Originally Posted By vbdad55 The issue for me is that the 'message' whatever it is is at best disjointed - especially city to city, if there is a connection. Maybe if there was a centralized leadership with a mission statement or goals they are trying to accomplish it would be easier for me and many others to understand. I understand the basic concept of issues with corporate greed ( should also include governmental greed IMHO as I have stated) - and concern of lack of jobs and the general economy. I get that - if someone can confirm that is the main goal. Whether on purpose as some claim or because of lack of skill- the local press here is Chicago have presented a gaggle of 'speakers' for the group and the theme changes constantly. They lost me here when they demanded a pernament place in the parks overnight - against the law- because , well the best I heard was their cause was 'just'. The mayor explained he cannot break the law and certainly cannot break it for one group and then not every other group that follows. However that wasn't enough - so he has become an 'enemy' to the Occupy forces here. Not usre why, and unfortunately I have yet to see anyone on the news explain why. Then we have the local teachers union - fightling to prevent longer school days here ( Chicago has the chortest in the country and one of the worst public school system- thanks Arne Duncan) - so they are using the Occupy protests to further push their cause and get the president of the teachers union on the news more often. This has further splintered support here. I agree that there are people at the center of much of this who likely have very true reasons for what they are doing- and they are almost certainly not the peole spray painting stores and setting fires and beating the crap out of people --- but I can tell you the message of us against them - the have's and the have not's is a dangerous one indeed- and it will attract thugs looking for any reason to cause mayhem. We just had a horrific murder of a young girl here- who came home to a home invasion. She was wealthy subruban and the murdered- poor and from the city. SOi heinous a crime the murdered who stabbed the girl 14 times- used the girls phone to text message the parents to tell them why the girl died. Those transcripts have not been released. In th emidst of this tragedy I have heard people openly question whether the story begs so much news coverage, and if reversed in scenario it wouldn't. How the 1% are protected. That is a horrific comment and fueled by this 1% = 99% because somehow people have a hard time identifying the 1%. To some it is anyone with a nice house in the burbs ( or city) and a decent job-- which couldn't be further from the truth. I keep saying all along - there needs to be a clearer message and focus..or else the fringe will continue to be identified with the cause..whether that is correct or not. just my 2 cents
Originally Posted By vbdad55 btw- I was part of more than a few anti-war prtiests whenI was in HS in the late 60's... however although there were different groups, and many have other demands as well, I knew the central theme was to stop the war and bring the boys home. There were plants in those protests which has been proven over the years so I do believe there are likely some in Occupy groups now as well. There were also people who showed up just so they could throw a rock through Tiffany's window on Michigan avenue- and could care less about the 'cause'- This is not new news- but just as they did then, especially in Chicago in 68- someone has to speak for the group...then let people decide where they fall allegiance wise. IMHO
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Skinnerbox, since you live in SF, where are the Occupy protesters there?>> Today they're protesting at the main Wells Fargo branch, in honor of Bank Transfer Day.
Originally Posted By mawnck You may not believe this after my prior grumpy outbursts in this topic, but I agree with vbdad55 (posts 61 and 62). The protesters all (OK, mostly) seem to agree that the "99%" have been ill-used and taken advantage of by Wall Street and their government pals, but beyond that, it's kind of bring-your-own-issue. I seem to recall this other popular uprising that started out objecting to bank bailouts, but then just couldn't resist bringing God, abortion, public sector unions, and gays in the military along for the ride, destroying any real shot they had at gaining mainstream, or my, support. The Occupy movement seems to be heading in the same direction, or rather, the same thing in the opposite direction. I guess it can't be avoided. Birds of a feather and all that. No conservative or moderate in his right mind is going to camp out in a public tent city in defiance of local authorities, and no liberal or moderate in his right mind is going to paint his minivan in flag colors, dress up like Thomas Jefferson, go sit in a lawn chair and listen to country music. I'm sympathetic to the Occupiers, but I can't sign on their dotted line as long as a sizable percent of them are calling for things like an end to Capitalism, or cancelation of all student loan debt. Those aren't solutions ... they're wishful thinking. (And I know from student loan debt, believe you me.) By continuing the pretext that there are no leaders in the movement, they guarantee that there will be no leaders to articulate to the media what their message is. I think this is a serious miscalculation on their part, since the media is going to pick *somebody* to interview, and it's likely to be somebody interesting rather than somebody sensible or representative. I can also see potential supporters reading their own message into the movement, and perhaps winding up supporting something that they didn't expect. See also: Senator Barack Obama, Presidential candidate. I have a little problem with the whole 99% concept as well, since it paints the other 1% with too broad a brush. I'm in favor of rich people, as long as my rights and opportunities are equal to theirs as much as possible. The big question I'd like to ask the protesters is "what would convince you to go home?" It'll be disappointing, but not unexpected, if the answer turns out to be "sub-freezing temperatures several nights in a row."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree the message can be disjointed, and part of that is a sort of perverse pride in being leaderless, and even spokesman-less. To me, at least so far, the primary value has been changing the conversation and the zeitgeist. The tea party had one of our two major parties kowtowing so badly, that the conversation had become "how much more should we cut taxes for 'job creators?'" (i.e. hugely wealthy people who have never in the past used tax cuts to create jobs, but never mind) and "how much more should we cut from social security and medicare payments that we promised to people who have paid into them for 30 years?" Now at least the conversation has changed to "wait a minute - maybe we shouldn't be doing those things." And I don't see the occupy people ever having the same influence on the Democrats that the tea party has had on the Republicans, because 1). it IS to this point leaderless, and 2). they don't have people like Dick Armey behind them pulling the strings and playing hardball politics - most of the Occupy people are political novices, for good and/or for ill, and 3). the Democrats are, despite Limbaugh-esque rhetoric, a solidly capitalistic party that has no interest in any of the more radical notions that some (though hardly all) of the Occupy people sometimes mention, in their unfocused message. <but I can tell you the message of us against them - the have's and the have not's is a dangerous one indeed- > That's too broad a statement. If the message is "It's us against them - burn down their houses," then yeah. If it's "why in the world can't millionaires simply go back to paying the tax rates they did in the 90's, when they did just fine and we weren't swimming in all this red ink, rather than expecting the middle class to make up the difference?" then that's neither dangerous nor anything resembling "class warfare." And if it's "some of these guys committed criminal acts of fraud and malfeasance and yet not one of them has paid any penalty for it; some of them should be investigated, tried, and if found guilty, put in jail, because that will stop others from doing the same types of things all over again, just as we jail (traditional) bank robbers to discourage others from robbing banks," then I'm down with that too.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Oh you know.... The greatest professional franchise in all of sports.<< Wow! I didn't know that Manchester United won the Superbowl!
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fatal-shooting-renews-tensions-oakland-protest-camp-075705347.html" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/fatal-sh...347.html</a> Someone was shot and killed last night at the Oakland Occupy camp. Yes it could have happened anywhere in Oakland but for the safety of the rest of the people there you have to shut it down.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The shooting was "nearby" the Oakland encampment, and unrelated to the Occupy movement. In other news, somebody was shot on I-80 in Vallejo last night too. Should we shut the freeway down too? People get shot in Oakland pretty much every day. There is no causal relationship between the daily hum-drum of murders and the Occupy Oakland encampment. In fact, it was only a matter of time before some unrelated shooting occured within a few block radius of the Occupy encampment. Somehow I don't think it's the safety of the occupiers that motivates your wanting to see the place shut down.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I didn't advocate shutting down any other camps. I just think it's too dangerous for people to be there.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I didn't advocate shutting down any other camps. I just think it's too dangerous for people to be there.>> This is the way Oakland rolls, unfortunately. This is Oakland's history. Murder happens all the time. Occupy Oakland does not need to be shut down because of this. You need to learn what Oakland is about and why it is unlikely to ever significantly change before making statements like this.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Yes, unfortunately for Oakland, this is commonplace. It's only because it's getting national attention now that people are thinking it's nuts. It's a poor, urban area with high crime and lots of gang violence...it would be like having an occupy movement in Compton or Watts.
