Curiosity, in theory a typical journalistic trait, first brought me down there. Since then, a lot of people have asked me to explain it. I’ve tried a lot of explanations on different people, but I seem to always run up against some sort of wall. So in a final attempt, I’ll try to describe it in more familiar vocabulary.

Occupy is networking. For poor people.

Ok, maybe its not just poor people. It’s the poor and others who are generally disenfranchised. But that’s not as snappy a phrase, so I’ll just stick with the one above.

I hope, for example, this analogy goes some way to explaining why there’s no “list of demands.” After all, when was the last time you went to a networking happy hour that resulted in a list of demands? Right. Never. You come away with new contacts, new ideas, new plans for future projects.

Occupy Congress protesters gather for the general assembly outside the Capitol on Jan. 17

No one thinks its weird for people to physically gather to discuss everything from advertising to entomology. The professional and academic worlds have long understood the importance of face to face contacts. But when people gather to discuss and express their dissatisfaction with our country’s (and world’s) economic order the response is, “Yeah, but what are they doing?” or “But can’t they organize over facebook?” And I strain to suppress an eye roll.

Also, consider the “lack of focus” criticism still (still!?!) being bandied about. Let’s say you’ve got an archeology conference going on; people are going to be presenting papers, and moderating panel discussions on widely divergent topics within that field. Can you imagine someone asking of an academic conference: “Yeah, but what’s the one, main, you know, point?” Right. It would be absurd. Similarly, people are going to come away from Occupy and move on in all directions – on everything from sustainable agriculture to student debt forgiveness to national health care – and that’s totally acceptable.

Occupy Congress on Tuesday was a perfect example of networking for me personally. It was a relatively small affair, no crowds of thousands. But in the course of the day’s interviews I made more contacts with potential writers, sources, and other interested journalistic parties than I had since I started helping out at the OWT. Sure, people rallied in front of the capital, and there were signs and flags. But the inward-focused actions (what was being done for people within the movement) were possibly more important than the outward-focused actions (what’s done for the sake of TV cameras). That may be why the media (who rarely spend as much time around Occupy as I do, which isn’t very much as it is) get it wrong.

Of course it’s not quite like a networking event as we usually imagine it, but those differences come down to the simple question of economic resources.

First, they don’t usually happen in a public park. But that’s because dentist’s associations have the money for a conference space. And what happened when Occupy Wall Street got money? They got office space. Because a place for physical gathering is important. Just as it is for any other group of people who share concerns they want to act on.

Second, your typical conference event lasts only a few days. Of course continual occupation is an end in itself; to be visible, to raise awareness, to keep the idea in the public’s mind. But it’s also important as a way to maintain a consistent hub of communication and contact. During the rest of the year, a professional association for example, has an infrastructure to rely on, where communications, the exchange of ideas, the implementation of programs is carried on, when the conference is over. So far, most Occupies just have their parks.

Third (and on a slightly different tack), your typical networking event doesn’t include some of the more discomfort-producing attendees that Occupies can – the local homeless population, the occasional person who seems a bit “disturbed.” And that’s because, unlike your typical professional group, Occupy isn’t exclusive.  It’s an atmosphere that refuses to shy away from the uncomfortable realities of modern life (homeless, mentally ill, etc…) because there is no mechanism within an occupation by which to do so.  This also speaks to my frustration when people ask me “Oh, are you one of them?” because there is no “them.” There’s no entry exam, there’s no professional requirement, there are no dues, there is no membership card, there’s no oath of loyalty, there’s no one telling you what to do or how to do it. There’s just you. Making what you want to make of it. That’s really it.

So there it is. Occupying is networking for the rest of us. I don’t physically occupy (I think I’d be dead of pneumonia by now if I did) but the network that is building up around the square, which I have been plugging into via reporting activities, is similar to that which any shiny, new, young professional or academic might plug into at the beginning of a career.

So my plea is this, that the next time you ask, or someone you know asks – “But what have they really done?” take a moment to look at your contacts database – your personal “rolodex” of professional contacts. Think about how long that took to build, how much work went into compiling it (I bet it was longer than the four months Occupy has been around) and start appreciating the work that’s being done, and which is only just beginning.

So – what’s my 2012 wishlist? Not surprisingly, it revolves around one thing – a job.

After a month visiting in Spain, and 3 months back looking for work, I’m still do not have steady employment. There’s probably a lot of reasons for this. 1) Journalism’s still a tough market, even in D.C., even with a master’s. 2) We are still in the midst of economic crisis, right? Of course that’s it. 3) Oh, yeah, I am incompetent when it comes to networking. I am sociable. I like people. People like me. But I freeze when it comes to forcing social contact for the sole purpose of furthering my career interests. This excuse/explanation doesn’t go very far with people in D.C. where networking actually seems to take priority over genuine human interaction, but there it is.

So after my initial job search stage, I realize my strategy needs to change. Sending resumes and cover letters isn’t going to do it, that is clear. It’s time to get out and shmooze in 2012. (A little piece of me dies while I write that). But what will I be smoozing for? Well, that’s where my Santa Claus list comes in. I’ve always found it a helpful exercise in the past. So here goes – what do I want for 2012?

A job that:

• Allows me to use my brain.

Please, please, let me use my brain. One of the greatest frustrations that led me to leave Spain was the fear that my brain was actually atrophying from disuse. Not that teaching English or writing and presenting at MobuzzTV was brainless work, but that it was like walking circles around a track when I wanted to try my hand at a marathon. The context in which I was doing those jobs was just, by their nature, limiting, with no room for growth. I don’t want a job that challenges my sanity, I want one that challenges my intellect.

• Lets me keep learning.

Not just learning in terms of subject matter – like learning about new policy issues or new parts of the world via reporting (which is definitely why I want to be in journalism in the first place) but also concrete skills- like InDesign, more Photoshop, getting beyond HTML basics. There wasn’t time to do it all in one year at grad school so I want to work some of those skill sets in however I can. A new language would be nice too, but I’m not picky.

• Allows me to pay off my student debts.

Because I have to be a little bit practical.

• Gives me time/stability to maintain my health.

I’m not 20 anymore, and I need my beauty rest.

• Contributes something even remotely good/ useful/ noble in the world.

Yes, fine! Roll your eyes! Little hippie Karina wants to do good in the world. Is it so much to ask to do a job that makes you feel that your presence on the planet has not been a complete waste of time? Really?

• Lets me get involved in the international arena – either by reporting on internationally relevant issues, travelling to report, using my foreign language skills, acquiring a new language or any combination of those factors.

This one is at the end, because it’s not as urgent a factor. If I have to do something else for a while to allow me to move in this direction later, fine, but you know, it’s a Santa Claus list so might as well include it.

There. That’s it. My 2012 employment wish list. A clear set of priorities is the best way to vanquish doubts about your own decisions and envy over other people’s paths. Now, if I don’t look twice at poorly or unpaid internships that will help me “get my foot in the door”, I can just look at point number 3 above. And if I feel momentary pangs thinking about the job that someone else got that pays a ton but consists of writing about fluff, I can look at number 5 and breathe a little easier knowing it’s ok, it’s just not for me. Hopefully.

So, I’ve had little success following the local Occupy group. And today I’m gonna give it another go.

I went down on the very first day actually. I stood in the cold and drizzle under a tree wearing summer clothes, everything season-appropriate still packed away in boxes after my return from my trip to Spain in September. There were only about 20 people, and it was far from clear what it might become. I tried to talk to folks, but there was something awkward about it. Maybe I had had some starry eyed-vision that I’d go down there and it would be all smiles and open arms and instant discussion of radical politics. I don’t know. But what I did know is that I had a cold and it was raining, and although I can deal with discomfort and I can walk across the north of Spain with blisters, I hate being cold. (I admit it, I’m weak, blame it on being raised in Northern California). I thought, OK, I’ll be back.

Impromptu Library at McPherson Square

Take two was a couple weeks later, the day of widespread protests. Upon returning to McPherson I was pleasantly surprisied at the number of tents, the budding library, the bustling kitchen area. Aha, I thought, here’s something I can get into. I stayed for the General Assembly and learned the hard way that these things drag on, but was inspired to see and feel the atmosphere of inclusion.  And even by the end of the GA that night (which was largely made up of new attendees) you could see the process naturally streamlining itself as people figured out what was and was not worth bringing up, what to save for Committee meetings, etc…You could see the learning as it was happening. For the first time I was getting to see all the processes I had studied about in social theory books in practice (I wrote my undergrad thesis on anarchist theory after being exposed to it in Spain and being annoyed that it wasn’t ever mentioned in classes on political theory and organization).

I naturally thought my place would be to help out the media folks, in whatever way I could.  Some people question whether this would somehow violate journalistic ethics, and that’s a whole other blog post, but I saw the proposed Occupied Washington Times, not as a propaganda tool, but as simply another independent media outlet, dealing with issues that I, as a journalist, am interested in and as a potential forum in which to write and to be read. For me a propaganda tool would necessitate someone deciding what would and would not be covered and how. Here, anyone was welcome to participate as long as it was relevant to the broad subjects that Occupy protesters were concerned with. It was quintessential democratic media making, warts, (confusion, uncertainty about AP style) and all.

I said I wanted to help write about joining credit unions, since I was looking to do so myself and would have been blogging about it anyways. I was all excited. I was thinking about what video projects I could do, trying to figure out where I could get a little camera, how great it would be to have something to keep me writing and editing while I was looking for a job. I was going to be the videographer for the revolution! Ha! I left that meeting humming.

Then the work world showed up. I got a much larger than expected freelance gig sent my way that took over my life for almost 2 weeks. Then I got laid up with a nasty cold. Of course.

So now, I got my voice back, I can breathe through my nose again and have time to go back to McPherson Square.  After the initial meeting and submission of my part of an article (which ended up a little strange after the editing process, link here) I had completely fallen out of the loop. Partly because the “loop” consisted of a billion email threads that I never had time to go through at first, and just felt overwhelmed by when I went back to them later. So I figure a physical visit is the only way to get back into it. I think they have a mass copy editing session for the second edition tomorrow. I have a vague feeling that they could use a little help streamlining and standardizing their editing process, so we’ll see if I can be of any assistance. And if not, I can at least make sure that i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.

So – today is supposed to be a big day of action for protests around the globe. I was trying to get to Freedom Plaza by noon to meet up with Occupy DC, but sadly am stuck in a cafe at 11:45 still waiting for someone I was supposed to meet about a possible job at 10:30. Ah well.

But I’ll pass by later. Anyways…

First thought – something that got me riled up a couple days ago – a criticism of Occupy Wall Street that seems to be making the rounds these days. It was mentioned in the article about Steve Jobs that I ranted about earlier this week. It goes something like this:

“Protesters are protesting corporate greed. But they use products produced by corporations. I’m so clever for pointing that out. They are so stupid. Let’s not engage in any sort of meaningful debate and stop thinking at this point. Stupid protesters! Look! That guy’s wearing Nike!”

The above-linked article linked, in turn, to the photo below.

Sigh.

Yes, those stupid protesters. Because we all know there are only two paths one can take in this life: either you buy a product and automatically and unconditionally embrace every single practice of the manufacturer, or you boycott. Right?

See how clever that is? The obvious problem is that there is no way to live in a modern industrial society such as the United States and not be touched by corporate products. So if you decide that anyone possessing such a product automatically forfeits any right to enter into any form of discourse about their business practices, you have basically dismissed the entire population. Everyone. Everyone who owns even one thing produced by a corporation. Convenient isn’t it?

Of course, there’s also the problem with this argument that Chris Hedges pointed out in his recent interview with a moronic CBC newsman – these protesters are actually really protesting Wall Street corporations greed and parasitism (psst – that’s why it’s called Occupy Wall Street). Financial services corporations. Goldman Sachs and their ilk. As Hedges points out – these corporations actually don’t produce anything of use – they shuffle dangerous financial products around for fees and suck up taxpayer money when they tank the economy through their criminal recklessness.

So in that case, the fact that I have a Mac is really neither here nor there.

So the next time someone tells you you can’t criticize the state of corporate America (or the global corporatocracy) because you have an iPhone, tell them they’re an asshat.

Criticism of the most powerful organizations on the planet is valid. Even if you drink Starbucks (which I don’t, but that’s another blogpost). Yes, you can try to avoid consuming from the worst offenders, but let’s face it, it’s pretty much impossible to avoid entirely. And that itself – the inability to have real, ethical choices in many areas – is part of the critique. Power over consumer products is so concentrated that there are no real choices. I mean, I haven’t figured out where I can buy locally produced laptops made with 100% sustainably mined, domestically produced materials yet, so until that happens, I’m stuck with a Mac.

That doesn’t make me a hypocrite. It makes me a person who has to buy certain things in order to function in this labor market (and just barely, since I am unemployed at the moment). I mean, what would the guy who marked up that photo have me do to not be a hypocrite in his opinion? Nothing, it’s impossible by his logic, and just another way to try to marginalize the legitimate complaints of Occypy Wall Streeters. Asshat! :p

Photo: Matthew Yohe via Wikimedia Commons

I didn’t know much about Steve Jobs’ personal life or personality. I didn’t (and don’t) really care. I know I love Apple products, but I also know I have qualms about their business practices, and I definitely know no one should feel suicide is the only escape from a bad manufacturing job.

When Jobs died, predictably, first there was the tsunami of fawning obituaries. Then, there was cautious criticism. Then there was Gene Marks at Forbes who decided – no, f**k it, I don’t care if someone did something bad, they’re rich so I’ll idolize them anyways. Ok, so that’s a bit of an oversimplification. (But not much.)

After Ryan Tate at Gawker (who I having a sneaking suspicion wrote at the Daily Cal when I was at Berkeley) wrote a pretty straightforward look at the darker side of Steve Jobs’ legacy, Marks decided to go ahead and defend, well, being an a**hole.

I know, edgy right? Way to buck what’s acceptable by doing something daring like defending “being a jerk.” Except it isn’t. It’s the opposite of edgy, it’s feeding right into the cult of corporate wealth, born of our looooong puritanical history of seeing wealth as some divine judgement on our characters.

Marks writes:

Jobs had an extra little something going on that further separated him from his peers:  He was a jerk.  Good for him.

…I’m not a jerk like Jobs was. Which is the biggest reason why I’m just a moderately successful business guy, and not a super billionaire.   That’s because being creative and hard working isn’t that uncommon.  Being a jerk is.

And in response to a story about Apple threatening an employee with immigration trouble for possibly leaking information Marks gushes: “Wow, the Apple Gestapo.  I love that too.”

Which pretty much gives you the idea.

This all reminded me of a bit from Victor Hugo (seriously, if you haven’t read Les Miserables, do it now, it’s f-ing awesome, and feels juuuust right in the middle of economic crisis). Anyways, Vic lamented:

We live in a sad society. Succeed; that is the advice which falls drop by drop, from the overhanging corruption. We may say, by the way, that success is a hideous thing. Its counterfeit of merit deceives men. To the mass, success has almost the same appearance as supremacy…Success, that is the theory. Prosperity supposes capacity…..Beyond the five or six great exceptions, which are the wonder of their age, contemporary admiration is nothing but shortsightedness. Gilt is gold….The mighty genius by which one becomes a Moses, an Aeschylus, a Dante, a Michaelangelo, or a Napoleon, the multitude assigns at once and by acclamation to whoever succeeds in his object, whatever it may be…They confound the radiance of the stars of heaven with the radiations which a duck’s foot leaves in the mud. [emphasis mine]

Thanks Vic.

More succinctly, my problem with Marks is that his argument boils down to this: X was “successful.” X did Y while becoming so. Hence, Y is not only acceptable, but admirable.

Do you see the flaws here? There are a couple.

The first is the assumption that Y (being a jerk) is essential to success. Marks himself certainly didn’t go any way to proving this, just speculates that it must be so. Which is too bad, because there is some credence to this idea – being a jerk may help in the corporate world. Recent research even suggests that CEOs are four times as likely to be…..wait for it…..psychopaths.

Which brings us to the second problem, which is: If we were really taking time to, you know, THINK about this in a wider context, it may give us pause that our society rewards with material success those who are manipulative, cruel, lacking in empathy and social awareness, anti-social, ruthless, uncaring and unable to maintain healthy relationships.

But that’s if we were to stop and think. On a wider level.

And we obviously can’t do that. We can either be a stupid hippie who’s jealous of Steve Jobs’ success and hypocritically uses his products while condemning his business practices (that’s tomorrow’s blogpost), or we can idolize him for being the heartless go-getter we only wish we could be. But nothing in between. Because we’re morons.

And so I just wanted to write a note about Columbus Day, Indigenous People’s Day, and severely disappointing journalism.

A lot of people posted comments, from sincere to snarky, on Facebook today in reference to Columbus Day. It’s a day when I glow with a little pride for the place I’m from, the San Francisco Bay Area – because in Berkeley (I’m from neighboring Kensington) they don’t celebrate Columbus Day, they changed it to Indigenous People’s Day.

I feel lucky to have been from a place that’s willing to do things like that, to make the rest of the country stop and think. But of course, the rest of the country won’t stop and think if it’s not reported in a way that provokes thought. Which brings me to this  the New York Times article (if it can be called that, it’s rather teensy, perhaps “note”) on the decision to change the day, from back in 1992.

It’s a gem. Let’s take a look:

Oct. 12 is no longer Columbus Day in this city known for political correctness. From now on, it will be Indigenous Peoples Day, and city officials have designated the whole of 1992 as the Year of Indigenous People.

“Berkeley wants to celebrate the important place that indigenous people hold in this country,” Mayor Loni Hancock said at a news conference on Friday. “Their societies and philosophies flourished long before Columbus arrived, and they continue until today.”

And right off the bat, the writer sparks my ire with the knee-jerk reference to Berkeley as a center of “political correctness.” Contempt inspired in the first line, well done! Why does it irk? It’s lazy. It’s a person saying “hmmm, what’s the first stereotype the average person unthinkingly relates to Berkeley? Political correctness! I shall now equally unthinkingly repeat that.”

Now, I’m not denying that Berkeley is what it is, a bastion of left-wing politics, and I don’t have a problem with identifying it as such. But the associations with the phrase “political correctness” (even in 1992) are such that it’s use is like code for “now prepare to roll your eyes at the crazy hippies” before you’ve even started your story.

Next? The writer mentions that the whole year will be the Year of Indigenous People, yet attempts no explanation at why that might be – like, I dunno, the fact that it was the 400th anniversary of the start of the European conquest of America. Just saying.

Moving on:

The city’s declaration underscored a revisionist notion that Columbus was no hero but instead a self-serving colonialist whose arrival in the New World led to the death of millions of American Indians.

The declaration has been recognized by the school board, which plans to modify Columbus’s image in history classes and textbooks.

Oh dear. So much bad in so little space. Even in 1992, the idea that the arrival of Columbus was not so great for the native peoples can hardly be considered “revisionist.” They imply that the change was intended by organizers as an attack on Columbus (the writer’s characterization), instead of (as the actual quote by Hancock reflects) an attempt to draw attention to the other side of the historical story, and to indigenous people’s cultural legacy.

And what is this about the curriculum? Talk about saying effectively nothing. What does that mean “plans to modify Columbus’s image”? Are they ripping up history texts and drawing mustaches on his portrait? What do they actually, specifically plan to do? This reporter couldn’t talk to a single person on the school board about what that meant in concrete terms? It’s so uninformative as to be useless.

And to conclude:

The city’s move was criticized by the Sons of Italy’s Commission on Social Justice, which said Columbus should continue to be celebrated. “It’s kind of tough to rewrite history 500 years after it happens,” said a commission spokesman, Richard Armento.

“I’m not suggesting we make him a saint,” Mr. Armento added, but “there’s nothing to say Columbus was a good or bad guy.”

Oh, well, they couldn’t talk to a school board member (or god forbid a member of an indigenous group) but the Sons of Italy get the last two grafs with two totally meaningless assertions “tough to rewrite history”? Really, we do it all the time – that’s what the study of history is about, refining and amplifying our understanding of past events, then rewriting them. And “there’s nothing to say Columbus was a good or bad guy”? Seriously? Nothing? At all? Astounding.

I know it’s just a teensy bit of newsprint from almost 20 years ago, but it bothers me nonetheless. It bothers me because, well, let me address the writer directly:

You write for the New York Times, you have the opportunity to do something interesting and informative, to challenge your reader. You have only a couple hundred words in which to do it, and you choose meaningless, unedifying ones to put in that tiny space. Fail. :p

On the evening of April 14, 10 young spoken-word artists gathered at the True Reformer building in Washington, D.C., to compete for a chance to represent D.C. at the Brave New Voices slam poetry competition in San Francisco.

As the auditorium at the True Reformer building on U street filled, a panel of judges was selected from among audience members who had no personal connection to any of the poets. After opening remarks by organizers and a performance by last year’s winner, a young man with the stage name Pages, they got down to business.

First up was a “calibration poet” — a non-competitor. The judges’ ranking of him was thoroughly reviewed by the audience (by way of cheers or jeers) to give the judges a sort of reference point for their evening’s scoring.

Each of the 10 poets then rolled out two performances, ranging from earnest to energetic, percussive to plangent. Some sang their way into their pieces, some read off well-worn notes, or occasionally glanced at the texts saved on their cell phones. Momentary memory lapses were met with encouraging snaps.

“I didn’t expect to get this much love,” said Kosi Dunn, 15, of the surprisingly supportive atmosphere.  “I expected . . . real mean competition, but all the people who are competing are my friends now,” Dunn said.

Dunn later made it into the top five, thereby winning a spot on the team that will travel to San Francisco at the end of July.

Sarah Browning, from Split This Rock poetry festival, an organization who sponsors the youth slam team said that the group is currently working to raise at least $7,000 to pay for the trip to the competitioin, but ideally twice that so that their coaches can accompany them.

A fundraising happy hour will be held Thursday, April 21, at the Sign of the Whale (1825 M Street) from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.