As an activist, I think I have a responsibility to always consider whether the ends of my actions justify their means. While considering whether or not to occupy a city lot, for instance, there was much deliberation by the PPU. I also personally put a lot of deep thought into it. Being that the action was lead by the houseless folks themselves, and they would be staying there and subject to arrest that could impact whether they are eligible for housing, etc. Not for one second did I stop to think whether anyone would approve of our tactics, in fact, we knew that some people wouldn't. We took the city lot, and now there is a rotating tent city that is providing stability, dignity, and support to it's residents. Those are things not available to folks that are scattered in the woods or in shelters. To me, this means that the ends justified the means. People are better off now, and it has had minimal to no tangible affect on anyone else. I just got news that a couple, a pregnant woman and her partner, are moving on into their own place. That makes around 15 people that have moved into housing from Camp Quixote. At that rate, 15 in just over 3 months, Camp Quixote is a rival to many other housing or advocacy programs, and all they provide is a safe place to stay without the limitations placed on them by out of touch shelter systems.

My bigger point in all of this is that while it's OK to criticize direct action, we must be aware that sometimes what we see or read on the news is very shallow. How many different methods were attempted before something drastic happened? This is important. The membership of the PPU tried for months to engage the city about our grievances, yet felt shunted every step of the way. So, we organized Camp Quixote, and now we have the ears of many who wouldn't be listening to us had we not. Had some folks not thrown some tea in the water a few years back, what kind of world would we live in?

What do the Women in Black accomplish? What do they actually achieve? When I hear folks say, "I like those Women in Black, they're peaceful and don't start trouble", or things I like that, what I hear is this: "People should just accept that they have no control over their world. It's ok to voice displeasure, but don't ruffle feathers or disturb the pond."

My problem with this is that people who participate in direct actions (at least the ones that I've been a part of), are pretty hardcore patriots. They believe in gun ownership and free speech and every ink blob in the Constitution. A lot of these folks are anarchists, and they would never even dream of taking guns or rights away, yet they are labeled as violent oppressors who would control everyone if given the chance. Anarchism is about social order. Social order can only come if people are free.

Direct action, even violent direct action, is about changing the world into a place where we don't have borders, physical or mental, where we create a world without war, poverty, classism, or racism. You may not agree with their methods now, but if they were successful and we didn't have to live under the thumb of big government anymore, I think we would all be a lot happier.