In Their Own Words: Pamela

What do you think of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Are you involved?

As I am in the UK, I am not involved with this, but we have our own protests based on similar principles : to make accountable those in the financial sectors who brought about the financial crisis, and the resultant recession which has spread throughout all of Europe - affecting all but the affluent!

What really bothers you about it?

I, and thousands of others, find it obscene that our government is still allowing bankers and other financial institutions to pay out colossal bonuses, when the man in the street, through no fault of his own, is struggling to pay bills, heat his house and put food on the table, to say nothing of the job losses this has caused.

What happens if we do nothing? Why is this important?

The ramifications of allowing the banking industry to go unregulated has caused untold misery and financial hardship for many. Young people are finding it almost impossible to get a mortgage.(How many young people can afford to put down a deposit of twenty,thirty,forty thousand pounds. especially worse, for those graduates leaving uni with a large debt,already. What makes it particularly infuriating, is that the government, when bailing out the banks (with tax payers money) allocated a portion of this tax payers money to kick start the housing market. But what did the baks do. They used our money to pay off their own debts. And still the our government did nothing!

That is why we have people occupying the steps of St Paul's cathedral in London and why the Robin Hood Tax was started.

Has the banking crisis affected you personally? 

Yes, in that it took over three years to sell our house simply because prospective purchasers could not obtain a mortgage to buy it. (To say nothing of the money 'lost' in the devaluation of the price of the property)
 

Unfortunately, unless we put pressure on the government, they will fail to act because those at the top tend to look after their rich pals.The word 'cronyism' is banded about. With our conservative government, there are not many at the top of our leaders' board who are not millionaires. They have little concept of what a financial struggle it is for many in this country. I am sure it is the same all over Europe and the US.

OWS Protests and The Cost of Education

According to the baycitizen in a Nov 28 article "Despite Angry Protests, UC Regents Raise Administrators' Salaries", after listening to several hours of discussion with students, University of California Regents voted to approve the university budget by $400,000,000, which includes anywhere from 9.9 to 21.9 percent pay raises for some university administrators and lawyers.

I'm not sure they are getting the message. 

The University of California at Davis protest is an aspect of OWS protests that I do support. I support it for all the reasons I do not support the other OWS protests as a whole. 

From the beginning it has been instructional and specific. Although the reasons for the protests, for example the proposed increase to student tuition that would nearly double the price of attending UC Davis as a full time student in three years, have been severely overshadowed by the violence towards protestors, they are trying to change something specific. 

Secondly, the demonstrations have been peaceful and focused and willing to cooperate with moving tents and continuing dialogue with police officials (as I understand it students were even passing out coffee and snacks to officers, including the now infamous Officer Pike, before they were subsequently sprayed in the face with military issue pepper spray).

Third, the entire campus is uniting in dialogues from students to professors to administrators.

Fourth, and not at all the least, a university campus is an exceptional forum for the open exchange of ideas, demonstrations, and practice. These students are practicing .. they are preparing to try to make a difference, to make tangible change, to find their voices.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the silent demonstration held when Chancellor Katehi walked to her car, after she had watched videos of violent officers she had inflicted upon students, was graceful, poignant, and still gives me the chills. It was, in a word, effective. 

All over the world, the violence of the police, and in a way even more sickening, the reactions of the administration, particularly in discussions with themselves as this clever blogger notes, is in stark contrast to the organized, efficient, and emotional gathering of silent students.

With no words they made their point.

I recently saw an OWS sign online at one of the larger urban protests, Los Angeles perhaps, that said "you can't evict an idea". Yes but this is what the OWS as a group gets wrong. Very few people are really actively trying to evict ideas and I think it is wasteful and misdirected to suggest otherwise. They are trying to evict bodies. And having ideas doesn't give you the right to occupy a park, a street, or anything else. The Constitution may give you the right to free assembly, if that is what you meant, but again you have been given this right for months. If you really want to show that "you can't evict an idea" then stop making the focus about your bodies and your tents. Focus more on the discussion and awareness raising because I am not convinced you are succeeding in drawing attention to anything on a large level other than a vague sense of anti-capitalist sentiment and tents. 

Anyway, I support the UC Davis protests and all protests that raise awareness of what is happening to education all across America, particularly at the university level. Tuition increases are but one of the problems. We're also allowing universities to develop into businesses where professors are salesmen and students are customers and education is the product. This is dangerous to the creation of an educated society and stinks of anti-intellectualism. It may seem pragmatic, but there is a difference between pragmatism and the corporatizing of the exchange of knowledge and ideas. In a world where online learning is replacing classroom interaction, and hence real dialogue; in a world where real dialogue is consistently replaced by ranting and raving by one-sided politicians and media talking heads, it is not pragmatism but a deceitful reduction of education to profit.

As part of this, tuition is increasing. As someone who works in the field of education, I understand and have heard all sides to this issue. I disagree with the claim that perhaps administrators should be elected democratically. I know that often student representatives in student senates as well as faculty representatives are called in to participate in search committees for some administrative positions. Students and faculty then often collaboratively participate in official committees of "review" for some of these positions.

What is more disturbing is the judgment of the Regents to increase anyone's salary given not just the protests and thus the timing of this decision, which seems unwise to say the least, but of the larger crisis of the decline and fall of the University of California system. 

The defense of these salary increases is to be able to hire and maintain the best people for those positions, in other words to remain competitive. This is precisely the problem of a corporate approach to university education. If a university wants to thrive it needs to make sure it has the top faculty and the top students, not the top administrators and lawyers. 

According to the baycitizen, Sherry Lansing, chair of the Board of Regents, said none of them wanted to raise tuition (which does not imply that they wouldn't, simply that they want to be perceived as not wanting to) "We strongly believe that the state should make our great university affordable for all students." I interpret this to mean that if students are harmed by massive tuition increases, as proposed, it is the fault of the State of California. But if administrators are receiving substantial raises, in some cases forty thousand dollars of increased salary, well that is the purview of the Board of Regents.

Who are the administrators serving? I think they have it backwards. They exist to help provide education for students at the university level. I am beginning to think administrators think that students exist to provide their salaries.

We strongly believe that the state should make our great university affordable for all Californians.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/14l6d)

We strongly believe that the state should make our great university affordable for all Californians

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/14l6d)

We strongly believe that the state should make our great university affordable for all Californians

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/14l6d)

We strongly believe that the state should make our great university affordable for all Californians

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/14l6d)

When the university system has hiring freezes, tuition increases, programs are being cut, and teachers are getting their virtual pink-slips, it is bad judgment to give highly paid administrators any raise at all. It is shocking and students have a right to be mad.

I wish more people were mad enough to join collectively in a purposeful and focused way, and creatively, innovatively, pragmatically, and concretely come together to instill better policies, structures, and financial accountability for these great universities before they run them into the ground completely

In Their Own Words: Pete

What is your background?
School lawyer with two graduate degrees. Now, semi-retired.

When did you first learn about the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
Approximately mid-October 2011. TV News re camp activities in Los Angeles, about 110 miles south of my town.

When did you first become involved?
I did not get involved.

If you aren't involved with this movement, why not?
Seemed diffused, purposeless.

What are the goals of this movement?
That’s the point - there’s no defined goal.

What are the benefits and positives coming from this movements?
Shows the futility of social action when dealing with the real government. As a President once observed, “The business of America is Business.”

How would you respond to criticisms of this movement and what do you think those main criticisms are?
This question posits the existence of a movement. I don’t think the movement exists.

Who is the audience for OWS? in other words, are you trying to change the minds of those in power, those in the middle, or to give energy to those already on your side? whose behavior are you really hoping to change, and how?
I would like to persuade the OWS audience to read their history. Read up on Abbe Hoffman and the Chicago 8 at and after the 1968 Democrat Convention. Then, maybe look for an allegorical connection in The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton.

Where do you see the movement in 5 years?
Honestly, I do not foresee any vestiges or offspring of this so-called movement in even 12 more months.

What specific, tangible, and practical things do you hope this movement brings?
A realization by the electorate that you aren’t going to gain much by trying to get general media attention. Maybe elect a Congress which will float a term limits amendment?

If there was one thing you would want people to know about OWS what is it?
Their 15 minutes of fame has run its course.

What happens next?
Return to apathy as the gulf between the haves and have nots widens. Then, maybe we will see whether the poor starve quietly or we have another round of Watts and Detroit riots..

In Their Own Words: Professor Golden

My mother and father were working class…she a bookkeeper and he a truck driver. The person who stayed at home with us was my maternal grandmother, a lesbian and a socialist. We were always on a tight budget and sometimes my Mom would have me go ask a neighbor for fire wood to help heat the home in the winter. I know they had to borrow from coworkers, etc. in order to feed us at times. We never had a new car, color tv, or a vacation besides camping. I know they worked very hard all of thier lives. Still, I felt
like I was better off than most people in the world.

When did you first become involved? 

I was involved in the origin of the Occupy San Diego in that I marched that first day to the
civic center with them. I went down there the follwing Saturday in
solidarity. I have sent food and blankets but I have not ‘occupied’ any place myself.

What made you want to be involved in this movement?

I respect that they are doing something. I was really moved by the
diversity of the crowd the first day. It really was a cross-section of society…and instead of us talking about our differences, we had a common thread amongst us all; we are the 99% that do most of the work but who receive little of the rewards. As a teacher, I have seen our class
offerings cut by 40% over the past three years. Students can’t get classes while UC has gone up over 100% in tuition over the past few years.

California is the 8th largest economy in the world, and yet we are 47th in spending on k-12 schools.

The data shows that the top 1% have been getting richer, while the rest of
the population has seen a drop in their income. Also, corporations are
making some of their highest profits in history.

How have you become involved in this movement?

I have marched twice, given blankets, food and some money. Not a whole lot
when you think about it.

What are the goals of this movement?

I don’t think there are specific, national and unified goals per se. I
think most importantly, they are bringing attention to the inequities in
the economic structure of this country. People ARE talking about the 1%
who hold much of the wealth in this country. Polls show that people are interested in increasing the taxes on the wealthy in general.

What are the benefits and positives coming from this movements?

I’m seeing more activism from my students. I’m seeing more discussions and more organizing among the students. This is good.

How would you respond to criticisms of this movement and what do you think
those main criticisms are?

Well, from the ‘Right’ it’s the same old shit. They are dirty, lazy, have bad hygiene, use drugs, and are the ‘entitlement’ generation.

I think they are like the Tea Party in some ways. They distrust the
government and institutions (including labor unions I think). I understand that, but I would like to see more organizing into some sort of socialist-minded organization. I don’t see that now. So, while I very much respect what they are doing, I don’t see it leading to much political power just yet. But they have started a very important dialogue…and besides, the ‘Right’ hates them, so of course, that just delights the hell out of me.

Where do you see the movement in 5 years?

I don’t. But I do see this as training for future leaders, much like the Civil rights and the antiwar movement were.

What specific, tangible, and practical things do you hope this movement
brings?

I have low expectations, but I think they have put the income inequities in this country onto the front page. I think there will be a movement to tax corporations and or the top 1% wage earners.

If there was one thing you would want people to know about OWS what is it?

They are bringing the incredible unequal distribution of wealth issue to the front page. They are making it ok to challenge this notion that everyone is where they are due to what they ‘earned’ (too many people think they are poor because they deserve it….or that the rich are rich because they worked harder). It’s given more credibility to the discussion that
needs to take place…that is, are we all equally compensated for our efforts? Do the rich really work 400 times harder than me? Etc.

In Their Own Words: Professor Small Fry

I'm not sure I have a lot to contribute, since I'm not involved in any OWS stuff, just following the hell out of it. I saw a chalking on campus about Occupy **University, and I'm going to check it out tomorrow. I haven't had/made an opportunity to get involved, and I'm a little hesitant to because I don't think the group's goals are uniform or well-defined enough to make an impact.
This seems to be a common thread of many - many who are smart, passionate, and willing to get involved and help where necessary. And like many she even supports the principles. But the format of the "movement" turns her off.


I support the movement and hope that it succeeds in energizing sane people against the rich conservatives (and any liberals who've gone over to the dark side of valuing their own money over quality of life for all Americans) who are manipulating politics and rigging the system in their own favor.
 
I'm definitely supportive of the movement, but I fear it can't last unless people articulate real goals and can convince detractors to see protestors as making a valuable contribution to political discourse.

So you're supportive but not involved?

 I feel like I'm still sorting out where I stand on all this, and I admit I'm a little chicken shit in that I haven't put myself out there, but I also feel like I'm still in a tenuous (read: untenured) position and that I should be wary of getting too involved. 

What would it take for you to get more visibly involved?

I think a clearer message on particular policies would help. I perhaps should clarify, too: I support that people are taking action and starting to recognize some problems with our political system (that are more real and meaningful than those identified by, say, the Tea Party), but I can't personally support the movement until they somehow make it matter to me and make it clear to those of us on the fence that it is more of a real movement rather than a bunch of random groups of people who don't know what else to do and are upset about a host of problems that I may or may not agree with.

The violence at Berkeley and Davis do concern me. A former student was among the grad students beaten, and, come on, they beat up Robert Haas and yanked a prof by the hair? For standing there? That kind of action concerns me, and some, perhaps alarmist, faculty here are concerned that something like this could come to [my university] with tuition on the rise and such. A colleague noted that for the most part, [our mid-western state] hasn't experienced the tuition increases and so forth that are driving some of the student protestors out west, but they may well be coming.

I'm not sure that I would be willing to get visibly involved. I think that OWS is going to have to start getting organized and taking more meaningful actions (I don't know what - petitions, statements, something tangible that requires their opponents to respond with something more than force and pepper spray), or else it's going to just fade away or be a passing fad. As much as I do not like the Tea Party, they organized, they had a few main messages, and they took over some areas (probably because they were not-so-secretly funded by corporation bigwigs who took advantage of stupid people). OWS is an alternative group disgruntled at big corporations and big government that I could feasibly perhaps support - if they could just be clear about what I'd be supporting.

And if it had happened on your campus? 

... yeah, if my whole department were getting involved, if it were my students out there getting pepper sprayed and abused verbally or physically, I think I'd have to get involved - not just due to peer pressure but because the madness would be more immediate and seem to require an immediate response. I know you've known this for a while, but it's just another instance in which [the midwest] is isolated from the major centers of action on either coast.

In Their Own Words: Vanessa

 I am a lecturer in an English Department at a "public" university. I teach courses in early modern literature, composition, and critical thinking.

When did you first learn about the Occupy Wall Street Movement?  
I feel like I first learned about it on facebook. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I'm pretty sure I first learned about OWS when I followed a link to an article about why the mainstream media wasn't reporting on this protest movement.

When did you first become involved?
My involvement with the occupy movement is somewhat complicated, in part because the very idea of a "occupation" does not start with OWS, nor I am sure does it begin with my first experience, which while potentially tangential, is where I would like to begin. During 2009, I was finishing my PhD at the University of California, Davis. 

This was the year that the UC Regents passed the first of many exorbitant tuition hikes (when I began in 2003 I think it cost an undergraduate approximately $6000/yr to attend a UC, it is now close to $13,000/yr and if the next wave of hikes goes through we'll be up to $23,000/yr by 2015). To protest these hikes,--along with the reduction of tenure positions and job security for faculty, among other issues—students and faculty began holding rallies and "occupying" administration buildings to draw attention to what they/we saw as the privatization of public education. 
Out of this movement, particularly among more "radical" members, came the phrase "occupy everything." In fact, on my campus there was an unfruitful attempt to occupy a freeway, and in Oakland such an attempt was in some ways successful. The idea was to actually shut down "public" spaces to remind California of our place as a "public" institution (this is an over simplification). My role in these movements was largely one of support and vocal energy. I withheld services during strikes, I chanted "Our University" mantras while my friends and colleagues were hauled away in zip-tie hand cuffs for occupying Mrak hall (I nursed the head cold that came from cheering them on during the six hours it took to order their dispersal from the administration building and to arrest each of 52 individual occupiers). 

So for me, my first involvement with "occupy", a term I find fraught if we consider the history of occupation and colonization upon which our country is founded, starts before OWS. To me the idea of "occupation" was familiar as were the causes around which this international movement has rallied.

What made you want to be involved in this movement?
I am a white, only child from a middle-class family. My parents struggled to make ends meet for most of my life. They took turns earning their bachelors degrees while I went to elementary and high school. I am not part of the 1%, but I do, particularly compared to many people in this country "occupy" a position of privilege. I was able to take out the loans I needed to get through my undergraduate career and then again to finish my MA and PhD at two UC schools. I was considered a viable risk for lenders (banks and lenders who slowly seem to be corporatizing the very educational system of which I strive to be a part), but I am now swimming in debt with a one year, terminal lectureship and limited prospects on the job market. 

Despite my loans, I worked at least two part-time jobs while carrying a full load of graduate courses throughout my academic career. Quite frankly, I am tired of implicitly and sometimes overtly being branded as "lazy" because I have student load debt that seems impossible to overcome. I spend ridiculous amounts of time and energy arguing with my conservative relatives about how extending me some relief would, in fact, allow me to boost this capitalist economy only to meet the response: "I paid my way through college, why should I have to bail out people who didn't earn their education?" 

I bite my tongue, as I turn to my friends and say what I really want to say to these relatives: "because you attended a public university in the 70s or 80s when public education was actually "public" and when CSUs and even UCs were practically free by comparison to their respective costs today." 

So I'm drawn to this debate because, I think there exists an ignorant or unconscious hypocrisy among some of my fellow 99%-ers. And this is coming from a white woman UC faculty member. What if I were not this privileged? What if I were not even eligible for the exorbitant loans I was allowed to take to fund my education and allow me to teach at the University level? This is my impetus for becoming involved or at least supporting the larger Occupy movement. 

These are my frustrations and my personal anecdotes, not all members who oppose OWS attended UCs during their hey-day of affordability, but as I've shown not all Occupy supporters or actual, active occupiers are "dirty hippies" either. In some ways my involvement stems from a desire to break down these types of generalizations and to get people to see the human faces and gray areas of an issue that is easy to reduce to binaries.

How have you become involved in this movement?
My involvement, as I've suggested, largely comes in the form of instigating debate and dialogue among family, friends, and occasionally strangers. As an educator, I tend toward breaking down the rhetoric both of the movement and its detractors—cutting through the bullshit to see if there are not common interests that might allow individuals to communicate without generalizing or reducing each other to stereotypes.

In Their Own Words: Evangeline

I am a child of immigrants. I have a PhD and a basic middle class income and student loan debt. My family and friends are all liberals of varying degrees. I don’t believe in a “bipartisan” solution to the current economic problem. I consider myself to be far left—both socially and economically.

When did you first learn about the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
Can’t remember the exact moment. But I guess I have known about it since this summer.

Are you involved in this movement?  
I am not involved. I support many aspects of the movement. But not enough to involve myself... I do NOT (want) to be involved in the movement. Mostly because I don’t think the movement is connected quite enough to a specific political outcome. It seems to be expressing general angst. Which I respect. But not enough to donate my time or money for the movement.

What do you think are the goals of this movement?
At this point, I don’t see any specific goals—which is what bothers me. “Protesting greed” for instance, isn’t much of a political goal. Do I think “greed” is problematic? Absolutely. But I don’t think that greed can be protested. In a similar vein, while I think that Wall Street INFLUENCES policy, Wall Street does not MAKE policy. The movement needs to become more focused and organized and focus on Washington.

How would you respond to criticisms of this movement?
To some extent, I am articulating those myself—that this isn’t policy driven. The conservative complaints that this movement is about “hating the rich” is ridiculous.

Who is the audience for OWS?
I think the best part of the movement is that is it raising awareness. Even more importantly, the “99%” slogan aligns the middle and the upper middle classes with the lower classes. Many times the middle and upper-middle mistakenly align themselves with the top income earners—to their own detriment and to the detriment of society more largely. The best part of this movement is that it helps the middle and upper classes realize that their interests are actually aligned with that of the lower classes. So I think that the ideal audience is the middle class.

What specific, tangible, and practical things do you hope this movement brings?
In my ideal world, this would lead to a policy change. In my most ideal world this would lead to a creation of a maximum wage....everything above 10 million goes back to the state. But that’s a pipe dream.

What can you personally do to follow the goals and ideals of the movement and implement change in your own life?
I think this question is wrong headed. Other than voting habits, the individual does not and should not change anything. Policy needs to change. (And the upper classes need to realize their own complicity in this system.)

If there was one thing you would want OWS to do or change, what would it be?
Take it to Washington! Make it specific!

In Their Own Words: Marty

Aging boomer, employed from high school to retirement (I hope). Homeowner with equity and retirement savings due to timing and luck.

When did you first learn about OWS?
I spend too much time on Huffington Post so I learn about such news as soon as it hits the papers. Whenever that was.
 
Are you involved in OWS?
I am not involved. I honk my support on the way home from work.

I honk my support because social justice seems to be their theme and because they are pointing out the disintegration of the middle class. And they are refreshing after so much Tea Party racism and stupidity.

Where do you think OWS will be in 5 years?
 The movement will be gone in 5 years, but I hope some of the energy will morph into electoral change.
Criticism of the movement, of the individuals? I hear that there is a lack of focus and a missing demand list.

What do you think of the criticism of OWS?
 My sense is that there are many individuals involved here, and that valid criticism would have to look at the individuals involved, not the group as a whole. The group is loose. There is no leadership.
There is energy but no hierarchy. So what can be expected of a group that has no group? I think the intentions are good and the organization is loose - so what's with the expectations?

Am I to be criticized if I spend time holding up a sign in a show of unity with the 99%? Should I hesitate to join because the platform is murky?

Is it important to you that the movement take a particular direction?
 I just can't bring myself to prescribe where I think the movement should go. If it ends today we will all have been educated on some issues that we may have not thought about otherwise.

What interests me is whether the energy we see can be translated to votes. I have my doubts here. When elections come around the manipulation machines (what some call free speech) take over and emotional issues (usually regarding sexual practices, somehow) win the day.

What is good about OWS?
 To sum up, I think OWS is and has been educational. We know stuff now that we didn't before. But lets face it, we are a racist, warlike people. We do stupid things such as Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan. How on earth did we talk ourselves into nation building in Afganistan??? Why did we think destroying Iraq would be helpful? We are stupid. We can be easily manipulated.
 
We can't solve our problems. We ignore history. We are idiots with guns, drones and bombs. We go to war casually, maim and kill our kids, blast away civilians all over the globe.

OWS is educational but so is the circus. Last night I saw another circus episode. They have all these clowns that jump out of a car, and they just keep on coming. And they are trying to decide whether Romney or Gingrich or Perry should be head clown.

What criticisms do you have of OWS?
 I hold my criticisms for the clowns and the racist idiots that support them. And for the do-nothings that like to go to war if the kids are poor and not their own.

In Their Own Words: Paula

While I am critical of the protests and the protestors, I want to clarify again that many of my good, decent, smart, reasonable friends support the OWS and I am trying to figure out why they do, why I don't, and how to improve the dialogue. I have conservative friends who don't support OWS and I don't agree with their reasons. I have progressive friends who do support OWS and I don't agree with the way they are protesting. Somewhere in the middle I want to join everyone together in a conversation. So let’s begin by listening to some individuals in their own words:

Interview with Paula

What is your background?
I am 55 y/o woman, brought up in a middle class home in Northern California.  I was brought up in a mix of liberal and moderate politics.  I have a B.A. degree in Accounting.  I indentify with left of center and am fiscally socialist.  I only vote democrat because I have no other choice.

When did you first become involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement? During the Move your Money day, 11/5/2011. 

What made you want to be involved in this movement?  
Two years ago, the banks, such as Chase, BofA, and Wells Fargo made decisions that benefited themselves and really hurt the middle to lower income population.  They unilaterally raised interest rates, lowered credit lines, forcing thousands of people into default. I was not so surprised at this move, because I wouldn't expect anything else from them.  However, I was shocked over people's reactions.  People started blaming the credit card holders.  Comments such as, "it's your fault, you should not have had debt if you couldn't pay it", I saw name calling such as "loser", "parasite", etc.  In a country, where debt is how the entire country is run, average to lower income people were blamed for not being able to pay the new minimum payments and new enormous interest rates.  This was not an isolated incident.   This started my involvement in moving away from big banks and credit cards. 

How have you become involved in this movement?
I moved all my money, savings, retirement, auto loan, credit card to a local credit union.  I paid off my credit card.  I knew I had to walk the talk, so I cut my spending way down.  I figure if I am going to complain about corruption between Bankers/Lobbyists and Politicians, I had better clean up my act.

What are the goals of this movement?  
The goal of Occupy is to make people aware of the power we have as a people to have impact on corruption between Bankers/Lobbyists and Politicians. That is the stage we are in now.  One of the goals is to stop the path we are on as a country in losing our middle class, to a two class I.e.  Rich/poor.  First a conversation has to take place, I.e. Occupy physical spaces and from there, a series of solid actions. 

How would you respond to criticisms of this movement and what do you think those main criticisms are?   
The main criticism is that Occupy is trying to Socialize America.  The second criticism is that the Occupy movement has no leader or agenda.  United States is already socialist.  Public schools, Medicare, social security, health care for government workers, are here to protect and care for our citizens.   As far as an agenda?  I think it's pretty clear right now that the agenda is basic.  Stop the destruction of the middle class.  Stop the accumulation of wealth by a few, stop corruption between Bankers/Lobbyists and Politicians.  The last criticism is that the Occupy movement is run by drug addicts, dirty hippies, and rift raft.  I don't see that a criticism so much as propaganda.  The Occupy movement opened themselves up to this problem by having the first action in Occupied tent dwellings.  So of course, homeless people and hanger on folks were attracted.  There is nothing much to be done about that.  After all, homeless people, addicts, and mentally ill people are citizens too.  

Where do you see the movement in 5 years? 
I hope that the middle class, working class, and poor can unit as an economic force.  I hope we can leave behind the division of Liberal vs.. Conservative.  I hope this united middle class can call the shots on our politicians.  I hope we can get rid of lobbyists. 

What specific, and practical things do you hope this movement brings? I hope we can have more economic fairness.  For example, raising of the minimum wage; universal health care, affordable education.  I hope we can end the practice of lobbyists. 

How does occupying physical spaces as you say open a conversation?
The original "demand" was by Adbusters and it was "one simple demand, a presidential commission to separate money from politics"   The internet group Anonymous encouraged its followers to take part in the protests, calling protesters to "flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street."  So, you can see, no one was trying to start a polite conversation in order to make everyone happy.  This was and is a genuine spontaneous expression of frustration and anger over what people see is a minority ruining our economy and government.   So, let me rephrase this; the people came out on the street, stomping their feet pissed off.  That was not a conversation; it was a protest which can lead to conversation.  The conversation involves millions of people all over the world blogging, emailing, occupying, fighting, pepper spraying, using weapons.  It's messy, frustrating, annoying, pisses people off; but nevertheless, it is a conversation.   I see it an ongoing conversation by the masses to fight back over something humans have always done historically.  Wealth has always been accumulated by a few and the masses have been enslaved.  The last century saw the growth of a middle class and now the West seems to be headed in the direction of more of the classic split between Capitalists and workers.

How do you feel about connotations of the term "occupy" linked with imperialist dogma which seems counter to your goals?
I don't know what to say about your last question.  I didn't link the term Occupy to Imperialism!  Civil disobedience is usually against the law.

What can you personally do to follow the goals and ideals of the movement and implement change in your own life?  
I moved all my money, savings, retirement, auto loan, credit card to a local credit union. I paid off my credit card. I knew I had to walk the talk, so I cut my spending way down. I figure if I am going to complain about corruption between Bankers/Lobbyists and Politicians, I had better clean up my act.

If there is one thing you want people to know about OWS what is it?   
We are not trying to overthrow the government.  I see us as trying to rebuild a solid middle class.  That means bringing up people from the bottom, the millions in poverty, and controlling the 1% who are amassing wealth.