Three weeks into the Occupy protests that began on Wall Street and have now spread to every corner of the nation, bemused and befuddled commentators and lawmakers in Washington still insist on claiming that the demonstrations lack a clear objective or set of demands. But that's not really true.
While the protesters are not marching in support or opposition to this or that specific legislation or individual policy, the brave and spirited folks animating this new movement certainly do have a clear goal. Their agenda is admittedly broad, but that simply speaks to just how wide and deep corporate influence has become in our country.
The long list of grievances is reflective of just how widespread the tendency of big business and the super-wealthy is to "place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality." Those aren't my words. They come directly from the protesters themselves, from their own published "Declaration of the Occupation," approved entirely by consensus back on September 29.
As with any strong declaration, the protesters begin with a powerful preamble:
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
The protesters go on to enumerate a pretty complete list of what's wrong with our country today, from the illegal foreclosure process which has led to too many Americans losing their homes, to the poisoning of our food supply through negligence, and undermining the farming system through monopolization, and of course the bankers who happily took our tax dollars for bailouts only to turn around and resume paying themselves exorbitant bonuses at our expense.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
"What the protesters aren't doing is providing the specific policy remedies for all of these problems. But they shouldn't have to because that's not their job. That should be the job of those we elect to lead us."
Don't count on that! You're being foolhardy if you think the establishment is going to lift a finger to dismantle itself or loosen its grip on power.
2 - John Lake
As I wrote somewhere, yesterday...
"As people begin to focus on the particular issues that concern them, the coverage will increase, and the presence will surely be felt. Pass the Jobs bill, end the special interests, transparency in media, simply end the temporary tax breaks for the super-rich... Whatever it might be, if we express ourselves clearly, we might be able to save America."
3 - Arch Conservative
Been painting with the windows closed again Scott?
4 - Dan
Here is a great discussion on MSNBC's "Larry Kudlow" where Ann Coulter provides excellent commentary contrasting between the peaceful, erudite, tea party movement and the violent incoherency of the occupy mobs.
Hopefully, the occutards will continue to discredit themselves and their movement in the public eye.
5 - zingzing
dan, that's not msnbc. and ann coulter is ann coulter, and not to be trusted. and the "erudite" tea party movement? come on. the "occutards" (very erudite of you) have been pretty peaceful so far. the video doesn't show any context, but seems to show police beating on people who don't seem to be fighting back... then they start coming up with conspiracy theories and how police arrests equals evil liberals and how the tea partiers were able to bring guns and flag poles to their events (and that's a good thing, i suppose). then coulter starts yelling over people with historical anecdotes and saying a flag pole in the hands of a liberal automatically turns into a weapon of mass destruction.
terribly stupid video, dan, of the right wing missing the damn point, and a portrait of right wing propaganda hiding itself as "news."
6 - Maurice
The real problem lies with politicians giving the peoples money (taxes and tax breaks) to the corporations. Why did Obama bail out GM? Why did Obama give the banking industry billions? Why did Obama give Solyndra $500mil? Why are our politicians morally bankrupt and why am I the only one talking about it?
7 - Dr Dreadful
Dan, weren't you one of the folks getting all bent out of shape at the Tea Party being portrayed as a bunch of single-digit-IQ, gun-totin' redneck racists?
If so, why do you feel it's OK to similarly mischaracterise the Occupy movement?
8 - Dr Dreadful
@ #6: Maurice, if you honestly think you're the only one talking about morally bankrupt politicians then I'd like to know what your asking price is for the desert island you've been living on for the last 200 years.
9 - zingzing
"Why did Obama bail out GM?"
because there were thousands of jobs at stake and they're actually turning a profit last i heard.
"Why did Obama give the banking industry billions?"
because there were thousands of jobs at stake and last i heard, much of that has been paid back, but they're sitting on their profits... why are they sitting on their profits and not loaning? that's the question you should be asking.
"Why did Obama give Solyndra $500mil?"
it was a green initiative that went south. sometimes these things happen.
"Why are our politicians morally bankrupt and why am I the only one talking about it?"
because you live on another planet and can't communicate with the human race? i dunno.
10 - roger nowosielski
@9
Not exactly fairest response to Maurice. The impression one gets that no matter would Obama has ever done or will ever do, he can do no wrong because all his actions are presumed to follow from the best possible motives. It's a win-win argument for zing and a lose-lose argument for Maurice.
The last retort is particularly off-beat, not any serious kind of response.
All of us should be talking about corruption both in politics and in business and how pervasive it is in both spheres, about corruption of the entire political-economic complex. If there's a way of swaying Maurice to zing's way of thinking, Maurice has got to understand that corporations are what they are with the blessings of our government, and our government is what it is because it relies on corporations to protect it, that it's a symbiotic relationship.
Yet, all the force of zing's argument is to defend government, and all the force of Maurice's argument is to defend corporations. Can't you guys see it's a no-win argument for either of you, that there's something categorically wrong in posing the problem in such dialectical, diametrically-opposite terms?
11 - zingzing
"The impression one gets that no matter would Obama has ever done or will ever do, he can do no wrong because all his actions are presumed to follow from the best possible motives."
that's simplistic and not reliant upon what's happened. facts. history. whatever you want to call it. stop assigning simplistic motives to people, roger. i don't like all gov't. they do some stupid shit. obama or gov't does not equal heavenly angels. but when they do good, they do good. nothing's black and white.
"The last retort is particularly off-beat, not any serious kind of response."
because it was a silly thing to say.
"All of us should be talking about corruption both in politics and in business and how pervasive it is in both spheres, about corruption of the entire political-economic complex."
huh. so is maurice the only one? no? so no, it wasn't serious, but you don't believe it either, do you?
"If there's a way of swaying Maurice to zing's way of thinking, Maurice has got to understand that corporations are what they are with the blessings of our government, and our government is what it is because it relies on corporations to protect it, that it's a symbiotic relationship."
yep. that's totally my way of thinking roger. you've really nailed it. you really have a way with reading. you can take anything you want from it, without any thought whatsoever to what was actually said or not said. good for you. it's a blessing.
stop it, roger. i could proclaim whatever i think you believe without the slightest bit of evidence and throw you in the worst light if i wanted to. but i don't. i don't know why you insist on doing this to other people. it's a fault. you'll win nobody over by purposefully misunderstanding people... you're coming up on a couple years of this shit. cut it out.
"Yet, all the force of zing's argument is to defend government, and all the force of Maurice's argument is to defend corporations. Can't you guys see it's a no-win argument for either of you, that there's something categorically wrong in posing the problem in such dialectical, diametrically-opposite terms?"
i'm not defending gov't per se. i'm defending actions that had repercussions that affected actual people. that money (a thing) that was spent means that many people can still support their families. i'm happy it was spent. it was a gamble. but it paid. and now many families are eating and such. sounds fine to me. a good function of the gov't: the general welfare.
if gm had gone down, not only detroit-based workers, but gm-labeled workers nation-round would have suffered. maybe you don't care about families or children. i think you hate children and want them on the streets. yeah? is that how you feel?
[edited]
12 - roger nowosielski
Hey, zing. Your responses were curt and snappy, almost no way to misread them. If you take greater time responding to your adversaries, you wouldn't need me to make your words plainer still. I'm certain Maurice will thank me for elucidating your remarks to his satisfaction. But really, I shouldn't be doing your job for you, the job you should be doing yourself.
Yes, I am a children-hater and I don't mind you portraying me that way. Next time, however, look up those of my words that wouldn't require such a stretch. After all, you do want to come across as being even half-ass believable.
13 - roger nowosielski
Anyway, done for today.
To be continued, I guess.
14 - zingzing
no way to misread them, yet you did. they were specific criticisms. i responded to specific criticisms.
you're certain maurice will thank you? why? and why should i be making arguments against myself? we are misunderstanding each other, i think. but that's how it goes.
"Next time, however, look up those of my words that wouldn't require such a stretch."
welcome to my world, roger. do you not get the point? i'm not really calling you a "children-hater," i'm saying that's how you portray others. how you miss that, i don't know.
15 - Dan
Dr. Dreadful, I don't think I've "mischaracterized" the occupy movement to any extent whatsoever. They've proven to be both violent and incoherent. Not everyone in the movement of course.
I also don't remember getting "bent out of shape" over mischaracterizations of the tea party movement. "Gun totin'" and "redneck" and even "racist" are not necessarily what I consider negative connotations. "Single digit IQ's" are impossible, but double digit IQ's are possessed by half the US population, and seem to be prominent in the occupy movement.
I also don't remember any similar protest from you when tea party folks were maliciously slandered. Thats Ok though, If you are only bothered by negative portrayals of occutards so be it. I have no problem with your lack of neutrality.
zingzing, at least you are right about Larry Kudlow not being on MSNBC. It's CNBC. I'm glad you took a look at the clip. I wasn't linking it to prove the occutards are violent. There are many videos that do a better job of that.
16 - Clavos
it was a green initiative that went south.
As do a significant number "green initiatives," primarily because there's very little market for them, and most of it is neutralized by the non-competitive cost of much "green" merchandise offered for sale.
17 - zingzing
dan, you obviously haven't been watching much coverage of the events if you think the "occutards" (you cannot speak on "neutrality," but you can speak on hypocrisy!) are all violent and incoherent. i don't doubt there are videos showing them to be violent, but i'll note you haven't posted one. i've seen lots of videos that show peaceful protests violently broken up by police, like the one you posted, but that doesn't count, now does it?
and fox news has been belittling the protesters by cutting videos to make them look silly... like left wing organizations did to the tea party, but that wasn't fox news... it was meant to be funny, not the be-all end-all truth, and now some people are obviously being fooled. welcome to being suckered, dan. if you thought those who thought the tea party was all dumb hicks were stupid, stupid people, well... you're falling for the same trick.
you can know your enemy (even though if you actually knew them you'd see points where you undoubtedly agree), or you can just make up whatever floats your boat. do what you will.
18 - zingzing
clavos, florida is a southern state. now what have we learned today?
there's a market out there for plenty of green initiatives. but some of them are going to fail. just like anything else.
19 - zingzing
and dan, what were you linking to that video to prove then? that ann coulter has no clue what she's talking about? that you have a short memory?
20 - roger nowosielski
@14
(Mis)readings or alternative readings are useful tools for milking out meanings. If you took courses on literary theory and criticism, you ought to know that. You also ought to know that any text is the property of the reader.
If you don't want to be open to alternative interpretations, write with the kind of precision which would not admit it.
Yes, Maurice will thank me for clarifying matters on his behalf, of this I'm certain, even though my criticism was launched at him as well.
21 - roger nowosielski
"and why should i be making arguments against myself?"
Because if what you're after is true understanding or reaching a common ground with another, you've got to consider the weakness(s) of your own argument and come forward with it. Otherwise, you're just jerking off.
22 - zingzing
so, roger... you speak for maurice now. glad to know it. i don't think you clarified anything for him. you parroted the same old stuff you always do... the same old simplifications and the same old doomsaying.
and yes, alternate readings can be useful, in the right context. but they can also be horribly wrong and completely annoying. you seem to get it wrong on purpose, or to take things way too far down some path. it's a useless exercise a vast majority of the time. and you've been told this time and time again. maybe you haven't believed it. believe it. maybe you read it some other way. no one likes being misinterpreted, especially when someone seems to do so willfully. it takes the conversation nowhere and is exasperating.
you can act like it's some grand tactic of yours. but it's just crap, roger. you know it, and i know it. do you understand that? can i make that any clearer?
23 - txdollarbill
A pathetic attemp by Move on and the Unions to mimic the success of the Tea Party.
Thess FLEAbaggers don't want to work; they want a free ride ! If you believe their views it's called Marxism. And no i don't believe their talking points. The agenda is wealth distribution and to encourage class warfare to get The Propagandist & Chief re elected. This is the biggest AstoTurf movement iv'e ever seen.
The movement in Egypt has resulted in the burning of churches and multiple deaths of Christians. This crowd would do the same in confiscating private wealth and castigating success in the name of equality.
Their irrelevance will be duely noted in the weeks to come
24 - zingzing
"Because if what you're after is true understanding or reaching a common ground with another, you've got to consider the weakness(s) of your own argument and come forward with it. Otherwise, you're just jerking off."
quoted for truth, and i think you should learn it as well. but i'm not sure what i was referring to up there, but it's not that... i think i must have misread you somewhere. i'll point out weaknesses (
25 - zingzing
...in my own arguments when i see them, as you should know by now.