iMax—There is a great deal of calumniation going on.  A Florida Congressmen has stated that the Occupation has ‘links’ to the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party.  (He somehow failed to mention the Mafia, the KKK and Satan.)  Provocateurs, saboteurs, spies, informers, and imaginative propagandists will be employed.  The fallacy of composition will be especially hard worked.  To any activist who had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement or the various anti-war movements, or indeed anyone who has ever seriously challenged established power and authority, it will all be very familiar.  See Matthew 5:11.

Anarcissie, - You’re funny, iMax.

-

I have my moments. I was also able to articulate what I’ve seen in the mix of OWS protests. Obviously you were not persuaded.

If it interests you you may wish to read the following as further examples of what I originally wrote prior to this data being released.

-

Douglas Schoen warns White House: Don’t back ‘Occupy Wall Street’

“Schoen presents what he touts is probably “the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion,” including data that he says demonstrates the fact that the protesters represent “an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence”

“Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?KEYWORDS=douglas+schoen

You’re funny, iMax.  Post some ‘deceptions’ and we’ll see what we can make of them.  You do know what a deception is, right?

Anarcissie,

Exactly what public office are you running for? You seem well trained in the art of rhetorical deception. LOL

Tell you what, if you can locate your own answers paste them in reply.

iMax—Read what I wrote.

Anarcissie,

I have two direct questions.

Is it possible that the difference(s) in today’s OWS protests and past like-minded protests has more to do with you and not the actual issues, presentations or demands?  If not, how do today’s protests differ from the past?

iMax—If you’re going to tell me what my perceptions and mental states are, you don’t need me in the conversation, do you?

Anarcissie, - “As before, you seem to have a lot of trouble with simple logic.”

-

Let’s call things what they are. Also, can we have this discussion while standing as adults with differing points of view?

The simple fact is you’re unable to articulate your objection to my original post and you find yourself frustrated. While I feel for your unenviable position I’m tired of people not answering direct questions when the answers fail to support their original contention.

Making the conversation a personal attack against me is weakness on display.  If you can speak to what makes today’s protests different why not simply do that?

IMax, October 17 at 9:00 pm:

‘... So, what you’re saying is, you are unable to articulate any significant or extraordinary examples of what makes today’s OWS protests stand out. ...’

Well, yes, if what I say is the opposite of what I say, or something like that.  As before, you seem to have a lot of trouble with simple logic.

Douglas Schoen warns White House: Don’t back ‘Occupy Wall Street’

“Schoen presents what he touts is probably ‘the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion,’ including data that he says demonstrates the fact that the protesters represent an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances (1/3 of respondents), violence”

Anarcissie,

You’ve never seen ‘horizontalism’ on the street before?  That’s quite an experimental game of dodge-ball you play…LOL…...Is this what I can expect each time you’re asked direct questions?

So, what you’re saying is, you are unable to articulate any significant or extraordinary examples of what makes today’s OWS protests stand out. 

I’ll grant you that I may be thick.  But I’m with it enough to recognize your “superfluous” reply to me original comment (smile).

iMax—I have never seen ‘horizontalism’ on the street before.  That’s quite an experimental venture.

There does seem to be a great effort to suborn the movement, yes.  But this is not a new thing.  The Democratic Party got control of the main anti-war organization, UFPJ, used it against Bush, and then when Obama was elected, destroyed it.  And of course their man carried on the wars and started some new ones.

Anarcissie,

I understand your point on the “lenses” of the Main Stream Media. But I think if you are to be honest you’ll agree that turning this into your sources v mine is a dodge or an avoidance of what I’ve asked you.

I’m still curious. Aside from how you’re personally feeling about these current protests, have you found any issue, demand, demeanor, or presentation which we haven’t seen at every past like-minded protest in the last 30-40 years?

I sincerely see nothing extraordinary or unique, save one thing. Most in the Main Stream Media and democratic establishment are attempting to manufacture the energy of another “Tea” party using the unrest inherent in today’s organic protests. In fact it’s the only thing I’ve seen which everyone can agree on.

iMax—I don’t know what you’re seeing, of course.  If you’re looking at the Occupation through the mainstream media, it may well look like a lot of other things.  I haven’t bothered with the MSM in twenty-odd years, so I’m no authority, but if they’re like they used to be, then what you see are stock characters, stock situations, and stock events.  Greece = burning car, or is that France?  Or Borneo?  Also, you may have an extremely conservative or right-wing point of view, from which any sort of leftish activism whatever looks equally repulsive and evil.  As a child, I had relatives who couldn’t distinguish ideologically between Stalin, John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, so I’m somewhat familiar with that view of things.

In any case, I’m sure the Occupation is constantly changing. I haven’t been down there in a while; once the celebrities and television cameras showed up, I figured I was superfluous.  So maybe it does look like one of the big anti-war demonstrations now, even up close and personal.  Too bad if so.  That’s not what I hear, though.

gerard,

I’ve looked over some of your more recent posts on various topics.  You’re an interesting sort.

You write below that those who criticize the fact that each year that passes nearly Three Million high school graduates can’t read at the 6th grade level should be dismissed as maniacs.  These “maniacs” include millions of parents, millions of children, and hundreds of thousands of hard working, well meaning, highly educated charter school educators.

You denigrate those who feel and see the world differently then move seamlessly, mindlessly, into odd diatribes on how people fail to come together.

You wrote something below about getting a grip.  Perhaps if you begin practicing what you whine about?  As it stands your calls for dialog and understanding ring completely false and nearly useless.

Your many posts on this site reveal that you’re very kind to people who agree with you.

Lead by example, gerard.

IMax:  A couple ideas for your consideration:

” come together and share ideas”—That’s presuming those who come together have any ideas. Many don’t, and that’s a fact, sad but true.

“evil cartoon characters”- Not all of them are evil.

“If you come to pieces… “- Don’t hold your breath.

About how “everyone should come together and share ideas”  Many have no ideas, unfortunately, but they should still try to come togoether for the sake of
keeping the peace.  If they have a desire to hear about new ideas while they are at it, so much the better. You can lead a horse to water ....

“There was nothing in your post regarding Public Education being diverted toward today’s protests that could be construed as jest…” Hey!  I said nothing about Public Education being “diverted toward today’s protests..”  For Pete’s sake, get a grip!

Once more with feeling, I’ll try to arouse your sense of humor:
1.  The radical right criticizes public education often and with animosity.  Right or wrong?
2.  The Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, and their State affiliates share responsibility for public education and allocate considerable money for it.  Right or Wrong?
3. The right wing considers much of that money wasted or misspent.  Right or Wrong?
4. I contended that Occupy Wall Street had done more public education in 30 days than the government departments, and for that reason the government should send Occupy Wall Street some payment for their excellent services. Right or Wrong?
5. Is there one chance in a million that that will happen?  No. So I must have been joking. R or W?
6.  Since you didn’t seem to see the funny side, and got upset,  I wrote again telling you I was kidding.  Right or Wrong?
7.  I was kidding! Take my word for it.

redteddy:  “...a meeting at such an early date when the movement hasn’t yet threatened said system”—

Note:  Working for reasonable solutions is always easier the earlier—that is, before threatening or any other attempt to coerce your opponent.

gerard,

My mistake in engaging you directly. You come off as reasonable and patient when trading views with those who see most things your way.  You write of all others as if they’re evil cartoon characters.  It’s common, yet still odd. - You then go on to write about how everyone should come together and share ideas.

There was nothing in your post regarding Public Education being diverted toward today’s protests that could be construed as jest. On that thread you went on to defend and expand on the idea.

If some Tea advocate suggested the very same, in jest or otherwise, you would very likely point to the lunacy on display.

Seriously. If you come to pieces when faced with direct questions regarding your views nothing can be accomplished.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/theres_something_happening_here_20111013/#432225

@gerard

You too get lost in literalism as you didn’t understand when you responded with “it
isn’t ‘my’ meeting I’m proposing”.  I never thought it as being ‘your’ meeting but
an OWS meeting you are placing hopes upon to lead to some kind of cooperation
between the financial sector and OWS.  My point is that this meeting can be
instructive but only if met with the deepest suspicion, highlighting the inherent
pretense that anything can come of such a meeting at such an early date when the
movement hasn’t yet threatened said system.  How can you believe such a change
or even literal understanding come from such a meeting?

IMax:  It seems to me your problem is what is called “literalism.”  You misconstrue what you read because you lack the imagination to catch more than the obvious meaning in statements.  You do not “get” ambiguity.  This means it is easy for you to misunderstand what you read.

My remark (something to the effect that the Department of Education should pay Occupy Wall Street for doing a bang-up job of public education, making up for the many lapses of same on the part of said much-maligned Department—maligned especially by right wing critics, home-schoolers, charter enthusiasts and other (maniacs, in my book)—that was a jibe meant in jest.
  Most people would recognize it as such, I think.  If not, devil take the hindmost! They have missed the boat.

Anarcissie,

I understood from your posts that you feel something is different in the OWS protests. So I asked if you thought it possible that the difference is in you. To be honest, other than this being primary election news coverage, I’ve seen no new signage, verbiage or coverage in the past three weeks which we’ve not all seen many times before.

Which sign or sentiment seen today differs from, say, these protests?  Is there anything aside from how you’re personally feeling?

—

gerard,

So your answer is no.

I always hold out the hope that more people will get past the notion that what’s fair is derived in how we may agree or disagree with a social group and their perceived grievances.

I found your post on another thread to be more than a little frightening. - Your suggestion that the U.S. Boards of Education should lend support to the OWS protesters. I gather from your posts you would not support the public school system be used to support Tea Party functions and outreach.

Would you support using Public School resources toward a Hillary Clinton bid for president in 2012? We could call it “Civics lessons”. - Can you see why your suggestion, while perhaps advantageous to you personally, is actually quite frightening?

For the love of truth, Redteddy, it isn’t “my” meeting I’m proposing.

You are right to point to possible co-optation.  I think many if not most of OWs are well aware of that possibility and will do everything they can to forestall it.  I sincerely hope so. That is so commonplace in politics these days, I can’t imagine smart young people not being aware of it. 

One answer, of course, is to give them enough support to maintain their independence without trying to prejudice them with pressures, monetary or political.

Anarchissie:  Thanks for pointing me to the Madrick article.  I hope more people like him are taking responsibility to think ahead into the cold weather
and working with Occupy people to find ways to provide indoor facilities to continue Occupy Wall Street’s 99% learning and thinking together. 
  Truth is, nobody knows “what to do” and right now the important thing is to collect input, sift possibilities, and involve in decision-making as broad a sector of the public (including the blind-sided “elites” and the “authorities.”
  A great beginning has been made.  Continuous creative thinking, practical suggestions and empathetic sharing will be necessary.  And of course, nonviolence (which is becoming, gradually, a valid modus vivendi).

I simply cannot understand why people describe Mitt Romney as a moderate. He is anything but and is a completely loyal foot soldier of the corporations as well as being one of the 1%.

“Romney is often portrayed as an old-fashioned, pro-business Republican moderate. But, in the context of modern American politics, “moderate” is a term that has been emptied of all meaning.
Romney is the moderate who wants to double the size of Guantanamo Bay and is opposed to having Muslims serve in his cabinet. He backs Arizona’s immigration law, which encourages racial profiling. He would have allowed the US to default on its debts in early August, such was the intensity of his opposition to raising the so-called debt ceiling. And his moderation didn’t prevent him from signing up to the anti-tax pledge promoted by the ultra-conservative Americans for Tax Reform, which argues for no new taxes. Ever.

The lazy logic of the Washington press corps seems to be: he isn’t Michele Bachmann, ergo, he’s a moderate. The Republicans - backed by their fanatically anti-government Tea Party outriders and the Fox News network - have succeeded in shifting the political centre of gravity so far to the right that Romney comes across as sober and mainstream.
It is an image that he and his advisers have been cultivating assiduously in recent months.

He likes to attack Obama’s economic record, but the former governor has offered few specific or convincing details of how he would kick-start growth - beyond the usual encomiums to capitalism, free enterprise and limited government. His jobs plan, unveiled to much fanfare last month, was summed up by an Associated Press headline: “Cut taxes, slap China, drill oil”. This, it seems, is the motto of modern, moderate US conservatism.

In his unbridled pursuit of power - he has been doing little else but running for president of the United States since completing his one and only term as governor in 2007 - Romney has been a master of reinvention. He rails, for example, against Obama’s health-care plan - even though it is based on his own reforms in Massachusetts.

He may have no consistent or sincere beliefs, but there is one issue on which he hasn’t budged over the past 30 years: defending the interests of the rich and powerful at all costs. Romney is the corporations’ candidate; the nominee of the 1 per cent, not the 99 per cent. Ordinary Americans deserve better.”

Medhi Hasan in ‘The New Statesman’ 12th October 2011

@gerard who wrote “Now since a couple Wall Street “financiers” have indicated
that Occupy Wall Street has a point, and that they would be willing to “have a
conversation”on relevant matters, why not make that possible by getting
opposite sides together in an orderly and broad “Assembly” of some kind “for
Understanding Democracy” or some such.  There’s money to do it, to make it
fair and comprehensive, and to publicize it widely.  It would be the first of its
kind in the world.  An innovation we could all be proud of and a learning
process for millions.”

Meanwhile on the ground reported by i Watch: “...the Obama campaign has
struggled to win support from Wall Street, which has been suspicious of his
administration’s policies and downright hostile to the Dodd-Frank financial
reforms passed last year. A report in September found that 100 Obama donors
from Wall Street have switched sides to back Romney. Obama has recruited
former New Jersey governor and current CEO of brokerage firm MF Global,  Jon
Corzine, a $500,000+ bundler in his own right, to try and shore up his New
York financial support. Corzine has already held a high-end fundraiser and
organized a secret meet-and-greet between finance executives and Obama’s
new chief of staff.”

How much you wanna bet their meeting outweighs your meeting? The financial
sector will get what it wants and will not make significant changes because they
have the money and the power and they are not being threatened in any
meaningful way.  OWS is here and its wonderful but its still early days in terms
of organizing the kind of resistance that threatens government and the financial
elites.

There is an interesting report of a visit to a tea party convention here.  Having never been to any Tea Party functions, I can’t vouch for its veraciousness or relevance, but it sounds reasonable.

Conincidentally, there is a report on a visit to the Wall Street Occupation on a linked page from the current edition of the same publication.

IMax:  The typical Tea Party intellect has little to no interest in cooperative, horizontal decision-making or study and reality-based innovation.  It is a “back-to” class of frightened people interested mainly in “private enterprise” and “rugged individualism” and thinks most poor people “deserve” to be poor, most sick people “deserve” to be die if they can’t afford private health insurance. They think taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves is “socialism.”  Sorry to say it, but more or less true if you judge from evidence. That’s not my cup of tea, and I don’t think it will carry the human race very far into the rapidly changing future made possible by—thank you very much—science and technology plus a healthy dose of empathy and moral conscience.

iMax—The reason I suggested actually visiting the Occupation (assuming you’re anywhere near New York City) is that it’s been rather different from other demonstrations and similar events I’ve attended over the last 20 or 30 years, and it’s also different from what is presented in what I’ve seen of the mass media.  It also changes continuously.  When I went down there on September 23d, there were two or three hundred people there.  I didn’t do an ethnic count, but there seemed to be a considerable variety.  There was some criticism on the Left about the Occupation, mostly students at the beginning, not drawing in other activist groups right away; on the other hand, you can imagine the right-wing hysteria that would have ensued had the revived Black Panthers or ANSWER showed up.

gerard,

I’m simply curious.  Did you call for the same orderly and broad “Assembly” of some kind “for Understanding Democracy” during the Tea Party protests? Or were you belittling and demeaning protests and protesters at that time?

Now since a couple Wall Street “financiers” have indicated that Occupy Wall Street has a point, and that they would be willing to “have a conversation”
on relevant matters, why not make that possible by getting opposite sides together in an orderly and broad “Assembly” of some kind “for Understanding Democracy” or some such.  There’s money to do it, to make it fair and comprehensive, and to publicize it widely.  It would be the first of its kind in the world.  An innovation we could all be proud of and a learning process for millions.

Anarcissie,

Is it possible you’re imposing your own views and desires on today’s OWS protesters?

I see the very same signage and verbiage in today’s gatherings which we all witnessed at the recent G20 protests, the last twenty G8 protests, the anti-war protests leading up to NATO\Libya last year, the 2002-2003 Iraq war and even the Carter initiated anti missile-defense system protests in the 1980s.

Have you noticed that these protests are made up of largely Caucasian crowds?  In 2009-10 this was a clear sign of American racism.

If you see something unique in the OWS protests I’m willing to listen.

I think it’s funny that so many people know what Occupy Wall Street should do, say, and think.

People, you didn’t accomplish anything.  They did.  Maybe it was blind luck, or maybe it was something else, but the fact remains.  My advice is to open your eyes and ears, shut your mouths, and try to learn something.

iMax—looks like you haven’t actually visited.  I recommend it.  Also I think you might want to try harder to avoid fallacies of composition.

Robespierre—Capitalists, like traditional monarchs, have power only because we give them that power.  If a movement has enough social force to win a civil war, it has enough social force to win an election.  If it has enough social force to win an election, it doesn’t need the election.  The people can organize their own cooperative and democratic institutions and walk away from their masters.  But they have to understand this, and desire it; history demonstrates that it can’t be pushed on them by an enlightened elite.

This Ketcham guy doesn’t know anything when he says:
“...The protest in Liberty Square, the protest of the Ninety-nine Percenters, is currently driven by no mere platform of demands, nor should it be. It is driven by moral outrage, as a challenge to the authority of an immoral economic system.”

Of course the protest should be driven by demands. By phrasing it with moral outrage (to an immoral economic system) he is reducing inequities down to a state where you have to sway people emotionally. This movement needs more ‘substance’ and less emotionality. The powers that be don’t want to give up their privileges (financiers and politicians) and it’s serious business to make them do it. Please march on Washington where the enablers are - why are people afraid to criticize the politicians in this movement?

Responding to a question about the protesters, the U.S. President gave an oblique endorsement when he said, “The American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that.” That would be the same rule-bending Wall Street from which Senator Obama’s 2008 campaign received more money than any other politician in world history.

The protesters themselves comprise the usual suspects: badly educated young people (“Students loans=indentured servitude,” read one sign), (“Marx Was Right,” read another), and the purveyors of various wacky conspiracy theories, like the guy whose sign links the Federal Reserve to the pyramid on the dollar bill. This mélange explains the profound ignorance of economic reality that lies behind the protesters’ complaints, right or wrong, about the “greed and corruption of the 1%.”

I wish there were something extraordinary or uncommon about today’s Wall St. protesters.  Unfortunately there is not.

When speaking of “revolution” one must keep in mind the several forms this term implies. My hope is for a nonviolent revolution that takes the form of education rather than descend into violence.

The latter plays, I believe, into the hands of the rulers of this nation, thus we see the provocative actions of the NYPD ( only a few obviously but including the ranking officers on scene) in using violence to attempt to incur a similar response.

If our brothers and sisters take the bait and respond to violence with violence the excuse is made for the overwhelmingly violent reaction and the further suspension of our civil rights.

As one who believes in the system of government as defined by our Founding Fathers, and also believes this system to be overtaken by the influence of money and usurped for the benefit of the very few at a great cost to the many, I strongly adhere to the idea that educating the electorate, combating the endless propaganda of the far right, mostly tools of those like the Koch Brothers et.al., will be the correct path of this incipient revolution we now see taking form.

“we are well beyond revolution and more attuned to evolution,” actually Mr. Lafayette, revolution and evolution go hand in hand if you read Peter Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid.”

And yes, sorry but nothing less than REVOLUTION will truly dismantle the current system and build a new society, a revolution which will cross frontiers and set the world aflame with the people building new societies.

I do not fault your timid prose, after all, what can we expect from Lafayette, the butcher who ordered the Garde Nationale to fire on demonstrators at the Champ de Mars in July 1791. Will you also train your guns on the OWS crowds if they radicalize?

Rob: your rhetoric is the kind of empty, hollow speechifying that keeps much of the movement stuck in postmodernism.

And for someone with a moniker as you have, you should know better how revolutions start. With the speehcifying and the outrage - which precipitates eventually in decapitation of the head.

And we all know what happened, after all that speechifying, to Robespierre - le Dictateur Sanguin.

Needless to say, we could use more speechifying than guillotining in the public square. Besides, more than two centuries on, we are well beyond revolution and more attuned to evolution.

But for the bloodthirsty, nothing less than revolution will do. Who lives by the guillotine shall die by the guillotine - to paraphrase.

The movement will coalesce eventually into one with political objectives - but for the moment, let’s let the boys ‘n girls have some fun in the sun - while the sun lasts, that is.

Because next year, come Spring, there is much work to be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXx-d1KkWA
I for one, have occupied the movement. Thanks for this piece. I am so inspired by these days.

Boo Hoo!  I have no friends here!

Gerard the Grand & Mighty Futurist Proclaims: “... there is much in the human future that is startlingly new and
unfamiliar, with brand new unexplored potentials.”

And behold! Doors will open & close! Persons shall come & go! Their hair shall be of this color, or that! Clouds shall pass! The sky shall be of certain colors!

And I say THIS: Nostradamus ruled before me, but NO LONGER!

... Get onto something worthwhile, dear Robespierre, as is your custom, so that meaty red rebellion, not marshmallow mush, may be served

Robespierre:  Can’t wait to see your comment on the just-put-up TD article “How to Occupy an Abstraction” by Kenzie Wark.  He is much better at articulating felt essences that I am. One small example:

“The abstraction that is the occupation is then a double one, an occupation of a place, somewhere near the actual Wall Street; and the occupation of the social media vector, with slogans, images, videos, stories. “Keep on forwarding!” might not be a bad slogan for it. Not to mention keep on creating the actual language for a politics in the space of social media.”

I rest my case in ambiguity—the middle name of human endeavors.  You “get” what I am trying to say, or you don’t, or you don’t try. We have reached the point here where we are getting drawn into arguing and accusing instead of perceiving. Enough already!

PS—History is of great value—but there is much in the human future that is startlingly new and unfamiliar, with brand new unexplored potentials. I think I see in Occupy Wall Street an encouraging amount of awareness and a desire to create new ways
to effect change for the better.

@gerard, your rhetoric is the kind of empty, hollow speechifying that keeps much of the movement stuck in postmodernism. How can you demand change within the political structure without political involvement, learn from Bolivia and the rest of South America, what we are experiencing they already experienced more than a decade ago and the result has been popular governments carrying out needed reforms with the popular street movements standing by to apply pressure.

As for “healing,” at some point the movement will have to confront some harsh realities: Capitalists do not want to compromise or heal, they want to win and monopolize. And how can you possibly harmonize left-wing, even moder New Deal liberalism with ultra-capitalist, Ayn Randish movements of the Ron Paul variety? These are questions and challenges the movement will be faced with when the initial euphoria dies down and the masses will demand a more clear, organized path to move forward or risk dissolving like the anti-globelization movement of the late 1990s.

@Gerard: You say that you wish to be “plain,”
but you write “But the times today call for views,
processes and attitudes that must get beyond
ideological strictures and learn to work with the
vast opportunities for variety and change
that the present-future is demanding.”

That’s mud laid down as though it were fine
tiles. Pomposity of that sort, wedded to
Ambiguity, cuts only one’s mind.

I know that you are always “sorry,” as you
compulsively said in the beginning of your
response, but maybe - friend (if you will or dare) 
- there is a better tactic, which is to engage as a
student, so that others may teach things to you;
& then teach, so that we can be students.

You say, often & dogmatically, that we can all
get together (or, that we should), but that would
deprive you of your identity as the one who
believes it, & of mine as one who says with Wm.
Blake, “Opposition is true friendship.”

Having read quite a large number of your posts,
Gerard, I am compelled to conclude that “unity”
of opposites is not at all what you want, & that
in fact if someone says, “Why can’t we all just
get along?,” as Rodney King asked, you would
experience a crisis.

Of course, you may continue to prefer Pablum -
videlicit: “Formation of a political party, while it
may result from these protests, is not the
primary significance or need” - to a feast of
delights.

Sorry.  It is difficult to be completely clear in a brief comment.  I certainly was not trying to discourage political action.  instead, i wanted to point out that I see this movement as broader, newer, more open to changes compatible with a future far different from the past. 

Politics, as you know, is burdened by repetitious attitudes and procedures coming out of past experience.  Well and good.  But the times today call for views, processes and attitudes that must
get beyond ideological strictures and learn to work with the vast opportunities for variety and change
that the present-future is demanding. Occupy Wall Street is an obvious move in that direction.

As you also know, all “parties” are built not only on unity around goals but around the exclusion of differences.  What is needed now, particularly in this country, is a unifying process that includes the 99% in all important decisions, including political decisions.  Also, new technologies give us far more opportunities for inclusion than ever before. In my opinion, it’s not just “them” against “us” anymore.  It’s broadening and widening the delivery of adequate living standards for everybody, and since the “money people” have so much power (in government and elsewhere) it would be wise to try including them in the mix if possible.  The other alternative is apt to end in violence, which I utterly refuse to countenance.  Let’s work together.

Sorry if I sound arbitrary.  The people of the world are in an arbitrary situation right now, and their choices are limited.  Violence is unaffordable.  Cooperation is essential. It’s that simple—and demanding. Occupy Wall Street has made a very effective opening.  That’s my sense of things, and I must put it plainly.

@Gerard: You wrote, “This movement is
speaking beyond politics ...”

No, it is not, though I fully expect you to offer
more some defense of your assertion, as
it seems you always do. Is anyone else ever sufficiently right
about anything?

I understand your sentiment, but do not for a
moment agree with your expressed view that the
sentiment is not or should not be political. A lot
of people gathered anywhere to praise or protest
anything are doing politics, in which sentiment
is always revealed.

Knowledge of history & what past humans did in
circumstances such as this may be of no interest
or use to you, for instance, but I propose that
your preferences are hardly models for the
practice of Kant’s categorical imperative.

Moreover, political candidates may indeed arise
from within this exceedingly needed & long
awaited national - nay, international -
movement, & when they do you may well find
yourself cheering & voting for them. - I surely
would sing for you when you do that.

A redistribution of wealth is being called for,
with all of the ideological, economic & political
upheaval that must occur as the Rebels outwit &
defeat the Mighty Tories.

The time is now. And we are on the same side,
Gerard.

Why should Occupy Wall Street be looked at through a rear view mirror?  Something entirely new should be recognized here:  The nonviolent movement of tens of thousands of Americans, mostly youngish, speaking with millions of their brothers and sisters worldwide. They are taking a broken world in their arms, lifting it together out of pessimism and ignorance, and holding it up to the possibilities of liberty and justice for all. 

Formation of a political party, while it may result from these protests, is not the primary significance or need.  This movement is speaking beyond politics to a decent human sense of fairness.  It speaks to liberty and justice shared by all.

Those who don’t, can’t or won’t hear this voice are morally dead and have no future.  Those within the ranks of the 1% who DO hear this voice of the future will join in the process of healing.