OCCUPY FACEBOOK: Hypocrisy in Numbers

Why does Facebook get off easy?

Mark Zuckerberg. Apparently with 24 BILLION DOLLARS you have as much net worth as 27 million of the poorest American Families put together. You could buy 27 million families or you could own Facebook.

The Wall Street Journal blogger D.E. Wittkower Read it here OWS is seemingly anti Wall Street but not anti Silicon Valley.

Is there a sense that Wall Street with its numbers and ether world trading figures is a bunch of rich guys just playing with Monopoly money?  (literally and figuratively) The billionaires that make our gadgets and all our fun stuff - they are creators, workers, inventors.. and therefore okay. But bankers are bad because they don't work? Is that what's going on with this contradiction? 

There is a war on work in this country and Ive noticed I play along with it too sometimes. People are soooo ready to criticize others about not working hard enough. The conservatives say the hippies aren't working; the liberals say the bankers are corporate greedy bums. People defensive about how hard they work; that the economy doesn't support just hard work. Luck is important too. But that bootstraps mythology tells you otherwise.

I hear it on all sides. Anti-OWS think a bunch of dirty hippies are laying around asking for handouts and not working (it bothers me too that people are camping out rather than working to make change). Similarly, OWS seems to be critiquing rich people for not really working. I don't think either stereotype is true or fair. And I think it keeps us all fighting and ignoring the main thing that's obvious and right in front of our face. But I'll get to what THAT is next time..

For now, let me ask you this OWS..

You're anti-wealth, anti-corporation, anti- 1%ers. So what are you doing on Facebook?

You're for raising awareness and growing your group and spreading the message. What better way to do that than one of the most incredible social media sites of all time?

So who's your daddy?

You want to boycott banks and physically occupy wall street... why not silicon valley? I look forward to hearing the justifications...

Here are some of Wittkower's excellent questions:

• Is Zuckerberg a “creator” and therefore deserving of wealth? Does an investment banker create and, if so, is that creation similarly deserving?

• Should we allow a company to reap such profits if, in the views of some, consumers have no meaningful alternatives, or does this kind of market require more regulation?

• What goals and virtues does inequality of wealth create and support? Are those goals appropriately served by a society in which one man owns perhaps as much as a quarter of his society combined? What other goals and virtues are we sacrificing–and what are the ways, if any, that society is profiting?

Corporate Stock Options: Stop Protesting Start Thinking!!

Here is an example of what I mean when I suggest that by getting out of the parks and getting to working on new ideas, protestors might make more of a lasting and tangible difference with their issues; here is what I mean when I say I wish people would think anew and be innovative rather than try to protest in outdated modes that don't fit the twenty first century.

Much of the protest seems directed, as far as I can tell from loose cries of "Greed!" and "Disparity!, at Corporate Executive Officers and the like.


Yesterday, on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" they broadcast a show that discussed whether or not CEO's should continue to receive stock options. Give it a listen.

You really want to stick it to the rich? Make them play the game more fairly. I'm not claiming to have a shrewd business mind or a complex understanding of business. But you know what? I bet one of the protestors does. So why can't he/she get out of the park and gather ye wise minds together and come up with an innovative plan. One that deals with business by understanding business. Take away stock options, for example, and insist that CEOs of major corporations invest a certain percentage, say 20, of their own personal funds in the corporate stock. This would be functional and effective without challenging the ideals of free enterprise and the American Dream that pay-caps suggest. If the company does well, the CEOs do well. What's wrong with that? Right now if the company does or doesn't do well the CEOs do well, by and large, and aren't hurt nearly as much as people lower on the scale who are absolutely gutted when they lose their jobs, pensions, or take furloughs and massive pay cuts. That would certainly be incentive to assure that the company, as a whole, is understood as a wholistic and interdependent collaboration of workers and work. Executives and administrators should have as much of their lives and livelihood on the line. That's a good company and that's good business practice.  Of time, money, and spirit, of stake and shares, investment should mean investment.

First Amendment Rights and OWS Campers

As part of this forum aims to educate myself on these matters as well as to open a dialogue that does not include straw man characterization or vilification, I have been reading up and trying to understand this obsession with protesting in parks and the encampment aspect of OWS protests.

Let's look at what the ACLU has to say about First Amendment Rights, with a Tennessee example:

I probably earlier said that people don't have the right to protest in parks, or something of that nature. That was wrong. They do. What I meant, and I think I said this too, is they don't have the right to do whatever they please in parks and call it their First Amendment Rights.

I quote from this leaflet:

"PROTESTING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY

Where can I exercise my First Amendment right to pass out leaflets
or to hold a rally, march or demonstration?

Because the First Amendment protects free speech from infringement
by the government, leafleting and assembly is generally permissible
in most public areas, such as public parks, public streets and
sidewalks, and outside public buildings. These locations are commonly
known as public forums, which are generally defined as areas
that can be used for the communication of any and all views on political
and social issues.

There are three basic types of public forums:
• A traditional public forum is any area historically dedicated to
public assembly and protest, such as public streets, public parks
and public sidewalks.
• A limited public forum is public property that, while not typically
dedicated to public assembly, has been opened to expressive
activity by particular categories of people or on particular
subjects. Examples of limited public forums would be university
meeting rooms open for use by student groups or a city auditorium
open for theatrical performances.
• A non-public forum is public property that is not a traditional
public forum and that has not been opened for public expression.
Examples of non-public forums include prisons and military
bases (more information below). The government can severely
restrict public expression in a non-public forum."

So, we have established that people are protected by the First Amendment to protest collectively in public forums including parks.

However, the ACLU also says:

"Can the government place any restrictions on my right to free
expression?

Yes. The courts have consistently ruled that while the government
may not restrict the actual content of speech, it may restrict the time,
place, and manner of speech. For example, a municipality cannot
permit members of only one political party to hold rallies on the public
streets. This would be restricting speech based on its content. But
the government may prohibit political rallies from taking place at
unusual hours or from blocking pedestrian or vehicle traffic. This
would be restricting only the time, place and manner of the speech.

The courts have generally found time, place and manner restrictions
to be permissible because such regulations serve to ensure the safety
and order of the community at large. However, it is important to note
that in order to be constitutional, time, place and manner restrictions
must be content-neutral, meaning they must apply to everyone regardless
of the opinion being expressed"

So, people have the right to protest in parks. Within reason and with content-neutral basis, the government has the right to restrict "time, place, and manner."

Furthermore, what happens when citizens decide to engage in civil disobedience, a time-honored and respectable form of protest that marks many of our most poignant and meaningful protests and cries for change? The ACLU says this:

"If individuals decide to participate in civil disobedience, you should anticipate being arrested and prosecuted."

Bad grammar aside, let me ask you this, gentle reader. Why do people seem to feel that they have the right to protest in parks without any restrictions whatsoever and that if they are arrested, as expected, they can cry police conspiracy?

Furthermore, and this is more important to me, why do they feel that this is the most persuasive way of getting their issues heard? Everything I read focuses not on the issues, these are generally and summarily dismissed as simply a necessary explanation that amounts to "and by the way they're in the parks because they're protesting perceived corporate greed and economic disparity" and then the article, again and again, moves on. If their goal is awareness raising of issues, they are not succeeding. If their goal is awareness raising of park violations, they are succeeding.

There has been violence against the protestors. That is terrible and wrong and we need to rethink how we train police to deal with protests and our policies for incorporating civil disobedience into our culture. But otherwise, this doesn't really teach us much, other than some people made some bad choices.


The St. Louis Beacon says this:

"Occupy Wall Street protesters have a First Amendment right to protest in a public park, but they don't have the right to camp overnight or to physically block police officers trying to remove their tents. If officers try to forcibly remove protesters, the police may use reasonable, but not excessive force."

I think the Los Angeles situation is an example where people are trying to do it right. The protestors have been camped out for months. The City Council gave them support, and the Mayor is now giving them a deadline. The protestors are defying that deadline, and have taken it to court. The general consensus with constitutional experts is that their demands will not be satisfied as they have no legal basis. However, they seem to be trying to do it right. Similarly, the police have consistently said they are doing everything they can to avoid violence and to avoid going in and removing people, being concerned for the welfare of the protestors and of the homeless population amidst the protestors. In another article from CBS News, Cmdr. Andrew Smith said ""We're going to do this as gently as we possibly can. Our goal is not to have anybody arrested. Our goal is not to have to use force."" Likewise, protestors have said that they expected to be in jail already. Such is the fate of civil disobedience. Jail can be expected, violence should not.

I hope that this ends well. I hope that they all continue patient and legal avenues of dialogue. I hope that OWS comes up with a  better plan than 'let's see how long we can stay in the parks'. Because that plan seems meaningless, wasteful, destructive (sapping and wasting the energy, not building it, in my opinion, of all those frustrated, angry people who want to make a difference so that the movement burns out with a bad reputation rather than a useful and purposeful change with a positive reputation) - and obviously terminal. It has to be.

I suppose my irritation is not just that they are "occupying" anything (although again I am philosophically opposed both to this rhetoric and to these actions), but that they are making it about their right to be in parks, and almost nothing else. I really wish that all this collective energy were funneled into something tangible. Imagine if all this energy came together in focused ways... people all over the place finding innovative ways to make actual reform, in education, in business, in social exchange, in banking, in corporations, in politics, in legal aspects, in short, in policy. 

What's NEXT?

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

What Has Occupy Wall Street Accomplished?

These are some of the claims I have been reading lately about what OWS has accomplished in the past two months. Please let me know your thoughts.


1. ECONOMIC AWARENESS.
Do you agree that this movement has really and truly put economic inequality at the "heart" or "front page" of "national discourse" and that the rhetoric of 1% and 99% is effective, useful, correct, and intelligent? Do you agree that such rhetoric has become a "permanent part of political discourse"?

2 PUBLIC EDUCATION
Do you agree that OWS has itself called attention to issues of student loans, tuitions for public universities, and do you agree that OWS has "inspired President Obama" to try to ease the loan burdens? I agree that he has and wants to. Do you agree that it was because of OWS? Does evidence support this?

3. POLITICAL PRESSURE
Do you feel that anyone anywhere feels "political pressure" of any kind based on OWS activities and camp-outs, that have effected policy of any kind? Particularly, as has been claimed, the delay, again at the level of the President, on building the Keystone XL pipeline?

4 HOUSING ISSUES
Do you really believe as has been claimed, and is there evidence, that OWS has "inspired" a vaguely described "wide variety of actions" that aim to prevent foreclosures, evictions, and to help home owners?

5. EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Do you agree that OWS has at a national level, at a specific policy level, or at the level of a general audience, drawn attention in any way whatsoever to school closings, and any particular or general educational reform policies?

6. LABOR MOVEMENT
Do you agree that the OWS movements have provided rhetoric and energy to protect collective bargaining agreements against attacks? Here I can somewhat and to a limited point agree.

7 POLICE BRUTALITY
Do you agree that OWS has drawn attention to the militarization of police forces in large urban areas? I think we can agree on that. But has it, as is claimed, therefore drawn a great deal of attention from the treatment of police against largely white protestors, to the situation of lower socioeconomic based people of color in urban areas or is that a huge leap to make? (not the reality of the police violence itself, but the idea that people have demonstrated a link or that the general public sees a link or even pays that much attention to all this - my experiences show that actually the people focusing on the violence are largely the victims of it)

Please do respond because these are the claimed list of accomplishments and I disagree with all of them.

The OWS Claim to Moral Superiority

I will develop this post more when I recollect my mind, for exploded in a kaleidoscope of color against the backdrop of my office walls this morning.

Several people at a particular university in the Northeast of our country have been posting passionate scripts, messages, statuses, links to articles, links to notes, and photos, etc., on Facebook and elsewhere. Nearly every day there is something from them that almost singlehandedly prevents me from supporting OWS. ATTITUDE.

Now I saw that one of them, an educated and accomplished professor, and a decent writer, and clearly a man to respect and admire, and I do, has published a piece urging OWS not to vote for Obama because like all leaders his administration has had to balance those on the far left with those on the far right, and those in the middle. Okay he didn't put it like that, he put it like the Secretary of Education under Obama has given control to Microsoft etc. The author calls Obama one of the 1%ers, and that as OWS is the "conscience" of the Progressives, they should lead by not re-electing Obama.

There are so many things wrong with his piece, in my opinion, and so many ways I disagree with him, I don't know where to begin. I'd love it if others could respond to these ideas.

Here are a few reasons why this makes me angry. Having one or two reasons to critique a president and their administration, or even ten reasons, seems to me more justification to push for legislation, local and state and national that supports more closely what you would like to see. Primarily because this seems to not understand how politics work. Furthermore, Obama is one of the 1% financially, but certainly not politically. In the face of enormous opposition he has pushed again and again and again to pass this jobs-bill, to reform certain congressional measures, supports OWS, and has continued to fight to lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the rich. He has done things I don't agree with, bank bailouts and Bush era tax extensions to name a few, but to not elect Obama because of this or to put the focus there instead of elsewhere or to act like Obama isn't on the side of the working class and middle class is ridiculous.

But disagree with me all you like on any of those things. That's fine. But please DO NOT claim to have moral superiority and DO NOT claim to be the "conscience" of anything, much less the entire Progressive Movement.

That's really the last straw. A loose, disorganized, non-specific movement, named after Imperial policies of occupation and domination, implying the protest of a street which is only symbolic and not where corporations are and protest of an aspect of our economic structure which does not make policy, this loose 'movement' which has almost entirely consisted of people camping in parks for reasons almost no one is clear about and has given the world a distorted view of liberals, progressives and the left of center political supporters, and claims to have raised awareness although every educated liberal I have spoken to that supports OWS but is not actually protesting is doing so because it is totally unclear what it is about other than the right to party all night in public parks near urban housing, a movement vocalized by irresponsible journalists who pay attention neither to fact nor reality, a movement purporting to link itself to civil rights movements (based on what? that they also are large groups of people and a small number have been mistreated by overmilitarized police? I don't see any other similarity whatsoever), this movement is now THE CONSCIENCE of Progressives?

This is offensive on so many levels...

To name one level, I am offended by the presumption that those who support OWS are morally superior to those who do not for a myriad of reasons support or participate in OWS. That reeks of audacity without basis. There are many moral and intelligent conservatives who do not support OWS because they too feel it does not align with their own conscience. There are oodles of moral and intelligent liberals who do not support OWS because they have legitimate, practical, philosophical, and political critiques. To imply that anyone who does not jump on a bandwagon of protest is somehow less scrupulous, informed, or moral, is quite simply wrong.

Morally and intellectually and politically wrong.

Swing and a miss!

Naomi Wolf is Neither Shocking Nor True

Oh no!

Just When I Thought I Was Out..They pulled me back in...

Just when I thought I was done for the day... I read the papers..

I have been getting a lot of great responses from thoughtful, passionate, and insightful people who support OWS on this blog. They were wooing me over without knowing it, to at least support the OWS protests.

But then I read the news and got irritated all over again.

I was irritated when I read blog pieces about the destruction of books in the removal of protestors from parks. Except the books weren't destroyed (at least not entirely), no laws were broken, no one was mishandled, and the protestors were given PLENTY of warning, the removals were peaceful, and they knew the risks. I deleted that blog entry though out of respect for the intelligent people and friends/former teachers involved.

I was irritated when I saw people making the ridiculous claim that people were being allowed to camp out to shop for Black Friday but not for OWS. This is ridiculous on two fronts. First, the two things are not related. Second, people were not "occupying" camp outs for months in front of stores. Third, the OWS has been let camp out for weeks and months. This was just stupid and represents why I get irritated with OWS. They are looking for a fight and they are looking in the wrong places. Its like watching a little kid play baseball. Whiff! Swing and a miss! Basketball. Air....ball.... I want them to hit the ball, make it in the basket. I really do. But sometimes I think they're not even really trying or they're not focused enough to hit anything (as a group not as individuals).

I was irritated to all hell when I read this piece by Naomi Wolf: which she appropriately titles "The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy." I say appropriately because its neither shocking nor true. Thus, I'm being ironic.

I was irritated by her irresponsible journalism on several fronts (and frankly surprised to see The Guardian publish such rubbish). Again, she like OWS, is seeing what she wants to see, finding what she finds, and not bothering to acknowledge reality, facts, or to direct her frustrations appropriately.  My response to her article, shared with me by an avid OWS supporter, was that her calls for reform were fine, but her rhetoric was completely over the top and loaded with unjustified conspiracy theories.  Problems with her argument included logic, reason, and practicality. And facts.

But of course she said what some people wanted to hear, what some people fear is true, and so it was treated briefly as if it were true.

One of her problems was treating the world the way a freshman in college might (despite being a published well-known author and feminist writing for The Guardian): she blamed on an interlinked vast conspiracy between The Government, The Media, The Corporations, The Congress. The Police. Do I really have to spell out the obvious evidence that none of these entities function well as a streamlined, coherent, top-to-bottom interlinked agency? "Congress" is to blame? Can you be a little more specific than that? Isn't there legislation being considered that attempts to improve at least some of the problems? The Government? Is she saying President Obama is part of a New World Order personally ordering the police to brutalize protestors in a coordinated effort to "crackdown" on a movement he has lent warm support to. Really?

So then came better responses than mine and things like this, Corey Robin's response, and, even better, Joshua Holland's response, which I highly recommend for further thinking on these issues. Naomi Wolf came along and fanned fires that weren't there and I think a lot of this is going on in relation to this movement. I am delighted that people are energized and passionate and want to do something and talk about things on raise awareness on certain things. But it doesn't help when it is vague, misdirected, and untrue.

She makes hugely unsupported, factually erroneous, fan-flaming claims (coordinated crackdown effort, level of DHS involvement, publication of a story on alternet that was never published, back-door shadowy police conspiracies) that are riotous. If she were writing an essay for a college composition course she would fail the essay or the course or both. But instead she got international attention and support from The Guardian - no trivial thing in the world of journalism. I have no problem with the publication of dissenting opinions; I have problem with the publication in a respectable newspaper of an article claiming truth and facts regarding things that are neither.

I would hope we would be more suspicious in the future about the idea that anything is "coordinated". First because its unlikely, second because its impractical, third because there's no particular evidence, but fourth, and this is what really gets me - perspectives like this that claim to have insider knowledge and insights and special information about conspiracies - they show no particular understanding of the psychology and politics of power.

So ultimately, whiff! Air.... ball. The critique, the light shed on policies, actions, philosophies, and procedure, goes nowhere. Way to drop the ball...

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!

Letter to Chase Bank

Paula's Letter to Chase Bank 

(sent October 2011)

Dear Chase Bank

I am writing you to say to please stop sending me requests to "come back to Chase". Two and 1/2 years ago, you raised my credit card rate up to 19% from a manageable 9.95%. I don't know why you would do this to the good customer I am. I have a remarkably excellent credit rating, consistent employment history, and a decent income. I had never been late in paying. So, the only reason I could come up with is that you need more money. If that is the case, please go to Congress for welfare, because I can't personally afford to support you. I have a daughter in College who just had her Pell Grant cut and I need to money to support her. When you do visit congress, please ask them to help our colleges in California. Maybe, and then just maybe then, we can consider a reconciliation.

In the meantime, please stop sending me these requests in the mail, to "come back". It's over Chase Bank

It's over between us. Stop stalking me

Sincerely,

Paula

This Land is My Land, This Land is Your Land..

If you don't like it, move to another country.

"Otherwise quit complaining and move to a country that supports socialism."

Read more:

"By definition wouldn't "Un-Occupy America" be equivalent to saying, "Leave America?" Great! Then get the hell out!" Read more

And the OWS protestors and supporters are saying it too. Back and forth people are telling each other that if they disagree with each other not only are they stupid and wrong but they should go live somewhere else.

I want people on any side to STOP SAYING THIS RIGHT NOW!! It is un-American, un-kind, and unintelligent.
 

I'm serious I will turn this car around RIGHT NOW if you don't play nice.

I want everyone to STOP telling each other to go live in a different country. I want everyone to STOP with this "us vs them" mentality!

There are sites all over Facebook, all over blogs, all over the internets, all over everywhere - where people are talking about how stupid the other side is and how they want to protest the other side for protesting them. Yes that's good. Because what we need now is more insults, more clashing, more division, and virtual uncivil war against each other. We haven't had enough chaos and suffering and violence. Let's turn it on ourselves now.

What is the end goal exactly?

I thought the whole point of America was that we value living beside people who share different ideas.

I live amongst people with different values, beliefs, politics, lifestyles, and even when they've pissed me off, and I mean drove me nuts, it never occurred to me that they, or I, should move to another country. I just thought maybe we shouldn't have barbecues together. And then I changed my mind about that too because even the people I work with who are the most different from me, well we can get together and have a laugh because we found things we shared in common despite our differences.

I want to make it clear that this blog is titled UnOccupy America NOT to unoccupy America from the OWS supporters or the antisupporter supporters, the protestors of protestors of protestors. It is called UnOccupy America because I think "occupying" anything implies Imperialism, violence, and domination.

By truly unoccupying America, we would create a more just and egalitarian society, we would not be at war at home or abroad, and we would have to give serious compensation and conversation to the Native Americans whose lands we've occupied and African Americans who we forced to occupy lands we occupied. No? Too lefty-radical for you?

Well then OWS supporters, think of another slogan and fast. Anti-OWS supporters, get your heads out of your asses. I would like to live in a civil society of mutual respect of all citizens, from those with whom we bbq or share our passions our dreams and our ideals, to those whom we do not understand, cannot comprehend, and who make us rant and rave in our kitchens. But then we leave our kitchens and enter the great playing field of a free and moral and tolerant society of all kinds of people from all kinds of places and we live together.

Now, let's play nicely please.

The New Revolution

Here's the thing about a revolution, a revolving object returns to what it once was. Is that the goal of OWS?

The OWS "movement" seems to be using the model of 1960s civil rights and counter culture protests. However, unlike the civil rights protests, and much more like the counter culture protests, OWS lacks unity, direction, or goals. The goals seem to be an end in themselves: to protest.

Nevermind that nobody knows what they are protesting in most cases or what they want to change specifically other than the world becoming a nicer place to live for everyone on it. Which of course makes me a cranky citizen for criticizing them for it, I know.

I think it is clear that OWS needs to rethink what little "strategy" it has, that is to say the sum of their "strategy" is to "occupy" places around the world and draw upon that energy.

The pointlessness and aimlessness of these strategies are understandably driving myself and others batty. Mostly me though.

However, what's more important right now than my general irritation level as a cranky citizen, is that OWS supporters rethink themselves what they are doing and how.

The 1960s and 1970s models of sit-ins and counter culture did produce something. The 1980s. The height of Republican Utopia. Top three candidates for "best president ever" according to most Republicans includes Lincoln and often Bush but almost always is topped out by Reagan.

Is that what we mean by Revolution? We want to do the same things and have the same results, revolving right back to where we started?

Or do we want to do different things with different results? To be radical, to change the game, one must change the game-plan and the method. I'm not saying these protests will produce the 1980s, but what I'm saying is that they will be more persuasive and get a lot more done if they don't focus on being loose and directionless and if they mis-color the nature of the protests by the style of their protests.

First, that means having a plan. A radical plan. A specific plan. Or is the radicality the lack of plan?

Second, that means clarifying the plan and drawing awareness to it. Right now OWS is drawing awareness to itself and NOT THE ISSUES.  Let me repeat that because I think this is a serious problem, TO ITSELF NOT THE ISSUES. How many people know what's going on other than some kids getting maced in the face and people camping in tents and complaining about rich people? This isn't just a problem of citizens not paying attention. This is a problem of not knowing themselves what OWS is about, why, what they hope to do, and several key examples, long term and short term that they hope to change, affect, develop, and implement.

I could be wrong about this as some of our interviewees suggest. But I'm still irritated.

Third, this means rethinking the format of the protest. It seems to me outdated to focus on "occupying" anything. That's not practical, helpful, safe, clean, beneficial, or forward-thinking. The ways of the 1960s and 1970s aren't ideal to the ways of the 2010s. Forty and fifty years later, can we not choose better formats for our protests? Better organized, more powerful formats? I don't see radical thinking here and this is what troubles me. I see people doing the same old thing expecting different results.

Is anyone helped by NOT having a specific, or even close to a set of specific, goal, beliefs, plans? Is anyone helped by doing things the old way? Is anything helped that most people don't understand what the issues are that OWS supposedly wants to change or draw attention to.

I really don't think so.

If this is the "beginning" of something, what is it the "beginning" of? What's next?

How did other social movements begin? Consider civil rights, women's rights, gay rights. What stands out to me as different is that people took brave and decided, purposeful and intentional measures that were aimed at something and that risked violence, the passivity was the key.

The silent protest of students and professors lining up while the UC Davis Chancellor Katehi walked to her car after watching videos of students being pepper-sprayed in the face was a thing of beauty. It was powerful, poignant, and meaningful. That protest and the form of protest, made sense and had purpose.

Non-violent, silent, intentional and organized. The demonstration essentially aimed to shamed Katehi in the eery shame that silence can bring, and draw attention to the elaborate difference between the silent student protest and the pepper-spray violence of the police in full riot gear she inflicted upon the students 'for the safety of students'.

ANYWAY, this is a way of saying, yes other movements (not all) MAY have started out messy, but they had clear purpose. So perhaps once source of irritation for me is the ineffectualness of a group of people that have NEITHER organization nor purpose. Why does it irritate me? Because when lots of people get pissed off and actually want to do something about it, but put all that initial energy into something that has no goal or organization its going to flop like a fish out of water, and expire.

I'm not pissed off that people want change. I'm pissed off that people don't want change enough. Enough to go about it differently, think differently, get organized for chrissakes. Get off the lawn and get organized!!

Do it differently, be creative, show invention and innovation, be radical. Be new! Be persuasive.

One concern is that these protests will do nothing, change nothing, and fizzle like the "don't buy gas on Tuesday" crowd that essentially critiques and tries to organize a slap in the face at large corporations and a way of life. However, they don't make an actual difference or change people's fundamental way of life.

Does anyone even care? Or is the point of the movement to burn out, having made no difference whatsoever other than making progressives look crazy, weak, and disorganized? We already do that sufficiently well in the House of Representatives.

I am tired of disorganized protest. Groups on the left have historically been so difficult to organize, and such a challenge to focus toward a common goal with any direction. Its why we lose elections. Its why conservative think tanks and republican news "speak" is able to define moral principles, define what is newsworthy, and spin most of the news effectively (if not truthfully) to most of America.

I wish for once the left would stop embarrassing itself. It isn't enough to simply sit outside and feel good about the people sitting next to you and cry for change.

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.