Agree with your analysis, Jordan, which no doubt will be panned by the usual suspects.

The Tea Partiers focused on an issue---growing public deficits and debt---which gave them a focus for legislative lobbying and candidate suppport. Because of their true-believer nature, however, they contributed to defeat of moderates by immoderates in several Republican primaries. This helped Democrats hold Senate control they otherwise might have lost. (Tea Partiers did, however, contribute to
big GOP gains and control of the House).

The Occupy movmeent has been generally inchoate and unfocused. What happened in Seattle yesterday has happened frequently in the past where
a disruptive, purposeful few hijack an event and attempt to polarize
opinion. The broken windows and random vandalism are calculated tactics.

It was obvious from the start that the "occupy" movement was something much less than a socialist answer to the small-government "tea party" movement. Occupiers don't have an agenda that's in any way implementable, because it's not definable. If you have to boil all the messages into something resembling a coherent whole, it comes down to sort of a feeling (and I use the word feeling deliberately) that their lives could be more fulfilling, and that someone else needs to provide them with more fulfilling lives, or else. Beyond that, it's all performance art, a sort of protest theater on the green.

To say that there is absolutely no connection between the Occupy movement and the thugs that broke downtown windows on May Day raises a certain question. There have been May Day protest events over the last several years in downtown Seattle--i.e., the ones seeking to raise public awareness about the immigration issue--yet none of those were marred by violence. So why is it that when the Occupy movement gets involved, windows start shattering--if there's absolutely no connection?

The property destruction was not a political act. It was just a couple of dozen young people who decided to dress up in black and get some cheap (for them) excitement.

OT: Jordan -- You follow Port of Seattle issues. I'd be interested in your views on something. The city council will put a property tax hike request on the ballot for the seawall replacement costs. Don't you think a better way to finance that work would be for the Port commissioners to just create a LID and assess the property owners proximate to the seawall? That way the property owners (and businesses, via rent increases) that benefit most directly would pay. That seems like a more reasonable approach to me than to raise property taxes on, say, a West Seattle homeowner. TIA.

Crossrip -- The port already repaired their seawall. They aren't the property owners for the city portion that is failing. They wouldn't have any standing to form an LID. I guess there could be an argument that adjacent property owners should pay for the new seawall, but I believe it is a citywide responsibility.

Jordan: I disagree with the first couple of sentences of your post. Please allow me to explain.

The Port of Seattle most certainly would have the authority to form a LID to pay for the sea wall along the Seattle shore that is failing.

Here is the state statute setting out some of the powers the Port of Seattle possesses -- RCW 53.08.020. Part of what it says is this:

"A port district may construct, . . . add to, maintain, . . . and operate sea walls . . . and other harbor improvements . . . within the district."

In light of that delegation of power the Port would have standing to form a LID (given what its LID authorizing statutes say).

Now do you understand why I suggest those benefited property owners should bear the costs? I don't see this as a citywide responsibility.

Well, given that all of King County is within the port district, I suppose you could say that about all sorts of things. I just don't see the commissioners wanting to take responsibility for something that is maintained and owned by the city. I believe the entire city benefits from the seawall, so I guess that would be a debate also. That may be part of the debate when it is put on the ballot.

Jordan writes "Most people believe the U.S. Constitution and the political system works pretty well." I think if you did a survey the US Constitution would come out very well but do really thing our citizens have much confidence in our political system. It is totally dysfunctional at the federal level. That is probably one of the few things the tea-partiers, the occupy movement and everyone else in between can agree on.

It is not time for property destruction, nor physical violence - but it is time to discuss, and prepare for same.

These protestors provide a start to that discussion, but, for sure, they will not provide a strategy of revolution. They may, however develop 'careers' in that service.

The most important aspect of yesterday's civil lawlessness was the historical comparison to the WTO riots of 1999, a response which was led by current Seattle Chamber President Maud Daudon.

In that context, McGinn's response yesterday was good, standing up for the right to protest and against individual lawlessness without falling for the pandering inciting of Reichert and his nutwing crew.

The real risk of the right wing to public safety should not be underestimated. The Right's 'russian roulette' strategy towards global warming is such that perhaps we should hope their analysis first leads to the destruction of civilization..

Jordan,

I'm normally a fan of your writing. But this is incorrect: "...the Tea Party is more effective than Occupy, even though they probably have a smaller number of sympathizers. The Tea Party has organized at the ground level to support candidates for political office. People like Marco Rubio in Florida have benefitted from their support."

The Tea Party has long ago been exposed as an "Astroturf" movement, i.e., one created and financed by the Dick Armey and Koch brothers crowd. It is their money, not the "troops" who make the political careers of people like Rubio. Which is one of the ways our political system is completely broken, and as most people know does NOT "work pretty well."

Portland May Day: The Morning march was less confrontational than mainstream media depictions. From Burnside Bridge Waterfront Plaza to Pioneer Square (via SW Oak, 5th, Yamhill), the march was 99% polite cheer. Minimal traffic obstruction didn't prevent police from initiating TWO minor altercations on the march. The 20 bicycle cops, 6 motorcycle cops, 4 horsemen, 2 paddy wagons and random foot officers were unecessary because the first altercation was over within a minute and the march continued. At this point the term 'Keystone Cops operation' came to mind.

The 2nd altercation was likewise over-dramatized on TV. It occurred on the 5th Ave transit mall where MAX and bus operation was probably the excuse that set the police loose with more force than necessary. Both altercations involved a sole aggressive protester and a few innocently buffeted bystanders.

On the 2nd altercation a single pepper spray - of a type which spews red spray for a moment with small diameter impact zone - was dropped and affected only the immediate handful arrested. Even so, the 2nd altercation lasted 5-10 minutes and again the march moved on to the Square without further problem.

I joined the afternoon march a half hour or so after it started when it had reached City Hall and turned north along 4th Ave toward the waterfront. I saw no altercation for the next 15 minutes and left before reaching the waterfront. I suspect afternoon arrests were less confrontational than as seen on TV. Overall, both marches were conducted well, little vandalism and less brute force than imminently possible.

Take this other engineering lesson from Portlanders who pulled off, by design or not, a pair of decent May Day marches, unecessarily overpatrolled by police who otherwise performed ably with less violence than as seen on TV.

Compare the Portland engineering perspective to the criminally incompetent DBT and its horrible city traffic reconfigurations. Wsdot is a rogue agency with a sorry record of incompetence, big project failures, expensive shortcuts, unproductive lengthy planning, broiling controversy left unaddressed, etc. Blame for the CRC unravelling likewise can be directed to Wsdot because ODOT finished Oregon interchange designs in the 4th year. Wsdot ignorantly prefers earlier higher-impact, higher cost, more dangerous designs for Hayden Island and Marine Drive in Oregon. On some issues, incompentence has consequences. The unintended consequence of Occupy movement recklessness is a republican White House ready to fund highway projects designed to fail.

I have to agree with TomB Jordan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imXYBYfFnQA

The first thing is that these 'anarchists' were organized as evidenced by how they are dressed exactly alike. The flags they're carrying are all alike, the polls on the flags are the same length and color. Are they plants? Who paid for their matching gear?

You say the cops were nowhere in sight. That's not true. The cops were RIGHT THERE. They made contact with black ninjas just after they broke the windows.

What is questionable is how cops on bicycles could not have been right up with the black ninjas before they broke the windows. They showed up just after the windows were broken.

What is truly scandalous is how the cops did not even attempt to arrest the 2 black ninjas that broke the windows even though they came right in contact with them.

They could have caught these guys, unmasked them and arrested them. Why didn't they??? What exactly are they getting paid to do?

Mr. Royer, your praise for the Constitution is, well, a bit naive. Succession of power--wonderful; Electoral College--lousy. House of Lords, oops, Senate--not so good. Amendment I--brilliant; Amendment II--disaster. Amendment XIV--essential for democracy; Amendment XVIII--stupid. Three branches and division of powers--formula for stalemate favoring the status quo of 1789 (100 years to recognize women as political agents and de facto longer to recognize African-Americans as full citizens--1964 Civil Rights Act).

That the U.S. created a perfect political process through its Constitution and that all should operate within it is a conservative trap. If you operate outside that system (say, like Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, Debs, King), you are by definition against perfection created by the white, elite males of 1789. There must be something wrong with you.

The Constitution, even with its Amendments, is a flawed instrument of democracy and needs challenging.