In the Occupy movement, are we seeing the end of something, or the beginning of something?
Posted at 5:00 AM on November 17, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(62 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
Around the country, some Occupy demonstrations are being shut down and others are facing new limits on their activities. And winter is coming, which will bring other pressures to bear on outdoor protests. Today's Question: In the Occupy movement, are we seeing the end of something, or the beginning of something?
Comments (62)
I doubt it's the end or the beginning. I hope it will inspire some Americans to shed their apathy. If nothing else, at least that.
Here's to hoping it's the end, because OWS is distracting people from more unsettling issues ranging from SOPA to how city budgets are even further compromised thanks to the occupation; as a result taxes will become an even dicier issue.
It is the start of something far bigger and more valuable than it's detractors even begin to recognize.
Most of the ant-OWS posts on this and other threads betray a frightening lack of understanding about who is in the movement and what they want.
I applaud this movement ... but "occupying" without an agenda for change isn't overly helpful. WHat I'd like to see are new law proposals that at least begin to take action.
For instance:
-NO MORE BAIL OUTS! Let the businesses fail but have program in place to help individuals. This holds true for the big exectutives who may topple.
In an ideal world where everyone plays fair, your hypothetical example would be valid, Kurt. However, in a world where the poor are unfairly disadvantaged and subject to economic predation by unscrupulous operators, which is the reality now, it doesn't work that way. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to get ahead. In the '30, people supported the New Deal, because they realized it wasn't happening for most folks. That state of affairs exists again, now that the forces of plutocracy have dismantled large portions of the New Deal and are trying hard to undo the rest of it, too. The poor today feel like the folks who got rich in the past have pulled up the ladder after them.
Well Steve, the children of those Mexican roofers have a better chance of doing so than do the spawn of those at OWS. For a couple of centuries now people have streamed into this country because it afforded them the chance to improve their standing. My grandparents did and, I imagine, your did as well. Some worked their asses off. The lessons (and sometimes wealth) accrued. Often they did things others did not want to do and worked hours that others did not want to work so that their children could have more options than they had. Then, as now, others were just envious of their success, oblivious to the hard work that led to that success. Choice is yours.
And snide? Know thyself Oh clever and resourceful one.
Your analysis is faulty, Kurt, because the likelihood of any one of the kids of those hypothetical Mexican roofers clawing their way out of poverty is a lot smaller than the likelihood of a kid born into one of the rich families whose roofs they're working on becoming a rich adult. Does your snide comment about "those who think they are entitled to the fruits of others' labor" apply equally to inherited wealth? Or are you one of those right-wing hypocrits who thinks the estate tax should be abolished because the kids of the uber-rich somehow deserve to keep it all? How clever and resourceful they must have been, and how much hard work they must have done, to have arranged to be born to such parents!
Hey Steve,
Thats what those Mexican roofers understand-that money =opportunity, which they can then pass on to their kids along with a work ethic. Then in a generation or two their kids will have a better lot in life. For those who think they are entitled to the fruits of others' labor-they can blame anyone they want for their lot in life but, truth be told, its their own damn fault.
And yes, there is a far left-they just think they are moderates.
OWS is not "far left." There is no significant "far left" faction in America. Obama is a slightly left of center moderate, but American politics have veered so hard to the right over the last three decades that he only seems far left by comparison.
@suestuben
I agree with your comments except for some of the direction OWS has___ why are OWS not protesting Obama and those who sleep with Big Business? Why are they not protesting them for doing backdoor deals with Solyndra and Sunpower and taking in the CEO of GE to advise Obama? Why are they not protesting the Federal reserve and Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd for scamming Fannie Mae mortgage fiasco that netted them millions on the side? Why is that not happening?
The OWS thing is on its way out. It has turned the majority of America against them and against their supporters on the far left including Obama.
The Tea Party rally was held at over 800 locales and the best estimates from the liberal media had 600,000 attendees. The OWS across the country has brought at best, 30,000 protesters with half having no clue as to what cause they were protesting.
Here is good example for readers to compare these groups:
Tea Party OWS
median age: 45 22
mostly conservative Far Left
permits to use: Yes No permits
arrests: 1 ____ arrests so far: 3,124
invaded property: 0__ 15
cleaned up after they left__ OWS turned area into a toxic zone with feces and lice
Rapes= 0 OWS Rapes = 7
drug use = zero OWS drug use= needles/ crack
"Conservatives do not want Big Business to rule."
Perhaps not, but that's the outcome that we'd get from the policies currently being pushed by self-identified conservative politicians. Yes, too much government is a problem, but if we make it as small and weak as they seem to want, who else will rush in to fill the vacuum but the plutocrats?
I don't know where you get the bullshit you keep posting, whether from FreedomWorks as "david" surmises, or somewhere else, but you're not persuading anyone who isn't eager to be persuaded of your point of view. F'rinstance, where did you get the idea that progressives have a "mantra" of "To each according to their need by those according to their ability to pay"? First of all, that's a misquotation of a communist (i.e., more radical than progressive) slogan, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Second, do you have any idea what a mantra is? You seem to be using the word as a synonym for "motto" or "slogan," which is making you look ignorant.
I mutter a little "thank you" every day for the Occupiers. Thank you for being there, for struggling to keep this democracy, broken as it is, alive for one more day. Our freedoms, to assemble, to petition for redress, of speech, et al., are in your hands as you discover how filthy, cold, and inconvenient is demonstrating. The police will always work for the gov and the people in power (remember Chicago '68); I wonder how many of them have read our Constitution. Anyway, you all are doing the most important work in the country today and there are millions of folks like me who are cheering and praying for you.
Everyone who thinks the Occupiers should hang it up, or worse, be locked up, can thank them first for your right to express those words. The government's power is far greater than Thomas Jefferson could ever have imagined. It is almost wholly in the pockets of giant corporations who tell our 'elected officials' what will increase their profits in exchange for the next election. If history teaches us anything, it is only protest on an overwhelming scale that stops those governments. Unfortunately, people usually do not protest until they have nothing left to lose. Young people today will probably not acheive their parents wealth (or health) and so are beginning to object to that unfairness. Their parents stopped the Viet Nam war and "threw the bastards out" with their noisy, smelly protests. Hopefully today's youth will be able to do the same.
@stevecynic.
No, you are mistaken sir. Conservatives do not want Big Business to rule. What OWS has is a misdirected attack. They attack the players instead of the game. Big business is allowed to get into bed with congress and the President's bed yet Obama freely took into his bed, the SEIU because the SEIU people with Soros are the ones who set him up for Senator and then for President. The OWS protest is just a ruse for the far Left progressives to use them for their own needs. The protesters do not, do NOT have the right to block traffic or close bridges or defacta on the streets or police cars. They do not have the right to assemble where ever they choose. The Constitution does not give them the right to occupy other's property or to mob into bank lobbies to cause havoc...or to trespass on private homeowners. Would you tolerate them mobbing onto your yard because you work on Wall Street? Most of the people working on the Stock Exchange floor and in analysis dept's make between 50,000 and 75,000 a year. Protesters do not have a right to make a ruckus all night long so you can't sleep to get up for work.
OWS needs to protest Obama and Reid and Dodd and Frank and Pelosi as a start since those are then ones who have heavily profited from sleeping with the Big Business like GE, hedge fund owners, Fannie Mae and the failing Green industry like Solyndra, Sunpower and Beacon...wasted a billion there without a blink.
Progressives want us to believe they know best and only they through government power can provide for everyone. That IS WHY their mantra of " To each according to their need by those according to their ability to pay." Sounds a lot like Karl Marx doesn't it? Then add in the Progressive's death tax to take from those deceased to the government but who have already paid taxes on their earnings while alive.
As I wrote yesterday, the quickest route to the socialist revolution that right-wingers (like kimMN) keep trying to make us afraid of is to give Big Business everything it wants and force people to live under the plutocratic tyranny that would result. Unions, government social programs, reasonable regulations, and progressive taxation are necessary to save capitalism from itself. FDR knew this, and so did a generation of politicians from both parties that followed him. We forget at our peril. This is not "radical"; it's common sense.
"When you boil it all down you either believe in equal opportunity or equal outcomes."
That's a false dichotomy, Shane. OWS is not asking for "equal outcomes" but for less unfairly unequal outcomes. In America today, in fact, we do not have equal opportunity. If you start with more money, you have more opportunity. We don't have to choose between soviet-style central planning and jungle-rules capitalism, both of which are disastrous. Something in between is where the optimal economic system is to be found.
The OWS has cost tax payers and meanwhile not one Democrat has distanced themselves from this radical fringe! You would think Obama and Reid and Pelosi and the other Democrats would out of moral decency denounce the violence, the rapes and the filth left to tax payers to clean up or how about the millions this movement has cost all of us? But not one has done so! Yet, Obama can denounce the "fat cats on Wall Street while he accepted how many millions from Wall Street banks in 2008? Obama seems to have NO problem calling America lazy as the reason for the bad economy and lack of new jobs! Our own Dayton has not denounced the violence in MN either.
How will the socialist backed Progressive candidates handle a campaign ad like this one:
" I supported the OWS encampments while working people couldn't drive to get tom work, I supported the OWS movement that left feces on the street and harbored rapists and the man who shot at the White House. I supported the OWS when they held a vigil in solidarity for the gun man who tried to shoot the President. I support anarchy in the name of free speech and freedom to assemble anywhere without a permit, to infringe on other's rights, to shut down the Oakland shipping port. And I support our current President who was the first candidate in 2008 not_ to ever be vetted before the election. I support him although no one can really support or defend his term of failed policies with a continued 9.1 % unemployment and by all measures a failed economic status.
I supported the mainstream media that covered non stop the Tea Party rally's and Glenn Beck's 8-28 rally with 100 ministers and priests and looked for one instance of name calling while ignoring all the interviews at OWS where some called for throwing molatov cocktails to burn down Macy's. IYup, a vote for me is a vote for encouraging more corruption between government and big business, more expensive OWS encampments funded by the Far left Soros groups and SEIU to ensure they have food and water and tents to stay the course for their agenda. I also support the OWS because they too are supported by the American Communist party, Iran and the famous National Socialist Party."
OWS can play that advertisement over and over and help MN defeat Obama in 2012. :)
Do readers ever wonder why it is that MPR will not address any stories that are not favorable to Obama or OWS stories when rape and murder have occurred at these protests?
They covered candidate Cain's accusation stories as being somehow fact without them being able to ask the complainants to show their face and be cross examined to determine fact from a scam. They demeaned Rick Perry for a brain freeze and Sarah Palin was crucified; imagining have a paid reporter from the likes of the radical Salon paper and Media Matters camped out beside your house for months to spy and report, and all that was after_ the 2008 election results. They even went through 23,000 emails when she was governor looking for smut and yet found NOTHING.. That _ dear friends, is harassment and when the media won't cover such things, well no wonder that FOX NEWS is the number one watched network for News and for the pundits analysis, some 10-12 years in a row as number one while the radical Soros funded MNBC network has 1/10th the viewers. ?
Why aren't the OWS protesters lining up at Steven Spinner's house..you know him as the guy in charge of the Energy Dept loans, using stimulus money to favor select companies..one of which made his wife a cool extra few million when she invested early just before the stimulus money was handed out. Spinner also used to bundle millions for Obama campaign...aw jeee, once again it is the Chicago style of politics of PAY to PLAY brought to DC by Obama in 2009 and with his former chief, Rahm Emanuel.
OWS is a stupid wasteful thing when they call for shutting down the bridges and occupying business meanwhile they invade other's spaces and infring on their right to get to work, to drive the streets, to have peace at night vs. hearing drum beats and wailing at 3 AM....OWS will be the end of something..it will be the end of the Progressive's counter culture hypocrisy.
OWS protesters want their free speech and freedom to assemble to occupy but at the expense of other's rights. That is hypocrisy.
Some posting on this question have given 100% BS about the police brutality. If protesters would have removed their filthy camp sites ( but who would want to clean up their own feces?) then the police would not have had to remove their tents in the first place. I feel badly for the Democrats and Obama who have voiced some support for this radical agenda to cause chaos. OWS has now cost HARD WORKING TAX PAYERS OVER100 MILLION ACROSS THE COUNTRY to pay for the police watch, the clean up, of the protester's poop, the added time in courts and the cost to business that have closed.
Contrary to the paid comments from the far left david, FOX NEWS ( not the pundits) has indeed covered these OWS stories. Polls show 76% are now NOT in support of this radical OWS project and those 76% will indeed vote these radicals out of the White House that have supported such 60's crap.
david - [They are in DC too, you just don't know it because faux news and rush limbaugh haven't been reporting it.] *** Sorry but I don't watch Fox News, I prefer CNN (they are slightly bias to the left but it beats complete bias to the right like Fox News). I also listen to NPR/MPR most of the day, I'm sure there are OWS groups in every major city but I have yet to hear a specific story about the OWS group protesting government actions in Washington DC. I have yet to see a single picture of the group in front of Congress or the White House protesting, or even a mention of anger towards government for all the crony capitalism, specifically towards alternative energy subsidies or farm subsidies (i.e. GE paying zero federal income taxes due to solar and wind subsidies). OWS appears to be a leftist group, so it makes sense that they would have no problem with those types of subsidies; I just want to point out the hypocrisy of OWS not standing up against all subsidies and picking and choosing the ones that happen to line up with their leftist viewpoints.
They are in DC too, you just don't know it because faux news and rush limbaugh haven't been reporting it.
John P II - [Actually I think OWS stands more for equal opportunity. It's not anti-capitalism, it's anti-CRONY capitalism which has been explained many times (Rolling Stone, New York Times, etc. etc).] *** If that was true why aren't the protesters out in Washington DC in front of Congress instead of Wall Street? The real problem are all the tax breaks/credits handed out to specific industries...we need a uniform tax code that doesn't pick out winners and losers. Why should we be handing out tax breaks for electric cars, solar power or giving loans to solar companies that go bankrupt? If that's what they are against I'd like to hear them speak out against Solyndra or any other business that gets a hand-out from the federal government. Unless of course they are like nearly every other political group and they really don't care about corruption if it's their side getting the hand out.
What is coming to an end is the ERA of the FAT CAT. The occupy movement has only just begun.
The indomitable spirit of the human being when being exploited has been born-out over and over in history.
Any time I see a concerted effort to shut down free speech, whether by official efforts by police and courts, or by deliberate mischaracterization (ignoring the presence of veterans, retirees, and an awful lot of gainfully employed, hard working people, in favor of the narrative of "lazy, filthy hippies wanting to coast along on other people's hard work"), it gives me serious pause. Free speech, regardless of whether you or I agree with said speech, is a constitutional right. And straw men are lots of fun to mock, but are ultimately a pretty dishonest approach to engaging in civil discourse. If the actual ideas (not a grotesque caricature of the ideas) are worth debating, debate them honestly.
As some other commenters have said, I think the movement is at a crossroads, and it's a bit of both going on right now (an ending and a beginning). Even as one phase of its existence may be drawing to a close, there are other ways I think it is just getting going. These questions being raised about the corporate ownership of our government are not going away. No matter how anyone may try to demonize the messengers, ultimately, the message is one which resonates with a huge segment of the population. It will be interesting to see this conversation continue in the coming months.
Keep pepper spraying 84 year old ladies and this will never end....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016784455_occupy17m.html?prmid=4939
What a novel idea? Citizens assembling to protest against exploitation. Kind of takes of takes you back to 1775 or maybe 1860 or perhaps 1967.
Maybe with a little more protesting the one percenters will treat the 99 percenters a little better.
Keep it up!
Actually I think OWS stands more for equal opportunity. It's not anti-capitalism, it's anti-CRONY capitalism which has been explained many times (Rolling Stone, New York Times, etc. etc).
When you boil it all down you either believe in equal opportunity or equal outcomes. The OWS crowd obviously stands for the latter.
I see numerous references to the Tea Party in the responses. Obviously there are many differences between OWS and the Tea Party, but there are some similarities. The frustration with the status quo in Washington/Wall Street is a part of each. Here is my solution to co-opt both movements into one cause:
Support Term Limits via S. J. RES. 11
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate.
In my opinion, having true Citizen Legislators, Not Career Politicians would change the tenor of every debate in congress - in one way by reducing the importance of re-election for existing congressmen, also by interrupting the current lobbying/pay for play mentality and by having real people solve real problems before returning to their private lives.
I think it is the start of the youth making a move to power. Many youth believed Obama would be that start but to date it really hasn't materialize. Clearly as you can see in these posts the older people in this country are idealistic, which is not productive if you want to advance as a nation.
MBerg - [In re the various comments on the references to the First Amendment: (e.g. " (see how it clearly says Congress)"... ] *** Here's what I posted "the bill of rights originally only applied to the federal government (see how it clearly says Congress); local/state governments did not generally fall under that did not fall under that limitation. As time went on the 14th Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass all governments to limit themselves as per the Bill of Rights/Amendments." As you can clearly see I used the word "originally", because before the 14th Amendment was created and before the court cases that you mentioned were heard the Bill of Rights did only apply to the federal government. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was interpreted to give all rights listed in the Bill of Rights to all lower forms of government...I thought I covered it very clearly but perhaps you did not read further beyond my first line before making your comment.
The OWS rallying cry is "you cant evict an idea". The idea being that if you stand up and come together people will hear you and take notice. This despite the fact that you have no particular spokesman and no financial backing, and are incapapble of spending millions on TV ads.
The OWS is sending a message that people can be effective, by combining with other people of like mind, It may require days and weeks and months of work, but it takes nothing more than your true commitment.
Its Democracy unfettered by money. And OWS has shown it can be done.
The fear is that the forceful attacks by government bodies against the OWS, while they may have limited success, will end up radacalizing the protesters, and it may start a growing cycle of violence.
A group of people sittng quietly on public property is not a physical threat. A grop of people who sit in fear of being roughly attacked and pepper sprayed or subject to bean bags, tazers and other 'non leathal' attacks becomes a group willing to counter those threats to protect themselves and what they at least precieve to be their rights.
OWS will continue in its present form, I dont believe the tipping point has been reached yet. More violent attacks against them may well transform them into something else. "That which does not kill me makes me stronger" or at least more capable of striking back.
In re the various comments on the references to the First Amendment: (e.g. " (see how it clearly says Congress)"
While the BIll of Rights was in fact an enumeration of federal powers (reserving the others to the states and The People), the various parts of the Bill of Rights that refer to "inalienable rights" have been "incorporated" by various Supreme Court decisions to be binding on lower governments. Free Speech was incorporated by "Gitlow V. New York" (1925) and Assembly by "DeJonge V. Oregon" (1931).
So speech is speech and assembly is assembly, no matter what the jurisdiction.
But there has never been a "right to camp on public property indefinitely". I'm not being flippant; if there is a right to occupy Government Plaza for the "movement's" exclusive use, that means the rest of the county is obligated to pay for it. There is no right not to be exposed to other peoples' speech, but there is a right not to have to bankroll it without some say via the legislative process.
I'm glad someone is keeping score!
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33490
The communist, socialist, fascist are not after you, give it a break....WOW, those types are some of the OWS group. Anyone who thinks those groups want to co-exist without taking over are unaware of history. Today, China is still Red China in spite of using or manipulating capitalism to grow their economy, their people have no freedoms.
OWS has not constitutional right to take over private or public lands under the guise of freedom to assemble.
Look, here's the real plan behind OWS, it is something MPR and NPR doesn't want to report or are not allowed to report based upon the wishes of their chief donor, George Soros, who donated $1.3 million to NPR set up their newest Investigative Division last year.
The idea behind OWS was to rile up the public against capitalism and to use a target called Wall Street. No surprise here when this same group of instigators did NOT identify any of their liberal congressmen involved in the decades long ruse to use Fannie Mae to profit themselves, as their target.
The question that should_have been answered months a go is; WHO is behind OWS and which groups are funding and organizing it? OWS group knew they could use_ students in college for a return to Woodstock theme of "lets rally and camp out!"
The final mission of OWS organizers is to incite violence and force police involvement, then to cry police brutality, just as the radical left Progressives did so n the 60's.
The Rules for Radicals use this technique to rile the public to gain support for their agenda.
Obama's radical friends and supporters from the late 60's have said at speeches in the past year, " ..and we need more aggressive civil disobedience."
Obama could win re-election if the campaign is about who is the most anti-capitalist. His own books clearly describe his disdain for capitalism, he wrote of his disgust with the colonialist countries such as England that arrested his birth father while he was supporting the socialist movement in Kenya.
Yes, Obama would get the OWS protesters vote and the votes from the American Communist Party for sure but does America want that?
The beginning. The clash of increasingly militarized police forces (possibly coordinated by Homeland Security?) vs an "open-source" decentralized tech-savvy protest movement will be interesting and probably tragic.
The "occupy" portion will be on it's way out soon and unless they - the occupiers- come forth with a viable and legal solution to fix what they percieve as the problem - the "idea" will disappear also.
If the occupiers want good, honest, well paying jobs inorder to support themselves and their families, then the jobs have to return to the US and these occupiers are willing to work those jobs. I hope that these occupiers don't think they will all receive 100K starting salaries. Yet these jobs will not return to the US if we as consumers don't want to pay the higher price for these goods. If all the design and production of our electronics returned to the US, the cost of these items will be greatly higher than they are now. Are you willing to pay substantially more so the factory worker can be paid enough to maintain a middle class live style?
A line from a movie and a song lyric come to mind - "greed is good" and " I have to do it my way" The ACLU and the political correctness police have driven out any mention of a God of any religion from our public lives and schools. Has this also driven out ethics and caring?
The Occupy movement is gone unless they can change the way many view the "way of doing business".
OWS has way, way, way, way, more kooks than the Tea Party ever had. .................................................................................... if you're relying on TV .,.. who do you think they are going to show ... folks calmly sitting in chairs, reading magazines or discussing topics ... Or captain chaos in a cape spouting off . The "Occupy (site)" folks are the tip off a larger movement that is no longer satisfied with the corportized structure that is moving money and power to few and fewer
I think the authorities smelled the end of something. That's why they aren't allowing people to stay overnight. Phew...
david - [I don't see anything about a permit required. In fact the act of requiring a permit would go against the spirit and the letter of this law. Does seem ludicrous to require a permit from the very government you are protesting.] *** That's a very good point but you have to remember the bill of rights originally only applied to the federal government (see how it clearly says Congress); local/state governments did not generally fall under that did not fall under that limitation. As time went on the 14th Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass all governments to limit themselves as per the Bill of Rights/Amendments. Limitless freedom of speech poses some problems, so the Supreme Court imposed some common sense limits known as time, place, and manner restrictions. This rule, for example, allows the government to prevent someone from using a loudspeaker on neighborhood streets in the middle of the night. The permit issue was covered in Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted for marching in a parade without getting a permit. They argued that the permit requirement violated their freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed. It said that as long as government issues permits fairly to all persons, government may control the time, place, and manner of free speech for public convenience and safety. Permits are required so that one group may not monopolize public areas for extended periods of time (sounds like OWS doesn't it?). Is one group's freedom of speech more important than another group's freedom of speech? Permits allow for groups to take over an area for a limited amount of time while the public knows when that time will end so other people can enjoy the public area or use it for their own freedom of speech right.
It seems to me that we're seeing the end of the movement, if for no other reason that winter is approaching. I think that, from the media's perspective, the movement has lost its novelty, and that the interests and aims of the movement have become so diverse and varied that the original intent of the movement is all but obliterated. And sadly, from Wall Street's perspective, life goes on and business continues just as usual. The rich continue to get richer, and the poor continue to get poorer.
I don't see anything about a permit required. In fact the act of requiring a permit would go against the spirit and the letter of this law. Does seem ludicrous to require a permit from the very government you are protesting.
OWS needs to pick a direction and go with it, every time there is a coherent message suddenly OWS protesters say that that message doesn't represent them. From what I can tell OWS seems to do a lot complaining with very little in the way of solutions and half the time they can't figure out what they are complaining about. They don't like the rich, but some rich people are okay (i.e. Steve Jobs); one protester sent out a list of demands that made them look communist (or at least very socialist) but then that list was disavowed by OWS. Apparently the only thing they feel strongly about is staying in parks over night with tents and having continuous demonstrations without getting the proper permits. If you want to protest, then fine, get a permit and do it legally like every other group has done (including the Tea Party). I believe we are seeing the end of this movement since it lacks direction and solutions; until they decide to join the adults and clearly articulate what they want from our political system they are just going to look like whining children who keep telling us how unfair life is.
The OWS protesters had a valid point initially, but have found their issue compromised by the influence of many union, liberal groups as well a Democratic politician, including Pres Obama and Keith Ellison. As this movement has deteriorated into apparent lawlessness and other abuses, these groups will be attempting to withdraw their presence and support and this movement will die.
I hope the movement opened a few of the astroturfed tea party's duped follower's eyes. THE TEA PARTY WASN'T REAL! It was bought and paid for by david koch, dick armey, the bogus freedom works and other right ring corporate greed propaganda machines. The two movements are incomparable, except OWS was a reaction to the fact that this country was bought and sold years ago, and we all are paying the price, starting with those at the bottom and the youngest who will be paying the most. Thanks baby-boomers, your greed and laziness really did a bang up job!
Bloomberg's handling of this will go down in history as the biggest blunder since everything george w bush ever did. Simple law of physics, but every action will have an equal and opposite reaction. If they want this thing to keep escalating, then by all means keep escalating the violence against the protesters. If that's the politician's choice to take it in that direction, then don't blame the protesters. If someone in politics wants to sit down and have a talk with the protesters, and work on CONSENSUS, that would be ADMIRABLE behavior, and this country can once again start moving forward. How many of you hypocrites praised the arab spring because it was promoting democracy (often through violence), but when democracy happens here, it's a communist threat.
Those of you who only get your news from the dittohead, faux news, propaganda machines, I just don't know what you are doing here. Greasy sock puppet's are all you are. Unbiased news is leftist rhetoric to you, you are all so far gone. The communist, socialist, fascist are not after you, give it a break. The fact that so many of you are on here every single day, copy/pasting in the same old BS just destroy's your tenuous creditably. Keep an flapping your sock puppet gums, society is starting to see you for what you are.
And if the choice is a plutocratic banana republic, or dealing with a lice problem in a park I'll probably never visit, bring on the vermin, it beats the alternative.
The 400 richest families in the country now own more of America than the bottom 150 million citizens. This is just the beginning. The sand is shifting under our economic pillars built on favoritism and greed. This predatory capitalism must be reformed for our country to thrive.
@zeke: spot on. I wish this thread was policed by @NewsCut. A lot of the baloney would disappear.
Gary, you definitely "don't get it" One of the purposes of protest is to get attention for your cause via some sort of disruption - peaceful or otherwise. Unfortunately, politicians are much more likely to get "disrupted" by a large campaign contribution than by street protests or letter-writing, which are about all the methods the "99%" have at their disposal.While people on both sides should certainly not condone the violence and bad behavior of the few (who unfortunately draw a disproportionate amount of attention), they should pay attention to the central message of inequity of power due to wealth disparity in this country. This statement is in no way supporting or condoning wealth redistribution, nor do I believe that is in any way a central message of OWS. But when you have large financial institutions in this country allowed to run wild, making up their own rules, and cratering the economy for the profit of a few with no apparent legal repercussions, that should be of concern to everyone.
And what reason do you have to believe that there are no "plants" to discredit OWS, GaryF? Most folks judge groups they are a part of or have an affinity for by their best examples, and opposing groups by their worst.
Trolls have hit the website.... Every day this website looks more and more like the comments section of the Star and Tribune....
OWS has way, way, way, way, more kooks than the Tea Party ever had.
After the Tea Party was becoming a force, most the the "Kooks" you talked about were plants to discredit the movement.
OWS also seems to be very Anti-Semitic, is that because of the whole "Wall Street" thing?
If you shut down the subways, isn't that going to hurt the little people? If you shut down Wall Street, isn't that going to hurt the little people that are employed the big Wall Street firms?
I still don't get what the end game or game plan for the OWS movement? Shouldn't they be protesting at the White House and State Houses? Where policy is created and enforced? I still don't get it.
//While the far left and their sympathizers still think this is cool and still going somewhere, middle America is being turned off.
The methods may be turning off people, but the issues remain. Add in a 9% favorable rating for Congress as a whole and their inability to even agree on what day of the week it is, and it is very clear that a lot more folk than the "far left" are not happy.
You're willfully blind, GaryF. But I suspect you know that at some level. OWS is not about those things any more than the Tea Party is about the bigotry and hatred of some of the kooks it has attracted.
@Clark - Obviously, white house statements on the movement need to cast the protesters in simultaneously destructive and sad light. However, for one, OWS has never endorsed violence (only a few dissidents within the groups, though the police have been violent in many cities). Peaceful civil disobedience has been a part of every social and civil rights movement that has ever accomplished anything. But the key phrase in your comment has to be "radical redistribution of wealth." In fact, the OWS movement is not proposing another economic order, but it does want to see a more equitable and fair society, where the majority of people have access to economic stability. It want's a capitalism that, for the first time in history, would be just as beneficial for those at the bottom as those at the top (Although it's understandable that one misconstrue that request as a call for the redistribution of wealth) But it's really not communism or socialism - it's merely asking that the government to look after its people, that corporations and their millionaire or billionaire leaders be held accountable by a legal system that can't be circumvented by bribes, settlements, and non-disclosure agreements. OWS wants a government where those that regulate industry are the not the same people who profit when the average American is taken advantage of... The problem is that by now, everyone realized that in America, one is more politically effective with a big bank account that with a mere vote. What OWS wants, ultimately, is a government controlled by the people, and not money.
As I read what I just wrote, I realize that this is indeed a big, radical mission. It's the mission of democracy. And when you live in a plutocracy, it's a dangerous mission. OWS isn't going to stop, but under the face of recent pressure it will be forced to become more direct and locally focused, and smarter. But it's not going to die. This is just the beginning.
Why aren't the OWS people up in arms about the executives at Freddie and Fannie getting big fat bonuses when F & F still owe the government a whole boat load of money?
How come?
"OWS is the mirror image of the Tea Party."
Time to change the bong water.
The Tea Party hasn't set dumpsters on fire(Oakland), took dumps on cop cars(NYC), had people raped(Dallas, Baltimore), has problems with scabies and lice(NYC), deface public property(San Fran) just to name a few.
While the OWS may have started out as a genuine uprising, it now is filled with hard core leftists and anarchists, that are hell bent on ruining the people's real chance at improving their lives.
While the far left and their sympathizers still think this is cool and still going somewhere, middle America is being turned off.
Yes, shutting down the subway is going to piss more people off than help your cause.
It has jumped the shark for most of America, the hard core left will still keep it around.
Neither.
Finance saps global productivity by taking far too large of a rent for the task it accomplishes. Governments must act (preferably in concert) to reduce the systemic dangers of finance while simultaneously reducing finance's profitability. Finance needs to become again, as it once was, boring. Perhaps the greatest cost of the rise of the finance industry in the last quarter century has been the loss of talent to the finance industry. An acquaintance of mine got his PhD in geophysics at M.I.T., where he modeled the multi-phase behavior of petroleum in rock formations. He was hired by a Wall street firm to create and simulate the behavior of derivatives. He has made a small fortune and lives very comfortably these days. What a terrible waste of his talents. Finance will not be reformed until talented people like that geophysicist are no longer tempted away from productive pursuits by the rape and plunder offered by the rent-seeking pirates of Wall Street.
People are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics
Neither. It's part of a cycle. OWS is the mirror image of the Tea Party. As with the Tea Party and any other movement that's significantly outside of the sensible center, the more folks know about it, the less they like it, and the more irrelevant it becomes. After the Tea Party and OWS have faded to insignificance, it will all happen again.
Hopefully the end. Yesterday I saw a Mexican roofing crew and I thought, how ironic. Here are a bunch of guys (possibly illegals) happy to be here and to work 12 hour days just like my father and his generation did. How about we trade one illegal for one OWSer even up. Everyone is happy.
I will refer to a comment provided by a Clinton Administration employee, "OWS comprises an unrepresentative segment of electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and violence.". The only thing missing from their occupation is a hammer and sickle.
| November 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock