Response to MotherJones Article http://bit.ly/x95Kti

I am writing this before school to clear a couple things up. Not to bash the author of this article for I don't think he did a horrible job based on our conversation. There are a few things however I would like to clear up so he we go.

1) "Many of the Oaklanders see it as their duty to fight back. In October, Oakland police critically injured a peaceful protester, the former marine Scott Olsen, when a projectile shot from police lines at an Occupy march downtown fractured his skull. Video shows police lobbing a flash-bang grenade into a group of protesters who were trying to help him. "The police are being paid to protect them, but they're attacking them," says Jessica, a 28-year-old Occupy Oakland member who tweets under the name @BellaEiko. "Most people feel that kind of nullifies the contract.""

The contract I speak of is the social contract that basically is the permission given by the people to be policed and pay for it with their tax dollars. This contract seems to be invalid within the City of Oakland whether it is Occupy related or not. When more people feel victimized, criminalizes or intimidated by the police who are supposed to protect them, the social contract is terminated organically. This will be seen in the reactions of citizens, and has been seen. With the Oakland Riders case, and the federal take over in a few weeks, obviously there are problems with the Oakland Poice Department as a whole. One has to wonder how much good will a federal take over be anyway. The Occupy Wall Street movement gained momentum and continues the fight against corporate greed & GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION. So if the entire government is corrupt, how much help can Oakland really expect to get?

2) "The upshot is that ballot measures to put more cops on the street are a tough sell in Oakland even when crime is high. And to this day, many Oakland residents equate calling the police to snitching. "You can see the Black Panther mindset becoming more and more present in the Occupy movement by the actions that are being taken during the marches," says the occupier Jessica, who is black. "On Saturday, for example, when the police came out with shields and gas masks, there were protesters out there that had shields and gas masks. They were ready as well. You can see that the militant stance of the Black Panther Party is being emulated. It may actually, at some point, graduate to the carrying of firearms.""

So, I was talking about self defense. I was talking about the fact that the protesters had shields and masks, and the police had guns along with smoke bombs and teargas. You can see the self defense mindset of the Black Panther Party arriving from the abuses the police department subjects protesters to. I don't think Occupy will ever be about violence, it isn't now. What I was talking about was the probability of people using 2nd Amendment rights to protect the 1st. It's all about self defense. Unfortunately the people are protesting against those in power of not only the place and govnment, but media as well. This allows for lies to be spouted in the mainstream media to make it seem like the police were responding to violence instead of instigating it (once gain, not attacking Josh Harkinson). Instead, maybe I should have been more clear about this, over a span of years if the voices of the people continue to be muted, the attacks on protesters continue to elevate in violent nature, and the media continue to lie about what's happening; then yes I think it might graduate to the 2nd Amendment being used. Like a line of legally armed, well trained militia just standing there looking at the police making sure they don't attack those who are gathered peacefully. There is nothing illegal, or bashing in that statement. No endorsement for violence should be interpret here. If anything this is a possible and legal way to make the violence stop.

When I was growing up, my Dad used to say to me "If there are 2 men in a room and only 1 of them has a gun, then only 1 of them has the respect. But if they both have guns, there is equal respect in the room." The alternative to this is to only let the police have tasers and pepper spray, but we have seen examples of that not going very well either. Some may or may not agree with this analogy, but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I welcome the discussion in comments about gun rights, ownership and proper time for using it to defend yourself.

3) "While critics complain that many militant protesters come from outside of Oakland and don't have its best interests at heart, occupiers like Jessica see room in the movement for a "diversity of tactics," especially ones that target property owned by the 1 percent."

When things got trashed at the Oscar Grant marches, I thought that was crazy. Why do that? This is the Occupy Movement, against corporate greed. So although, you're not going to catch me breaking a window out, I can still understand that corporations are being attacked. In all ways possible, by all types of people. Corporations are multinational, so a Bank of America in San Francisco is the same as one in New York. Even if the 99%ers that work there are nice and hand things out to protesters, some still just hate the corporation you work for andso it's a target regardless.

The more interesting and in my opinion productive question to ask here is how does Occupy hurt the 1% without hurting those who have to work for them to pay to afford their lives? This is why it's so difficult to get and keep community support. Strikes that shut down jobs make it so people aren't making the money they planned to. With most living paycheck to paycheck this is not the best side effect. However, there are some jobs and products and services that have had a sudden spike. Coffee, battery packs, bandwidth etc are all in high demand among other things like gas masks, vinegar and chalk.

4) "You can see the Black Panther mindset becoming more and more present in the Occupy movement by the actions that are being taken during the marches," says the occupier Jessica, who is black. "

Ok so I know that I have dark skin, I'm not saying that I'm ashamed of being part Black and all but I don't really appreciate the written "Jessica, who is black" comment. I was raised by my Grandmother who was Japanese. So if anyone wants to use my cultural background to solidify a point I was making as my observation, please clarify how I identify. I am Creole and Japanese. I can trace my family from both sides to the original settlers. I have black blood because like many here I have slave blood. I had to address this statement because my skin color has nothing to do with the fact that I have made this observation. I would say it was more my ability to think critically after analyzing a situation.

Do I regret doing the interview and the things that were said? No. It's my opinion based on basic speculation for one possibility of the future.