Skip to main content

Americans conduct their lives in a world of corporately managed consciousness. Billions of dollars are spent in an effort to convince us what to buy, who to vote for, who to like, who to friend, who to follow. The great abiding fear is that we might be friending somebody that everybody else is unfriending or wearing last year's accessories.

Along comes the Occupy Movement. Now let's face it. These people are not well accessorized and they are not living at a prestigious address. The media and various people who drink the Kool-Aid produced by the media are wringing their hands and getting their hair on fire about the image that is being projected to the American public. The recurring cry of anguish is that if the movement doesn't manage its image it will fail.

The notion of success or failure is based entirely on what it is that one sets out to accomplish. If you want to get rich, then it is determined by how much money you make. If you want to get elected, then it is determined by whether you won the election. So before we can talk about failure for the movement, we would need to know what the movement intends to accomplish.

One of the things that make this movement different is that so far it has declined to take formal positions on specific policies and to become aligned with traditional political organizations. There are of course recurring themes of opinion expressed by many of the people involved in the movement. A list of these would include income inequality, political corruption, and declining economic opportunities. These are concerns rather than specific policy positions. They would have to be taken to a level of more specific policy goals before outcomes could be evaluated.

Right now it seems to me that the fundamental objective and purpose of the movement is disruption. What seems to be driving the response that has spread all across the country and to other parts of the globe, from large cities to small towns is a pervasive sense that the system is broken and fixing it requires something much more basic than a change in the brand of politicians that are in power. This kind of basic change is not achieved in a polite and tasteful manner. It requires disruption.

There is an extensive amount of material available on brand management. There is the business specialty of marketing. Vast sums of money are spent on research and promotion. Along the road of my checkered career I acquired an MBA in the subject, so I'm fairly familiar with how it is supposed to work. Political campaign management uses many of the same techniques. One of the most fundamental precepts of this collection of practices is that you never directly challenge the values and views of popular culture. You conduct opinion polls and focus groups to determine how people feel and what they want and then attempt to present your product or candidate as being ideally suited to gratify those longings.

Americans are now deeply conditioned to being constantly bombarded with messages telling us that we can have it all and get it without inconvenience or disruption to the routines of our lives. While we have been lulled into mental torpor with The Message our economic lives and our political power have been slowly eroded.

My view is that any attempt by the Occupy Movement to make itself and its image palatable and easy to swallow like a sugar coated caplet for the American middle class is what would likely be doomed to failure. If the control of the financial oligarchy is allowed to continue then the American standard of living will continue its long term decline. The last message that the American public needs to hear is that everything is going to be all right and that they can just sit back on the couch and be comfortable.

The Occupy Movement is not intended to be a denture adhesive nor a hemorrhoid relief.    

Originally posted to Occupy Wall Street on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 08:51 AM PST.

Also republished by Progressive Hippie.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Fantastic post, and changes my mine on a (10+ / 0-)

    couple of lingering points of concern.

    I think what this drives home to me is that the idea of disruption has to break through the fog of war created by the status quo war against the lower classes below the elite.

    This is, in a way,  must be the opening step. To make Americans leaving their delusions behind. That they can everything they want for nothing.

    We have discussed this before. I call it something for nothing. But,a s you correctly pointed out, its nothing for nothing because the "something" is really just branding and marketing that people are buying into rather than anything approaching what they are actually getting for the bargain they make in our society.

  •  Disruption. Yes. Disrupting the neural patterns (16+ / 0-)

    of our culture which have been hardwired by brand management of everything. The lack of brand management in this movement is a design feature, not a bug.

    You have disrupt set patterns before you can generate new ones. We need to wake everyone up out of their torpor and turn on their creativity so that they are open to new possibilities.

    So, yes, disruption. And building humanistic solidarity.

    Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

    by UnaSpenser on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:08:58 AM PST

  •  thing is (17+ / 0-)

    Occupy is already accomplishing some of the goals of this:

    "You conduct opinion polls and focus groups to determine how people feel and what they want and then attempt to present your product or candidate as being ideally suited to gratify those longings"

    without using the traditional marketing moves to do it.
    Because what they're giving the people is a venue for expression of what the people feel and what they want, in a world in which those venues are incredibly scarce.

    People are "buying" OWS because it's offering things that are offered almost nowhere else:  a chance for self-expression, a chance for expression of political and community opinions that are repressed almost anywhere else, honesty/authenticity, and community.

    All these things, though intangible for the most part, are incredibly rare and people are suffocating/starving for the lack of them.

    Hence the almost unbelievable success of the movement so far.

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:14:47 AM PST

  •  Good diary, btw. nt/ (6+ / 0-)

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:15:00 AM PST

  •  "Not managed" shouldn't mean "not strategic." (3+ / 0-)

    There are known strategies for creating or forming public consciousness around a problem, or for framing or presenting the problem in such a way as to suggest a solution.

    These strategies might not be in the standard MBA materials, as those are based on selling products (something that requires a relatively low-level change in the audience's thinking), but they're certainly discussed in communication departments.

    There's no shortage of research out there suggesting what works and doesn't work for things like consciousness change, problem framing, etc.

    I agree that it's not a "brand" as such, but I don't think that necessarily argues against the idea of some kind of coordinated communication strategy, such that more people can be brought from neutral to supporter, supporter to advocate, advocate to participant, etc.

    #OWS is not an unprecedented and unique moment in human history; there are movement precedents out there for the kind of thing #OWS is doing. It seems wise to me to look to what they did and how they managed to shift consciousness, create identification with greater groups of people, or frame problems, and adapt those strategies to fit the contemporary context.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:30:04 AM PST

    •  Making people uncomfortable is a strategy. n/t (8+ / 0-)
      •  It can be part of a strategy, sure. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Morgan Sandlin, martini

        But it isn't a whole strategy, and it has to be used correctly. There's ample research in the field of communication—qualitative, quantitative, and humanist/rhetorical—that suggests some possible ways in which creating discomfort in one's audience can further one's communication goals, and some possible ways in which it can backfire in bringing a communicator further from those goals.

        I can't imagine that any #Occupy movement has a decentralized and democratic model for the medic's tent, where everyone gets to have a say, regardless of their expertise or knowledge, when someone comes in with an injury or an illness. No, they leave it to people who have credentials as medical professionals—people who are trained in identifying and treating medical problems, and who I'm sure have been ready to refer people to hospitals when they knew they themselves couldn't treat an #Occupier's malady.

        Similarly, I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of #Occupiers (with the possible exception of the P4u1ites) acknowledge the existence of climate change and the need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate that change. That's because they accept the consensus of the scientific community, a community wherein one needs to demonstrate that he or she is an expert in the field before having his or her opinion accepted as even a possible contribution to the field. Nobody would seriously suggest that we hold a democratic GA to determine whether climate change is real, giving each person a chance to have their say on the matter regardless of his or her qualifications.

        It seems to me that if we're going to trust scientists on issues of science, doctors on issues of medicine, and teachers on issues of education, we should trust those who have shown themselves to be experts on communication—that is, communication scholars—on issues of communication.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:43:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are a great many people (7+ / 0-)

          who simply don't agree with you about this. Our disagreement does not arise from ignorance or lack of information. It arises from a fundamental difference in perception of the task at hand. You endless lectures will do nothing to change our minds.

          •  So because I disagree with you... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Morgan Sandlin, AoT, Sychotic1, katiec

            ...and you've determined that you're never going to agree with me, I should just shut up?

            That doesn't seem like a way to engage in a reasonable discussion, nor to arrive at any mode of consensus.

            If, as you suggest, our differences are rooted in "a fundamental difference in perception of the task at hand," then that seems to me to be a good place to begin discussion.

            I've laid out in bits and pieces what I think the task at hand is, but here's my understanding of it in full:

            It seems to me that the task at hand is fundamentally communicative: that the #OWS movement needs to wield the discursive tools at their disposal to change average people's understanding of their identities. Their identities need to change from identifying with the interests of the wealthy or with the interests of their own particular group over against another part of the 99%, to seeing themselves as part of a unified 99% against whose interests the 1% are pitted. Enough people's identities need to be changed that they form a critical mass for the creation of a social, economic, and political system that is concerned with the interests of the 99% rather than the 1%.

            What is your understanding of the task at hand?

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:56:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not telling you to shut up. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              churchylafemme, JesseCW, bruh1, martini

              I am just declining to argue with you about issues that I think are unimportant. Since you believe that it is of critical importance that the Occupy Movement must be run according to traditional organizational principles it seems to me quite unlikely that we will find much common ground.

              I don't really see that it is necessary for me to reach agreement with you.

              •  Where do you get that from? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Morgan Sandlin, AoT, Sychotic1, martini
                Since you believe that it is of critical importance that the Occupy Movement must be run according to traditional organizational principles

                The fact that I don't think that the #OWS movement's current organization is scalable to the point of the creation of a critical mass, or capable of what I see as the necessary strategic communication that is a necessity for the formation and identity-change of that critical mass, does not mean that I think that they should run according to "traditional organizational principles."

                Nothing in what I wrote about the "task at hand" said anything whatsoever about the organizational principles of the movement.

                Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about whether it can be successful at what I understand the task at hand to be, and see the organizational principles of the movement as subservient to the ultimate goal of the movement. I'm agnostic as to what kind of organizational structure gets it there, so long as that structure is capable of completing the task.

                So, now that I have disabused you of your erroneous impressions of my intention, perhaps we can get somewhere in discussion; I ask you again, what's your understanding of the task at hand?

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:11:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have you ever attended a general assembly? n/t (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW, churchylafemme, bruh1, martini
                  •  I'm not sure how that's relevant... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Morgan Sandlin, martini

                    ...to our overall discussion, which you suggest is about our conflicting understandings of the fundamental task of the movement.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I take that response to mean (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, churchylafemme, martini

                      that you have not. Before you start telling people that they are doing things wrong, it is almost always a good idea to get some first hand experience of what they are actually doing.

                      •  Most people here have never been to Congress. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Morgan Sandlin

                        Does that mean they're not qualified to talk about what Congress is doing, or criticize their actions?

                        Please do tell me if this is not the case: From what I have seen, a GA presents all voices as having equal value, regardless of expertise, experience, or knowledge, so that no person can claim that they are more qualified to talk about a given topic than another or more qualified to make strategic plans for the group than another. Is that the case, or no?

                        If that is the case—as everything I've read has indicated—then it seems to me that this isn't a great vehicle for strategic communication planning or execution, particularly when it's combined with the fact that those who disagree with the strategy can simply leave and form their own GA.

                        Like I said, I sincerely doubt that the medic tents at the #Occupy movements are run according to the principles of the GA, where everyone's voice is considered equally valid regardless of expertise, experience, or knowledge; rather, I'm guessing that the voices of medical professionals, who have years of education, training, and experience in treating physical maladies, are given privilege and considered authoritative. Is this presumption erroneous?

                        So, if the medic tents are going to be coordinated by medical professionals, who operate according to the established best practices of the medical profession—something I sincerely doubt you would call a bad idea—why not allow the operation's communication activities to be coordinated by communication professionals, who can make suggestions that are in accordance with research into effective communication strategies and historical movement precedents?

                        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                        by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:38:21 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Rejecting the fallacy of Argument (4+ / 0-)

                          From Authority is not a "poor communication strategy".

                          It's an essential part of arriving at the truth.

                          That said, if you have such wisdom to offer, why don't you go to the nearest Occupation and try offering it?

                          While it's true no one will give a flying fuck about your credentials, if your proposals can stand up on their own merits in the absence of deference to your presumed elite status, they'll likely be adopted.

                          She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

                          by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:55:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  In exactly what ancient or contemporary text... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...on the subject of argumentation do you find "argument from authority" listed as a fallacy?

                            Because in Rhetoric, Aristotle suggested that arguing from one's own authority, experience, and qualifications (called ethos) was one of the three primary persuasive appeals that a rhetor could use in order to persuade his or her audience, alongside logos (logical) and pathos (emotional) appeals.

                            I'd wager that you don't consider "argument from authority" to be a fallacy when you're at the doctor's office, or when you're on an airplane; rather, I'd surmise, you accept that because the doctor or pilot has the qualifications, training, and experience for their field, they don't need to justify each and every thing they do to you on the basis of first principles, but rather can be trusted to take the appropriate actions because they know more about medicine or flying an airplane than you do.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:01:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't take meds, or accept surgery, unless (5+ / 0-)

                            a Doctor can prove the merit of their advice that I do so.

                            If I did, I'd be dead right now, btw.

                            So, you'd lose that bet.  

                            Argumentum ad verecundiam  shouldn't be new to you if you passed a survey level course in rhetoric, which I'm fairly certain you have.

                            She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

                            by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:11:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Argumentum ad verecundiam isn't new to me.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but it's also not universally a fallacy, and you know that very well.

                            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                            by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:20:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I am right because I have a degree/ (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming, churchylafemme

                            published in a certain magazine/have a certain set of genitals" and so on is always a fantasy.

                            If you really do have all of that knowledge and experience, it should be a very easy task to construct arguments that stand on their own merits.

                            She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

                            by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 06:17:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  here's part problem for your metaphor: (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Nada Lemming, churchylafemme

                          medics are specialized, I'd go to one if I had a medical issue.

                          Communication is NOT a cornered market.

                          ALL of us communicate.  I do not need a narrow, controlled channel to attempt to get my message out, if I have my own megaphone (or better, mic check).

                          The chaos of many voices may distress people who have made a science of communication, but each Occupier can and does communicate, if anything you should be spreading "effectiveness in communicating" techniques across as many occupiers as you can reach.

                          Concentrating that specific task, the Voicing of Communication, is what has lead to corrupt politicians speaking on behalf of those who can fund them (1%).  And since they are The Official Voice, the rest of us remain unheard.  

                          Instead, the collective murmur of OWS is rising to a roaring tide....

          •  Yet again and again he comes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Richard Lyon, churchylafemme

            into these diaries and says the same thing.

            Stop beating that dead horse it will no longer take you to the saloon.

            Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

            by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 03:23:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Is it really "making"? or more "reminding" or even (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme

        "waking them up to the discomfort that they've been hypnotized to ignore"?  It's been so nifty to see people coming into this movement, like they're just waking up, and aware that they've BEEN angry, but sort of a suppressed anger, and now some spell is finally being lifted...

    •  One thing that's been achieved so far is that (8+ / 0-)

      all of those who oppose the new paradigm, those who simply want to use the movement to achieve a position of control over their brothers and sisters, have been "outed".

      They've been tricked into jumping up and down and screaming "Someone has to RUN THIS!!!!!".

      This has shown who is not worthy of trust and who should not be involved in any planing.

      She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

      by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:39:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is established research on this. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Morgan Sandlin, martini

        A great deal of work has been done in the field of communication, using a variety of methodologies, on what communicative strategies are more or less effective in producing the kind of consciousness change, identity change, and social change that #OWS seeks to bring about.

        It seems like a wise course of action to me to take that research into consideration when formulating a strategic plan.

        If that "outs" me as someone who you think "wants to use this movement to achieve a position of control," then I suppose I have to accept that you're going to cast aspersions on my motivations, regardless of whether or not those aspersions are merited and regardless of whether or not you have an argument against the actual content of what I'm saying.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:47:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  James, its a circular argument.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, martini

          Some give the knee-jerk "control" accusation simply because they don't want to lose their perceived control of the message or actions.

          No one approach owns OWS's message. Your opinions and approch are as valid as any others.

          Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:05:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see anybody telling him (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            churchylafemme, JesseCW, martini

            that he can't express his opinions.

          •  You realize you just, by his standards, insulted (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Richard Lyon, martini

            the shit out of him, right?

            His argument, voiced over and over, is that his opinions are far more valid than those of others, and ought to be granted more weight based on his presumed authority.

            He's repeatedly said in this thread that he thinks it's wrong that a GA would give his opinions no more weight than anyone else's, unless he can prove their worth.

            She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

            by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:03:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Morgan Sandlin, Sychotic1, sidnora

              What I hear him saying is that we as a movement should look at ways to communicate with people outside the movement, and that there are people who know ways that this communication has been done before. He isn't saying we all need to do what he says, just that we look at how past movements have dealt with this issue. Something he seems to have a working knowledge of.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:20:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A baisc rule of communication techinique (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, churchylafemme, bruh1, martini

                is showing some respect and consideration for the views of the people you are trying to communicate with. He doesn't seem to have mastered that part yet. Somebody throwing around a bunch of jargon is not enough to convince me that they have useful experience.

                •  I see the exact opposite (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sychotic1, Morgan Sandlin

                  I see the people who disagree with him completely ignoring what he is actually saying. The fact of the matter is that we already have people working on exactly what he is suggesting.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:50:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have interacted with him in a number of diaries (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bruh1

                    about OWS. He never seems to have any interest in trying to understand the movement and think about how an approach that he is not familiar with might have something to contribute. It is always about how he is an expert and we all have to listen to him.

                    •  I disagree....I think he has taken the time to (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, martini

                      give thoughtful responses.

                      I don't always agree with James but our disagreements have always included a pleasant exchange of ideas.

                      ...and Yes, I have been to a few GAs..not that it makes me any more qualified to have an opinion.

                      Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

                      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 12:24:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do think that attending GAs does (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        martini, churchylafemme

                        provide qualifications. It is a type of process that few people have encountered before. I think that it can only be experienced first hand. You could legitimately come away from it saying that you don't like it and that you don't find it useful. But, I think you have to have been there for that to be an informed opinion.

              •  What he has said, again and again, (4+ / 0-)

                is that the movement needs to defer to "experts".

                He has crafted a metaphor in which the movement is an airplane, and he is the only qualified pilot on board.

                Are you reading the whole thread?

                She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

                by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:32:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  He has said that in specific cases experts (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sychotic1, Morgan Sandlin, martini

                  Are more knowledgeable. And this is true. It would be nice to see people discuss his actual point instead of just telling him he doesn't and can't control the movement. It isn't as if there aren't communication experts already working with ows. This response is exactly the sort of thing he is talking about. A bunch of people piling on under the assumption that he wants to control the movement rather than help out.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:46:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  It's ours. We want it back. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Richard Lyon, Chi, churchylafemme, martini

          The 99% is already overwhelmingly on board with that message.  

          The 1% increasingly gets it too.  Which is why they're ordering the tear gas.

          So where, exactly, do you feel the "need" for top-down control of "The Message" comes into play?

          She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

          by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:51:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please support this claim. (0+ / 0-)
            It's ours. We want it back.

            The 99% is already overwhelmingly on board with that message.

            Please provide evidence in support of that claim. The evidence must support both parts, though—not only of "overwhelming" support of #OWS by the 99% (and please do quantify "overwhelming"), but also that this overwhelming percentage of the 99% that supports #OWS sees #OWS's message as being, "it's ours, we want it back," rather than some other message.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:55:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We gave you the power (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, churchylafemme, martini

              to set the terms of discussion that everybody else must follow?

              •  Basic argumentation principles set the guidelines. (0+ / 0-)

                If one makes a claim intended to be factual—as the above commenter did—then he or she must support that claim with evidence and logic.

                The two claims in question here, claimed as fact by the above commenter, are as follows:
                A. On the whole, the 99% understand "It's ours, we want it back" to be the message of #OWS.
                B. Believing "It's ours, we want it back" to be the message of #OWS, the vast majority of the 99% support and agree with that message.

                Because they are factual claims, having been described as what is the case rather than what the commenter believes to be the case, they require the commenter to marshal evidence in support of them in order to be understood as facts. If the commenter cannot do so, then he or she should restate the claim as an opinion or speculation that has no evidentiary basis, or retract the claim. Continuing to claim them as facts without providing support for them isn't valid argumentatively.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:09:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'd say that a two-to-one margin (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              churchylafemme, martini

              of support over opposition is overwhelming.

              Tell me what you think it means when more than 70% of the people support higher taxes on the rich, other than "It's ours. We want it back."

              She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

              by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:05:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It could mean any number of things. (0+ / 0-)

                One could come at it from the position of the social contract, whereby those who have more assets protected by the state are obligated to pay more back into the state's coffers in order to provide for the general welfare and for equality of opportunity for all.

                Or, one could come at it from the understanding of a state's responsibility to provide a minimum standard of living for all its members, and seek to fund it by asking the lion's share from those who have the greatest capacity to pay without a substantial impact on their own quality of life.

                Or, one could look at the histories of societies with massive income inequality, seeing the instability resulting from the accumulation of assets and power into the hands of the few, and seek to remove and spread out some of those assets and power in order to provide for the long-term stability of society.

                None of those views mean that the person who holds them believes the assets of the wealthy to be "ours" as a collective. Presented with a variety of alternative explanations for support for higher tax rates for the wealthy, then, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the high percentage of the public who supports such taxation rates are doing so from a position that believes the assets of the wealthy to be owned not by them, but by the collectivity of society as a whole.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:16:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you elect to refuse the simplest (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Richard Lyon, churchylafemme

                  available explanation, that's your right.

                  But you need to understand that no one is trying to convince you of anything.  You're in no position to dictate what standards of proof are acceptable.

                  You don't run this.

                  She's the sort of person who would not only happily stay in Omelas, but would ask "Couldn't life be more wonderful if we threw a few more kids in there?"

                  by JesseCW on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:30:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  There are some who don't (0+ / 0-)

        agree with that view.

    •  James, the last paragraph of your post is spot on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife, JamesGG, martini

      OWS is already having a positive impact in some areas and many individuals who participate or support OWS hope to see more.

      I'm watching it develop with interest. The diversity amongst the different cities in their approach and relative success or failure to bring the discussion of the issues to the forefront is revealing in itself.

      Its in an embryonic stage at the moment. Let's see where it goes. :)

      Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:44:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  this reminds me of the al jazeera movie (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martini

      Seeds of Change on Egypt .. which shows the work that actually went on behind the scenes ...  so I guess my question is are we being really way too blinded by the actions to question the motivator or the planning that may have been behind this?

      And if there was planning WHO? WHAT? WHY?

  •  It's origin is it's purpose. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, labwitchy, ladypockt, boatsie, Chi, martini

    It was a result of the 99% not being listened to. Instead, totally different agenda and messages were being issued by the media.  Hence, the media is and will continue to be its ignoring and branding enemy.  First, to hide the message, then to defame it, then to co-opt it into acceptable forms.  

    But OWS's success is that it is an in your face movement, not some mere Sunday socialism.  The message is here and it's not going away.  The 1% will rule no more, unchallenged.

    Ordinary political process is dead. The Supreme Court killed it. In Chambers. With a gavel.

    by Publius2008 on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:34:27 AM PST

  •  I'd prefer to move the to the specific demand (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Morgan Sandlin, Sychotic1

    phase sooner than later.  Perhaps there's a point in the movement where that will be needed to move it to another level.  The movement has the public's attention, but too many still don't see what can come of it.  

  •  With the era of Reagan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme, Chi, bruh1

    came the era of marketing, PR, and the Brand. It's not a coincidence that Obama, whose formative years were dominated by this era and who has singled minded wanted to be a president since he was a child, is such a perfect "President" - he  looks, dresses, carries himself, and carefully calculates his every utterance for maximum presidential effect. His presidency, tragically, is another matter altogether.

    I predict the era of OWS will FINALLY usher in the era of the anti-brand ... THANK GOD!

    "It depends what the meaning of 'is', is"
    Platform of the "New" Neoliberal Democratic Party
    Speaking out of one side of their mouth for the little guy, their nominal constituency, and the other for the plutocracy, their real constituency.

    by Sanctimonious on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:48:05 AM PST

  •  When people donate money through the OWS website (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martini

    they expect that that money will spent on things approved by the GA.

    •  the GA. (0+ / 0-)

      I have some questions on the GA. How does one get to be a member of the GA? Are they any qualifications? Does any member get any more power of vote based upon his or her understanding of the issues? Does anyone, say for example, a 30 year old alcoholic who has been living on the street for 5 years and an 18 year old high school dropout who has a drug problem and a lot of rage, have equal voice?  

      Are there any guidelines for GA decisions? Or is it just concensus?

      •  All you have to do is show up. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, martini

        Anybody who comes is an equal participant with everybody else who is there.

        •  do you have any info re organizers from OWS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          martini

          specifically travelling to other occupy locations for the specific purpose of establishing guidelines?

          I was at one or 2 GAs in the beginning of OSF and was honestly really shocked by how decisions were made based upon who was involved in the GAs. Now at the last one I attended in SF, individuals well dressed, well informed, were 'controlling' the mic and in some manner directing discussion.  But there was a lot of frustration on their parts in dealing with some of the GA members who showed up that night ....

        •  Can you explain the Spokes Council? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boatsie, martini
          •  There is not a single explanation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            martini

            that will necessarily apply to all groups. From what I have seen as the size of the general assembly grows they have often found it necessary to establish working groups that sort out through details to develop proposals that they bring back to the GA for consensus.

          •  i just did some reading on it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            martini

            here is the link to the Document

            Fascinating!

            At the 15 Oct SF March, I spoke with members of the GA re their 'manifesto' after someone stood on the steps of CityHall and read this rambling document she had written herself for some 10 minutes during which time at least 3/4 of the crowd departed.  Couldn't get an answer.

            When I spoke to the newer GA last Friday, they were much more in line with #OWS .... the two people I spoke were following events as they happened at #OWS in terms of decision making, etc. And the feeling I got was that they were attempting to (i hate to use this word but I've I'm struggling to find the right one so bear with me....) "legitimize" #OSF.

            I have noticed a distinct shift @ #OSF as it becomes more (again, apologies) "mainstream" focused .... in terms of the make up of the participants becoming more reflective of the diversity of the 99% ...

            did i do ok here? it is very hard to write about some of this as older woman who does not want to appear judgmental .... someone who wants this movement to succeed so much ... and doesn't want to step on any toes but has some concerns ...

      •  anyone can show up to a GA and participate as a (3+ / 0-)

        full member. Age and state of mind don't matter. At one GA here in Boston recently, a very young boy, 7 maybe, was given equal chance to speak as anyone else. And, yes, we've had drunken people speak.  It doesn't seem to impede the process and everyone feels respected.

        If someone is disruptive to the process, as in won't yield the floor or is making too much noise or using violent language, there are protocols for handling that.

        the GA is a consensus decision-making body.

        Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

        by UnaSpenser on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 02:54:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think that the purpose being merely (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon, Chi, churchylafemme, bruh1

    disruption is intensely valuable at this point.

    First, that the general public can see that disruption by a relatively few people can make an impact.

    Second, that that initial disruptive action can inspire other small disruptive actions...like "move your money".

    But even outside of disruptions and actions, everyone is talking about "it"...how unhappy they are with the direction of the country, how adversely affected they and the families are by the current economy, how worried they are and on and on.

    The conversation has changed...for or against OWS, understand or don't understand OWS...it makes no difference.

    Everyone is talking about it. Before OWS people were afraid to even "wrap words around their fears and give their fears life"...Not anymore.

    •  If this were just happening (6+ / 0-)

      in New York and San Francisco, I would be much less inclined to take it seriously. It has spread to small towns in Middle America. That is something really different. They are doing something right.

      •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

        What they are doing right is getting people out to talk amongst themselves outside of the politicians, the media, the sound bites, and partisan hacks flinging poo back and forth on cable TV.

        People are finding that if they dispense with the right/left, conservative/liberal, Democrat/Republican, etc. and just talk amongst themselves rather than yelling at each other that those are structures that are designed to keep us divided.

        More importantly, at least to me, is that people genuinely seem to be tired of playing the same old game that is rigged against us. That our politicians stopped listening to us a long time ago. And that they have refused to prosecute the rampant serial criminal activity that is still on-going while at the same time insisting that the victims pay for those crimes.

        What should be worrying the politicians right now is that the movement isn't asking for their advise or counsel, for their sound bites or dogma, and most especially that we are not seeking their approval.

        We know where the criminals are - "Wall Street" - and we know who the beneficiaries of those crimes are - "the 1%". And while the targets of this effort would much rather that the people blame and protest government - "blame Obama/Democrats", "blame Boehnor/Republicans" etc. the people involved aren't taking the bait this time.

        It is working. Because even though the movement is ignoring the government, the targets of this action have most certainly made some calls because the government has decided to engage in a "debate" with its citizens about whether or not we have a First Amendment or not (and without that we don't have a Constitution) rather than prosecute the criminals for their crimes. And by "debate" I mean sending in negotiators in the form of riot police armed with tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray.

        The fact that the people refuse to go away is having the intended effect - showing the entire world just whose side the government is on. If there were any doubts that "Wall Street" was the right target, the response by the government should be evidence enough to cast those doubts aside.

        You have mayors or governors sending police and talking about law and order and such, well we just need to keep telling them: "Hey! If you are looking for crimes being committed and the criminals responsible, they are right over there! (and point to those buildings).

        That this is everywhere is fantastic.

        •  That most excellent comment (4+ / 0-)

          really should be made into a diary.

          •  I think you are right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, churchylafemme

            I have been formulating one in my head. The comment above is part of a coalescence of my observations.

            Its past time I chime in on this subject.

            •  I've been heavily involved in this subject (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              churchylafemme

              and you have some pretty original observations.

            •  To provide more background on systemic corruption (4+ / 0-)

              and why we see what we see:

              http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/...

              Word of warning: I have shown this link here before, and the reaction was to (a) state that the GOP are corrupt and (b) either that the Democrats have no choice or that they aren't as corrupt (often by saying the GOP started it first like that matters) or worse deny any corruption at all. My point is, if you go after both parties, expect resistance, but the topic is a good one to have.

              •  I am a regular NC reader. (0+ / 0-)

                I am not afraid to go after both parties. That's for sure. Especially on the topic of the lack of prosecuting the criminals, the failure to stop the looting of the people. And other such commentary about the lack of action by either party over the past several years on this topic. I am trying to dig some of those up because portions of them (I can be rather long-winded) are rather pertinent in light of the events of the past 50 days or so. (I only wish I put better subject titles on them! to make it easier to find).

                It is our duty to call out our elected officials and hold them accountable and we should be able to so regardless of the letter after their name. Whether they listen to us or not is another matter.

                •  well one of warning (0+ / 0-)

                  Specific examples tend to be used as "well it just them" not the system.

                  For example, I believe the Obama administration has a lot of corrution in it which he allows, but I always add that this issue is not unique to him.

                  The response is to say "Its just Obama" not the party. Just him. My point is that it becomes absurd after multiple examples across multiple years are shown to pretend its just one person in the party leadership rather than a culture of corruption

                  Why does this matter? Well a criminoogist discussing wall street made this point: That the problem with our  laws and culture are made worse because its not just that they broke laws or were immoral. Its that we have a culture that ensures that if we arrest one there would be 9 others to take it place.

                  That its a culture of corruption and that untilw e come to terms with it, we will not end the corruption.

                  I can never find that article, but I always thought it was a fantastic indictment o the nature of an Oligiarchy.

                  That its deeper than anyone bad actor. Its that we have a system that produces bad actors.

                  Until the Democratic base is willing to deal with that, OWS and other organizations are necessary.

              •  What you win by (0+ / 0-)

                voting should be more important then beating the other side. What we get now is the cart before the horse.The  partisan fighting is just in fighting as both sides aim try to out do each other in stacking the corporate funded  committee's with more and more outrageous crooks and liars. Going after both parties is the only way to get representation, for ordinary people. As the pols everywhere only represent the global' free markets'. Ideology is right center left is long gone now it's just degree's of oppression passed off as victories for compromise or worse accomplishment.

                I went to a candidate for mayors campaign launch in my city, the candidate was a Green but lots of Democratic state reps are supporting her. As one Democratic rep said  'peoples bs meters are on full tilt.' They will remain on full tilt as humans are being forced to live in intolerable societies which offer nothing but austerity and misery.  

                 The 'change' we have seen in the last 12 years is surreal, it really is Orwellain. This movement has been born out of necessity as people globally are not as stupid as the Masters of the Universe think. You cannot market this kind of anti-democratic anti- human nastyness as better then or inevitable or the world as we find it. People just don't roll over and say impoverish me, bomb me, torture me, imprison me. as we need to sacrifice for your profit and your neocon wet dreams of domination.          

                •  can you tell me which city? (0+ / 0-)

                  what are their chances and what environment would they operate in if elected?

                •  by the way, be careful here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shaharazade

                  they will ban you over talking about third parties at this site

                  •  But burl 1 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bruh1

                    this was in Portland Oregon and at the launch there were more Dems. then any other political group. Most of the speakers who were supporting her candidacy were Democratic state house representatives and other local 'progressive' Dems.

                    The strange part is I'm not voting for her as she is running a campaign that is patterned after hope and change, with no real answers about issues and a refusal to be specific about what hope and change she's talking about. She also publicly stated that Occupy Portland, had made their point through civil disobedience and that they should all go home or be moved out. Talk about setting off bs meters.

                    I'm voting and supporting the one city council member a Dem who thinks the city should work with them. Ironic that the Green turned out to be even more of a weasel the the Democrat. If she does win I think the 1% and their toadies will love her and she will piss of the rest of us.        

  •  questions i have been wondering on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladypockt, Sychotic1, martini

    how did the ideas which seem to form the very 'fabric' of the Occupy camps become so quickly shared:

    1 open mic
    2. GA
    3. bulletin board of events which all seem to have yoga and a few other similar events
    4. "we are the 99%"/whose street?
    5. Common signage
    6. the stationary bicycles to generate power
    7. the camp structure itself
    7. the lack of an identifiable spokesperson(s): how did each occupation decide not to have any leaders
    9. the focus on ecological soundness

    there is a great deal of homogeneity as if there is some invisible private book on how to set up an occupation in your city.... and I have to honestly say that in spending time in camps in OO and OSF, those who are actually camping there in all honesty for the most part do not appear as if they would have come up with these ideas or have connections to organizers with these ideas.

    So I guess Im asking here how did OSF suddenly become like a little OWS and then when OO reopened it also had the same 'wrappings'?

    I am also wondering about the demographics of the people in the major occupations (here I can only talk from following closely OWS OO OSF and OD)

    1 how many actually LIVE in the city they are occupying?  2.how many of the occupiers holding down the camps are  homeless?
  •  The fear of nonconformity you reference (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Richard Lyon, lotlizard, bruh1, martini

    in your first paragraph is instilled and solidified in the primary school experience that the vast majority of Americans share. Children are put in a situation where there aren't enough supervising adults (or even the understanding of how damaging it is) to stop the bullying. The more successfully conformist a kid is, the less they get bullied.

    An unintended consequence of early childhood socialization.

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:34:26 AM PST

  •  Im going to post this down here too (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry marmot, Sychotic1, martini

    see Seeds of Change and lets talk about the similarities of the movements and what we think about the occupy movement here.

    I am just becoming more and more curious about who in the end benefits.

    Looking at the situation in Egypt right now, which I ashamedly admit to not following closely, does anyone have an informed response to the question, did the people achieve their goal .. who ultimately benefited as a result of the action?

    •  It is a very good question... (6+ / 0-)

      Some of the Egyptian protesters' demands have been met, while others remain unfulfilled. Has the desired transformation been as rapid as some of the most liberal protesters wanted? No. Is the ruling military council (SCAF) an obstacle to democratization? Yes. Are the upcoming parliamentary elections a good thing? Yes, and no. The thing of it is that the revolutionary moment which led to the ouster of Mubarak was merely the beginning of a generation-long (or longer) process of not only political innovation but also a complete transformation of social structures. It's decades too soon to answer whether it was a success, and who (ultimately) will benefit...

      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

      by angry marmot on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:59:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wish people could hold a long-term vision of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, churchylafemme

        transformation and not see "failure" because things don't happen right out of the gates.

        What these movement are doing is changing the momentum on the political continuum. Egypt has yet to be radically reformed, but has been driven off the path it was on previously. The revolution will need to last for decades, at the very least.

        We need to be prepared for that here. A period of time where we feel rudderless is going to be required. We have to get rid of the current captains of the ship, then admit that the navigation equipment is corrupted, then figure out what to replace it with and learn a completely new way of manning the ship. At every step, people are going to feel uncomfortably anxious and we will feel compelled to "just do something!" If we submit to that compulsion we'll err on the side of going back to what we know, even though we know it has already failed us. Humans have a natural resistance to change, even when the status quo is unbearable.

        Please remember to Witness Revolution. It means so much to them that we pay attention.

        by UnaSpenser on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 03:07:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is quite interesting ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Morgan Sandlin, Sychotic1, martini
    This past Friday, the General Assembly of Liberty Square voted to adopt an additional coordinating body called a Spokes Council.

    The proposal was put forth by the Structure Working Group, which was born out of numerous discussions in the GA on the need for a more accountable body for operational decisions around the occupation. The main challenges the Spokes Council aims to address are: effective coordination between Operations Groups and Caucuses; making responsible, accountable and holistic budgetary decisions; and the ability for the GA to engage in broader movement discussions, rather than being bogged down with time consuming, uncoordinated funding requests.

    OWS

  •  How about a logo? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martini

    Free logo..
    ((I've read the faq & the preview isn't showing the image:  http://www.flickr.com/...
        try that-it's safe-if this doesn't show))
    Me old...me forget...

    It's about time I got off my lazy butt and do something...

    by NoStampTax on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:10:39 AM PST

  •  You raise just the right kind of question... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boatsie, Morgan Sandlin, bruh1, martini

    For me right now. I've been swinging between the idea that it is still very early and Occupy's primary value is in shocking people into realizing that a whole lot of people have not been visible in our corporate media in a very long time - those who disagree with the premise of a corporate political culture, those too poor or too busy to devote the full-time focus needed to fight that kind of power --- and that it's time to focus down on specific policies and elections because there is not a long window for making critical change. You've helped me settle down a little on the idea that Occupy should get some room to run before I start to freak out that they aren't specific enough. They need to build a mindset of change then we'll have the ability to get the specifics going in multiple places and ways.

    •  Somebody will have to take these problems (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boatsie, bruh1, UnaSpenser, martini

      and develop more specific action plans for solutions. That doesn't have to come directly from the Occupy groups. This movement can inspire people to do things. I am certain that there will be substantial evolution to the picture. A year from now it will look pretty different than it does today. What that will actually be like I really don't know.  

    •  I like this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martini

      "They need to build a mindset of change..."

      In my opinion getting people to accept even the idea that change can occur is a challenge...let alone that the pressure can come from outside the political arena.

      Occupy may fizzle out or it could become the cohesive center where you find "satellites" of supporters addressing certain issues.

      It has already changed the national conversation which in itself is a positive. I'm still relatively optomistic.

      Concerned..but optomistic.

      Wonders are many, but none so wonderful as man.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 11:41:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's definitely not a placebo, but needs to be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Morgan Sandlin, shaharazade

    an energy additive to pure clean water

    The Occupy Movement is not intended to be a denture adhesive nor a hemorrhoid relief.  

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 02:22:41 PM PST

  •  This is my favorite of your diaries yet (0+ / 0-)

    You are filled with conviction here. Also, heard a friend was arrested yesterday in Santa Rosa for occupying the bank. Nice girl. Too bad the local papers called her a boy. Don't think she's been released yet. Poked around a bunch. Found tons of friends have been Occupying up that way. Wish I wasn't working SEVEN days a week here, argh.

    I agree completely about the image bit.

    But of course I would.

    I'm not really into this "conformism" middle America stuff, and frankly, it's not worked against me because it does push people to accept you as you are, even if you're a bit of a dichotomy.  

    •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      I saw the article in the PD. I briefly poked my nose in at Occupy Sebastopol in the cold rainy weather. There were about 30 people there.

      •  I'm still trying to find out whether (0+ / 0-)

        she's out or not. I don't think so, however. And am not sure who the other two who got arrested were. 30 people... hm... well, that's something. But better maybe to support the hubs. Don't know. Ultimately, the branding ideas and dress code stuff strike me as horribly counter to the spirit here. It's up there with saying, "Can you act a little less gay? Then you can get a job! Oh, don't speak with that accent! You'll never succeed."

        We're people. We're weird. We're diverse. We're the 99% and personally, these mountains out of molehills are distracting. The 99% looks lots of ways. And yes, I agree with you strongly about "discomfort."

        •  The people who set up that meeting were moving in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          the direction of a camp. I didn't stay long enough to find out what was agreed. It strikes me as significant that little bitty towns all over the place are deciding to get in on the act. Whether that's good or bad, it's really different from any movement I've ever seen.

  •  Study: Disruption sells! (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps the disruptive quality is scientifically key!

    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site