Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

Relevant:



http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-love-the-ows-protests-20111110#ixzz1doXOODSY

Also relevant:

And here's one more thing I was wrong about: I originally was very uncomfortable with the way the protesters were focusing on the NYPD as symbols of the system. After all, I thought, these are just working-class guys from the Bronx and Staten Island who have never seen the inside of a Wall Street investment firm, much less had anything to do with the corruption of our financial system.

But I was wrong. The police in their own way are symbols of the problem. All over the country, thousands of armed cops have been deployed to stand around and surveil and even assault the polite crowds of Occupy protesters. This deployment of law-enforcement resources already dwarfs the amount of money and manpower that the government "committed" to fighting crime and corruption during the financial crisis. One OWS protester steps in the wrong place, and she immediately has police roping her off like wayward cattle. But in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes.

This is a profound statement about who law enforcement works for in this country. What happened on Wall Street over the past decade was an unparalleled crime wave. Yet at most, maybe 1,500 federal agents were policing that beat – and that little group of financial cops barely made any cases at all. Yet when thousands of ordinary people hit the streets with the express purpose of obeying the law and demonstrating their patriotism through peaceful protest, the police response is immediate and massive. There have already been hundreds of arrests, which is hundreds more than we ever saw during the years when Wall Street bankers were stealing billions of dollars from retirees and mutual-fund holders and carpenters unions through the mass sales of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities.

It's not that the cops outside the protests are doing wrong, per se, by patrolling the parks and sidewalks. It's that they should be somewhere else. They should be heading up into those skyscrapers and going through the file cabinets to figure out who stole what, and from whom. They should be helping people get their money back. Instead, they're out on the street, helping the Blankfeins of the world avoid having to answer to the people they ripped off.

 

[justin.au]

Overwhelming force, Australian style, (a.k.a wasting police resources at 'Occupy Melbourne'):

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Most of those are perfectly reasonable.

Although I agree that you probably would feel much more at home here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2807461/posts

Oh man Freerepublic is filled with so much hilarity. Thanks for the link! I owe you a drink!

My point is that our courts are useless in a highly inequitable and corrupt society. They cannot and should not ever be depended upon to uphold the liberties of people. We have to defend them ourselves.

Of course you would say that since it ruled against your view. So why did you even bother becoming a lawyer?

I mean the public interest or public defense you do must not completely be devoid of courts working even in your opinion.

 

[squall211]

It's one silly list from one dumb protester that people have been using to discredit the movement since the beginning.

Is it the same one dumb protester who said he wouldn't stop protesting until every person had the right to print their own money?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Is it the same one dumb protester who said he wouldn't stop protesting until every person had the right to print their own money?

Someone actually said that? Did he want it back by gold or silver?

 

[remnant]

... What exactly did the "raising the debt ceiling" debate consist of? I seem to recall one side, with considerable representation in Congress, pushing an agenda of massive cuts, no new revenue, and a balanced budget amendment, as prerequisites to get the debt ceiling raised.

I mean, that certainly sounds like fucking austerity to me. A particularly idiotic approach to it, too.

Not that the other side was much better... Massive cuts with small revenue increases (relative to the cuts).

Well then congrats, you are not very smart. An effective austerity plan requires stated goals and a plan for revenue in the future, which was never offered. In fact all the "pathetic austerity" measures in the future took into consideration raising the debt ceiling. That argument was about forcing an end to future tax increases after the debt ceiling was raised, not an effective long-term austerity plan like many countries did in the 90's.

 

[Evlar]

Well then congrats, you are not very smart. An effective austerity plan requires stated goals and a plan for revenue in the future, which was never offered. In fact all the "pathetic austerity" measures in the future took into consideration raising the debt ceiling. That argument was about forcing an end to future tax increases after the debt ceiling was raised, not an effective long-term austerity plan like many countries did in the 90's.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were operating under your special definition of "austerity".

 

[remnant]

Overwhelming force, Australian style, (a.k.a wasting police resources at 'Occupy Melbourne'):

think of it as stimulus. Imagine the multiplier!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were operating under your special definition of "austerity".

Well i try to use the correct term whenever possible. Raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes at a lower rate than originally envisioned is not the correct economic definition, hence not mine.

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

Most of those are perfectly reasonable.

No....they're not. That's ridiculous. 6 hour work day, 6 weeks vacation, elect supervisors, $18/hr min. That is absolute stupidity.

Someone flipping a burger or washing cars....or any other unskilled shit does not deserve that. You raise min wage that high and just watch costs on everything skyrocket to more than account for that anyway.

"....so that'll be one large order of fries and a small shake, right? That'll be $17.33.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No....they're not. That's ridiculous. 6 hour work day, 6 weeks vacation, elect supervisors, $18/hr min. That is absolute stupidity.

Someone flipping a burger or washing cars....or any other unskilled shit does not deserve that. You raise min wage that high and just watch costs on everything skyrocket to more than account for that anyway.

"....so that'll be one large order of fries and a small shake, right? That'll be $17.33.

There are a whole slew of countries which have 4 or 5 weeks as the bare minimum required by law (plus 10 or so holidays)

US has no statutory minimum


IE: France has 5 weeks, plus 2 weeks of reduced work hours if someone elects to work 39 hours a week instead of 35, and 10 national holidays

 

[Evlar]

think of it as stimulus. Imagine the multiplier!


Well i try to use the correct term whenever possible. Raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes at a lower rate than originally envisioned is not the correct economic definition, hence not mine.

Then you'll struggle to communicate with the general public, who is using the word austerity to mean "a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided". It may or may not be associated with theory or schedules.

 

[empty vessel]

No....they're not. That's ridiculous. 6 hour work day, 6 weeks vacation, elect supervisors, $18/hr min. That is absolute stupidity.

Someone flipping a burger or washing cars....or any other unskilled shit does not deserve that. You raise min wage that high and just watch costs on everything skyrocket to more than account for that anyway.

"....so that'll be one large order of fries and a small shake, right? That'll be $17.33.

$18/hour at 30 hours per week for 46 weeks is $24,840. (At 40 hour work-weeks it is $33,000). You don't think that's a reasonable amount of money for one individual who works full time to live on? Why do you think people who work full time for the benefit of society--regardless of how menial their tasks--should not be able to obtain a meager $25,000 salary for their efforts? Why do you think work should be punished?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

A constitutional amendment should not be required to create campaign finance laws. There should be very few things that require a constitutional amendment, as it is supposed to serve as a framework for the government. Once you need to start amending the constitution to do something like prevent a multi-billion dollar corporation from campaigning on behalf of an individual, or to provide health care or any other service to individuals, the constituion ceases to be a framework for government and becomes the law itself, with congressional acts merely extending and clarifying the law already in place.

A constitutional amendment should be needed only to change the structure of government. Optionally, it can be used to enshrine certain secular values within law more deeply and with a higher legal standing than a normal act of congress, (which is why it requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states) Never to circumvent existing rules, though.

The 19th amendment for example shouldn't be needed. And indeed, if it were to vanish overnight here in 2011, any legislation which prevented women from voting would almost certainly be struck down under the 14th and 15th amendments. Nevertheless, the 19th amendment serves as a historical reminder that women wwere not always considered persons, and in the event that such an opinion becomes more widespread in the future, there exists an explicit reminder to promote otherwise within the constitution.

Segregation was both upheld and struck down by the supreme court, as another example for something which didn't take a constituional amendment, but probably could have gone that way under different rulings

We need a constitutional amendment because campaign finance reform is against the constitution as it currently exists. See the first amendment.

 

[Wazzim]

They're really afraid of people raising their voices. Amazing.

 

[Angry Fork]

No....they're not. That's ridiculous. 6 hour work day, 6 weeks vacation, elect supervisors, $18/hr min. That is absolute stupidity.

Someone flipping a burger or washing cars....or any other unskilled shit does not deserve that. You raise min wage that high and just watch costs on everything skyrocket to more than account for that anyway.

"....so that'll be one large order of fries and a small shake, right? That'll be $17.33.

Is Kim Kardashian skilled enough (in what exactly?) to make what she makes? If you want to act like capitalism is okay you need to do better than shit on people trying to survive through wage slavery.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

$18/hour at 30 hours per week for 46 weeks is $24,840. (At 40 hour work-weeks it is $33,000). You don't think that's a reasonable amount of money for one individual who works full time to live on? Why do you think people who work full time for the benefit of society--regardless of how menial their tasks--should not be able to obtain a meager $25,000 salary for their efforts? Why do you think work should be punished?

Well as you said they make more than 25K working full time.

 

[GaimeGuy]

We need a constitutional amendment because campaign finance reform is against the constitution as it currently exists. See the first amendment.

Thank you, Citizens United.

 

[Wazzim]

No....they're not. That's ridiculous. 6 hour work day, 6 weeks vacation, elect supervisors, $18/hr min. That is absolute stupidity.

Someone flipping a burger or washing cars....or any other unskilled shit does not deserve that. You raise min wage that high and just watch costs on everything skyrocket to more than account for that anyway.

"....so that'll be one large order of fries and a small shake, right? That'll be $17.33.

You know what's ridiculous? You know what?

Fucking people getting millions upon millions of income a year with little tax while others have to struggle to get food for their kids in the same country. That's fucking ridiculous.

 

[remnant]

Then you'll struggle to communicate with the general public, who is using the word austerity to mean "a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided". It may or may not be associated with theory or schedules.

a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided

1. the deficit wasn't cut
2. federal spending hasn't been lowered
3. entitlements are growing, and public sector has downsized considerably less than the private sector.

Yeah we don't have austerity.

$18/hour at 30 hours per week for 46 weeks is $24,840. (At 40 hour work-weeks it is $33,000). You don't think that's a reasonable amount of money for one individual who works full time to live on? Why do you think people who work full time for the benefit of society--regardless of how menial their tasks--should not be able to obtain a meager $25,000 salary for their efforts? Why do you think work should be punished?

If i don't support an 18 minimum wage, i am arguing work should be punished?

Is Kim Kardashian skilled enough (in what exactly?) to make what she makes? If you want to act like capitalism is okay you need to do better than shit on people trying to survive through wage slavery.

...Becuase Kim kardishian is the only successful person in America, amirite?

 

[Mortrialus]

a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided

1. the deficit wasn't cut
2. federal spending hasn't been lowered
3. entitlements are growing, and public sector has downsized considerably less than the private sector.

Yeah that not austerity.

1. The deficit was cut, it just wasn't cut to the degree needed to remove the deficit.
2. Republicans have been pushing measures to lower federal spending.
3. Republicans have been working to remove and lower entitlements. Did you forget Paul Ryan's proposed budget that passed in the house?


Apparently Republicans pushing all debate towards public spending and actively pushing measures (Despite many of them failing) doesn't count as a public debate about austerity. Apparently austerity measures are only austerity measures when they pass and are 100% successful.

 

[Angry Fork]

...Becuase Kim kardishian is the only successful person in America, amirite?

That doesn't matter. A just economic society wouldn't let that be okay while also forcing families to work for 6 an hour (while also going to school to try to climb the money ladder). Same goes for football money, these ridiculous NBA negotiations, Ryan Seacrest salary, Goldman Sachs grip on thousands of students futures because of exorbitantly high loans, and so on. It's disgusting.

 

[empty vessel]

We need a constitutional amendment because campaign finance reform is against the constitution as it currently exists. See the first amendment.

As currently interpreted, not as it currently exists. The constitutional doctrine that recognizes constitutional rights for corporations is completely inconsistent with the most fundamental principle of the American revolution. It radically transforms the government from a government based on popular sovereignty to a government of inherent authority--the same kind of government the American founders rebelled against.

If i don't support an 18 minimum wage, i am arguing work should be punished?

I am trying to figure out why some people are expressing an opinion that $25,000 per year is extravagantly excessive for any person who works full time contributing his labor to society.

 

[Fenderputty]

$18/hour at 30 hours per week for 46 weeks is $24,840. (At 40 hour work-weeks it is $33,000). You don't think that's a reasonable amount of money for one individual who works full time to live on? Why do you think people who work full time for the benefit of society--regardless of how menial their tasks--should not be able to obtain a meager $25,000 salary for their efforts? Why do you think work should be punished?

I'm curious how a system like this would be even implimented. I know plenty of college grads making 28-32 a year. Flipping burgers shouldn't be comparable.

That isn't to say I disagree with your point that someone working full time making contributions to society would be fairly be paid in that range.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm curious how a system like this would be even implimented. I know plenty of college grads making 28-32 a year. Flipping burgers shouldn't be comparable.

That isn't to say I disagree with your point that someone working full time making contributions to society would be fairly be paid in that range.

I think it would mostly require improving the equity of income distribution throughout the system. The truth is that if you just reset the distribution of income to where it was in the 1970's, the entire bottom 90% of households would have higher incomes (some as much as $10,000 more every year):

See:

I don't think you can (or should) just hike up the minimum wage without addressing the distributive problems (and probably many other fundamental issues), because that has to be the source of most of the income to be effective. At any rate, the college grads in your example would also be making a higher income.

 

[MC Safety]

Here's what's telling: We're not discussing whatever nebulous beefs or aims the occupiers have, but rather making up our own vaguely related topics to cover. Oh, and we're also debating whether the occupiers should be allowed to have sleeping bags in a park.

I can't even say if I'm for the protests or not. I have no idea.

 

[maharg]

Overwhelming force, Australian style, (a.k.a wasting police resources at 'Occupy Melbourne'):

If you tilt your head just right it kind of looks like the cops are surrounding the tent in a heart shape.

 

[Tideas]

You know what's ridiculous? You know what?

Fucking people getting millions upon millions of income a year with little tax while others have to struggle to get food for their kids in the same country. That's fucking ridiculous.

little tax? hwat is your definition of little tax? They pay their tax. More than most people. Ppl just want them to pay more

 

[kame-sennin]

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where in that amendment is there a time limit clause? Where does it say that you can peacefully assemble, but not overnight? I don't understand how anyone could argue that the Zucotti raid was not a clear violation of first amendment rights.

 

[Fenderputty]

little tax? hwat is your definition of little tax? They pay their tax. More than most people. Ppl just want them to pay more

Tideas

ignorant rich american who cannot figure out how forums work

(Today, 03:50 PM)

Reply | Quote

 

[empty vessel]

Where in that amendment is there a time limit clause? Where does it say that you can peacefully assemble, but not overnight? I don't understand how anyone could argue that the Zucotti raid was not a clear violation of first amendment rights.

Even though I'm strongly little-l libertarian (read, not Libertarian like Ron Paul), I do believe that rights have reasonable limitations on their exercise (e.g., can't yell fire in a crowded theater). And I think everybody else does too if you force them to think about it. The problem is that we have let those limitations erode rights to far, especially assembly rights. The state should have an extremely heavy burden to show that a very compelling public interest should permit its interference in a specific case. Here, there is nothing that even comes remotely close to justifying the limitations on the rights of Americans to peacefully assemble at Zuccotti park any time day or night. The reasons that were given for the government's interference in the American's exercise of their fundamental liberties were (1) pretextual and (2) sorely inadequate even if you pretended to believe they were sincere.

This was straightforwardly an act of government repression against its citizens.

 

[Evlar]

a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided

1. the deficit wasn't cut
2. federal spending hasn't been lowered
3. entitlements are growing, and public sector has downsized considerably less than the private sector.

Yeah we don't have austerity.

Kame-sennin's original post on the matter did not claim austerity had actually been enacted; he claimed we had spent time debating it.

Before OWS, the national debate was centered around austerity. The debate has clearly shifted and you know it. Obama has been forced to address the legality of Wall Streets' actions leading up to the financial crisis - a complete political non-starter just a few months ago.

For some reason you objected to that characterization; now you're moving the goalposts around.

One of the plagues of modern American political discourse is that it's become acceptable to pretend we do not remember the events of the very recent past. It's poisonous. The debt ceiling debate was a matter of a few months ago; memory of the terms that it was argued over, and the bad actions of many of the participants culminating in the farcical deficit committee, should not be swept away.

Particular in view of the fact that the direct consequences of these arguments and subsequent bad decisions are going to visit us in the very near future: the deficit commission is due to fail to meet its obligations in a few weeks.

 

[kame-sennin]

Even though I'm strongly little-l libertarian (read, not Libertarian like Ron Paul), I do believe that rights have reasonable limitations on their exercise (e.g., can't yell fire in a crowded theater). And I think everybody else does too if you force them to think about it. The problem is that we have let those limitations erode rights to far, especially assembly rights. The state should have an extremely heavy burden to show that a very compelling public interest should permit its interference in a specific case. Here, there is nothing that even comes remotely close to justifying the limitations on the rights of Americans to peacefully assemble at Zuccotti park any time day or night. The reasons that were given for the government's interference in the American's exercise of their fundamental liberties were (1) pretextual and (2) sorely inadequate even if you pretended to believe they were sincere.

This was straightforwardly an act of government repression against its citizens.

With regard to all that public safety stuff, it should be noted that the city refused to sit down with OWS to discuss health and safety measures that could have been taken, even though a local housing committee suggested that they should.

 

[sangreal]

Where in that amendment is there a time limit clause? Where does it say that you can peacefully assemble, but not overnight? I don't understand how anyone could argue that the Zucotti raid was not a clear violation of first amendment rights.

Well, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions but even if you believe they are wrong I don't see how you can argue that this was a violation of their first amendment rights. I could see the argument against a curfew, but how do you figure that the right to assemble grants you permission to erect semi-permanent structures on "public" property?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This was straightforwardly an act of government repression against its citizens.

No, it wasn't, this was a lawful removal of an illegal group of squatters who posed a danger to public health and safety.

With regard to all that public safety stuff, it should be noted that the city refused to sit down with OWS to discuss health and safety measures that could have been taken, even though a local housing committee suggested that they should.

Why should the city have to negotiate with a bunch of squatters?

 

[Myansie]

Manos must have gone to bed. His posting has finally stopped. For the past six hours he's had every 3rd or 4th post.

Manos we get it. You think OWS are squatters and need to restrategise. That's ok, you can have that opinion, but can you please show at least a little respect and slow down with your posting. It's the same thing over and over. It is really aggrevating to read. It's reached a point where all I do is skip your posts now and mutter "fuck, again?".

Your diluting your opinion by doing that.


Edit: I spoke too soon.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos must have gone to bed. His posting has finally stopped. For the past six hours he's had every 3rd or 4th post.

Nope

Manos we get it. You think OWS are squatters and need to restrategise. That's ok, you can have that opinion, but can you please show at least a little respect and slow down with your posting.
.

Why? It's been a busy news day.

 

[sangreal]

I am trying to figure out why some people are expressing an opinion that $25,000 per year is extravagantly excessive for any person who works full time contributing his labor to society.

It's not, but only 2-3% of full time workers are paid minimum wage. If part-time minimum wage earners are making $18 an hour you can certainly expect full-time workers to demand more as well.

 

[CrocMother]

It's not, but only 2-3% of full time workers are paid minimum wage. If part-time minimum wage earners are making $18 an hour you can certainly expect full-time workers to demand more as well.

ONLY 2-3%???!!

It's ridiculous that anyone with a full time job is making minimum wage. You can barely support yourself using that. Forget about a family.

 

[Splash Wave]

Is there a Cal/Berkeley-GAF? I was at the march earlier, but had to miss the (currently happening) general assembly.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Manos must have gone to bed. His posting has finally stopped. For the past six hours he's had every 3rd or 4th post.

And why not? Manos is the most entertaining poster on here.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Seattle City Council passes resolution in support of Occupy movement

Also, it happens to be Resolution 31337. Seriously.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Seattle City Council passes resolution in support of Occupy movement

Also, it happens to be Resolution 31337. Seriously.

excellent

 

[remnant]

Kame-sennin's original post on the matter did not claim austerity had actually been enacted; he claimed we had spent time debating it.
For some reason you objected to that characterization; now you're moving the goalposts around.

One of the plagues of modern American political discourse is that it's become acceptable to pretend we do not remember the events of the very recent past. It's poisonous. The debt ceiling debate was a matter of a few months ago; memory of the terms that it was argued over, and the bad actions of many of the participants culminating in the farcical deficit committee, should not be swept away.

Particular in view of the fact that the direct consequences of these arguments and subsequent bad decisions are going to visit us in the very near future: the deficit commission is due to fail to meet its obligations in a few weeks.

The characterization is bullshit. Serious austerity measures is a bit more nuanced than demanding for spending cuts and lowering the rate of future tax increases.

But fine, i'll relent.

Despite the fact that the deficit has grown.

Despite the fact that we are on stimulus package number 2

Despite the fact that we are currently arguing a millionaire surtax

I'll pretend that the debt ceiling argument, one aspect of the debt ceiling argument, mind you the argument that the government should at very least not impose higher taxes after raising the debt ceiling. That episode which lasted for about a month and a half has been the sole discussion America has had about finance and has been the only economic discussion we have had. In fact it has dominated it.

oh and we never talked about income inequality before that. Ever.

 

[rohlfinator]

Seattle City Council passes resolution in support of Occupy movement

Also, it happens to be Resolution 31337. Seriously.

why are they occupying seattle it's not like seattle bailed out the banks

 

[sphagnum]

why are they occupying seattle it's not like seattle bailed out the banks

Solidarity. Why shouldn't people in Seattle be protesting the American economic system?

 

[empty vessel]

No, it wasn't, this was a lawful removal of an illegal group of squatters who posed a danger to public health and safety.

Sure, if you're delusional and don't care if the words you string together bear any resemblance to the external world. But those of us who make judgments based on our studied observations of externality reality as it exists (and not our own words) would disagree. It's just a matter of which camp you're in.

 

[slit]

I wonder what Bloomberg will say if protesters start being hospitalized or die of exposure because they refused to allow tents? Will they they make them leave the park completely and then use that as an excuse?

 

[cooljeanius]

Warning: Long post incoming:
So I went off to American University off in Tenleytown tonight after work for their Occupy's GA, and it made me kinda jealous how much more organized they are than us here at GW. Looking back at our first GA, we wasted most of our time with procedural stuff, while AU got right to business and is actually doing stuff. After AU's GA, I went to McPherson Square. Things weren't looking good. I heard one guy saying he had his camera stolen, and another saying he had molotov cocktails if the police tried to clear them out. The police actually did come that night, but not to clear anyone out. Someone called an ambulance because they thought someone was having a seizure, so the police came along with the ambulance. The guy was okay though. Some other guys got into a yelling match with a random angry homeless guy. Luckily nothing bad came from it. Some people had a giant game of Jenga set up by the statue in the center using enormous wooden blocks. Also, for all the people complaining about lack of diversity in Occupy, they must not have been to McPherson Square recently, as most of the people there tonight were black. Although that's partially a function of DC being largely black. Anyway, my main story worth relating: I came across a circle of people having a discussion, and apparently some people within the movement are getting pretty dissatisfied. The movement seems to be becoming more about being in a physical place than spreading any sort of message. More excitement gets generated about police crackdowns than any specific positive actions the protestors are taking. The movement seems to be stagnating and losing its narrative. Some people are starting to realize we need some sort of leader to be a public figurehead for the movement. I agree. We need some sort of Martin Luther King Jr, or Malcolm X, or Gandhi, or Anna Hazare for the outside world to focus on and associate with the movement. There was a lot more we talked about, but yeah... there's a growing sentiment that the movement needs to get a kick in the ass and rethink itself, because what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Sure, if you're delusional and don't care if the words you string together bear any resemblance to the external world. But those of us who make judgments based on our studied observations of externality reality as it exists (and not our own words) would disagree. It's just a matter of which camp you're in.

Calm down EV and take a deep breath. As we can see from yesterday's no ones rights where trampled upon.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Warning: Long post incoming:
So I went off to American University off in Tenleytown tonight after work for their Occupy's GA, and it made me kinda jealous how much more organized they are than us here at GW. Looking back at our first GA, we wasted most of our time with procedural stuff, while AU got right to business and is actually doing stuff. After AU's GA, I went to McPherson Square. Things weren't looking good. I heard one guy saying he had his camera stolen, and another saying he had molotov cocktails if the police tried to clear them out. The police actually did come that night, but not to clear anyone out. Someone called an ambulance because they thought someone was having a seizure, so the police came along with the ambulance. The guy was okay though. Some other guys got into a yelling match with a random angry homeless guy. Luckily nothing bad came from it. Some people had a giant game of Jenga set up by the statue in the center using enormous wooden blocks. Also, for all the people complaining about lack of diversity in Occupy, they must not have been to McPherson Square recently, as most of the people there tonight were black. Although that's partially a function of DC being largely black. Anyway, my main story worth relating: I came across a circle of people having a discussion, and apparently some people within the movement are getting pretty dissatisfied. The movement seems to be becoming more about being in a physical place than spreading any sort of message. More excitement gets generated about police crackdowns than any specific positive actions the protestors are taking. The movement seems to be stagnating and losing its narrative. Some people are starting to realize we need some sort of leader to be a public figurehead for the movement. I agree. We need some sort of Martin Luther King Jr, or Malcolm X, or Gandhi, or Anna Hazare for the outside world to focus on and associate with the movement. There was a lot more we talked about, but yeah... there's a growing sentiment that the movement needs to get a kick in the ass and rethink itself, because what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.

Your post confirms my feeling is that there are a significant number of people who don't care about a message. For many, this has now become more about confrontation than delivering a narrative. And it may end badly.