Occupy Long Beach: So About Those Lights…
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Tuesday, 25 October 2011 02:47

An OLB sign was added to one of the lights: "Look what your tax $ is paying for!"
10:26am | For the moment everything has quieted down at Lincoln Park. Well, except for those light thingies.
Beginning with Night 1 of Occupy Long Beach's stay in/near the park, a trio of portable light standards have been chugging away, illuminating the goings-on.
And, many say, polluting them, both with noise and exhaust fumes.
OLBers say the presence of these lights is nothing less than harassment, placed there with the sole purpose of making it more difficult for members to remain near the park overnight.
When they took their concerns to last week's city council meeting, Councilmember Robert Garcia was sympathetic enough to ask City Manager Pat West if something might be done to address the air-pollution issue.
The result? "By Wednesday night, City staff were able to swap out that diesel generator [i.e., the one on Pacific Avenue itself, closest to the OLBers] with a solar-powered generator borrowed from the Long Beach Airport, thus resolving the issue," says Tom Modica of the City Manager's Office."
According to Del Davis of Public Works, the City of Long Beach doesn't actually own any solar-powered versions — hence the need to borrow. (Long Beach Post is hoping to hear back about why the City borrowed one and not three.)
As for the gas-powered versions, we're told by Public Works each one consumes three gallons of diesel fuel per each 12-hour shift during which it is in operation.
As to why the lights are out there at all, the Long Beach Police Department confirms they asked them to be brought out for reasons of "health and safety."
Really?
If they don't like the noise in the area, perhaps they should, oh I don't know....leave?
Unemployed and whiners they might be, but I'd hardly call them lazy.
Meanwhile, the stabbings and shootings in the city appear to be up recently? Shouldn't those lights be moved to where the crime actually occurs?
As for the Occupy crowd, I have spoken with them and they seem to be a disorganized lot with different agendas. Perhaps they will gel in the future to have some sort of Mission Statement. I understand their frustration with the "system", we truly have "government by corporation". It was Eisenhower who warned us back in the 50's about the "growing military industrial complex" (or something to that effect) and nowadays big corporations along with the military run the show in WA DC. These folks however, appear to want to relive the 60's Hippie Era for some reason. Sheesh! Were we that influential? ;-)
The City Council and police (IMHO) should let them be for now but it is my opinion the homeless will outnumber (if they haven't already) the protesters very soon. A lot of these folks have mental disabilities so it could get real unstable in which case quite dangerous. What the City Council and police will end up doing is close the park for "maintenance". It's inevitable that there will need to be a stop to this, especially if the homeless from other cities stop on by.
Now don't get all mad at me, these are simply my observations of the situation along with my opinions. It's a fluid situation and quite thankfully, safe at the moment.
Those charged with ensuring public safety deemed the lights are necessary to help them do that. After some with OLB complained, LBPD tried turning thelights off, only to see problems develop that the lights are there to help prevent. If some in the OLB dont like the lights, they should consider re-occupying there own homes and leave the park to those less prone to whining, self-pity, and entitlement.
I do *not* applaud those in the Occupy movement around the country and world who are resorting to violence and I do *not* applaud the non-violent members of the Occupy movement who are not condemning the violence that others in their movement are committing.
No reasonable person I know if is arguing that there is nothing wrong with our nation or our society. Where most seem to disagree is what the root causes are and what the best solutions might be.
For instance, I think that an overly-intrusive and ever-expansive government (at all levels) is far more a cause of various injustices in our society than the financial sector could ever dream of being.
If Occupy truly wanted to direct its protests at the source of most of our current challenges, it would be focused upon Washington, DC. rather than on Wall Street.
Instead of a smaller, less intrusive, less costly, and more effective government, however, most Occupiers seem to want the larger, more intrusive, costlier, and less-efficient sort.
They seem to completely miss the fact that as government expands, personal freedoms and indivual liberties must necessarily contract.
The Occupy movement is rooted in the basic principles of Marxism/Socialism. That alone is sufficient reason for me to oppose its goals.
But, as mentioned, I support and defend their ability to exercise their right to protest, peaceably assemble, and demonstrate for the things that they believe.
Though, to be fair, this does make it easier for the police to ensure that nothing unseemly is going on. These types of measures should not even be considered until there is good reason to do so, however.
I saw this earlier and it made me think of you. I've read somewhere on here that you associate yourself with the Tea Party movement. While I think I feel about the same way about the Tea Party as you do about the Occupiers, this holds some truth (I think the 2nd comic illustrates the debate quite well):
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/22/141587473/double-take-toons-what-is-ows
Also, on a more serious note:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/22/141619672/finding-common-ground-between-two-movements
Also, how about some quotes from one of the Original Tea Partiers, Thomas Jefferson? I think these speak quite well to your condemnation of the Occupy movement taking a more forceful stance:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
And my personal favorite:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Exactly. Remember Operation Just Cause? During the Invasion of Panama, General Manuel Noriega took refuge in a Vatican embassy. Just outside the walls, the US Military played deafeningly loud rock music 24 hours a day until Noriega (who apparently loathed rock-n-roll) surrendered.
These are exactly the kind of PsyOp tactics being used by the police not only in LB, but in many other Occupied cities. Sleep deprivation, especially, is an insanely powerful psychological tactic.
HOLD STRONG OCCUPIERS.
THEY WILL BREAK BEFORE WE WILL.
Ryan Z: The public should control wealth
And this is the only issue that matters. Do we let a few private interests control for their own purposed the wealth that society creates through group effort? Or do we, the majority, control it for the public good?
You cannot oppress - whether with guns or with increased cost of living and decreased wages - the vast majority of people forever. Soon enough they will get sick of it and rebel.
I guess we know where Greet and Zummallen stand.