This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297713_309274005765814_100000496511440_1255484_1009134805_n.jpg
can you spot Rupert Murdoch?
lol.
Here's Keith Olbermann's interview with Scott Campbell. You may have seen his video on YouTube documenting a police line in Oakland when one of them shoots him with a rubber bullet out of nowhere.
Campbell's Video
Campbell's injury
Interview on Countdown
Finally, yesterday was Election Day in the U.S., and a victory for the 99% in Ohio (being an odd-numbered year, all of the voting was on state and local issues). Governor John Kasich's anti-union bill was defeated through voter referendum by a huge margin (62 percent to 38 percent) by the people of Ohio. The bill restricted the unionization rights of public employees (
here's a story on nytimes.com
).
In my opinion, this is pretty big news. Opposition to this bill precedes the OWS movement, but this referendum shows two things: the power of the working class to stand up when their rights are undermined from above, and the power of people to take direct-democracy action to correct an overstep by their government. Both of these share in core spirit with the occupy movement, and at least some support for the landslide victory probably came because of the increased presence of these issues (and others like them) in the topics of the day, caused by the efforts of the occupiers.
Post by
MyTie
Protesters, concerned with crime, set up a "
Women Only
" tent, where the women can get a reprieve from being raped.
The article has a conglomorate of other colorful criminal information. This one made me cringe: At the site of the Occupy San Diego camp, street cart vendors were forced to close up shop Monday when protesters, angry that they stopped receiving free food, ransacked and vandalized the carts.
The angry mob not only scrawled graffiti on the carts, they reportedly splattered them with blood and urine as well.
In addition, the vendors received death threats, according to local radio station KNX 1070.It's not like the media makes it up when the protesters themselves are afraid of each other.
Post by
Heckler
First, another funny comic:
Whose Encampment Should Crowd-Control Police Be Breaking Up?
And an interesting story:
Occupy Fox News? Michael Sauvage's (independently produced) ad in support of OWS airs on Fox News Channel, Bloomberg Business channel
. You've probably seen this ad before, but the director raised money online to put it on cable stations last night -- specifically Fox News and Bloomberg business. It ran 3 times during 'The O'Reilly Factor.'
@gamer/pikeyboy -- There's quite a few stories out there about 'fractures' within the Zuccotti Park OWS movement (in-fighting, cliques, etc). Have you seen any of this at the sites you've been to? I said a few pages back that I didn't think OWS would survive the winter (specifically referring to the Zuccotti Park protesters). I'm wondering if this is the first sign of the death of OWS (is there a high level of conflict in the occupy movement as a whole), or if the media is just wanting to keep OWS in the news, but running out of stories.
And if anyone is interested, locally (Seattle), there's been a huge police presence around the major banks. I closed two accounts over the weekend at Chase and Wells Fargo (moved the money into a credit union). The Chase bank I went to was in North Seattle (far from the Occupy Seattle camp downtown) -- they had about 20 riot police surrounding the place (like in a weird formation marching pattern around the property), and a big warning sign on the door about all the reasons they could arrest you. Walking through that to close my account was... fun. Depositing the money into my credit union was much less intimidating =)
Post by
ElhonnaDS
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-we-ruined-occupy-wall-street-generation/
I found this to be an interesting read.
Post by
gamerunknown
Last time I went back there weren't really any signs of fragmentation. Rowan Williams supported the idea of a "Robin Hood tax" and there were representatives from the corporation of London down there... Funnily enough, either the generator or the mic or something died when one of the representatives was speaking... People had a little trouble repeating what he said via human mic since it was pretty contradictory. He tried the tact of saying that banks don't have votes, bank employees have votes if the corporation operates within the square mile... But then changed tact and said other corporations within the square mile have votes too. But anyway, if opponents of the movement feel safe showing up, I feel optimistic for the protest.
The few areas I'd predict fragmentation would be over sectarianism or bureacracy. One guy made a reasonable proposal that the camp should switch to solar power (after all, quite a few criticisms of corporations are that they don't have any worldwide legal obligation towards using sustainable energy - if a low budget popular protest could be more efficient than multi-billion dollar corporations with branches dedicated to appearing environmental, they'd definitely have a moral victory) and that their members had managed to get a deal for something like 1/5th of retail price for solar panels (another reason why it's a shame the camp is operating in winter). However, they attempted to gain consensus, which was disallowed until the 10am consensus gathering meeting, because there had to be time for reasoned debate over the issue. They also couldn't speak to members of the press on behalf of occupy without attending a meeting of the press department at Starbooks (the donated books section in "Tent University") which met on Tuesdays etc... That's the sort of party oriented bureacracy that I wouldn't expect from a popular movement, even if it does ensure rigour and discipline. I read an article (not from Fox news) about the rape in Occupy Glasgow, that I first heard of from a feminist group. The Occupy Glasgow spokesperson said it occurred in another camp set up for homeless people separate from the "official" camp, which seemed to me to be dismissive. I had hopes that the population would be held to some higher moral standard when they're allowed to fraternise and speak freely, but it just serves to underline the fact that humans, while capable of great feats, are quite flawed. In that scenario, it'd be much more reasonable to say how upsetting it is, that they want to personally work with the police and the victim in any way they can and hope the victim recovers speedily.
The other sectarian split I saw is that they gave credence to a youth assembly, meaning there was a girl addressing a crowd of about 100 saying "I think people are amazing, everyone of you is amazing, all people are wonderful": which is a lovely sentiment and probably refreshing to hear now and again, but doesn't really further the goals of Occupy. It'd be entirely possible for the government to adopt that language while continuing to widen the gap between the privileged and the 99%. Though according to the Fox news assault on Mr. Rogers, I'd say that the voice of the Republican party at least is opposed to the doctrines of John 3:16, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28, the Constitution (we hold these truths to be self-evident) and modern genetics: we are all unique. There were other divisions too: one guy that spoke for quite a long time wanted to use camp funding to purchase plant pots and stuff so they wouldn't have to rely on donated food, but especially during winter, I think the only way to feed 200 people using food grown in Paternoster square alone would be relying on a second coming (and if Jesus arrived in Paternoster square, I think everyone except the Anglicans would experience sharp chagrin). Anyway, in my callow youth (the guy that led the youth assembly said anyone under 21 should come up or be ignored), I said that the mechanisms for direct democracy were already in place and that if people could go home and go online, they could go to epetitions.direct.gov.uk. I pointed out that it wasn't much, but it was something. The next guy ripped into me saying they didn't want to be limited by the parliamentary system but wanted global change, so I shrugged and left quite soon after. In retrospect it was about 8pm so those that were there probably weren't going home to go online, but I don't think it's useful to express desire for global change without addressing the steps necessary to arrive there. I think the first steps for the UK would be moving towards a Republican/Congressional rather than Parliamentary system, having an elected head of state and two elected chambers (or a second chamber randomly appointed, like a jury system, or appointed on the basis of profession), as well as a separation of powers between executive and legislature. From that point we could address whether it would be a good time to renege the feudalistic structure of corporations and democratise them: have workers vote for their managers (perhaps judges in the Magistrates vote on whichever will be the higher court too). Oh err before I go too off topic, one of the members of the youth assembly also said that he didn't want the platform handed over to "Zionists". I asked him what he meant and he pointed at a lady that was carrying a crucifix and had a giant picture of Jesus on her shirt. The youth assembly leader also said that the financial institutions were in the hands of 33rd level freemasons and I'd earlier heard some low level moaning about the Rothschilds, so I'm guessing the Zeitgeist/David Icke ilk may have permeated some people's approach to the issue. Personally I don't think there's any need for a conspirator behind the scenes, one can make a reasonable case for change based on official documentation from the ruling elite: make reasonable demands about systemic change that puts power into the hands of the majority and no amount of propaganda can overwhelm that.
The final threat comes, of course, from the police and Saint Paul's cathedral itself. There's a Natwest bank there and the first day I went a manager inside was pacing nervously. If the Cathedral does decide to evict the protestors though, they'll have chosen the money lenders over the lillies of the field.
Post by
Heckler
Last time I went back there weren't really any signs of fragmentation . . . if opponents of the movement feel safe showing up, I feel optimistic for the protest.
That's good to hear. The ability to simultaneously disagree and remain civil are vitally important for such an open-access forum. I had heard rumors of some protesters forming little neighborhoods, and some conflicts between the neighborhoods. I don't think the neighborhoods are necessarily bad, for example, if 20% of the group wants to redesign the system, while 80% wants to modify the current system, it makes sense that each sub-group would hang out with each other. It only becomes a problem when "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitudes start popping up, and people try to set rigid definitions as to what it means to be an occupier. It sounds like that's not happening there.
The few areas I'd predict fragmentation would be over sectarianism or bureacracy . . . However, they attempted to gain consensus, which was disallowed until the 10am consensus gathering meeting, because there had to be time for reasoned debate over the issue.
This is a built-in disadvantage to any 'pure democracy' action, and while it may upset people and make things inefficient... it's necessary. Any change in the interest of expediency would likely be damaging to the core idea behind the movement -- it says something about the patience of the protesters that they're willing to put up with the necessarily slow-moving process that they're trying to champion. I think the desire for 'instant gratification' is a huge problem in American culture (maybe human culture as a whole).
I can also support the 'talking to the press' restrictions, so long as it's only for speaking 'on behalf of occupy' -- there's a strong opinion on the part of the protesters that the vague nature of their goals is one of their greatest strengths (I'm not sure if I agree). If that's true, then anything said on behalf of the movement as a whole should be thoroughly vetted through the slow-moving approval process, to ensure that the statement survives the scrutiny of everyone it's claiming to speak for -- and if that means that very few "official" press releases are made, then maybe that's for the best.
I read an article (not from Fox news) about the rape in Occupy Glasgow, that I first heard of from a feminist group. The Occupy Glasgow spokesperson said it occurred in another camp set up for homeless people separate from the "official" camp, which seemed to me to be dismissive . . . In that scenario, it'd be much more reasonable to say how upsetting it is, that they want to personally work with the police and the victim in any way they can and hope the victim recovers speedily.
I agree, I was actually happy to hear that a few of the occupy movements were addressing this issue head-on (rather than just pretending it didn't exist). It's a fragile situation to be sure -- as can be seen by the deluge of "ad hominem" attacks on OWS'
ideas
caused by the criminal behavior of a few of its radicals (I'm not implying that these attacks are necessarily improper, just that they are being used to divert attention from the valid and substantive issues OWS is presenting).
It's another reason I wish the relationship between the occupiers and the police wasn't so combative. It seems to me there should be a strong police presence among the protesters, offering both support and protection. The issue continues to be that this sort of integration is impossible when local governments insist on enforcing laws that are in no way related to free speech, in order to stifle free speech. If the various "little" laws were relaxed (anti-camping, etc), it would allow the police to act as societal guardians
among
the protesters, and enforce the laws that actually need enforcement (vandalism, assault, etc). The occupiers would then welcome the police presence, instead of fearing it. But due to ... let's call it antagonism ... on both sides (police and protesters), I don't think this will ever be a possibility (sadly).
If the Cathedral does decide to evict the protestors though, they'll have chosen the money lenders over the lillies of the field.
A powerful conclusion to a well-written post, thanks gamer.
Post by
MyTie
I wonder how media reports would be different if cops were clashing with tea party protesters. At this moments, in reference to the occupy movement,
CNN is explaining how the police is becoming militarized
, and that is really the cause of the violence. The police are just bullies. Meanwhile, these mini-armies are always on the lookout for the next battle. And, as events in Oakland and around the country suggest, they usually find it.The opinion writer makes it sound like the police are rolling in with AK-47s and tanks. The streets must be running with the blood of innocent veterans and pregnant women.
Post by
MyTie
Though according to the Fox news assault on Mr. Rogers, I'd say that the voice of the Republican party at least is opposed to the doctrines of John 3:16, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28, the Constitution (we hold these truths to be self-evident) and modern genetics: we are all unique. Could you explain this a bit better for me? I would love to hear what you mean.The final threat comes, of course, from the police and Saint Paul's cathedral itself. There's a Natwest bank there and the first day I went a manager inside was pacing nervously. If the Cathedral does decide to evict the protestors though, they'll have chosen the money lenders over the lillies of the field.They do have to make ends meet in that church, and they get money almost entirely from sightseers, who don't come because those 'lilies' as you called them are piled up on the front steps,
pooping on the stairs and selling crack
, protesting capitalism.
Post by
Heckler
TIME Magazine is currently deciding who the "Person of the Year" should be for 2011. They have an online poll up with the candidates, and "The 99%" is winning (by a lot). The online poll has little to no bearing on their actual decision (and looking over past years' candidates, polling, and selection -- I would say there's no real chance of the 99% being actually selected), but its still pretty interesting that they were even included as candidates.
TIME Magazine Person of the Year 2011 Poll
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, "we" were the person of the year in 2006, this would just exclude 1% of those that were in 2006.
and everyone knows moot controls internet opinions much like Murdoch controls offline opinions.
Post by
Heckler
and everyone knows moot controls internet opinions much like Murdoch controls offline opinions.
Well in that case, the online battle between "Anonymous" and "The 99%" should be interesting =D
Post by
MyTie
and everyone knows moot controls internet opinions much like Murdoch controls offline opinions.
Well in that case, the online battle between "Anonymous" and "The 99%" should be interesting =D
Obama is number 6? I think he should win it again. He should also get another Nobel peace prize, for the war in Afghanistan.
Post by
Heckler
I'm sure anyone interested has heard already, but the occupiers at
Zuccotti Park
Liberty Square were evicted last night by NYPD (and have since been allowed back in). They tried to get a restraining order, but it was denied. I'm still reading details, but I figured I'd drop this as an update while I sort out any other thoughts on the matter (the court ruling in particular should be an interesting thing to read over once I find the full text). Seems like this could just as easily be a boost to OWS as anything. Also heard something today about an 18-mayor conference call concerning OWS, as well as some impressive numbers for total dollars moved out of banks and into credit unions in October.
Anyways, links:
Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-begin-clearing-zuccotti-park-of-protesters.html
Related story:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/reporters-say-police-denied-access-to-protest-site/
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I just "oops-backspace-enter" lost a lengthy post. This is a short recreation >.<
"Allowed back in" doesn't get the whole issue. They have indeed been let back in, but they weren't allowed to take their tents, so if they want to continue to occupy they'll be sleeping on the cold ground. I don't know much about the meteorology of America but I'd be willing to bet it's too cold for a lot of people to do that at this time of year.
Yes, if the NYPD strictly enforces the anti-camping rules, the number of overnight occupiers will probably drop to near zero. Apparently only about 200 were staying overnight anyways, so I don't think it will have much of an impact on the movement as a whole. Also, given the undeniable problems associated with 24-hour outdoor living, maybe it could actually help. I assume that the daytime occupations will continue, the general assemblies will continue, and the global events will continue to draw thousands. I could be wrong though, maybe Zuccotti Park really is the "spiritual center" and this move will kill the morale of the entire movement; but in my opinion, the 'power' of the OWS lies in its ideas, not its overnight location. But who knows.
I also found the
full text of the restraining order denial
:
The Court is mindful of movants' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. However, "even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." (Snyder v Phelps, 131 S Ct 1207, 1218 , quoting Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 US 788, 799 .) Here, movants have not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment.
Seems reasonable enough (and also arguable). I'm reading over the quoted cases. Maybe this will spark an interesting debate over what constitutes an acceptable "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" on protected First Amendment rights.
Here's an excerpt from
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization
, 307 U. S. 496 (1939):
Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.
I'm reading through this one at the moment, it can be difficult to translate these rulings into English I can understand.
Post by
Magician22773
some impressive numbers for total dollars moved out of banks and into credit unions in October.
You forgot to mention the 50 grand or so that Occupy Oakland DEPOSITED into the Bank of America.....one of the same banks that they are telling people to pull their money out of. Sorry, but when I saw that story, I actually LOL'd.
In the end, all the Occupy movement is going to do is cost everyone millions of tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Thats it. A few thousand people smokin dope and camping out in parks isn't going to change a single thing.
You guys all need to go occupy a library, or an employment agency, and start being a productive member of society, instead of a drain on its resources.
The worst part is, I agree with about 50% or more of what the whole movement represents, only I am smart enough to realize that all I need to occupy is a voting booth, a campaign office, or a political rally if I want to actually make a change happen. But then again, none of those places will let women run around topless, sell dope, or give me free meals when I show up.
Sorry, but the best thing you all have done is made a half decent episode of South Park.
Post by
Heckler
some impressive numbers for total dollars moved out of banks and into credit unions in October.
You forgot to mention the 50 grand or so that Occupy Oakland DEPOSITED into the Bank of America.....one of the same banks that they are telling people to pull their money out of.
That's really not even on the same order of magnitude (I do agree that all of the occupy movement funds should be held in small banks or credit unions local to each movement, so I also agree with your sentiment that OccupyOakland's decision was confusing; even to the point of being "funny" to someone who views OWS in the manner you do -- although it is strange that you felt the need to apologize, twice).
CUNA reports that from Sept. 29 through Nov. 1,
$4.5 billion
(with a
B
) was added to credit union savings accounts. Additionally, on November 5th (Bank Transfer Day), another $80 million was added (see CUNA press releases
here
and
here
). Keep in mind this doesn't track
total
money movement into credit unions, and doesn't even consider local banks.
As I've been saying since for some time in this thread, whether or not you agree with what the actual protesters are doing in the parks, their ideas are powerful and popular, and still spreading. It's not the actual occupation of the parks that's important, it's the dialogue and discussion they have turned the Globe's attention to (evidence of this victory is contained even in your admission that you agree with 50% of the movement while you simultaneously attack the protesters).
That's sort of what I was hinting at above; the occupation strategy has done amazing things in terms of drawing attention of shifting dialogue. But it can't be denied that there are problems associated with it (public health and others). It could be that the power of the physical 24-hr occupation has already fulfilled most of its positive potential (already clashes with local police and camping laws have become the focus of most OWS discussions in the media for the past couple weeks, without much mention of OWS goals or ideals).
There's nothing intrinsically related between OWS' ideas and the act of physical occupation, and the strength of those ideas will live on even if the 24-hr occupations decrease. Many of the "occupiers" are employed and educated anyways, so other than their nightly trip to the General Assembly, they aren't really "occupying" at all. They don't require camping gear, nor do they have any reason to clash with local police (the percentage of supporters who actually live in the parks is quite small in every occupation I've seen numbers for). Basically, if support for various OWS core concepts continues to increase, even while support for their actual acts of civil disobedience falls, then OWS can be considered a victory.
Post by
Heckler
Today was the two-month anniversary for OWS, they marked the day with "
N17 -- Mass Day of Action
" which is still ongoing in New York City. I've been too busy today to follow the news much, but this caught my eye earlier, and I thought it was really cool:
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/17/ows-verizon-building-bat-si.html
Someone projected a massive pro-occupy light show onto the side of the Verizon building during the massive march across the Brooklyn Bridge. There's a pretty long YouTube clip and a few pictures in the link I posted above, but it was really neat. The messages included "Another world is possible" and "Do not be afraid. We are winning. This is the beginning of the beginning."
I just grabbed the first link I found, there's probably more if you search. I'd like to see a better, longer video. Not sure why, but this really struck me for some reason. =)
Post by
Monday
I really don't think they're winning.
Post by
Magician22773
N17 huh?
And Charlie Sheen was "winning" too.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.