OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Cin]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

I found this sentence to be very concerning, I think it says so much about the issues of divisiveness. Who Is ordinary? The middle class mostly white? Because poor and homeless white and poc have been under employed and subjected to daily violence. It is a huge valley to cross to see that the 1% is using the military and the police to support the criminalization of the poor. Pitting the middle class against the poor is a great tool of the majority. We have seen it over and over divide and conquer. I do not want to go back to how it was, that leaves to many people out and for me that is the real issue. Class war is happening within the OWS as it does in every other movement. the 99% have different needs that is why there is not one point, there is no universal narrative.

You say you don’t want to go back to how it was because it leaves too many people out. But I don’t think we have ever left how it was. There is dialogue. A lot more than there ever has been. But we have yet to leave how it is behind. We may, as things get progressively worse, but as it stands now, there is still a great divide of misunderstanding between the poor and the middle class. All that has changed that I see so far is there is no longer much difference economically speaking between the poor and the working class. I don’t mean to imply there is no financial difference if you are employed or unemployed. However, if you are counted in that unfortunate group labeled unskilled laborer then you will not earn enough to significantly improve your living conditions regardless that you are employed. Logically speaking if one is employed then one is at least working class and one should be closer economically speaking to the middle class than to the poor. However, that is not the truth of it. Many people who are employed are earning at or below the poverty line. So the employed are found in significant numbers among the poor.

For clarity I will explain how I am using certain terminology. When I say middle class or working class or poor I am talking about economic ability, earning power. I know in the past blue collar worker and working class were used synonymously as were white collar worker and middle class. However, someone who is considered a blue collar worker can easily fall into the middle class financially speaking, just as some white collar office worker can financially be defined as working class. I think unskilled, skilled and professional are a more financially relevant way of understanding the various economic classes as opposed to using old fashioned jargon that really speaks to social class differences. (For the record my use of these terms are in no way an endorsement of them. It pisses me off to even say unskilled laborer. Who the hell decides what work has value anyway? But that’s really another argument for another time.) Logically unskilled laborers make up the largest portion of the working class when speaking about earning potential. Skilled and professional would make up most of the middle and upper middle class. I imagine they would also make up the 1%. The poor include the unemployed who, while a significant portion come from the unskilled laborer class, can include any and all categories of worker. More and more skilled and professional people can count themselves among the unemployed. And as time without an income passes they edge ever closer to poor. Poverty no longer respects social status. If that continues and more and more of the middle and upper middle class experience a diminished capacity for economic advancement and begin to suffer fear of poverty then it will no longer make sense for a decimated middle class to be at odds with the poor. But as it stands most of the divide still remains strong.

What that means to me is that there are still a significant number of people left who are financially secure enough to believe that working slowly for change within the system will be enough. A tweak here and there and see how it works. No need to rush. No need to make too many changes too fast. They still believe the system at its core works and any change needed is merely aesthetic. A bit of cosmetic work on a program or two, a mere surface adjustment here and there and we are good to go. That belief may change as time does not heal the gaping wounds in our economic system.

For now there are still any number of people who are, at the moment, economically safe enough to make judgments about the poor and the working class. These advantaged believe that if the disadvantaged had taken more personal responsibility, made good use of the opportunities afforded them in a free society they wouldn’t be in the mess they are in. They judge because they believe it is some personal characteristic or some inherent superiority that defines them and separates them from those who are poor. It is something about them intrinsically and not some accident of birth that has allowed them to acquire what they have. It is this natural superiority born of brains or talent or simple initiative, but never just plain luck, that assures these advantaged will never have to work at low paying, soul crushing jobs. They will never be at the mercy of employment that leaves them physically and emotionally drained without supplying adequate compensation to allow for a life in an environment that is relatively safe and clean. They will continue to believe this until it is no longer economically feasible for them to do so.

There are still a good number of people who are financially advantaged enough to believe that while you shouldn’t have to starve or live in the street braving the elements, you needn’t have an opportunity to actually live comfortably. It’s enough to be warm and to have something to eat. You don’t deserve the right to choose healthy food or a clean, safe environment. To earn that right you need to have taken personal responsibility. I’m not sure how going to work every day doing a job that exists, therefore must need doing, even though this is not reflected in the ridiculous hourly wage earned, is not taking personal responsibility. Or how losing a job and not being able to find another in a devolving economy can speak to one’s ability to take or not take personal responsibility.

I wish I could live in a society where simply doing the best job you can at whatever work you can get entitles you to live a decent life. A society where all workers have value and all work is important. Not equal of course. Human beings can’t handle that. But of enough value that you get a decent wage so that you can support a family if you have one and live a life that allows for security, personal growth and a few toys.

But right now there still exists plenty of people who are economically advantaged enough to imagine they have the right to judge who is or is not choosing to work. They fancy themselves able to discern another’s motives or reasons behind their unemployment. They believe if you want to work but there are no jobs or you are disabled and can’t work then you should be allowed the bare minimum that would allow your survival, but if you choose not to work too bad for you. The scary part of this is who gets to decide if a human being is purposely choosing not to work? I doubt anyone is announcing a preference for sitting on their ass all day. Although allow me the opportunity at this time to point out that there is a large segment of society, most especially those with large, and I mean really large, excruciatingly large paychecks, who actually do sit on their ass all day. They are performing that all important and extremely meaningful professional labor we hear about. The kind of labor that those willing to take personal responsibility, those who take the initiative and have motivation and drive have earned the right to do simply by their own strong character, ambition and personal achievement (money to pay for education and powerful connections might help a tad). So when they sit on their ass all day it is a virtue.

The thing is that this belief that one has earned one’s right to excessive financial superiority over others doesn’t end well for anybody. Except possibly the 1%. Because as resources dwindle those of you who believe your positions are secure, your superiority is evident and your value as a integral part of this society unquestionable may be in for a rude awakening. The 1% sees no connection between what the rest of society has accomplished and the riches they have amassed. When you see the world like that no one is of any value.

If things continue to deteriorate then more people will be forcibly torn from their positions of financial superiority. We will hear less and less about taking personal responsibility and choosing or not choosing to be unemployed. We are likely to hear more about an equal distribution of the wealth. We will probably hear less about giving the poor a warm place to lay their heads and a little food and a free clinic here and there and more about needing decent paying jobs and healthcare for all. We may start to hear more mainstream conversations about constructing a government that works for the people not just for a small number of rich.

I don’t think we get what we want by asking politely for the 1% to make room for us at the table. They are not likely to just get a conscience. I haven’t noticed history books filled with stories of the rich and powerful relinquishing their control over the masses just because they were asked nicely. Or even admonished gruffly. You have to make them let go. There are non-revolutionary ways to do this. But in the end it’s not just up to the 99% to decide how this is going to go down.

And perhaps there is not a universal narrative but if there were it might be simply that we want to live our lives in a fair and just society that allows for equity of treatment for all members, the right to be financially secure, to always have access to healthcare and to be ruled by a government of the people and for the people, that has the interests of all the people and the future of our world at the forefront of all its decisions.

[SoNotHer]

If I think about the school bully who wanted not only his lunch but my lunch as well, then I understand how and why this changes.

The thing about bullies is that they are actually really quite scared inside, which makes their footing at the momentary top of the heap and uneasy and precarious.

So yes, we need to confront the bully, and that is already happening. But let's not just confront the bully. Let's level the heap.

There are countries with far more social justice and economic stability than our own. It's time to be something other than an decaying empire full run by bullies with clubs. It's time for us to transition to a country that understands the wealth, importance and unique contributions of ALL its people and acts on that understanding.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

... I don’t think we get what we want by asking politely for the 1% to make room for us at the table. They are not likely to just get a conscience. I haven’t noticed history books filled with stories of the rich and powerful relinquishing their control over the masses just because they were asked nicely. Or even admonished gruffly. You have to make them let go. There are non-revolutionary ways to do this. But in the end it’s not just up to the 99% to decide how this is going to go down.

[AtLast]

A possible first victory of this movement is that Bank of America (and others) are now pulling back with attempting to collect extra ATM/debit card fees from customers. B of A is saying it "heard the people."

Guess we will have to see what the Oakland general strike does today. I'm off to check it out a little later.

[Cin]

Today, thousands of Oakland residents are participating in a general strike to protest last week’s police brutality and to draw attention to the economic inequality that the 99 Percent are protesting. Numerous local businesses have shuttered their doors in solidarity, and Mayor Jean Quan has even allowed most city employees to take part in the strike if they choose to.

As a part of a day of actions, hundreds of demonstrators shut down a local Citibank chapter. Not only did the demonstrators engage in mass demonstrations outside, but they unfurled a banner laying out some of the megabank’s misdeeds. Here’s some photos from the demonstration that forced the local Citibank to shut its doors:









Apparently Wells Fargo, Comerica, and a Chase bank were shut down as well.





Following several speakers, protesters took to the streets, marching to the state building and the local banks, chanting, "We are the 99 percent." Marching bands led the group, and a flash mob danced to "I Will Survive." Protesters stopped outside of the federal building, chanting and singing.

Due to the highly publicized nature of the strike, most of the downtown businesses had closed in preparation. However, Occupiers found Comerica Bank on 12 Street and Broadway open, and quickly surrounded the doors, forcing the branch to close. Protesters then moved on to a nearby Bank of America, forcing that branch to close, as well.

As of 12:30 p.m., the Oakland protest remained peaceful with no police in sight, while more and more demonstrators joined the marches. Organizers announced plans to march to the Port of Oakland at 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. in an attempt to shut down the port and disrupt the flow of commerce. The organizers originally announced that the port had closed in solidarity with the strike on Wednesday morning, but those reports turned out to be false.

Thousands of protesters are expected to join the marches to the port on Wednesday night. At the daytime march, organizers read the phone number to the Occupy Oakland legal team over a loudspeaker, encouraging protesters to copy it in case of arrest.

[Toughy]

I was down there (Occupy Oakland) and it's more like thousands of people...not hundreds. I can't imagine how big it's gonna get after folks get off work. A very mixed crowd in terms of age and probably about 30-40% POC. It really had a festival/block party feel to it. 2 different stages for speakers......lots of music and drumming , some chanting and free food. The local small businesses in City Center that serve food were all busy as hell also. You couldn't find a cop if you needed one....they were blocks away and very few of them......tons of media folks.

I truly hope they are very very careful going to the Oakland Port........they will be fucking with Homeland Security, Customs, Coast Guard and those people do not play. OPD will be in full force down there also. The last time a protest went to the Port was 2003 (anti-war) and that ended up being truly ugly...way worse than last week.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I was down there (Occupy Oakland) and it's more like thousands of people...not hundreds. I can't imagine how big it's gonna get after folks get off work. A very mixed crowd in terms of age and probably about 30-40% POC. It really had a festival/block party feel to it. 2 different stages for speakers......lots of music and drumming , some chanting and free food. The local small businesses in City Center that serve food were all busy as hell also. You couldn't find a cop if you needed one....they were blocks away and very few of them......tons of media folks.

I truly hope they are very very careful going to the Oakland Port........they will be fucking with Homeland Security, Customs, Coast Guard and those people do not play. OPD will be in full force down there also. The last time a protest went to the Port was 2003 (anti-war) and that ended up being truly ugly...way worse than last week.

Yes, the articles I posted did say thousands. Twice. The only reference to hundreds was "hundreds of demonstrators shut down a local Citibank chapter." Not that the whole demonstration was only hundreds of people.

Sounds like it was awesome.

I hope there isn't any trouble at the Port.

[SoNotHer]

I like this line and ballot initiative:

"End Corporate Rule: Legalize Democracy"

http://movetoamend.org/news/boulder-...ate-personhood

Boulder, Colorado Occupies the Ballot Box and Calls for End to “Corporate Personhood”

Ground Breaking Ballot Measure Calls for Constitutional Amendment

BOULDER, CO – Last night Boulder became the second city in the nation to pass a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would state that corporations are not people and reject the legal status of money as free speech. At midnight, with 93% of the ballots counted, the measure was handily winning with 74% of voters in support.

Boulder’s campaign is the latest grassroots effort by Move to Amend, a national coalition working to abolish corporate personhood. “From Occupy Wall Street to Boulder, Colorado and every town in between, Americans are fed up with corporate dominance of our political system,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a national spokesperson for Move to Amend. “Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government lying down. We urge communities across the country to join the Move to Amend campaign and raise your voices.”

Earlier this year voters in Madison and Dane County, Wisconsin overwhelmingly approved similar measures calling for an end to corporate personhood and the legal status of money as speech by 84% and 78% respectively. Next week voters in Missoula, Montana will have an opportunity to vote on a similar initiative in their community. Move to Amend volunteers in dozens of communities across the country are working to place similar measures on local ballots next year.

“Today’s ‘corporate personhood’ referendum in Boulder, Colorado is the latest message from the American people to state and federal legislators on the need for a Constitutional Amendment,” said Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD). “The Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens’ United ruling burst open the floodgates of corporate spending in our elections, but it also unleashed a wave of public outcry over the need to put individuals, not corporations, in control of our elections. The results from today are just one example that we must take action to protect our treasured democracy.”

Edwards introduced a bill last month for a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the controversial Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

“Working on this campaign was electrifying,” said Scott Silber, a local Move to Amend organizer in Boulder. “We had such an outpouring of enthusiasm from our community. Folks were so thrilled to finally have an opportunity to have their voices heard and resoundingly call for an end to corporate corruption of our democracy. From here we’re taking the campaign to Denver, and then on to Washington, DC.”

Move to Amend’s strategy is to pass community resolutions across the nation through city councils and through direct vote by ballot initiative. “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress from the grassroots. The American people are behind us on this and our federal representatives will see that we mean business. Our very democracy is at stake,” stated Sopoci-Belknap.

For a complete list of all resolutions passed to date see: http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map.