn about these [wiki:wikipedia:Hyperlink hyperlinked] ideas in classes at UCD, but to truly understand them I suggested participating and learning from [wiki:wikipedia:Experiential_education experience]! --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-02 16:35:00

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

No differences found!

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

JasonAller — 2007-05-02 16:32:30

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 10:	Line 10:
-
Line 15:	Line 14:
- * ["Services for International Students & Scholars" Support of Immigration Rights] with opposition towards ["REAL ID"] and the its forum taking place at Freeborn that same day.	+ * ["Services for International Students & Scholars" Support of Immigration Rights] with opposition towards [wiki:wikipedia:Real_ID_Act REAL ID] and the its forum taking place at Freeborn that same day.

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 16:11:32

fixed threading

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 152:	Line 152:
- * My experience on the other hand suggests that people have been talking about this event for the last two days and it has gotten tremendous coverage and exposure and thus it has raised awareness. Will that translate to support? Not necessarily, but I suspect it has. - --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]	+ * My experience on the other hand suggests that people have been talking about this event for the last two days and it has gotten tremendous coverage and exposure and thus it has raised awareness. Will that translate to support? Not necessarily, but I suspect it has. --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-02 16:08:10

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 155:	Line 155:
	+ * Sometimes anger ("pissing people off") can be constructive, and sometimes that's what it takes to get people's attention and to create positive change. I understand that people were inconvenienced and upset, but most of the people who are complaining about it seem to be taking this non-violent "collateral damage" way too personally instead of seeing themselves in the context of a larger picture. But, yes, as a strategy it has its pros and cons, and of course people will continue to disagree not only about the tactics, but about the issues themselves. Long live free speech and may goodness prevail. --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 16:01:58

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 154:	Line 154:
	+ * I don't feel anyone is disputing that. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGreenwald — 2007-05-02 15:53:00

Added response to Mr. Grundler

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 152:	Line 152:
	+ * My experience on the other hand suggests that people have been talking about this event for the last two days and it has gotten tremendous coverage and exposure and thus it has raised awareness. Will that translate to support? Not necessarily, but I suspect it has. + --["Users/DavidGreenwald"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

DavidGrundler — 2007-05-02 15:39:15

(quick edit)

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 151:	Line 151:
	+ * My experience suggests that you rarely win people over by pissing them off. There was no reason to block a busy intersection other than to disrupt others. You could have made your point and had just as much attention and coverage as you did without being disrespectful to others. --["Users/DavidGrundler"]

UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

AlyssaNelson — 2007-05-02 15:33:43

fixed links in my previous comment

Differences for UCD May 1, 2007: Day of Action

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 150:	Line 150:
- * Now we're starting to get to one of the main points of why [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience/ civil disobedience] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action/ direct action] are sometimes necessary to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy/ democracy] work. In this case, many more people are now more aware '''because of''' the slight inconvenience of being knocked (if only briefly) out of either complacency or lack of awareness (or both); this, in turn, may help address the issues of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29/ power] that created the situation. Concerns about midterms and blocking emergency routes and such are just [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole/ hyperbole]. There are more important things in the world than being on time to class, and, by the way, class (and society) itself only continues to function because of the invisible structures and people that prop it up, some of which are thus made more visible through direct actions. You can learn about these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink/ hyperlinked] ideas in classes at UCD, but to truly understand them I suggested participating and learning from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_education/ experience]! --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]	+ * Now we're starting to get to one of the main points of why [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience civil disobedience] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action direct action] are sometimes necessary to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy democracy] work. In this case, many more people are now more aware '''because of''' the slight inconvenience of being knocked (if only briefly) out of either complacency or lack of awareness (or both); this, in turn, may help address the issues of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29 power] that created the situation. Concerns about midterms and blocking emergency routes and such are just [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole hyperbole]. There are more important things in the world than being on time to class, and, by the way, class (and society) itself only continues to function because of the invisible structures and people that prop it up, some of which are thus made more visible through direct actions. You can learn about these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink hyperlinked] ideas in classes at UCD, but to truly understand them I suggested participating and learning from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_education experience]! --["Users/AlyssaNelson"]