OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Toughy]

One can always hope the police everywhere will learn from the Albany PD and follow suit....after all the police are in the 99%.

They damn sure don't need riot gear, 18" batons, tear gas and shotgun fired bean bags to protect and serve the public.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Drew:

My reasons for being uncharacteristically quiet on this thread are covered pretty well in this post at HuffPo by the law professor Lawrence Lessig:

[begin his words]
Here's the fact about America: It takes an insanely large majority to make any fundamental change. You want Citizens United reversed, it is going to take 75% of states to do it. You want public funding of public elections? It's going to take 67 Senators to get it. You want to end the corruption that makes it impossible to get any of the things liberals push? It's going to take a broad based movement that cuts across factions, whether right (as in correct) or Right (as in not Left).

It's great to rally the 99%. It is a relief to have such a clear and powerful slogan. But explain this, because I'm a lawyer, and not so great with numbers: Gallup's latest poll finds 41% of Americans who call themselves "conservative." 36% call themselves "moderate." Liberals account for 21%. In a different poll, Gallup finds 30% of Americans who "support" the Tea Party.

So who exactly are we not allowed to work with, Dave? 30% of America? 41% of America? All but 21% of America? And when you exclude 30%, or 41%, or 79% of Americans, how exactly are you left with 99%?

Talk about wanting to have it "both ways"! How can you claim to speak for 99% but refuse to talk to 30%? (And just to be clear: the 30% of Americans who support the Tea Party are not the 1% "superrich." I checked. With a calculator.)

And finally as to one of the commentators on Dave's essay who finds me "poisonous," and said I said: "OWS needs to drop the 'We are the 99%' slogan because it might hurt the feelings of the rich." What I said was not that the movement should give up the slogan 99% because it offended. I said it should instead talk about the 99.95%. That's the percentage of Americans who did not max out in giving in the last Congressional election. That is the percentage that becomes invisible in the money-feeding-fest that is DC.

So if you really want to rally the 99%, you might begin by identifying those things that 99% might actually agree about. That the 30% of Americans who call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party are racists is not a statement likely to garner the support of at least that 30%. (And again, as ABC found, it's not even true).

On the other hand, 99% of America should be perfectly willing to agree that a system in which the top 1% -- or better, .05% -- have more power to direct public policy than do the 99% or 99.95% is wrong. And must be changed. Before this nation can again call itself a democracy (for those on the Left) or a Republic (for those on the Right). This "Republic," by which the Framers meant a "representative democracy," by which they intended a body "dependent upon the People ALONE," is not.

That, too, must change. Meaning, in addition to all the things we Liberals want, we must change that as well. And my view is that if we changed that corruption first, we might actually find it a bit easier to get those other things too.

[end his words]
-----------------------

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

I doubt very much when people say they are the 99% that they believe they are actually the whole 99% but rather just a part. The part that is energized and seeking a way to wake up the rest of the 99%. I also haven’t heard there are people who the movement will not work with. But perhaps there are. What do I know. However, being a leaderless movement, or a movement in which everyone can lead, I can’t imagine one or two people can make a decision about who the movement can or cannot work with.

I think Dave Zirin is a bit of a self righteous prick and I think Lawrence Lessig is a bit of a dreamer. And I think Lessig has more of a problem with Zirin that he does with the Occupy movement itself. Especially given he spoke at Occupy Wall St and Occupy K St. Granted he does have a bit of a theme going –

“We should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again.” Lawrence Lessig

Perhaps a themed Lessig is not exactly an over the top all out supporter, still, I can’t imagine any right minded person could really disagree with a theme of common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans.

Well, maybe someone could disagree with his use of the word revolution. I think Mr. Lessig didn’t actually mean revolution. There is such a chasm between reform and revolution that a good many of the 99% would fall in trying to cross ideas from one side to the other.

Or maybe I am speaking for myself.

I know I stare at that chasm between reform and revolution and wonder. What side am I standing on? Although I seem able to make the leap back and forth it does leave me breathless. I have stood here or there it seems for as long as I can remember. But for some reason, at this particular time in history, I see something different. Another possibility.

But again I could be wrong. It might just be the same old. But I am a sucker for reform. And who wouldn’t be. The devil you know and all that. What could possibly be different with something new when it’s the same flawed human beings creating it. Why not fix what we have? But is that even possible?

Yet, I can’t help but hope.

Still, I have a hard time with movements and political parties. Historically political parties were often created or strengthened by siphoning off the revolutionary potential of various social movements from the streets to the voting booth. Political parties by their very nature acknowledge the authority of the state and the hierarchal structures of our society. Though they may seek to make changes to the aesthetics of our system, they do not challenge the system because they are very much a part of it. All they can do is treat the symptoms. They may spout rhetoric for the 99% but they represent the 1%.

So where do I stand. Reform or revolution. I guess I will just wait and see what transpires in the coming months and years. But in the mean time…

I don’t think Lessig’s idea of a united 99% is so much horseshit, as Zirin so foolishly claimed. I don’t know that the occupy movement will find allies in the tea party, but if they do that would be awesome. I do think they very well might find allies within the 99% who identify as republicans. And they will find them within the 99% who identify as democrats and independents and green and so on. I think most right-minded people see a big problem and get that there are bad times ahead for the 99%. I understand it will hit some of us harder than others. In the end though I’m not sure we will be able to tell the difference. The poor don’t have far to fall before they hit bottom, so maybe it won’t hurt so bad. Yet, the bottom is just that. The bottom. Squeezed dry, over and out. However, the poor don’t have much real opportunity to accumulate debt, the great equalizer. Debt will erase your class in a heartbeat. The rich don’t need debt and the poor can’t afford debt. Guess who that leaves?

The middle class or what is left of them, are likely to be crushed beneath the weight of debt. I think when you stumble and smash yourself on the rocks of austerity, it’s hard to tell the bottom from a rocky ledge only part way down. And I don’t know how much comfort there is in knowing you can still fall further.

As far as posting on a forum or talking to your peers or spreading your ideas, opinions and beliefs in any way possible, I say go for it. But the reality is that not everyone’s ideas, opinions, beliefs are equal. For example (and granted to save time I chose an easy one), some people believe evolution is not a proven fact but just a theory and they feel creationism is a valid theory as well and deserves equal time and should be taught in schools etc. Others understand that evolution is a proven theory given all the data available, it’s a fact and in order for it to stop being a fact someone would have to disprove it. These two beliefs are not equal. There is a truth here a right and a wrong. Evolution is a fact and a belief in a fact should not be made to share equal time with belief in a fallacy. There is not data or proof to support creationism. So while I understand and accept that some people believe in it, I don’t have to consider it as something that should have equal value. However, that doesn’t mean that when it comes to ideas and opinions based on knowledge and facts, and with reasons behind them I don't want to hear them unless they mirror mine. I don’t have to agree with everything everyone says. And I’m very capable of changing my mind when I hear a good reason to reconsider what I believe.

Everyone’s experiences are valuable.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Dean:

I get what you're saying and I'm wrestling with this myself because my wife and I are not buying on credit and we've basically decided that if we can't save up for it, we don't need it. On the other hand, certain industries--and here I'm thinking about the computer industry--is predicated on a certain amount of 'churn'. Let's say that people took your advice and stopped buying the latest computer. That means that Dell, Apple and HP won't need as many employees so they'll lay them off. That means that the software vendors won't need as many employees so they'll lay *them* off. If everyone closes up their pockets and buys only the necessities then I think the economy will get worse, not better. It may not be the way we want it to be but I fear that whether we would prefer it, this is the economy we have to start with and make changes to that system.

I would like to see more emphasis on thrift and delayed gratification on the consumer side and a return to slow-and-steady growth on the business side. I would like to see businesspeople once again use, as one metric of success, hiring people instead of it being seen as, at best, an inconvenience to have a larger payroll this year than last.

Cheers
Aj

The upper 10% of income earners have a much smaller debt burden relative to income and net worth. Those people should have ample spending power to help fuel an economic recovery.

The data in 2007 stipulated that low income families I made up 40% of the population and just 12% of consumption. Middle class, 50% of the population and 46% of the consumption. Wealthy 10% made up 42% of the consumption.

The figures might have change somewhat, but the reality is the rich can afford to consume enough to make up for the rest of us slowing down a bit considering what's been happening. Hell I bet they prefer to spend to help economic recovery more than they would like to pay more taxes. They could just take one for the team.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Nat

I hear alarm bells with people switching their banks on November 5th. When I think of masses of people withdrawing money from a bank, when you know they don't have the cash at hand to pay for it, it just reminds me of that Mary Poppins scene about the run on the bank. I am somewhat concerned that certain actions could plunge us into a (worse) depression and there might be a certain element of cutting-off-our-noses-to-spite-our-faces going on. The banks deserve it, but I do wonder what the long-term ramifications will be for people.

I was thinking since they had ample notice, perhaps they have already got some action going to protect themselves. Like derivatives where they bet they will suffer a loss on Nov 5th. You know how they love to gamble. Especially against themselves. That's how they make big profits. And then they can double dip and get a bailout.

[MsMerrick]

Originally Posted by MsMerrick

I have only heard generally about it, don't have specific knowledge ...
It will be covered tomorrow morning on WRRL with a commentator who has broadcast from OWS several times now, Mark Lewis...Worth listening to and yes you can catch the show streaming live...
But here you go:

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/ar...4390.phpttp://

That would be Mark RILEY .. Excellent commentator...
My brain.. is well...

[Ebon]

She was at Oakland last night and was there when the police came in. Interesting interview.

[MsMerrick]

In Oakland last night, Scott Olsen, a former Marine, two-time Iraq war veteran, and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, sustained a skull fracture after being shot in the head with a police projectile while peacefully participating in an Occupy Oakland.

Badly hurt
But the maybe even worse part, is that when people rushed to try and help the young man, lying badly wounded unable to move on the ground the police DELIBERATELY TOSS A FLASH BOMB INTO THE GROUP.
Oh yes, who's tactic is that?? Terrorist tactic? Wait until the medics rush in then throw a second bomb??
WTF is going on in this country..
The young man is in critical condition, with brain injuries.
have a link
Iraq Veterans Release

Sign some petitions, recall the Mayor...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Recall...285437?sk=wall


http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/...oliceBrutality
This is beyond disgusting....

[greeneyedgrrl]

footage from last nite at oo
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsUwdNhNdeE"]Just Another Night in Oakland - OPD vs. OCCUPY - YouTube[/nomedia]

[greeneyedgrrl]

RFT interview with Boots Riley at OO last nite https://www.facebook.com/video/video...56246521092479

[greeneyedgrrl]

has anyone seen this ish?http://boingboing.net/2011/10/20/nao...inary-law.html

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by greeneyedgrrl

has anyone seen this ish?http://boingboing.net/2011/10/20/nao...inary-law.html

old news from last week......

------------------
I was down at Occupy Oakland this evening.....came home before shit hits the fan and it will hit the fan around 10:00pm. The police had actually fenced off the grassy area where the camp was located. The rally was in front of City Hall with the fenced off area behind them. Well......of course the fence came down and was neatly stacked against buildings and on the grass....safety when the police come in with tear gas and flash grenades and rubber bullets (they say it's bean bags) was a concern for those taking down the fence.

I would guess the crowd size to be at least 1,000 folks by 8:00pm when I left with more coming in.

The word is that Occupy SF is being removed tonight and they were asking for non-violent support in the City.

And just in case you didn't know......there is an Iraq Marine veteran who is in critical condition in Highland Hospital (Oakland) with a traumatic head injury from a 'projectile' to the head.....

[greeneyedgrrl]

yes i am aware of what's happening with OO, i have a friend who is still down there. i saw the video of the marine, and photos, videos from my friend of the carnage the opd is wreaking on the people of oakland.. it's horrible. i'm praying people are safe tonight. unfortunately i am not as informed of what is going on with osf..(or ows for that matter) it's further away from home for me, but i am trying to stay abreast of what's happening.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, thanks for coming in and sharing your thoughts. The strength of this movement is in the diversity of its participants.

I guess you and I must be reading different sources for information on the OWS movement. I haven't seen or heard or read anything saying that OWS is for socialism. From what I have seen and read, they do want significant reform but nothing about abolishing capitalism. And to suggest that they want to go to a system that restricts freedom and democracy seems antithetical to everything I am seeing.

There might be some people who do want a socialist utopia. Frankly, I don't have a clue what that would look like. I, personally, believe that we need some powerful reforms along the lines of the New Deal. Stronger anti-trust laws, a more progressive tax system, and things along those lines. These are the types of things that are coming out of the OWS working groups and voted on at the General Assemblies.

I think you will find a lot of helpful information about what is going on at the epicenter of the movement here:

http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/

If you just read the minutes from the GA meetings you can see that what is going on is democracy in its purest form. They don't agree on taking any actions until a full consensus is reached. They have various working groups whose job it is to bring proposals to the GA meetings for everyone to vote on. If they don't get 100% consensus on a proposal, they will listen to concerns and go back and work on it and then bring it back and have another vote.

This is what is so great about the process: they are making every effort to give everyone who attends their meetings a voice! The only people I have seen being kicked out are the ones advocating violence. This is a leaderless movement because it is not about individual people. It is about all of us.

Aj, if you can, would you please provide some links to the sources you are reading which have led to your conclusion that some people aren't welcome at the OWS events or GA meetings so I can see what you are seeing? Thanks.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Nat

I hear alarm bells with people switching their banks on November 5th. When I think of masses of people withdrawing money from a bank, when you know they don't have the cash at hand to pay for it, it just reminds me of that Mary Poppins scene about the run on the bank. I am somewhat concerned that certain actions could plunge us into a (worse) depression and there might be a certain element of cutting-off-our-noses-to-spite-our-faces going on. The banks deserve it, but I do wonder what the long-term ramifications will be for people.

Bank of America posted something like 6 or 8 billion dollars in profits last year. I think they will be ok.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Bank of America posted something like 6 or 8 billion dollars in profits last year. I think they will be ok.

I'm not so much worried about them as further destabilization of the economy.

[greeneyedgrrl]

eviction warning in sf right now... reports of bart being closed at several stops to prevent oo from assisting
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

[Nat]

Originally Posted by June

I am part of the 99%. I hope this all brings about some change and unifies those of us who pay more taxes for less representation. I hope it helps people like my mother understand that we are owned by corporations and the Republicans are not our saviors.

With that said. Our "Occupy Portland Camp" smells like reefer and Patcchuli and seems to be made up of young white folks with enough middle class privilege that they can afford to camp out in the middle of the city.

I heart patchouli :P

[greeneyedgrrl]

apparently Quan helped plan the raid, but had NO idea it was gonna go down. ??
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAMD1LMMA0.DTL

[nowandthen]

4 favorite parts of tonight,1. Hanging with G 2.taking 14th and Broadway with music and dancing 3. All the folks parting to let an ambulance through and then re-taking the street 4. marching to the jail and have the folks in jail flick the lights and us cheering let them all out and them flickering the lights. pictures/video to follow in the AM, sweet dreams all

[dreadgeek]

Certainly, I’m happy to provide sources always:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...Organize%21%29

Then there's been the various iterations and riffs on the use of the word 'occupy'

http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.c...e-wall-street/

http://ignite-revolution.org/

I find quite a bit of the language in the above quite problematic and I think that to the degree that OWS adopts these ideas, that is the degree to which it is problematic. While I understand why consensus decision making seems wonderful, my own experience is that it is not so much democratic as it is a way for a small group of people to hold an agenda hostage. I need point out only what happened to Rep. John Lewis in Atlanta where he showed up in support, someone blocked consensus on his being able to speak which, as an aside, was when I started to think 'Oh no, not again'.

I want OWS to be successful. I want it to push the political class (or drag them kicking and screaming) to the table so that the long hard slog of rebuilding the middle class in this country can begin. But I'm a reformer not a revolutionary. I just don't trust revolutions because so few of them turn out well. I'd love to see us have a Constitutional convention with two goals:

1) A Constitutional amendment specifically defining a person in such a way that corporations are outside of the definition

2) A Constitutional amendment providing for the public financing of campaigns.

I think that those two things alone would go a very long way toward making the voices of the vast majority of people who aren't rich something that elected officials ignore to their singular peril. Right now, there's really no negative consequence to ignoring our voices that isn't outweighed by the consequences of ignoring their master's (read: the top 1%) voice and so they pay the piper that plays the tune. If we are the piper, they'll have to listen to us.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Aj, thanks for coming in and sharing your thoughts. The strength of this movement is in the diversity of its participants.

I guess you and I must be reading different sources for information on the OWS movement. I haven't seen or heard or read anything saying that OWS is for socialism. From what I have seen and read, they do want significant reform but nothing about abolishing capitalism. And to suggest that they want to go to a system that restricts freedom and democracy seems antithetical to everything I am seeing.

There might be some people who do want a socialist utopia. Frankly, I don't have a clue what that would look like. I, personally, believe that we need some powerful reforms along the lines of the New Deal. Stronger anti-trust laws, a more progressive tax system, and things along those lines. These are the types of things that are coming out of the OWS working groups and voted on at the General Assemblies.

I think you will find a lot of helpful information about what is going on at the epicenter of the movement here:

http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/

If you just read the minutes from the GA meetings you can see that what is going on is democracy in its purest form. They don't agree on taking any actions until a full consensus is reached. They have various working groups whose job it is to bring proposals to the GA meetings for everyone to vote on. If they don't get 100% consensus on a proposal, they will listen to concerns and go back and work on it and then bring it back and have another vote.

This is what is so great about the process: they are making every effort to give everyone who attends their meetings a voice! The only people I have seen being kicked out are the ones advocating violence. This is a leaderless movement because it is not about individual people. It is about all of us.

Aj, if you can, would you please provide some links to the sources you are reading which have led to your conclusion that some people aren't welcome at the OWS events or GA meetings so I can see what you are seeing? Thanks.