#occupywallstreet

Activists at Occupy Wall Street have issued a call to thousands of protesters across the US to reoccupy outdoor public spaces to mark the movement’s three-month anniversary.

The Occupy movement has stalled in recent weeks after a wave of evictions swept away a raft of encampments, including the largest in Los Angeles, Philadelphia and New York. On Wednesday, it suffered a fresh blow as police in riot gear cleared Occupy San Francisco camp on the orders of the mayor, who had been sympathetic to protesters, while Occupy Boston lost legal protection against eviction.

Organisers said they hoped the call to reoccupy on the 17 December would galvanise and grow the movement.

Amin Husain, a press spokesman for OWS, said: “We know that occupation empowers people and eliminates fear. It permits individuals to assert themselves as political beings even although the system doesn’t represent them.” […]

In a piece published this week in the first issue of Tidal, a magazine published by the Occupy movement, Judith Butler, academic and feminist theorist at the University of California, Berkeley, spoke of its importance.

Butler said: “When bodies gather together as they do to express their indignation and to enact their plural existence in public space, they are also making broader demands. They are demanding to be recognised and to be valued; they are exercising a right to appear and to exercise freedom; they are calling for a liveable life.

"These values are presupposed by particular demands, but they also demand a more fundamental restructuring of our socio-economic and political order."

A remarkable thing happened several weeks ago in a small city in North Carolina. A group of Occupiers from Chapel Hill affiliated with the national movement, emboldened by similar actions by Occupiers in Oakland, California, reclaimed an old used car dealership that had sat vacant for years. The owner, a deadbeat who has been apparently at odds with city government for some time now, has kept the lot vacant and undeveloped for the better part of ten years. This large building and land, unoccupied and unused for a very long time, was converted to serve the interests of the people of Chapel Hill…

Of course, soon enough, the police decided to intervene in this ugly display of wanton public compassion and unity. That brought us photos of police dressed in full military fatigues and flak jackets, brandishing assault rifles, heading in to clear the building of the people who had attempted to give it a viable purpose to serve the community…

Through the occupation of both public and private abandoned space, the Occupy movement, as well as anti-capitalist political movements across the globe, are showing that they have the capability to escalate their tactics in a meaningful way. The reclamation of public space for political thought and dialogue is an important first step to breaking the bonds of capitalist hegemony in the sphere of public consciousness. This has been done in the past few months by brave Occupiers willing to risk arrest to get the public to pay attention to the issues staring them in the face. It has been proven to be a successful tactic, and should be continued. Now, an important next step is to carry the occupations to private space that can be converted to better use serving the wider needs of the community.

Read the whole article here!

letterstomycountry:

dropfox:

Fox News falsely dubs alleged White House attacker as “‘Occupy’ Shooter”
Fact: Investigators have reportedly “found no connection between him and the Occupy protestors.”

LTMC: I’ve written about this sort of thing in the past, specifically with respect to Fox News.  As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely post about Fox News because frankly, they have been discredited so many times that it can often feel like I’m just banging my head against a wall when pointing out their lack of journalistic integrity.  But this is yet another example of why everyone has a duty to convince their Conservative friends and family that Fox News is not actually a legitimate news organization.  They can be Conservative, that’s ok.  Just tell them not to get their facts from Fox News.  Fox News makes unprofessional journalistic mistakes, blatantly mischaracterizes stories (as here), and flat-out lies on a regular basis.
This head-line is not an honest mistake.  It is an intentional, blatant lie that is intended to discredit the Occupy Movement.  No self-respecting individual of any political persuasion ought to rely on Fox News for information, because they will simply wind up being misinformed.  It’s not a reliable source of information, period.
To wit: I recently wrote a fairly long book review in which I cited countless internet media sources, including HuffPo and Reason.  I will never cite Fox News.  Ever.  And it has nothing to do with Fox News’s Right-leaning bias.  There are other Right-leaning media sources which are absolutely cite-able: the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and even the New York Post are all perfectly cite-able sources of factual information.  Fox News is not.  They just make too many factual mistakes to be reliable.  And no one, not even Conservatives, should rely on them for news.

It’s kinda funny actually, how Fox and their ilk constantly try to tie #OWS with Obama and the Democrats’ “big socialist” agenda. However, this “occupier” is apparently trying to assassinate the President presumably because he agrees with his agenda?

letterstomycountry:

dropfox:

Fox News falsely dubs alleged White House attacker as “‘Occupy’ Shooter”

Fact: Investigators have reportedly “found no connection between him and the Occupy protestors.”

LTMC: I’ve written about this sort of thing in the past, specifically with respect to Fox News.  As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely post about Fox News because frankly, they have been discredited so many times that it can often feel like I’m just banging my head against a wall when pointing out their lack of journalistic integrity.  But this is yet another example of why everyone has a duty to convince their Conservative friends and family that Fox News is not actually a legitimate news organization.  They can be Conservative, that’s ok.  Just tell them not to get their facts from Fox News.  Fox News makes unprofessional journalistic mistakes, blatantly mischaracterizes stories (as here), and flat-out lies on a regular basis.

This head-line is not an honest mistake.  It is an intentional, blatant lie that is intended to discredit the Occupy Movement.  No self-respecting individual of any political persuasion ought to rely on Fox News for information, because they will simply wind up being misinformed.  It’s not a reliable source of information, period.

To wit: I recently wrote a fairly long book review in which I cited countless internet media sources, including HuffPo and Reason.  I will never cite Fox News.  Ever.  And it has nothing to do with Fox News’s Right-leaning bias.  There are other Right-leaning media sources which are absolutely cite-able: the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and even the New York Post are all perfectly cite-able sources of factual information.  Fox News is not.  They just make too many factual mistakes to be reliable.  And no one, not even Conservatives, should rely on them for news.

It’s kinda funny actually, how Fox and their ilk constantly try to tie #OWS with Obama and the Democrats’ “big socialist” agenda. However, this “occupier” is apparently trying to assassinate the President presumably because he agrees with his agenda?

#OWS This May Not Be What A Police State Looks Like, But It’s Certainly How One Begins

abaldwin360:

by WashingtonsBlog

Police State Tactics On Display Nationwide

In the last couple of days, police at Occupy protests:

The Guardian’s Laura Pennie notes:

Law enforcement is there to protect a wealthy elite from the rest of the population

***

A teenage girl holds a hastily written sign saying: “NYPD, we trusted you – you were supposed to protect us!”

***

The sentiment is a familiar one. Across Europe, over a year of demonstrations, occupations and civil disobedience, anti-austerity protesters have largely shifted from declaring solidarity with the police – as fellow workers whose jobs and pensions are also under threat – to outrage and anger at state violence against unarmed protesters. Following last month’s police brutality in Oakland, and today’s summary eviction of the Occupy Wall Street camp, American activists too are reaching the conclusion that “police protect the 1%”.

“Who do you guys work for?” Shouts one Manhattan protester, as police load arrestees into a van. “You work for JP Morgan Bank!”

And the Washington Post’s James Downie writes:

As hard as the NYPD and New York City’s government might try to obscure the truth though, one truth remains: At 1 a.m. this morning, in the heart of New York City, protesters exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were swept away by the state, while that state also did all it could to prevent media coverage. No matter what one may think of the occupiers or their cause, nothing they’ve done justifies blockading the press or ignoring court orders. Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and other New York leaders who ordered the eviction should take a long, hard look at their handling of the occupation. This morning’s action may not be what a police state looks like, but it’s certainly how one begins.

[SOURCE]

occupyonline:

1. It names the source of the crisis.
Political insiders have avoided this simple reality: The problems of the 99% are caused in large part by Wall Street greed, perverse financial incentives, and a corporate takeover of the political system. Now that this is understood, the genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in.

2. It provides a clear vision of the world we want.
We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%. And we, the 99%, are using the spaces opened up by the Occupy movement to conduct a dialogue about the world we want.

3. It sets a new standard for public debate.
Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% will not suffice, nor will claims that the subsidies and policies that benefit the 1% will eventually “trickle down.”

4. It presents a new narrative.
The solution is not to starve government or impose harsh austerity measures that further harm middle-class and poor people already reeling from a bad economy. Instead, the solution is to free society and government from corporate dominance. A functioning democracy is our best shot at addressing critical social, environmental, and economic crises.

5. It creates a big tent.
We, the 99%, are people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs. We will resist being divided or marginalized. We are learning to work together with respect.

6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.
No one is in charge; no organization or political party calls the shots. Anyone can get involved, offer proposals, support the occupations, and build the movement. Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down.

7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.
The call for deep change—not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms—is the movement’s sustaining power. The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options. The occupiers and their supporters will not be boxed in.

8. It combines the local and the global.
People in cities and towns around the world are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. What they share in common is a critique of corporate power and an identification with the 99%, creating an extraordinary wave of global solidarity.

9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.
Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power. Occupy sites are set up as communities in which anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams, and where all can experiment with living in a space built around mutual support.

10. We have reclaimed our power.
Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us. Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.

carton-rouge:

wespeakfortheearth:

climateadaptation:

Voting, not OWS, will change America

A low progressive turnout in 2010 got us into this mess. We can’t let that happen again

Cop-out at the Polls

In 2008, more than 65 million Americans cast Democratic votes in congressional races, a 13 million-vote edge over the Republicans. In 2010, the Democratic vote plummeted to an abysmal 35 million, 6 million less than the GOP, which took decisive power in the House and paralyzed the Senate.

We think we know this story. But the truth is, we haven’t begun to absorb its full details and implications yet:

  • The number of voters under 24 who bothered to go to the polls in 2010 dropped by a stupefying 60 percent, and those between 24 and 29 by almost 50 percent. Altogether, the participation of young people – who had been overwhelmingly pro-Obama in 2008 – declined by 11 million votes.
  • Among over-65-year-olds, the core of the Tea Party movement, the voting numbers barely changed, from 17.6 million in 2008 to 17.5 million in 2010.
  • The African-American vote fell by 40 percent, and the Hispanic vote by almost 30 percent.
  • Among the mostly white voters who earn more than $200,000 per year, the turnout fell by a scant 5 percent, from 7 million to 6.5 million.
  • Voting by those with annual incomes under $30,000 dropped by 33 percent, more than six times the figure for the affluent.

In effect, the abstainers turned a potential Democratic landslide into a full-scale collapse – with nightmarish consequences for civil rights, for the U.S. and world economies, and for social programs that range across the board from healthcare and educational funding to employment programs, pension benefits and the sagging national infrastructure.

It was a dream come true for the radical right, the sworn enemies of all public services. Their vote, measured at exit polls asking whether government was too intrusive, scarcely changed between the two elections, dropping from 50 million to 47 million.”

-Salon

Don’t like the title of this article, but the main point is completely valid: VOTE!!!

It’s amusing how quickly people like to forget things. Like 2009. And most of 2010.

What is up with this myth that “Oh, only if the House would have stayed Democratic after 2010, we would have everything we want? Therefore it’s all our fault, stupid us.” This is profoundly disconnected from reality.

Does anyone else remember “health care reform?” The huge fight over the stimulus? And perhaps more important, does anyone else remember all of the important things that weren’t even addressed during this term? Anyone??? It had nothing to do with the House, it was the fact that the Democrats couldn’t hold more than a supermajority in the Senate. And even in a major voting year like 2008, even with the unprecedented anti-Republican attitude at the polls thanks to Dubya, the Dems couldn’t gain enough ground to hold onto their supermajority in the Senate. This isn’t an electoral problem, this is a structural problem.*

Furthermore, the author of the article (and, by extension, the OP) doesn’t deign to offer the following fact: the majority of #OWS supporters are over 25, at 44.5% in the 25-44 age bracket, and 32% being over 45. That makes 76.5% of #OWS supporters that are OVER 25. Only 23.5% of #OWS participants are under 24.** So bolding that section as if it is a clever observation is asinine.

For these people, their only view of #OWS is one to serve a short-term political interest, one that can be formulated by a party. What about all of the problems (like the ones of political organization and representation themselves) that cannot be addressed by a party/legislative apparatus and must form outside this structure? We condemn the organization of modern party politics itself, so why would we put more of our time and energy into supporting such a bankrupt and worthless paradigm?

I would expect people to know better, but some people (like the OP) continue to push this bullshit and ignore reason, although it has been practically pasted to their faces many times now.

(* Not to mention that the Dems are certainly not the answer to your prayers. Does anyone still believe this?)

(** Source: Fast Company)

The Occupy Oakland protesters’ call for a general strike Wednesday largely fizzled as organizers failed to rally significant support from unions, but protesters brought operations at the Port of Oakland to a halt.

Maritime operations at the port, one of the biggest container ports in the U.S., were “effectively shut down” on Wednesday by demonstrators, said port officials. They added they would resume work “when it is safe and secure to do so.”

Call for General Strike in Oakland Fizzles

(Emphasis added above.)

So the general strike “largely fizzled” — except for the part where it shut down one of America’s biggest container ports indefinitely.

Your “liberal” media, ladies and gentlemen.

Look at what one media outlet calls a “largely fizzled” protest (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Yeah, it “fizzled” alright.

(via ryking)

fastcompany:

We have an exclusive look at a new study that offers insight into the real participants of the Occupy movement and all of its offshoots. So Who Is Occupy Wall Street? Find out here.

fastcompany:

We have an exclusive look at a new study that offers insight into the real participants of the Occupy movement and all of its offshoots. So Who Is Occupy Wall Street? Find out here.

The perceived dithering and divisions of church officials over the protest camp outside St Paul’s in London have claimed a second major scalp with the resignation of the cathedral’s dean, the Right Rev Graham Knowles.

The dean – whose job is sufficiently senior that a replacement must be approved by the Queen – announced that mounting criticism over the cathedral’s handling of the situation made his position “untenable”.

In a statement read on his behalf to the media at the Chapter House, opposite St Paul’s, Knowles said: “In recent days, since the arrival of the protesters’ camp outside the cathedral, we have all been put under a great deal of strain and have faced what would appear to be some insurmountable issues.

"I hope and pray that under new leadership these issues might continue to be addressed and that there might be a swift and peaceful resolution."

Last week the St Paul’s canon chancellor, Giles Fraser, stepped down after the cathedral’s governing chapter voted to begin possible legal action against the Occupy the London Stock Exchange camp, in place now for 16 days. A part-time cleric also resigned.

Cathedral elders have faced criticism not just over the possibility that force and violence will be used to evict the camp, but for the decision to close the cathedral for a week over health and safety concerns that remain unclear. The church has also experienced wider condemnation for failing to properly and publicly agitate on the excesses of finance and global banking until prompted to by the camp, part of a burgeoning global movement.

The Party of Wall Street has ruled unchallenged in the United States for far too long. It has totally (as opposed to partially) dominated the policies of Presidents over at least four decades (if not longer), no matter whether individual Presidents have been its willing agents or not. It has legally corrupted Congress via the craven dependency of politicians in both political parties upon its raw money power and upon access to the mainstream media that it controls. Thanks to the appointments made and approved by Presidents and Congress, the Party of Wall Street dominates much of the state apparatus as well as the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, whose partisan judgments increasingly favor venal money interests, in spheres as diverse as electoral, labor, environmental and contract law.

The Party of Wall Street has one universal principle of rule: that there shall be no serious challenge to the absolute power of money to rule absolutely. And that power is to be exercised with one objective. Those possessed of money power shall not only be privileged to accumulate wealth endlessly at will, but they shall have the right to inherit the earth, taking either direct or indirect dominion not only of the land and all the resources and productive capacities that reside therein, but also assume absolute command, directly or indirectly, over the labor and creative potentialities of all those others it needs. The rest of humanity shall be deemed disposable.