Who actually speaks for the Occupy movement? Who decides or articulates what its goals actually are? I'm struggling to identify who or what does this.

Desecration of property is certainly what has happened at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Rightly or wrongly, the "Occupy" movement has been perceived by many here in the UK as either participating in or supporting that desecration or, alternatively, standing back passively and enabling it to happen.

As a result, sympathy for the "Occupy" movement has fallen, certainly here in London, in recent weeks as this protest continues directly outside a place of worship.

They decide by general assembly. The people speaks for OWS and the people make the decisions.

http://occupywallst.org/

"Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society."

Still not trying to stir up shit, but what happens if the members of the general assembly disagree? Majority vote? I don't see how that will go on forever before the dissenters will form their own splinter group, because they are not heard. Did that make any sense?

I'm wondering how many times we need to delay any kind of social and human progress by continuing to swirl with these kinds of comments which have been abundantly perpetuated, vetted and responded to clearly, succinctly, tactfully and with hope in many other ways besides violence and how long some need to continue to focus on the small exception to the otherwise preponderance of nonviolent, focused and progressive action and thinking that has been taken place.

They have had that issue. Majority vote wins. When John Lewis wanted to speak at OWS in Atlanta majority vote said no, but for the people that wanted to hear him they agreed on him speaking at the end of the general assembly. He didn't want to wait so he left. They came to a compromise.

All well & good but I walk past St Paul's Cathedral every morning and evening.

That's my closest "real" experience of the "Occupy" movement and, especially very early in the morning when I walk by, I see a lot of rubbish and streams of human waste. The gathering has prevented some acts of worship from taking place and, more generally, tourists are now avoiding the historic site. I cannot blame them - I would too.

So for me it ain't about these kinds of comments which have been abundantly perpetuated, vetted and responded to clearly, succinctly, tactfully , rather it's about what I see and experience 5 days of the week and it ain't positive. In fact, the opposite when London's already stretched police resources have to deal with the crowd control and petty crime that this has attracted.

Apologies if my personal experience isn't to everyone's liking or if it's viewed as biased (which it undoubtedly is but you got the diplomatic version) but that's how I call it.

The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy
 

Right on Naomi Wolf.

LINK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cupy?fb=optOut

I'm sorry to hear that's been your experience. It hasn't been mine.

I think most people want redress for the loss of their homes, businesses, savings, jobs and lives in the most peaceful, civil and satisfactory manner possible.

I know plenty of people who lost their jobs as a result of the "crisis". They worked in banking (as do I - and I won't apologise for that) so it wasn't just a loss of a job but, also, any equity they had built up in the company (profit shares, annual bonuses, monthly saving schemes etc) over periods of time up to 30 years. Some lost it all.

Although they're very frustrated by the crisis, by aspects of regulation of the financial sector and general incompetence, none of these folk are members of the Occupy movement.

If it's about redress for loss during the crisis, that's understandable (I lost much more during the crisis than most) but if they want to do it in a civil manner then, certainly, in the city I live they are going about it the wrong way. Furthermore, it has distanced them from the middle ground which has been angered by how they've turned the grounds outside St Pauls' into something resembling an itinerant camp. 99%? I'd be surprised if they have the support of 9% of the people here in London.

The UK has a very different set of financial regulations and a different system of taxation as does Canada. The US is more deregulated and has a different tax structure. And the losses here have not been insignificant.

We can swirl in semantics about percentages and degrees, but the point of the movement is simple enough, and frankly it's a point well taken. We can and should do better.

I would also submit to you that earth's human population is seven billion and counting, and so socio-economic injustice and societies no longer set up to even present the simulacrum of opportunity and stratification and instead represent increasingly polarized factions of the "haves" and "have nots" are primed for something other than "business as usual." I wouldn't take something away from people that they believe they deserve or have come to respect and expect no reaction. We're clearly seeing cause and effect in motion.

Don’t look to billion dollar corporations who pay ZERO taxes for help.

Don’t look to the businesses who actually get paid by our government to move our jobs elsewhere.

Don’t look to the rich who pay less taxes than the rest of us. They pay 17% (if they pay anything at all. And many don’t, thanks to awesome loopholes); we pay 35%.

Certainly don’t look to the financial sector, the cause of this mess in the first place.

Where should we get money to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget?

Why out of the mouths of the poor and the hungry of course.

*I am wondering how giving people less to eat will supply enough money to stimulate the economy? It must make sense if Congress wants to do it. They are noted for their sense making skills after all. What do the poor need to eat for anyway? Think of how much money we could save if they would all just starve already. I mean considering how warm it is because of global climate change clearly they won’t be freezing to death anytime soon. What choice do we have?

The poor have long been whiny, annoying, buzz kills. Always wanting food, clothing, warmth, housing, medical care, they even wish for dental care, and I’m so sick of hearing how they want jobs. Anarchists. If they would just spend more time working and less time complaining we wouldn’t have to starve them to death. Clearly tolerating their sorry asses hasn’t worked. Feeding them certainly doesn’t make any sense anymore. And if they are weak enough maybe they won’t keep trying to get to the voting booths.

It’s about time we actively seek their timely demise. We can't afford poor people. And clearly they aren’t taking the hint. They insist on existing. They can’t even starve gracefully.



US Congress Seeks to Cut Food Stamp Program
Problems for poor to intensify if food-stamps program that assists 45 million people gets reduced.

Advocates for the poor and often hungry in the US say that problems for the nation's needy could intensify if the agriculture department bows to pressure from congress to reduce food-assistance schemes.

Politicians are looking at ways to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget with a proposed $4.2bn cut in its food-stamps program that currently assists 45 million people.

According to a recent US government report, some 15 per cent of Americans are relying on food stamps. That is a 50 per cent jump from last year at a cost of $65bn per year.

Our government never ceases to amaze me. They have literally screwed out food system and now they will starve people.

Big ****ing deal! This is the way the frustrated and disadvantagd lobby, in the streets. It has been played out many times in history and will, whether you like it or not. This is a shaming and elitist attitude to have. I'm sorry the "litter" in front of St. Paul's does'nt fit into your neat little idealogical box, but the very social fabric of our civilization is being torn apart due to the waste, corruption, extortion, unaccountability, and unfettered greed behind closed doors by those at the very top and their stubborness in refusing to address these issues, preferring personal gain at the expense of long-term social stability. Clean up this corruption at the top and put these people in jail instead of the OWS campers. "Litter" in the streets is small potatoes compared to corporate and purchasable.gov. and their wasteful spending.

to get a full understanding of how the decision making is done, you might try attending your local Occupy general assembly. they are open to anyone that wants to participate and should you decide to show up and participate in the voting on of anything your vote will be counted. you'll even get an opportunity to be heard just by using a few hand signals. refreshing, actually, how effective...if not a little long.....this process actually is. everyone gets to be heard and all points voiced are discussed and voted on. it's quite fascinating.

I believe your right to protest ends where my nose begins, literally. If you want to march, fine. But mess with cultural monuments or even public parks spoiled for the rest of us, and drive off business around the parks, and sorry, you lose my sympathy.

In the past 6 years I have had a house foreclosed upon and was laid off. I've seen my daughter, 20, struggle to find a job at minimum wage places that just aren't hiring.

In this experience, I discovered that:

* There is government assistance programs for people losing their homes, but they are geared towards helping the banks, not the people. Banks often will not work towards short sales or loan modifications because, depending on how much you owe vs. how much your house is now valued at, they stand to make more money from the government to let it go into foreclosure.

* I had a FHA Housing counselor tell me that I didn't qualify for assistance because I wasn't behind enough in my payments. Come back in 6 months. And don't pay your mortgage during that time frame. Really? You're telling me not to pay what I can and get further behind in the hopes I qualify then?

* I had an attorney tell me to just walk away, I would be more likely to qualify for bankruptcy. In principle I had issues with this as the only thing I really owed to anyone was the house and while I could make payments, I needed the loan modified to fit my budget. He told me probably wasn't going to happen and that this would be the best solution for me. I had a moral issue on defaulting on a commitment I had made, I just needed the terms of that commitment modified.

* When I was laid off, I had to pay for health insurance through Cobra. The cost was equivalent to half my unemployment checks. I soon was without health insurance.

Long story short....the Government system doesn't work unless you are already rich and really don't need the system to begin with.

The company for which I work now, recently gave the CEO a whopping 37% increase even though the company has not seen "profitable" days since 2000. We've had a rash of lay offs with more projected in the future. How did they derive on the new pay for our CEO? On performance? No. They bench marked other CEO's in other companies to see what their CEO's were making to set our CEO's wage. A common practice. The rich get richer when you're at the top. The rest of us? Lose our jobs in "reductions" due to the poor economy, of which the rich helped create.

The thing with sympathy is you can't eat it, wear it, burn it to keep warm, or use it to buy medicine. You can't pay your mortgage with it either. So I don't think it's really of any use. And thank god for that. Look around the world, it's a pretty unsympathetic place. The only thing harder to find than sympathy or compassion is a job.

If we had to wait for sympathy to save ourselves, well... let's just say I'm glad we don't.

Sympathy not needed.

We all could use some equity of treatment though. And since nobody who is advantaged or even thinks they are heading in that direction is going to be in favor of, or have any sympathy for, a more equitable and fair society then the majority of people who are not advantaged are just going to have to ignore the whining of the rich and would be rich and make it happen in spite of them. But first they have to see what's wrong, understand the lies, believe in themselves and in their country. And that's the job of OWS to be a visible reminder of what is very wrong. And to help us see more clearly, to help us understand what happened and how it all went so very wrong. If we don't open our eyes those that can will continue to steal our dreams from us. We have to take back the government from the control of the few. We need to ensure that the promise of a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people does not perish from the earth.

it's so wierd that you say that cuz that's exactly how i feel about elevating someone else's lifestyle at the expense of my own and then for it to be against the law for me to have something to say about that. :) funny how that works. i'm soooo glad i don't need a stranger's sympathy to be capable of moral enlightenment.

imagine a world of gardeners/farmers that abhorred the dirt. what would we eat?

As I was watching the news this morning, a story about Occupy SF was aired. They went to Union Square yesterday during the Black Friday madness to protest. Thousands of shop til you drop buying from big department stores were there to see the Xmas tree light up. One of the Occupy leaders (yes there are leaders whether or not anyone wants to admit that) was interviewed and he said we should not shop AT ALL. We should make gifts, not buy them.

This struck me as completely wrong-headed. I have no gripes with a slow down of shopping corporate stores. However we should be shopping exclusively at small local businesses. Small business is the backbone of creating and maintaining communities and the real economy.

It is 'small business saturday' and we should all shop small local business every day not just today.

I agree Toughy- I know it is hard for many to pass up saving some on items on their list, but our local merchants need our business! Also, they participate in many revitalization efforts of communities that help make them safer and do bring direct tax revenues back to schools and other public services like fire stations and hospitals. And they do not have mega-million dollar lobbyists on Capitol Hill on their behalf.

Most big-box enterprises are entrenched in Wall Street and take money out of the US.

In the last 3 years, I have seen 8 small businesses close in El Cerrito and those are just the ones that I shopped in. The owners are and were (2 lost their homes and have moved) my neighbors, living within less than two miles from me.

I bet there are several people you know that were part of the fantastic revitalization efforts in Oakland that are just trying to hang on. Think of how many of them that gave part-time jobs to teens and supported community activities.

Today is Small Business Shopping Day!! I only have to buy one gift (we do a drawing in my family and have a cut off price)- and I am buying it at a local merchant. Yes, I priced it via online and would save about $7 if I bought it at best Buy (I drew a teen family member this year) and I do need to stick to a budget, but I am buying it at the Guitar Store here. It's the least I can do for my town.

Activism is well.... taking ACTION...

I spent an entire day trying to find local businesses to shop at. It was very hard to find where I live. The saddest thing to me is that i live in a region where there are tons of farms and if you go to ANY food store here you won't find any local produce.

Rallys are great but change has to be a grassroots effort in each and every community.

Enjoying everyone's posts :-)
 

So many compelling reasons to shop locally...

http://greenupgrader.com/files/2009/07/shoplocal.jpg

Consider Etsy, consider a thread here, that highlights Etsy sellers, from BFP. Under Queerbay. Consider websites that only sell American made goods, sourced and made, not just assembled here,. Local in this context, starts with being actually made in the US of A. Produce, consider a local CSA, I am betting there is one somewhere near you ...
Sometimes you do have to look a little harder, but just doing a bit ,is a start : )

Whether the Occupy Movement is still a leaderless movement at present or not, it can't remain that way. Not if it becomes a movement with the size and substance to influence significant change. But no matter the who and the how of the eventual leaders, it was the people, the ordinary people who came together and pitched some tents to serve as a visual aide for the rest of us. It was the people who engaged in non violent protests, mic checks and democratic general assemblies who made this movement. The people without leaders and without just one clear message who came together to say enough is enough, to say give the government back to the people, and get Wall Street out of Washington. They are the heart and soul of the movement. They are the reason for any success. Not those future leaders.


Here is an interesting article about leaders.
What Are Leaders Really For?
By Duncan Watts

The Occupy Wall Street movement has both perplexed and frustrated observers and analysts by its persistent refusal to nominate an identifiable leadership who can in turn articulate a coherent agenda. What is the point, these critics wonder, of a movement that can't figure out where it's trying to go, and how can it get there without anyone to lead it?

It's a reasonable question, but it says at least as much about what we want from our social movements as it does about the way movements actually succeed.

Typically, the way we think of social change is some variant of the "great man" theory of history: that remarkable events are driven by correspondingly remarkable individuals whose vision and leadership inspire and coordinate the actions of the many. Sometimes these individuals occupy traditional roles of leadership, like presidents, CEOs, or generals, while at other times they emerge from the rank and file; but regardless of where they come from, their presence is necessary for real social change to begin. As Margaret Meade is supposed to have said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

It's an inspiring idea, but over 100 years ago in his early classic of social psychology, "The Crowd," the French social critic Gustave LeBon, argued that the role of the leader was more subtle and indirect. According to LeBon, it was the crowd, not the princes and generals, that had become the driving force of social change. Leaders still mattered, but it wasn't because they themselves put their shoulders to the wheel of history; rather it was because they were quick to recognize the forces at work and adept at placing themselves in the forefront.

Even before LeBon, no less an observer of history than Tolstoy presented an even more jaundiced view of the great man theory. In a celebrated essay on Tolstoy's War and Peace, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin summed up Tolstoy's central insight this way: "the higher the soldiers or statesmen are in the pyramid of authority, the farther they must be from its base, which consists of those ordinary men and women whose lives are the actual stuff of history; and, consequently, the smaller the effect of the words and acts of such remote personages, despite all their theoretical authority, upon that history." According to Tolstoy, in other words, the accounts of historians are borderline fabrications, glossing over the vast majority of what actually happens in favor of a convenient storyline focused on the skill and leadership of the great generals.

Thinkers like Le Bon and Tolstoy and Berlin therefore lead us to a radically alternative hypothesis of social change: that successful movements succeed for reasons other than the presence of a great leader, who is as much a consequence of the movement's success as its cause. Explanations of historically important events that focus on the actions of a special few therefore misunderstand their true causes, which are invariably complex and often depend on the actions of a great many individuals whose names are lost to history.

Interestingly, in the natural world we don't find this sort of explanation controversial. When we hear that a raging forest fire has consumed millions of acres of California forest, we don't assume that there was anything special about the initial spark. Quite to the contrary, we understand that in context of the large-scale environmental conditions — prolonged drought, a buildup of flammable undergrowth, strong winds, rugged terrain, and on so — that truly drive fires, the nature of the spark itself is close to irrelevant.

Yet when it comes to the social equivalent of the forest fire, we do in effect insist that there must have been something special about the spark that started it. Because our experience tells us that leadership matters in small groups such as Army platoons or start-up companies, we assume that it matters in the same way for the very largest groups as well. Thus when we witness some successful movement or organization, it seems obvious to us that whoever the leader is, his or her particular combination of personality, vision, and leadership style must have supplied the critical X factor, where the larger and more successful the movement, the more important the leader will appear.

By refusing to name a leader, Occupy Wall Street presents a challenge to this view. With no one figure to credit or blame, with no face to put on a sprawling inchoate movement, and with no hierarchy of power, we simply don't know how to process what "it" is, and therefore how to think about it. And because this absence of a familiar personality-centric narrative makes us uncomfortable, we are tempted to reject the whole thing as somehow not real. Or instead, we insist that in order to be taken seriously, the movement must first change to reflect what we expect from serious organizations — namely a charismatic leader to whom we can attribute everything.

In the case of Occupy Wall Street, we will probably get our wish, for two reasons. First, if OWS grows large enough to deliver any lasting social change, some hierarchy will become necessary in order to coordinate its increasingly diverse activities; and a hierarchy by nature requires a leader. And second, precisely because the outside world wants a leader — to negotiate with, to hold responsible, and ultimately to lionize — the temptation to be that person will eventually prove irresistible.

Leaders, in other words, are necessary, but not because they are the source of social change. Rather their real function is to occupy the role that allows the rest of us to make sense of what is happening — just as Tolstoy suspected. For better and worse, telling stories is how we make sense of the world, and it's hard to tell a story without focal actors around which to center the action. But as we witness a succession of popular movements, from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street, we can at least pause to appreciate the real story, which is the remarkable phenomenon of a great many ordinary individuals coming together to change the world.

This was on Crooks and Liars, a decidedly lefty liberal site.


Updated: The Shocking Truth About Naomi Wolf's Factless Assertions

In an article for The Guardian, Naomi Wolf wrote this:

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

This follows the ongoing meme that DHS has coordinated the Occupy crackdowns on a national level; that they are orchestrating the violence behind the clearing of Zuccotti Park and others. Wolf carries this to her conclusion:

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

It's a factless, incendiary assertion dripping in hyperbole, grounded in speculation that's been going on for a couple of weeks now. It began with a tweet. A tweet from Michael Moore speculating that the coordination seemed like something being coordinated by DHS and sanctioned, nay, possibly even requested, by the Obama administration.
Here are the two links Wolf provides as evidence: One to Wonkette; the other toWashingtonsblog.com. Both articles point back to this absurd article on the Examiner.com site (a very, very right-wing Phil Anschutz, write-out-of-your-butt-with-no-evidence kind of site). Washingtons Blog goes one step further, updating with this:

(And for those who are understandably doubtful about Examiner.com as a news source,here’s an AP story from a couple hours ago that verifies everything except the specific mention of DHS coordination.)

Got that? The headlines on both of these stories (Wonkette and Washingtons Blog) were splayed across the sites in very large heading fonts: “Homeland Security Coordinated….” and yet the AP confirms everything BUT DHS coordination. Still, that didn’t stop Wolf from ignoring the AP story entirely and writing a piece for the Guardian that included links to bolster her argument that are as factless as her hyperbole, and stem from right-wing sites with anonymous sources.
No one has a source, no one has any evidence, and the originating story which Michael Moore and now Naomi Wolf breathlessly spread quotes an anonymous source with the promise of still more to come in the future, from a "reporter" for Examiner.com who no one seems to know. Miraculously, this "reporter" got a tip from DHS that no national reporter received, and even though Mr. Ellis walks back his original accusation, he promises updates in the future. Well, it’s the future. It’s two weeks later and crickets from Mr. Ellis. Mission accomplished, though. Ask people who are paying attention to the OWS movement and they’ll swear up and down that yes, it was coordinated by DHS because MICHAEL MOORE and now NAOMI WOLF say so.
Truth: We don’t know. It isn’t completely out of the realm of possibility for mayors to consult with DHS. After all, that’s what they’re there for. To help local and state governments deal with threats, real, rumored or perceived. At best, one can conclude that maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t coordinate, and if they did coordinate, no one knows to what extent they did or whether there was any sort of "blessing" and/or mandate from DHS to what they ultimately chose to do.
The best anyone can say is "maybe". But if Wolf were not trying to stoke an international narrative she has chosen, she would have had a look at Portland, where there is some evidence that DHS was consulted because the occupiers were adjacent to federal land.

There is another line of thinking out there that runs directly counter to the federal-coordination theory: Ruiz wouldn’t comment on this, but one well-placed city source said, in fact, that the feds were mostly inclined to leave Schrunk Plaza open. It was city officials who cajoled them into getting on board—lest they watch most of Occupy’s camp merely move several hundred feet south onto federal land. Which would have been awkward for the city. But also interesting.

Should you accept as fact the idea that the feds were reluctant and the city pushed them along? NO. Why? Because it’s attributed to an anonymous source with nothing to back it up, which makes this theory as worthy as the DHS coordination theory, or just speculation with no facts behind it.
Josh Holland at AlterNet also notes:

Ironically, the occupation that arguably maintains the best relationship with local officials is Occupy DC, and the Washington, DC government is directly overseen by Congress.

Look, if DHS somehow instructed these cities to dress up their cops in riot gear, pepper spray kneeling protesters, use billy clubs to keep them from crossing imaginary borders, and ultimately throw the lot of them out, then yes, by all means shake your fist. But it's irresponsible for Wolf to publish such incendiary accusations -- accusations of real, physical civil war -- in an international publication, to cite magical articles with unsourced accusations and call it fact. Some might actually call it a lie.
Wolf's hyperbole does harm to the OWS movement and those honest people out there conducting themselves peacefully and with clear intent, because she intentionally tried to stir the fires of anger and discontent and anti-government sentiment on an international level. She should have to either retract or clarify her accusations.
Update Joshua Holland has written his own excellent response to Wolf's specific accusations.

When you don’t “connect” wholly disparate “dots,” what you get is far less dramatic. Mayors in a handful of cities, responding to local political pressures, decided to break up their local occupations — decisions that were announced to the press well in advance — and were advised as to how best to do so.
One doesn’t have to like that fact to recognize that it’s hardly shocking, and anything but a sinister assault on local communities’ autonomy.

Also, regarding PERF's* involvement, an interview with the director in The Boston Phoenix:

But what is PERF? And what role, if any, did it play in the police actions? According to PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler, not the one he had hoped.
His organization is more concerned with improving police practices and policies, he said. He cited a report PERF published in June, which gives advice that runs exactly counter to how Occupy has been handled in most cities — emphasizing communication, respect for the First Amendment, and avoidance of violent methods at nearly all cost.
"Over the years, we've taken on racially biased policing, violent crime, the Gates-Crowley thing in Cambridge," he said. "It's not always pretty, and it's not easy, but I think we owe it to the public to identify best practices."

*PERF is the Police Executives' Research Forum, a group who views themselves as a progressive organization dedicated to reducing police brutality and establishing best practices for police officers in various situations. Until recently, they've been a big target of the right wing for their support of gun control laws.

Unless you make over $343k per year in the US, you are the 99%. Carrying the water for the billionaires is just the height of self loathing.

Change is messy. It doesn't happen overnight. I know the camps are working very hard at being neater and I know that the leadership of the camps are trying to keep the alcohol, drugs and weapons and violence out of the camps. For the most part, they are doing a good job. A couple of anecdotal stories here and there don't amount to much in the greater scheme of things.

You can't hold the camps to a higher standard than any other event, unless you're Fox.

Consider this knucklehead.

There is a lot at stake here. I'm sorry that it's inconvenient for a couple of you to walk around an encampment. Or maybe you have to go to another park. For me, it's damned inconvenient to pay 35% of my income in taxes while billionaires pay an average of 11%. Some pay zero. I'll step over, drive around and come back later in support of the Occupy protestors. They are fighting for me. And I will support small business because I am a small business too. If we support each other we will all thrive.

Ciaran, if you didn't lose your house, you partner, your dog and your job, all you lost was on paper and that just doesn't matter. Sorry. It doesn't. I've lost a several hundred thousand dollars, so what? I also lost my job, but I still have my house and my dogs so I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

In my line of work I've met people that are completely broken with no where to turn. Unless you've been on the front line in this country, you don't know. I met a woman last week who lost her job and her house. She has spent her remaining funds boarding her St. Bernard. She's out of money and has to find him a new home. She's sitting out front of the local grocery store with a rescue organization trying to find a good home for her dog. She's nearly 60 and has been couch surfing since she lost her home. Now she's losing her dog too. That is someone who has lost it all. That's who the Occupiers are fighting for and I wholeheartedly support them.

Anonymous hacks cops coordinating Occupy evictions – PERF goes down
Published on November 21, 2011
8:43 pm by Nenad


Sunday, Anonymous hacktivists assaulted PERF because of their alleged involvement in coordinating police crackdowns on Occupy protests across the country.

Anonymous hacktivists assaulted PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, by taking down their website and releasing the private information of Sherwin B. “Chuck” Wexler – Executive Director at PERF.
PERF is a private but extremely influential national, non-governmental organization with close ties to law enforcement agencies across the country, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The group allegedly orchestrated and coordinated the sometimes brutal police crack down on Occupy Wall Street, and other Occupy movements across the country.
After several news organizations identified PERF as being responsible for advising and coordinating the police crackdowns resulting in Occupy evictions and other brutalities, the hivemind of the nebulous and notorious international Internet collective known as Anonymous began to swarm, and sting.
After feeling the sting of Anonymous, PERF released a statement on Sunday denying the allegations that they are working behind the scenes coordinating the sometimes brutal evictions of Occupy gatherings across the country. The following is an excerpt from that statement:
Over the last few days, the Police Executive Research Forum has been the subject of several false articles and blog postings alleging that we have been coordinating police crackdowns on Occupy protests. This is not true.
Yet after offering a flat denial of coordinating police activity, the announcement goes on to admit that “PERF conducted two conference calls” with metropolitan police chiefs across the country concerning police response to the Occupy movement. Rather than strengthening their denial, the admission that PERF was conducting conference calls only strengthens the case that PERF was involved in advising and coordinating the police crackdown on the Occupy movement.



right on :)

Rubbish. Rather, it's elitest for this "movement" to talk of being the 99%.

Desecration of a church is something I don't like. I won't apologise for that. It's not about an "ideeological box" whatever the **** that is.

Very over dramatic to talk of "the very social frabric of our civilisation is being torn apart", esp given that the unfettered greed and selfishness has existed since God created Adam & Eve. It didn't originate from the 2007 / 2008 financial crisis and it won't end once the Occupy movement burns itself out in early 2012.

If the churches (Kings of Columbus and LDS) hadn't banded together in California to push through an agenda of hate in the form of Proposition 8 I might feel differently, but if you're going to get in the muck, you'd better be ready to get dirty. The churches gave up their right to feign desecration when they funded an election to take away my right to marry the person of my choice. Game over.

:blink: :eyebrow:


:cracked:


:runforhills:


:grindevil:

There's no game over as that would suggest you've won some sort of victory. You haven't. Desecration is desecration is desecration.

The quote of the day. Straight up.

like the desecration of childrens lives at the hands of pedophiles in priests robes. seems like it comes from both sides and the church has never struck me as a victim of anything throughout history.

It's an American colloquial term, referring to the end of a video game. I haven't won a thing. As a matter of fact, we all lose.

The church has no right after what they did to us in California. None. They have no right in America after they allowed the protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers. They lose the right to absolution from desecration in this country by their behavior. When it's all said and done, St. Peter is going to look at these clowns and ask them why in the world they think they should be allowed past the pearly gates because they have not followed God's word. Perhaps the church has behaved better in England. Oh no, that can't be it, that's why we're here in the America in the first place.

Diavolo - "Unless you make over $343k per year in the US, you are the 99%. Carrying the water for the billionaires is just the height of self loathing."

So well said I had to reread it a couple times.

"Change is messy. It doesn't happen overnight."

Yes, as a good friend recently said, few protests if any or change don't come without a mess.

"Ciaran, if you didn't lose your house, you partner, your dog and your job, all you lost was on paper and that just doesn't matter. Sorry. It doesn't. I've lost a several hundred thousand dollars, so what? I also lost my job, but I still have my house and my dogs so I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

In my line of work I've met people that are completely broken with no where to turn. Unless you've been on the front line in this country, you don't know. I met a woman last week who lost her job and her house. She has spent her remaining funds boarding her St. Bernard. She's out of money and has to find him a new home. She's sitting out front of the local grocery store with a rescue organization trying to find a good home for her dog. She's nearly 60 and has been couch surfing since she lost her home. Now she's losing her dog too. That is someone who has lost it all. That's who the Occupiers are fighting for and I wholeheartedly support them."

This breaks my heart. Pets are one more casualty in the financial free fall we are in. I found an elderly dog abandoned in a park this afternoon where I shoot at an archery range. I was not happy to find this older golden retriever - disabled, losing hair, drooling and clearly dumped by a boat ramp.

Two things -

1) kudos to the woman you met, Diavolo, for doing the right thing for her dog, and I hope she gets a real break soon. There are people right now making very hard choices about pets and housing and medications and families. I feel for them.

and

2) kudos to the two officers who came out to help me with this dog and the animal control officer who volunteered on his day off when the dispatcher told him what I had reported. Whatever the person's economic situation, I make no excuses for what I saw today when I know at the very least dropping this dog off at the humane society or veterinarian's office less than 10 minutes away would have at least ensured that this dog did not lie in a park in the rain waiting for death by starvation, exposure or coyotes.

I have great respect for emergency responders who face difficult situations some times on a daily basis and face them with grace and compassion. And I have great respect for those who see and understand that social and economic justice is the essential foundation of peace and progress.

thank you for speaking to this. while some of the officers may hold your view, i have talked to several officers in my state who have a different viewpoint... that seems to be that the ows are wasting everyone's time, money and energy and should go home and if they don't they deserve and should expect a violent smack down from the pd. i would love to believe that it is just a lack of training, but having known at least one of these officers (she is my cousin, unfortunately) i have to say that this is how she thought prior to becoming part of the police department. i believe that it goes much deeper than training, it is who the pd recruits, allows to wear a badge, it is the qualities and behaviors in the officers that are nurtured and encouraged. in cali (at least) it seems that officers that show a penchant for violence and power are promoted and rewarded. imho my cousin has NO business whatsoever wearing a badge and carrying a gun. her language is violent, angry and racist, she boasts about the power of her position, and quite frankly i am very glad that she lives some 400 miles away from me, but i know that there are many more out there like her. i know more officers like her. i also see from posts like yours that there are people in law enforcement who are not, and it gives me hope.

i see it as a complex problem:

that there has been some violence at occupy events (whether or not it was committed by occupiers is a whole other issue since the police still have to deal with it and it makes it more difficult for them to see the movement as nonviolent)

that there is space in current law enforcement systems for people like my cousin who are prone to violent behavior prior to training

that in the current system violence is used and expected (no/inadequate training on how to handle non-violent protests)

that the systems of inequality (that were present during the civil rights movement) are still intact

that the general public has been desensitized to violence

that politicians and the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping status quo and not reforming the system of law enforcement as it stands

coordinated (and illegal) federal involvement in local issues

and fear...fear on the part of the pd, on the part of the people and on the part of the corporations and politicians. i think fear is at the root of all of this. the fear of not having enough, the fear of losing what you have, the fear of getting hurt or killed.. it all comes down to fear and until people get out of the part of their brains that humans use when in fear, the ability to think rationally or critically, have understanding, compassion, empathy or any of the other wonderful things that humans are capable of is not possible. i don't know how it is that this system is going to be changed or by whom, but i know that a shift in thinking (and getting out of fear) will be key.

i really hope that you will continue to be part of this discussion as i think that your insights are valuable.

Just for the record, St. Paul's is non-denominational, not Roman Catholic.

You name it, any of the three major religions have committed social injustices and atrocities. No arguments. But I'll be darned if anyone wants to make a trash heap out of a place of worship; that I can't abide. To me, it's the same kind of disrespect as ruining a synagogue.

I read some of the media reports about the desecration of St. Paul. One headline reads: Desecration, defecation and class A drugs: Children found living in squalor at St Paul's protest camp

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1esKfxLdh

I didn't see any incidences of actual violence. "They are afraid" that violence is likely due to the growing numbers of "vulnerable" populations. Vulnerable being people with mental illnesses. I love the way they perpetuate the stigma that there is a relationship between the mentally ill and violence. That's total rubbish. Further propaganda or scare tactics: the smell of marijuana. Seriously? Of all the drugs, marijuana is probably the most effective at quelling a violent uproar.
Instead of pepper spray, the police should try passing around a joint. And the uptight police should be required to take a couple of tokes themselves.