As the Occupy movement eases past the two-month mark, everyone seems to be discussing the future of the Occupation. Individual trends and motivations are apparent for each of the major groups involved in the conversation, but a common theme has also emerged. Setting aside the obvious positions of those holding pro- and anti-Occupation positions, it’s important to address the complaints of two major groups that remain; the political pundits and the government.
The individual opinions of political pundits run the full gamut, from rabid anti-Occupation to pro-Occupiers encouraging radical activity. What they have in common is their ever-increasing clamor for Occupy to identify the message of the movement. On the surface, this would tend to support the suspicions of some that political pundits are maintained in remote locales, inside small, inspiration-free cells, with only a steady diet of the single biased mainstream media outlet of their choice as intellectual fuel. The message of Occupy is simple, has been since the beginning, and has spread across the globe; it’s difficult to form a reasonable alternative explanation as to why the pundits still don’t understand the purpose of the Occupation. It’s entirely possible that they only speak sound bite, and while the Occupy message is simple, the talking points are legion.
The opinion of those in government, as always must be derived from combining their public statements with their seemingly opposite actions. The many mayors dealing with Occupations in their towns and cities publicly claim to support the rights of the public to protest. However, as is usual with politicians, there’s always a “but”. The opinions and actions of many Mayors are so similar that one might reasonably suspect collusion. They cite “serious” public health and safety concerns regarding conditions at Occupation sites, feign concern for the rights of non-Occupiers, complain about the overtime costs for the over inflated police presence, and completely ignore the simple, inexpensive solutions to those concerns, instead attempting to bind the rights of Occupiers with local laws that ridiculously purport to trump our Constitution.
This is somewhat tangential, but it must be said. Mayors, if you’re concerned about poop, allow the Occupations to rent porta-potties, or better yet, provide some for them. If you’re concerned about rights, stop trying to make an end run around our Constitution. If you’re concerned about the safety of the Occupiers, stop ordering law enforcement to stun them, beat them, shoot them and gas them. As a bonus, if you cease to order police brutality cold, you can cut the overtime costs by at least a factor of ten, which should help with the costs borne by Occupied cities; so would allowing the Occupiers to clean and repair the spaces they Occupy, as they have repeatedly offered to do.
One of the most common complaints from governments attempting to communicate with the Occupation is the “lack of specific leadership”, which they claim makes negotiating difficult or impossible. This is an odd claim. While it’s true that there are no specifically named leaders, there are certainly people within the Occupy communities who have leadership skills, which have been channeled into ensuring shelter, food, medical care, clothing, information, and a venue for free speech and decision-making.
Anyone can speak at the Occupations, provided they wait their turn. Decisions are made at the regularly-scheduled General Assemblies, which everyone is encouraged to attend and participate in. Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, CA appeared to be offended by the notion that she was not important enough to skip to the head of the line when she showed up to speak at Occupy Oakland on October 27, 2011; she left rather abruptly without addressing the Assembly after discovering that equality trumps self-important governmental idiocy at Occupy Oakland.
This is, functionally, a non-problem. Politicians don’t like the communications and decision-making structures of the Occupation because it’s a lot easier to convince a few people to come around to your self-serving point of view than it is to convince a large group of people who have sustained physical, chemical, sensory and emotional damage at the hands of the establishment you represent, particularly when you’re the politician that ordered it.
Just as OWS and the rest of the Occupations have no official leadership, maintaining that we are all the leaders, the point of OWS is not limited to official statements and positions that may emerge from the Occupations.
The point of Occupy is EVERYWHERE, and we are ALL responsible for making it. Read something about our government or Wall Street or Big Business in our nation. Read Occupy signs. Learn something. Explain the something you learned to someone else, and show them where to read it for themselves. Go down to your local Occupation and do something. Occupy the Internet. Blog something. Share the facts. Share the details. Examine different perspectives and opinions. Draft your own solutions. Like and Share the work of others to help spread the word. Tell friends about the somethings you read and learned and did. engage in persuasive debate. Occupy the media. Overwhelm them with the Occupy message they demand. Show compassion for their limited ability to comprehend simple, obvious information and offer to explain the message to them, very slowly, using words of three syllables or less in deference to their shortcomings. Offer to supply vid clips and write their copy. Do whatever is necessary to change the mainstream media's Occupy image into our Occupy message. Send links to those in government who purport to represent us, send them snail mail, send them books, call them, email them, go pay them a visit. Do enough, and you might just end up Occupying their consciousness. Who knows what change that could bring?
The next step for Occupy is for everyone, even those who disagree with public Occupations, to Occupy our own homes and Occupy the Internet, and act, on our own, in solidarity. Stop waiting for Occupy to provide all the solutions. Occupy is probably not the vehicle of change. WE ARE.
Occupy paved the way for us. Nations that are not necessarily friendly with American government are Occupying WITH us, in peaceful solidarity. More and more Americans have discovered that something is very, very wrong with the "facts" reported by the vast majority of the mainstream media, and instead are turning to smaller independent information sources for the truth. Thanks to Occupy and law enforcement, America has learned that protecting grass, sparing the public from poop and safeguarding the establishments of white-collar criminals is much more important than protecting the People, our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and our most fundamental American ideals. And still, Occupy stays the slow and steady course, fighting to win the battles of information and perception so that we can win the war of wealth superiority and corruption. What more can we reasonably expect?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jerry Wyant
Farleftside
MeatMonkey
Dr William Lee
Dennis Loo
Mike Lucier
Salon.com
Comments
January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!
Dear Mr. President,
There is a very large demonstration being planned for January 20th, 2012 at the Federal Courthouse at 700 Stewart street in Seattle, - and at every Federal Courthouse in the United States.. There are many groups organizing and "gearing up" for this demonstration. I will be promoting and advertising it. This "occupy movement" has only just begun. I suggest you figure out your plan of action and response; The rules of engagement; - Need a way better understanding of what is going on; - than during WTO in Seattle. Treat the people like they are the enemy, and they will become it.
January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!
Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark this date — Occupy the Courts — a one day occupation on Friday January 20, 2012, of the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States and as many of the 89 U.S. District Court Buildings as we can. (I am inspired by Doctor Martin Luther King who said; "a true revolution of values", ... "there comes a time when silence is betrayal"., "people are not gonna be silenced".). Move to Amend will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.
Please Sign the petition to amend the Constitution for revoking corporate personhood at:
movetoamend.org
There is a meeting Saturday December 3rd, 2011, from 2:00 pm to 5:30 pm at the Capitol Hill library branch at 425 Harvard Ave. E., in Seattle. This meeting is for the demonstration being planned January 20th, 2012; at the Federal Courthouse at 700 Stewart street in Seattle. ( People and organizations involved, permits, porta potties, promotion, organizing, staging, sound, event speakers, entertainment, first aid, water, and stuff.)..The meeting room is reserved and holds 50 people and I would love to fill it up! Please inform interested people and organizations!) RSVP to kennspace@yahoo.com to reserve your spot or just show up! (This event is not sponsored by the Seattle public Library. )
Get someone elected. Yup, that’ll change everything all right. That person will undoubtedly be able to “speak to” their corrupt fellows in a voice louder than the bribes of billionaires.
Poor wee naif, don’t you think that if that were all it took to change how things work, it would have been done a loooong time ago? What you are suggesting is just exactly what the elite would love to see. Love it? Heck they’d pay good money to see it! They’d get a real bang out of watching some “sweet, serious-minded” newly elected representative try to get their support for laws that would lose them their bribes and special considerations. So, in fact, would I. Oh I’d wish them well, of course. But I’d also take side bets on how long it would be before they too were lining up at the trough of taxpayer largess while making sure that major corporations and their associated companies had a place waiting for them upon their retirement. The modern way of bribery.
Yeah, elect someone to represent us. Who do you think sits in government now? We’ve been trying to do that for a couple of hundred years!!
.
Respectfully, we can expect a lot more than they (those who are the occupiers) are giving.
It is not unreasonable to call for specifics…to ask, “What do you want?”
This courthouse thing is going to end up with some people getting their heads bashed. I hate to see it…would give anything to prevent it…but in many cases, the people getting bashed are asking (begging) for it.
We are making mayors, governors, and cops the enemy.
That should not be done!
And the answer has to be more than, “We want fairness.”
I disagree with the tone of Jejune, but he/she is right in many respects. The occupiers are acting like a rabble…and they are going to be treated as a rabble. What they are attempting is political in nature…and somehow has to be handled in a political way…or there is chaos. The mayors and governors of our cities and states are required by law to respond forcefully to chaos. The people who are not of the movement have rights also…and they have as much right to want access to streets, bridges, courthouses and the like. People who are working have a right to get to work…to take kids to school and such.
The situation does not resolve into, “we are totally correct” and “THEY are totally wrong.”
I am more capitalist than you’ll likely ever be. Socialism and communism are no friends of mine. Unfortunately you seem to have more interest in name calling than in discussing issues - a more developed ability at it too, it seems.
I’d love to have a good discussion of this with you. Please let me know when you’ve learned enough about both capitalism and socialism to be able to carry on a civil debate.
;-)
.
The 1% is not the enemy. It's the GE's with five billion in annual profits paying no federal taxes; the health care lobbyists writing health care "reform;" agribusiness destroying small famers, communities and land and water resources; huge, underregulated financial corporations wrecking the world economy; the energy companies willfully destroying the biosphere in the name of profit and progress -- there create all the havoc, and not all of it economic. There clearly is no political remedy for these depredations through the two-party system. The Democrats' and Republicans' lack of response to these ongoing, sanctioned power plays ignores the problem, and abet the damage. Capitalism can work; small business can work; its American corporate capitalism, screaming in pain over how overregulated it is, that is dragging the world under.
Skypixiedust doesn't believe in elections as the only rational way for change, if any change is indeed possible. She would imagine a series of 'consciousness raising' exercises and 'paradigm shifts' sweeping the population and nation. Now who's being naive, and worse, succumbing to totalitarian thinking and going down the path that ultimately concludes with morally self-righteous acts of violence and terrorism,...because it's the only way, you see, to overthrow the old social order and purify and reform an apathetic and conniving public. The French Revolution, Stalin, Pol Pot anyone?
Wonderful.
The problem will be if the tall walk away and leave the election up to the moderates Obama has been able to convince and the Democratic loyalists, and I doubt at this point if it will be enough in the face of the wrathfully ignorant who comprise the majority in this country in most cases.
It's either Obama or a return to the dark ages.
--upton sinclair
"One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
--victor hugo
occupy party reaches critical mass/seismic effect--now what?
I agree that it's not unreasonable to ask for specifics, except in cases where the specifics have been repeatedly and publicly addressed. The core of the entire issue could probably be summed up by the word "equality". Not wealth equality, as in formal wealth redistribution, but a state of equality in which wealthy citizens were not treated differently than poor citizens; in which all citizens are held accountable for violations of law; in which wealthy citizens cannot buy their way out of the consequences of their crimes at a bargain rate; in which poor citizens are not denied justice simply because they lack the funds to pay for a decent attorney; in which the vote of the wealthy does not count for more than the vote of the poor; etc. I'll be writing about some of these specific inequalities in future.
I agree that government representatives and law enforcement should not be the enemy. The problem is that the facts tend to support that characterization. Our Constitution grants us certain rights, which cannot be trumped by local laws. Do you really want an America in which we're only allowed to say what we have to say between the hours of 6AM and 10PM? Local governments also need to be disabused of the notion that any property belongs to them rather than to the People who paid for it and continue to pay for its upkeep. If they are peaceful, they need to be left alone, not intimidated by a grossly overinflated, expensive overtime police presence. Government should work on solving their own complaints in the simplest and least expensive ways while making preservation of 1st Amendment rights the priority.
I will say that I feel the drumming could go; it's annoying to residents of the area, and serves no pressing purpose that other, less irritating, lower-volume methods could not.
I disagree that the Occupiers are behaving like "rabblers", and the only chaotic incidents were initiated by law enforcement. I'm curious as to where you get your info, and wonder if you would be open to some alternative info. The majority of the Occupation has been peaceful, the exceptions coming when law enforcement arbitrarily determines that 1st Amendment rights have been exercised enough for one day, and that it's perfectly okay to beat, stun, shoot and gas your fellow citizens. This is the antithesis of good crowd control. With that number of people, violence by the police only drastically increases the chance for disaster; there would be many fewer injuries and much less emotional trauma had the police simply watched over them, to protect and defend their rights rather than abuse them with callous disregard for the safety of all involved.
Agree that non-protesters have the right of access as well, which is why most of Occupy has been limited to public parks rather than cluttering streets and sidewalks. Again, the only time this has been a real problem is when law enforcement has driven Occupy away from their Occupation sites and directly into these areas.
Who's "we" and who's "they"? I'm looking forward to responding to this one after clarification, and I hope you choose to return for more civil debate.
I think the pundits and some here have been stumped because the big protests in our lives have tended to have a clear distinct message. Civil rights now! Stop the war! Pass the ERA! Our of Iraq! The OWS movement has rightly identified the 1% problem but the remedies are complicated and diffuse.
I give the occupiers credit for putting the ever-growing and obscene rich-poor divide into the public discourse where it should have been years ago.
As to JP's asinine comments, electing better representatives is a fair response if you're dealing with a fair electoral system. Given gerrymandering and the gross distortions occasioned by money in campaigns, it's utterly ignorant. When the system is broken, telling someone to work through the system is Kafkaesque.
Our opinions appear to be similar; you might enjoy some of the other pieces I've written about political problems and proposed solutions.
Thanks for your view.
Kevin, thanks for stopping by, and congrats on your own cover/EP/Salon links! I've got you open in a tab, and hope to comment shortly.
Thank you, mrvoulezvous. Much appreciated.
Thanks, Anon; I agree on the specificity. The signs alone outline so much, and most of the Occupiers are well-versed in the details and happy to share with anyone who asks [and many who don't].
Ultimately, we need to encourage people who truly represent the majority of Americans to run for office, and provide the grassroots support they will need to overcome the billions spent by the wealthy. Ron Paul shows us that the internet can be used to excellent effect, particularly now that more and more people use it to get their news. This means that election wins are already within our grasp; we just need to take advantage of the circumstances.
Totally agree with you on the rest.
Jejune, thanks for reading and sharing your viewpoint; I'll be back to address your perspective later.
I'd like to remind my readers that I don't delete comments, so please bear in mind that the things you post will remain out there for all to see. I find that attacking the person who makes a comment is much less effective than attacking their argument in a rational, fact-based way; if your goal is to get your point across and convince others of it, you may want to consider changing the nature of your comments. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people tend to judge others, from whatever scraps of information we possess. The OS community tends to value intelligent, logical, civil debate; arguing the point will increase your traffic much more than arguing with other commenters.
For anyone wishing to show their support of OWS, but can't get to the streets for whatever reason, I suggest this; it's quick and easy, assuming you are fortunate enough to have a home and a front lawn:
http://open.salon.com/blog/daniel_geery/2011/11/18/occupy_your_lawn
Thanks for your kind words about my blog. Dr. Levine
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”
~ Albert Einstein
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”
~ Albert Einstein
By the way, I hope you all feel free to link whatever you choose--content relevant to the discussion, alternative perspectives, your own most recent, favorite or topic-complimenting posts--in the comments here. Linking provides a much simpler way for people to find the info you want them to see. Again, Kent Pitman has a useful tutorial; you can find the link to the left of the screen.
When Occupy started, it was like seeing these crowds of people echoing the message just took that little bit of hope and amplified it exponentially. America is not lost as long as we have people willing to stand for the ideals she was founded on.
Look at the Tea Party. They did as you suggest, managed to elect a few people, lost the vast majority of the attention their movement had drawn in their early days, and nothing of substance has been done to address the issues they were protesting. They have lost the momentum they built by allowing others to convince them that they "had" to go a different way. As a result, I doubt we'll see many Tea Party candidates elected on that basis in future, unless the Tea Party becomes active again. Formal politicization of the Tea Party pretty much ended their threat to the status quo, because everyone packed up and went home, thinking their job was done.
The problem is that the job is NEVER done. The price of freedom is endless vigilance, and if efforts are concentrated on running a formal political party, efforts will NOT be aimed at the entities that pose a grave threat to our freedoms. And they NEED to be, because the biggest threat to America today is complacence on the part of her citizens.
The system is set up to foster complacence, right from childhood. We are not taught to think critically. We're not taught to evaluate information for credibility. We're not taught to put two and two together to get the solution ourselves outside of math class. We're not taught to question authority, or demand accountability. Schools teach children to accept what information they are given at face value. Children do well if they follow the rules. They're not encouraged to go beyond the school materials for a lesson, to check the source for themselves. This all results in an adult population who believes what they are told. They wait for information to come to them, and they listen to their "authority figures", which include the faces of whatever "news" channels they watch, if any.
Complacence is how America got to this situation in the first place. We allowed this to happen, because we didn't know the facts, didn't understand them, didn't feel there was anything we could do, figured someone else would handle it, didn't bother to learn anything about the people we voted for, and failed to hold our government accountable for its actions. Wall Street committed crimes; our government allowed them to. But we failed to be vigilant; look what happened as a result.
The Occupation is doing a decent job informing and encouraging participation, but the corporate-controlled mainstream media is also doing a good job, painting Occupiers in a light many Americans despise. Someday, Occupy may take the political party route. But the critical battles have not yet been won, nor will they ever be done. We need to continue to inform the public, and continue to fight the inaccurate portrayals of the MSM so that more Americans will find us credible enough to listen to. It's the long route, but it's also the short one. Nothing is so frightening to the government as an informed, angry majority.
I'm curious as to where you get your info, and wonder if you would be open to some alternative info.
I’m always willing to listen to other sides of any story…and I recongnize that on issues as contentious as this, advocates for both sides will often slant or spin their info.
I’ve seen occupiers and non-occupier common-folk interviewed in the media. Among the non-occupiers, I hear people who are not just opposing for opposing’s sake, but who have legitimate concerns about the tactics being used and the impact of those tactics on their lives, work, and small businesses. I use New York parks myself…and I can understand people who want access to the occupied park…and who do not want to see the kinds of accumulations that ARE occuring.
The business of Wall Street has a function. Yes, some monied people have been abusing the system and some elected officials have been accomodating that abuse, but in order for our economic system to work, the business conducted on Wall Street HAS TO CONTINUE. Simply shutting it down or impeding it is simplistic as a “solution” to the problems with which the occupiers apparently think they are dealing. The authorities have as much responsibility to control and contain some of the methods being used as they have to allow them to exist in the interests of protecting 1st amendment rights.
The majority of the Occupation has been peaceful, the exceptions coming when law enforcement arbitrarily determines that 1st Amendment rights have been exercised enough for one day, and that it's perfectly okay to beat, stun, shoot and gas your fellow citizens. This is the antithesis of good crowd control. With that number of people, violence by the police only drastically increases the chance for disaster; there would be many fewer injuries and much less emotional trauma had the police simply watched over them, to protect and defend their rights rather than abuse them with callous disregard for the safety of all involved.
Okay, I get that. But I take much of it with the same grains of salt I take the “explanations” of those who hate the notions of protests of this sort. My guess is damn near NOBODY every got beaten, stunned, gassed IF THEY SIMPLY FOLLOW LEGITIMATE ORDERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BACK AWAY. Some confrontation is a part of every protest of this magnitude…it is understandable; some reaction by law enforcement that causes black and blues is a part of every protest of this magnitude…and it is just as understandable.
I disagree with you emphatically on one of your comments: Law enforcement almost never “arbitrarily determines that 1st Amendment rights have been exercised enough for one day and that it is perfectly okay to beat…” Cops are human beings…and they follow instructions for crowd control. If they are instructed to move people back or to clear them from an area…a simply “Move away from this area” should clear the area immediately…and anyone disobeying or being confrontational MAY pay for it with pain. My guess is (and I acknowledge it is just a guess) MOST cops act with reasonable restraint. Most have kids…and do not delight in beating people or being savage as some (not you, SOS constantly suggest. They are doing a LEGITIMATE job…and getting more than their fair share of condemnation for it. They have superiors and orders…and when a law enforcement official tells you to move away…YOU SIMPLY MOVE AWAY. Take it up with a judge afterwards if you think the officer was wrong in giving the instruction, but if you defy the orders, expect a reaction.
I disagree that the Occupiers are behaving like "rabblers",
Just as SOME cops are excessive and are used as an excuse by some to condemn cops in general as being excessive…SOME of the occupiers are acting the rabble…and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
SOS, I want more than you can imagine for our nation to become a fairer, more reasonable country. We influence the rest of the world…and better we influence it in that direction than in the direction we currently do. But wanting justice and fairness requires more than being the kind of thing the occupiers have become. This requires a political solution. The occupiers are now, in my opinion, are working in a counterproductive way…and that part of the story is being given short shrift here in OS. For better or worse, I am offering it.
Closing for the moment, but if you have any specific questions, I will be happy to respond further. This all matters a lot to me.
Agree that information is often slanted to support the position of the one who provides it. I do my best not to do that, so please feel free to point it out if you feel I'm mischaracterizing a source.
I was actually curious as to whether the bulk of your information comes from mainstream media sources or independent internet sources. Mine comes mostly from reliable sources on the internet; when I watch the news on TV, it's usually just to find out what's happening so I can go look up the details. I've also noticed that the media of other nations tends to report events here more accurately than our own media, provided they're not owned by Rupert Murdoch...I used to love WSJ, but there was a definite change in their content once it was sold to Murdoch. At any rate, I'm always willing to provide my sources, so that people can read/watch the same pieces for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
When it comes to Occupation spin, YouTube has been fantastic. If you have the patience, you can find and watch clips of specific incidents AND the entire series of events that led up to the incidents. Unfortunately, these clips and links to them are sometimes removed at the request of law enforcement. Google reportedly Tweeted that law enforcement had requested that clips involving Occupation-related police brutality; no word on whether or not they removed them, and I haven't had a chance to try to verify the claim.
I personally love the NYC parks, and I completely agree that the Occupation tent city was an eyesore. However, that's kind of the point.
I don't know how informed you are [seems like more than most], and I don't know if you're aware of the extent of the financial crisis we're facing, but I feel that we're on the verge of an even larger depression, just due to the way banks are allowed to operate. Fractional Reserve banking is kind of terrifying, because if that goes wrong, there's not enough money on the planet to bail us out of that. The crimes committed by Wall Street just in the mortgage crisis alone would total well over a TRILLION dollars, if ever they were made to pay full restitution to their victims. If you don't have the details on that, here's my post detailing the engineering of the scheme and the collusion and fraud at every level.
Back to the point I was trying to make: some things really ARE for the greater good. Occupy is trying to bring awareness to all Americans, because we're all affected by Wall Street's actions, and because real change is much likelier with substantial, informed public support. The tent city promoted the efforts much more than any protest-by-day, home-by-night effort would have. Yes, certain parks will be crappy--literally--during the Occupation. But the alternative--no movement, or an ordinary one that goes nowhere--is unthinkable. We pay for those parks, and at the rate we're going, how long will it be before there's "no money" to support them?
Sometimes, when the consequences of someone's criminal actions are so far-reaching and devastating, and when the government shows little to no interest in protecting the public by changing the circumstances that allowed the actions to happen, the People MUST act. Sometimes, that may mean that others have to suffer a few inconveniences for a while, but we all benefit in the end. Take the Civil War, for instance; it was a LOT worse than inconvenient for a LOT of people that probably didn't care one way or the other. But in the end, human beings were given the right to be treated as human beings rather than as property simply because the color of their skin happened to be different.
I wish that Americans of the 99% didn't have to be inconvenienced at all, but if it's a choice between rolling over for Wall Street and our corrupt government or more traffic and less park access, I know which one I'm going to choose. Even if it's a choice between true free exercise of 1st Amendment rights--even when I don't agree with what people have to say--and inconvenience, I'm going to be on the side of defending our rights. Once they have been allowed to legally erode, there's no freedom fairy to wave a wand and magically restore them. They need to be protected, defended, preserved, and, above all, USED.
I am being summoned to make pancakes for 5 "tween" girls [birthday party], so I will have to return to this discussion in a bit.
at the hands of the establishment you represent"
...
The Occupy Movement is lacking only one thing,
and that is a sense of humor.
I suggest this:
Go to Wikiquote & look up cool thoughtful aphorisms,
some serious, some funny, mix em up.
eg
aldous huxley:
" Never have so many been manipulated so much by so few."
"Experience teaches only the teachable…"
"Words are good servants but bad masters."
or
jefferson!
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed."
and
of course everyone's favorite jefferrson quote,
"a little revolution now & again is a good thing"
i do NOT mean to be facetious here. i watched the increasing brutality committed against my beautiful fellow citizens
this morning, on the news. NOW they are covering it,
pundits talking out of all sides of their mouths,
probably purposefully obfuscating the issue,
wouldnt put it past em.
I think a great deal has to be done to make significant impact…some of which is so far outside the box most people alive right now will never be able to embrace. I have been waiting for a grassroots uprising—and I welcome the Occupy movement as a much needed faction, long over-due.
However, mayors and police departments DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION to all the people…and the movement is not embraced by all of the people. In fact, there is ample indication that the movement does not even appeal to a majority of the people.
In my opinion, the mayors and police departments have been restrained and temperate in their initial responses…although I will readily acknowledge that some individuals have stepped WAY OVER the line. That is going to happen. However, I object to tarring all elected officials and all policemen and policewomen…or even a majority of them…because of the actions of a few ignorant jerks, just as I would object to characterizing all the occupiers as provocateurs simply because a few of them are .
In any case, if you do not want to get maced, pepper-sprayed, or clocked—when the police tell you to disperse…simply disperse. If you decide to stick around in defiance of orders to leave, expect that some of the consequences are not going to be fun.
Freedom…whether freedom of speech or action…goes in many directions. The freedom some want to express may impinge on other freedoms others want to secure. It is a complex situation…and not easily resolved. Here in OS, the majority seems to be in a rage…with charges of fascism, brutality, repression, and such. But there is another side to this story, and I am simply expressing a part of that side.
I have been called a fascist…and an abettor of fascism for simply voicing my opinion that Mayor Bloomberg is a fine mayor and doing, in most cases, what must be done to keep the peace.
I am not a fascist…I am not an abettor of fascism. That kind of provocative rhetoric is already out of line…and ought to be brought under control.
You, SOS, are doing a fine job of sponsoring and moderating a thread that allows for varying opinions to be heard. I thank you for that. Any spin I see (don’t see all that much) is well within reason. Fact is, we all spin our arguments a bit, but that is part of the fun of debating issues of import.
I sincerely believe that lack of information and deliberate mischaracterization by the mainstream media has led to many negative perceptions of Occupy. At any rate, it doesn't really matter, from a legal standpoint, the exact number that support the efforts. Free speech/assembly is more important than playing frisbee in the park. The parks can still be accessed by everyone, anyway.
I agree that government has an obligation to all the People, no question. And the People are all equal. But some rights are more important than others, and there is no Constitutional allowance for the restriction of free speech, peaceable assembly and grievance-airing. Local and state rules, regulations, codes and laws cannot and do not trump the First Amendment, and the courts have consistently [since 1925] applied the law in such a way as to enforce this concept, ruling that the 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to each state and locality.
Again, I'm not completely unsympathetic to the minor troubles, but Occupy has, for the most part, avoided actions that would most certainly cause much greater troubles. Where is the balance that adheres to the guarantee of the Constitution? That document doesn't grant us free park access, or total freedom from noise we don't like. The legal balance is going to be close to what we have now, minus the police brutality. Those upset with Occupy would do better to try to peacefully negotiate with Occupiers, because it's honestly a better deal than they'll get if the Constitution is given its due respect.
I don't tar all police with the brutality brush, either. I've repeatedly linked to and complimented the law enforcement agencies of Albany, NY, for correctly assessing the situation and refusing the orders of the mayor and the pressure from the governor to forcefully disperse Occupy Albany protesters. I don't accept excuses like "just following orders", and any member of law enforcement who truly finds it acceptable to pepper-spray kneeling students, or deliberately toss a stun grenade at a group of protesters who ran to the aid of someone they just critically injured, should not remain a member of law enforcement. There have been far too many incidents at this point, incidents which include preventing the press from documenting events and arresting reporters with legitimate press passes.
I encourage you to check out some of the vid clips on YouTube; they document these events much better than the media, and you'll be able to see for yourself.
Incidentally, I wouldn't call you a fascist, and I appreciate the different perspective.
I found some Oregon case law that confirms that an unlawful order is an order that violates existing law, including the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.
Since the 14th Amendment applies the 1st Amendment to all states and localities anyway, it's not really necessary to go to the state level, but an actual court-confirmed definition of "lawful order" was somewhat difficult to find.
At any rate, as has been the case in many Occupy-police brutality incidents, if the protesters are exercising their free speech/peaceable assembly rights, are on public property or private property with permission, and are not violating any laws, any order from law enforcement to dismiss would be unlawful, because it violates the court-set precedent of 14th Amendment application of the 1st Amendment to state and local laws.
Additionally, protesters who were exercising their rights in a public place without violating the law, who refused to leave at the unlawful request of law enforcement and were then beaten, shot, stunned, gassed or sprayed could likely sue the law enforcement officers involved. Normally, law enforcement officers benefit from something called qualified immunity; they can't personally be sued for something they did on the job. However, when the actions of the person with qualified immunity violate laws any reasonable person employed in that capacity SHOULD have known, qualified immunity would not apply.
Is there an American citizen that's attained voting age that doesn't know their rights under the 1st Amendment? At the very least, pretty much everyone knows that we have the right to free speech, and we get that right from the Constitution.
Any member of law enforcement should also be familiar with rights guaranteed in their respective state constitutions; many states include free speech in their constitutions as well.
Therefore, not only do law enforcement officers who attempt to disperse law-abiding crowds violate the Constitution, they also may violate state constitutions and disqualify their qualified immunity, potentially causing them to be personally liable for the damages and trauma that result from their actions.
Please note that I'm not applying this to people who block doorways of private property, block public roadways or sidewalks, etc. The protesters would have to be violating no laws [except for unConstitutional ones] while exercising their rights for this to apply.
Please also note that I'm not saying that it's okay for law enforcement to use such force against peaceful protesters for, say, standing on a sidewalk. Any violent actions by law enforcement, including batoning and chemicals, should ONLY be used to protect themselves or others, or possibly to prevent the imminent destruction of property [standing-by-a-window-with-a-raised-hammer-type-imminent]. I maintain that using any violence in a peaceful crowd places everyone, including law enforcement officers, in FAR more danger. If it's not absolutely necessary to enforce the law that moment, it's in the best interests of public safety to wait until it's safer; either way, there will be arrests at some point; if those who are to be arrested aren't causing harm, does it really matter when it happens?
Great! You've got the spotlight. You'll have it for your 15 minutes.
Do something with it. Articulate what actionable steps you want to see done in order to address the growing economic disparity we see in this country.
And if the jokers that went on the Colbert Report are indicative of the movement, I am not getting involved. Wiggling your fingers to show you don't like an idea? Making little signs?
Give me a freaking break.
For any movement to effect change, it has to have a leader and it has to have a clearly measurable goal. Ghandi wanted the Brits out and he was clearly in charge. Martin Luther King wanted civil rights, and while there were many people involved in the movement, he was clearly in charge of his group.
You can't have what the Occupy movement has now, which is no clearly measured goal and no leader.
At this point, it's a protest just to protest. That's like whining about your job and doing nothing to change the situation you're in.
When the movement actually starts working towards clearly defined goals, then it can do something. That is when I'll get behind it.
Look…I detest that some cops get out of hand…but keeping crowds in line is not the easy thing some people imagine it to be. There are plenty of dangers to guard against…and most cops will take measures to insure the problems do not get out of hand just to insure they are perceived as being courteous toward the demonstrators. Cracked heads are a much better possibility.
Take the clearing of the park at night in NYC--and all the anger directed toward the mayor and the cops for having done it that way.
Could you imagine how that could have impacted the area if the police had done the clearing during daylight hours. The kinds of disruption (while probably fine with the demonstrators) would not be fine with the people who might feel the impact of the disruption--the local business people, the pedistrians, people going to work or walking a dog.
There is a reason why highway repairs are done at midnight and beyond. You do try to keep disorder under control.
I think the advocates for the demonstrations are getting closer and closer to the edge. They are turning significant numbers of people off…people who initially were in their camp.
They NEED leaders…strong leaders—and they need a clearly defined agenda. Putting up candidates of their own is a terrible idea right now, but soliciting and obtaining commitments from established candidates to work to correct CLEARLY articulated problems is a fine way to proceed. Also, the movement cannot get irrational and proffer expectations that are unrealistic. Things are not going to get “fair” in America easily or quickly. The change is going to be incremental…and the movement has got to be willing to work with that constraint in mind.
In any case, thanks for spending so much time with me on this issue. Obviously it is a matter that concerns us both, although it is equally obvious we have significant procedural differences.
James, appreciated. Thanks for reading.
Sometimes, I wish that Occupy would roll out in a different direction, too. They could take advantage of the attention to do even more. But then I think about WHY I want that...and why others might want that.
Sometimes, I think some of the things they do at the Occupations are a little ridiculous. But then I think about how those ridiculous things came about. The People's Microphone was created as a result of Occupy being denied the right to use traditional microphones or megaphones; it's actually a technique that will likely be used long into the future. The finger waving--yes, I think that's stupid, too. But without a traditional sound system, it was essential to create a way for people to express their dissent without drowning out the person speaking. It's another way to use the right to free speech, without squashing the free speech rights of others; what could be more American that that?
I accept that you truly believe that a movement needs a leader and goals to be effective. But can you articulate WHY you believe that? Just because something has worked in the past doesn't mean it will work now, and just because something is done differently than it has been in the past doesn't mean that it won't work now.
Again, I'll repeat that anyone who doesn't know the goals of Occupy right now has either been living under a rock, or is choosing to willfully ignore them, because the goals are outlined absolutely EVERYWHERE. I'm not saying that no one should propose solutions, but I agree with Occupy that the movement itself should not be the one to formulate them. Occupy set the stage for others to act; this is OUR job, not theirs. They continue to do their job, but they can't do it all while fighting battles against the government, the wealthy special interests, the nay-sayers and those who can't or don't want to make up their minds because they're afraid of what others might think. And the problems are so complex that we'd have to teach everyone before proposing solutions for a vote, because otherwise, we'd just be encouraging more of the same behavior that got us here.
If you're considering joining Occupy, then you must have SOME idea of their goals and purpose, unless of course you're someone who wants to "protest just to protest". Occupy brings awareness and information to a nation that has forgotten how to think for themselves. But replacing their instructions from the corporate-controlled media with our own instructions won't help for long. They need to understand what's happened, what's happening, and why before they'll be of much use to help change our situation.
Giving them a different leader to follow makes them footsoldiers, or cannon fodder. Giving them understanding provides a way for each of them to BE a leader, and to make new leaders, and to handle whichever jobs match their strengths out of the hundreds or thousands of things that must be done.
Your help, and everyone's, would be welcomed at any step. But if everyone waits to be assured of success before they act, it either won't go much farther than it has, or our children will be finishing the fight when they should be enjoying the fruits of our labor and maintaining vigilance.
You don't have to help at all, of course. But if we don't finish this, all the things that we value about our country WILL eventually disappear. We're already seeing it. That's what leaving it to others does. We get legislation that is named the opposite of its purpose, because we figure that the bill will match the name. The [anti-]Patriot Act is a good example; so are a few recently proposed bills, supposedly regarding internet privacy, anti-piracy and child porn.
You know, the important part of this whole thing is NOT to specifically promote Occupy. The important part is getting Americans to realize that something is wrong, and that WE are the ones who will have to do something about it. You don't even have to agree with the basic principle of Occupy. If you were to agree with the 1%, I would still encourage you to learn as much about it as possible, refine your arguments and DO something in support of your beliefs.
We have become a lazy nation when it comes to our freedoms. We assume that because they are written in our Constitution, that no one will ever try to strip them from within. And so, we don't pay attention. We excuse away the violations of our rights, because we assume that the actions of authority are legal, or that they are just the actions of rogues. The problem is that they are not. The biggest threat to America right now is our own government, those who corrupt our government...and those who ignore it all, or are happy to complain but not do.
To me, rights are key. They are of import above all else, because if they fall, so does the America that was based on them. Every violation of these key rights by the government sets a dangerous precedent; every incident they get away with sets another. If they aren't stopped, eventually, we won't have any. And sadly, many people will be okay with that, at least until they personally experience the results.
If the corruption of government by wealthy special interests continues, many of the people bothered by the Occupy inconvenience won't have to worry, either, because they won't have a job to travel to, and they won't have a home to travel from.
I wonder how many people with mortgages still don't realize that they could be homeless, just on a whim from their mortgage "servicer". Allowing mortgage servicers or MERS to get away with foreclosing using faulty, forged, or missing required documentation puts us ALL at risk. It means that we can all be foreclosed on, because few courts require the proof necessary to indicate ownership and the standing to foreclose. At some point, we will again have a sellers' market. When that time comes, and it becomes more profitable to take homes rather than accept payments, we'll see much more of this.
I also want to remind you, and everyone else, that we need not try to make Occupy into what we want it to be. The structure of Occupy isn't really set up to offer a lot more than information and awareness. But every individual who participates in Occupy, or sympathizes with their goals, or different ones IS well placed to do so. Nothing prevents us from creating spin-offs of Occupy to accomplish specific tasks. Nothing prevent us from discussing and planning and acting in concert with others, using Occupy as a place to meet those with similar views who would like to take them further.
Nothing is stopping us from creating the change we want to see. WE are the only real obstacle in our own way. The beauty of this is that we can overcome that particular obstacle anytime we choose.
Frank [or anyone else] let me know if you would be interested in participating in the type of groups I mentioned. I'm involved in the leadership of a group that conceives of and operates different initiatives in support of our main goal, which is returning to a truly representative government. We lead through an odd-numbered council, which intentionally encompasses different [and sometimes opposite] perspectives; I think yours would fit in well.
Sure hope our country, and the rest of the world, gets back on track soon.
Those are going to be our choices. It's important to embrace them now, rather than wait with stars in ones eyes.
A third party candidacy is mostly a problem among liberals, since they are so disloyal in the first place, but I think Obama has successfully scrared away all but the opportunistic.
The right and Repugs will rally. They will support whoever runs for them in numbers we may not have seen before. There is no force more powerful than a those who feel threatened of power they have had and think they are going to lose.
I could argue with facts, but I'm not sure that's productive at this point. It's either Obama or a return to a past that no longer needs to exist if the battle can be won at the polls.
I agree with you that it's unlikely that Ron Paul will get the GOP nod; it's also not all that likely that he will attempt a 3rd-party run. But I won't be voting for Obama either way, even if I have to write Ron Paul in as a last resort.
A popular vote majority is extremely beneficial to a POTUS [or any elected official, really]. It lends legitimacy to their Presidency, implying that this POTUS really IS the choice of the People. Obama hasn't earned that majority, and shouldn't benefit from it. Furthermore, after his actions in his first term, whatever he does during his second is on us, just as everything Dubya did in his second term was on us. Obama implied that his actions would be much different than they turned out to be. But now we know, and re-electing him makes us responsible for the countries he chooses to attack, the deaths of innocent civilians who are killed as a result, harm caused by the money he spends on unneccessaries and witholds from necessaries, etc.
Even if I knew beyond the shadow of any and all doubt that voting for anyone other than Obama would ensure a GOP POTUS that is NOT Ron Paul, I would still have to stick to my guns and not vote for Obama. Dangerous strategy? Yes, probably. But so is voting for someone whom we already know has a complete lack of respect for our Constitution and other Founding Documents; for someone who, just like a Republican, has proven that he will take our money and borrow more in order to get involved in the civil war of a nation which poses no credible threat to our national security, and excuse it away by blaming it on NATO, though a brief review of those documents and our law makes it perfectly clear that this is not a valid excuse; for someone who will repeatedly give more away to the GOP than they request, then give in when they demand even more; I could go on, but I'll refrain, for now.
Principles are sorely lacking in this country right now, and continue to disappear. Someone has to stand on them sometime, if we are ever to return to the state of greatness we claim. My view is that a vote against Obama is at least a step toward integrity, and accepting that we are responsible for the actions of our leaders, and a vote towards breaking the one-party-disguised-as-two, and a refusal to just vote for the lesser of two evils.
I encourage others to do the same. Stop believing those who tell you that your vote doesn't count, because it can. At the very least, your vote can be used to make a clear statement that the person that won is not your choice, does not represent your views, and that you did what you could to prevent his win.
Obviously, the Fed is a problem. But the Fed being a problem doesn't absolve Wall Street of its crimes. Wall Street's actions are the cause of the mortgage crisis, and nothing has been done to curtail this type of activity in future, pretty much guaranteeing a repeat crisis at some point.
I agree with you in that we certainly WILL have a Fed-induced financial crisis in future, and this crisis will eclipse the mortgage crisis, as there isn't enough money in print to cover the losses that will result.
PS: I will point out, because he has made it obvious by some of his mannerisms, that Jejune Podiatrist is an OS blogger who has assumed at least two other pseudonyms at OS. He used to go by the name of Caracalla's Amanuensis. Then he changed his name (after somehow succeeding in deleting many of his most embarrassing comments on my blog) to Ionian. In his original nom de guerre as Caracalla's Amanuensis he openly and proudly declared himself a fascist. So his statements now that Occupy is useless unless it pursues elective office should be understood in that context.
Here is a mocking comment that he made to a post of mine in December in which I was sending a shout out to the people of Egypt. His comment makes amusing reading now as his certain assertions that no popular uprising would happen in the U.S. have been belied by the Occupy Movement, a movement that in fact has become impossible to ignore and in fact covered by Fox:
"All I'm doing is waiting for the tidal wave of street protests as Da Peoples, in the throes of High And Mighty Indignation, begin swelling the public spaces and this movement becomes so un-ignorable that even the LameStream Media and Fox will be forced to report it. Good Luck! What an incredible narcissistic fantasy Comrade, when you so misunderstand the nature of the times, the movement of the Hegelian Spirit of Degradation and Decadence (as the Absolujte manifests itself today) that you remotely posit ANY kind of public reaction to these events. Ha ha, ho ho, fee fee fie foh...wink"
Caracalla's Amanuensis
December 07, 2010 04:00 PM
My last comment should have had parentheses around this phrase in the first sentence: (sick of) stupid pundits ...
Thanks again for reading! I'm looking forward to your new work.
Ferguson On Grease Website