Here I go again, leaning on DJ Redman and his article about “Occupy Wall Street.” BTW, I am also leaning on Kira Davis, Brian Evans, and A.F. Branco.
Called by fifteen of New York’s largest unions in an act of solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, the “occupiers” prepared to confront the banks and speculators further downtown who had hijacked (so they claim) the state for their own private interests. The “occupiers” spoke with a diversity of voices and held signs covering a spectrum of demands, but their demands can be expressed in one word: fairness (their definition of fairness). This is how mass movements start (so says Francesca Rheannon of CSRwire), with a range of voices expressing different elements of one underlying idea, economic fairness. (BTW, my comments are within parentheses)
From a less biased source (The Week Magazine) we learn that the original call for occupying Wall Street was from a group called Adbusters. The occupation of a park just blocks from Wall Street is growing. The occupation is also spreading to other cities like Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and smaller places like Mobile, AL.
What Is Their Message? What Do They Want? What Are Their Demands? a Manifesto
What is the message from OWS? OWS protestors are unified under an anti-capitalist message aimed at banks that hold their student loans and mortgages. Once you get passed the slogans, they have mixed messages for their protest. An anti-capitalist theme under the guise of “it’s for the people.”
What does OWS want? No one knows. The movement is “incoherent.” That old polemic, ‘People Before Profits,’ seems to capture their message fairly well. But the growing consensus among the protesters is that “government institutions are already so shot through with corporate money that making specific demands would be pointless until the movement grew stronger politically.”
This article lists the 13 demands that the OWS crowd has published. The list closes with, “These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.”
The Democrat Party Embrace of OWS
The Democrat Party and its head, President Barack Obama, have dropped their tentative embrace of the protest movement and have gone for full support of OWS’ methods and goals. Robby Mook, the executive director of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, sent out an official e-mail asking recipients to sign a petition in support of OWS. “Protesters are assembling in New York and around the country to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1 percent force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans.” President Obama’s senior campaign advisor, David Plouffe, appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to emphasize that the White House supports OWS and Republicans do not. “If you’re concerned about Wall Street and our financial system, the president is standing on the side of consumers and the middle class.” Do Democrats really think the OWS crowd is so stupid that no one in its ranks will know that was one of Obama’s largest contributors?
One slogan that is often repeated is that the OWS crowd is tired of having 1% of the population (the rich) tell the other 99% what to do and how to live. “We are the 99%,” the OWS crowd chanted, a reference to their insistence that most Americans lack the influence in their country’s political and financial affairs enjoyed by the elite 1%.”
I guess these “occupiers” have never heard about acquiring a skill and/or an education so they can actually hold jobs that (efficiently and effectively) provide goods/services for which people are willing to pay (so a profit can be made). Oh, no. They want the people who actually worked to acquire skills to now GIVE them “economic fairness.” And this article, “The Occupiers’ World Awaits,” by David P. McGinley, perfectly expresses my sentiments about the “occupiers” throughout the world – let the “occupiers” go to North Korea.
But that’s just my opinion.