You're STILL. NOT. GETTING. IT, are you?

[TygrBright]

You know, I shouldn't have to write this, really. I shouldn't.

I'm over fifty, anglo caucasian, professional, comfortable, and sedentary (well, I work in the garden and take walks, but...)

I'm enormously privileged by The Current State of Things. Mind you, I'm a long, long, way from the top 1/10th of 1 percent. Not even close to the top one percent or even the top ten percent. I'm probably hovering comfortably at the upper end of the 60-80% quintile, if you count my esposo as well as myself.

By all measures, I shouldn't "get it."

Y'all are pundits, bloggers, media mavens, commentators, talking heads, and even a few journalists. You're most of you a lot younger and probably way hipper than I am. Your job is to know stuff, to have a finger on the pulse, to analyze and interpret and comment intelligently. To observe and report. You're supposed to be able to "get it." Especially when it's splatted upside your head, repeatedly, with the emphatic sensory impact of a large, wet, dead, fish.

And you STILL can write ***t like this, from the New Yorker:

Yet the Occupy movement could do worse than to learn from the pipeline protest. The difference between the focussed, agenda-driven campaign fought by the environmentalists and the free-form, leaderless one waged by the Occupiers, the historian Michael Kazin says, is that the environmentalists grasped the famous point made by Dr. King’s political forebear, Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

::sigh::

Really.

Let me spell it out for you, as clearly as possible:

The Occupy Movement has a demand. It has been relentlessly repeating this demand since Day One. It is a simple demand, but with vastly complex ramifications, which may be why it's beyond you. Here it is:

The Occupy Movement demands

CHANGE

Really. It's that simple, and that complex.

And I can hear you forming the words now, and let me tell you before you even open your pie holes: SHUT THE **** UP

You know DAMN' WELL what "change" means, and what it implies. Among other things, it means a world where ordinary working people are valued, compensated fairly, respected, and regarded as fully participating members of their communities, with an equal say in how things are done and why. A say equal to that of the rich folk and the business barons.

Among other things, it means a world where people are people, and a Constitution written and implemented to protect and guarantee our rights is a living, powerful document that DOES NOT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS.

Among other things, it means that the RULES for making money are focused on preventing those trying to make money from doing so by screwing hell out of the rest of us.

I invite others who "get it" to add to the definition of "change," but, really, it SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.

You should KNOW this shit.

If I know it, in all my un-hip, educated middle-class over-fifty privilege, you should surely know it. Pretending you don't know it reveals you as either clueless idiots, unthinking tools, or witting shills for our Beloved Oligarchs.

Which is it?

Oh, none of the above? Then STFU about the "formlessness" or the "leaderlessness" or the "lack of coherence" or the "need for a demand" or any other halfwitted meme feeding into our Beloved Oligarchs' increasingly anxious need to split, control, and disempower this movement.

Grow the hell up and learn to say the "C" word with a straight face. THEY KNOW WHAT WE ARE DEMANDING.

They don't want to deliver it. They want to parse it out into a dozen points they can apply reductio ad absurdum tactics to, reframe, and use to reinforce the status quo.

So they stand there with this pseudo-naif expression mouthing variations of "What do you mean by 'change?'" (After all, it depends on what the definition of "is" is, doesn't it?)

Bite me.

I should not have to be writing this AGAIN, after all these days and weeks when it has grown increasingly clear what is needed and who is on what sides of the divide.

I just shouldn't.

curmudgeonly,
Bright

[pnwmom]

1. I get it. I just disagree.

The Rethugs want CHANGE, too. The word "change" isn't nearly specific enough.

I think Frederick Douglass had it right.

[Jackpine Radical]

58. Republicans DO NOT want change.

They mostly prefer large, unmarked bills.

[DeeDeeNY]

99. Good one!!!! And so true.

:rofl:

[femrap]

71. Frederick Douglass

demanded the voted for Black Males and stepped on the throats on his sisters who had helped him.

Give me OWS's non-hierarchy, transparent, 'leaderless' system any day. I love their rotating form of leadership and the education of supporters.

Frederick Douglass stabbed those who helped him in the back....he liked his hierarchy...he cared nothing for his sisters.

[TheWraith]

We get it. But you're wrong.

As pnwmom said, "change" can mean anything to anyone. Inkblot tests don't pass laws. A set of three or four simple, straightforward proposals for Wall Street regulation would be much more effective.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. You don't get it. And you are wrong.

'A set of three or four simple, straightforward proposals for Wall Street regulation' would be three or four simple, straighforward regulations for the 1% to subvert, ignore, or throw their millions at to overturn them. It gives them something to target and defeat.

You never read Sun Tzu?

Those few regulatory changes can only happen, and succeed, in an overwhelming sea-change where the social order will no longer tolerate wholesale theft by the aristocrats. In a society where it is held to be self evident that the rich do not get to steal from the poor simply be being the ones who write the laws.

That kind of change does not come with three or four simple regulations.

[truedelphi]

44. Nicely put. n/t

[Myrina]

56. +100

n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

61. You are exactly right, and the change is shaping up into something

far more profound than even the sea-change metaphor addresses. I think it's the beginning of a linked world consciousness that will turn out to have emergent properties at which we can only guess at this point.

[patrice]

78. 1++++ Right on! There's a difference between "change" and authentic change.

[rtassi]

83. +1

[bread_and_roses]

109. exactly - well put. not to mention that

"we" in our various groups and guises and iterations have already DONE that - and done it over and over and over. TPTB know what sort of change "Occupy" stands for.

[fascisthunter]

50. "...clueless idiots, unthinking tools, or witting shills for our Beloved Oligarchs"

which is it

[LuckyLib]

68. My vote is "witting shills" -- Corporate media is bought and sold in this country.

[fascisthunter]

84. "witting shills"... HA! I was thinking about that recently

it is all about wit, isn't it. The false perception that arguments are won on wit and not substance or reality.

[rtassi]

87. deleted .. by self

[MADem]

74. I concur. The themes of economic parity and social justice are powerful ones.

Squandering the opportunity and the goodwill with pissing contests about tents and calling the police pigs, in retro sixties fashion, is time wasted. The movement needs to organize and be more professional, else they risk turning into an echo chamber.

I want them to succeed, but I think they are going about it the wrong way. That's just my opinion, but surely someone--perhaps my little stalker friend--will turn up to tell me how much I "hate" OWS because I have tactical disagreements with them, as do many of my fellow 99 percenters who schelp through life day-to-day as best we can.

:hide:

[handmade34]

2. said brilliantly... and they play the games

the best they know how....

"They don't want to deliver it...So they stand there with this pseudo-naif expression mouthing variations of "What do you mean by 'change?'"

[pnwmom]

4. A lot of people in the middle of that 99% are very uncomfortable

with the views of people at either extreme. They don't want to buy a pig in the poke -- they want to know what "change" is being proposed.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That's their problem. Their fear. As the OP says, many in the

middle and even above it are not uncomfortable with OWS, and do not consider that movement to be 'extreme' as you chose to characterize it. I'm also demographically much like the OP. And I'm perfectly comfortable with OWS. I also have no impression that anyone is selling any pigs at all, in or out of pokes.
Just so you know, I know many people at and over the middle who are overjoyed to see OWS. The majority of them, in fact.

[pnwmom]

19. I'm happy with OWS -- but I won't be happy if the movement

collapses because it lacks cohesiveness.

[Enthusiast]

67. I see no one proposing a pig in a poke.

The oligarchs know what we want. The politicians that represent the oligarchs know what we want. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows what we want because they know what we have lost.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. That, Ma'am, is the heart and soul of consvativism.

Never change anything unless you can guarantee what the results will be - and as there are NO guarantees in life, that means never change anything.

The thing to remember is that in the long run, the left has ALWAYS been correct. Why wait years, decades for validation?

[FirstLight]

3. exactly

...and when many of us voted for a Leader who promised said CHANGE, and we got the same corporatocracy, we decided WE are the CHANGE we have been waiting for. The leaderlessness of the movement is also a protest in itself...against the idea that we need someone to do it FOR us, or someone to be the figurhead of our need for a better world...and anyone who tries to take credit for that is just not getting it either. IMO

solidarity, man

[pnwmom]

5. Fine, then lead. But toward specific goals. "Change"

could mean anything -- and does, to different people. Michelle Bachman wants change. So does Herman Cain.

Change isn't good enough.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Change, the word alone, was an Obama slogan in 08.

Did you find it bothersome then? 'Hope' said the poster. 'Change' said the poster. Just odd that the famous slogan of the current Democratic President is so harshly reviewed here three years in. Do you feel that Obama used vague words and then slipped one over or what is the deal. Change we can believe in. We are the change we've been waiting for. These are the slogans of OUR Party. Why do you dislike them so?

[pnwmom]

18. The 99% includes many people who aren't Democrats or political at all.

The 99% includes many people who don't even vote.

We need to communicate with them, and the word CHANGE isn't enough.

[MADem]

75. And the same people who bought those OBAMA slogans and shouted down anyone who said

"WTF does that MEAN, precisely?" are the very same ones calling Obama an asshole here, now, a disappointment, a failure, threatening not to vote or to vote 3rd Party, and doing the very same sort of "shout down" they did in 08 to anyone who raises temperate questions about where the hell the OWS effort is going, now that the "tents in the park" schtick has pretty much run its course.

So what's that about?

:shrug:

You can't purport to "represent" the 99 percent when you treat so many of them like shit for daring to have a different opinion, or even for asking questions.

[Caretha]

28. uh NO!

YOU “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

~ Thomas Paine

[pnwmom]

29. Thomas Paine was a leader. Who is leading OWS? n/t

[Caretha]

31. You think you know best

Why not you?

[pnwmom]

32. I don't think that any more than you think you're the best.

Why not you?

[ZombieHorde]

43. That is not fair. pnwmom is simply, and respectfully posting her opinions. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. Reliance on, and devotion to, leaders engenders fascism. nt

[Phlem]

22. just an observation but

I thought the 1% were nervous because there is no leader for OWS. Which to me makes sense because you can't focus your resources on 1 man to destroy. This snake has no head or tail. It's a movement.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it but I support OWS 100%.

-p

[FedUp_Queer]

72. You get it.

When I hear the "what do they want" BS, the only explanation I can give is that the person asking that isn't listening or is obtuse.

[enough]

6. Right. It's going to take time, of course, which is what seems to have been forgotten.

Strange how centuries of human history seem to stand for nothing these days.

[malthaussen]

7. It is reasonable to ask

... what would be the mechanism to effect "change." It is unreasonable to presume that OWS has the answer to that question. The reason why people of good will might have a problem with OWS is that they don't see how we get from formulating the questions to making policy.

As for professional pundits and other shills, the reason they don't "get it" is just as simple. As with any crime, follow the money first.

-- Mal

[Vincardog]

54. The function of OWS it to get everyone to acknowledge the need for change. When enough people stand

up and admit that the current economic political and social model is corrupted by the almighty DOLLAR and CHANGE is necessary;
Then we (all of us deep thinkers) can ponder the changes required.
This is the horse (OWS) that is the cart (Changes)

[Grey]

8. Well said and

I agree 99% with every thing you say, Bless you.

[hourglass1]

9. Well articulated!

despite their protests - pnwmom and TheWraith actually don't "get it" and they have been sucked into the single issue divide and conquer meme ...

see guys/gals the list is as long as your arm and ranges from civil liberties to foreign, corporate welfare, financial, trade, energy, legislative, election, judicial, incarceration and community policies ... and these need be subdivided and I am sure I have missed quite a few ... the change I may prioritize, may not be yours ... and there is the genius of controlling information and directing memes.

[PETRUS]

10. Well ok then.

I think I get it. The problem is that economic power in the hands of a relatively small number of people produces results that run counter to the interest of the larger community. OWS wants to arrive at solutions to that democratically. No small task...

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It'd be a lot simpler if you went straight to the 'corporations are not people'

demand than via the universal 'change' cliche. Just about any movement wants 'change', and by printing that as the bold, shouty 'simple' demand, you're wasting people's time.

Every movement has to answer "What do you mean by 'change?'" It's how you tell the difference between them. Move on from the petulant "if you don't know what you did wrong, then I'm not telling you" phase.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. You don't get it. 'Corporationa are not people' is only a part of it.

And fixing that part, desirealbe as it may be, won't fix the system. Neither will getting money out of politics. Neither will putting an end to the stampeding the public with religious fear. Neither will developing a true small-d democratic voice. Neither will bringing the troops home, or ending the war on drugs, or ending the war on poor people, and gays, and Christmas.

We have a sick society, and dealing with any and all of those things is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

You need to understand the disease before you can successfully treat it.

[JackRiddler]

12. Bravo - and don't worry about the usual TPs from the usual suspects.

You should post this in GD, and send it out by whatever means you contact people.

[fascisthunter]

51. they are losing the battle of ideas badly

they should be ignored... it is obvious they are not on our side

[hootinholler]

13. I disagree.

Not with your sentiment, but this is not about demanding Change.

Rather, the demand is JUSTICE.

Now I will admit that would be quite a change.

-Hoot

[TreasonousBastard]

15. You want change? You gotta MAKE the change, not beg for it hanging out...

in parks.

First, stop insulting the rest of us who agree things are off, but think you're going at it the wrong way. Or maybe have a slight difference of opinion on what the underlying problems are. Or the solutions.

Then, maybe look to the past to how some things actually got changed.

Unions didn't get their start by banging drums in the street-- they got there with blood in the streets. They fought for every crumb they demanded and faced Pinkerton guns and finally managed to get sympathizers in government.

Women didn't get the vote for about 130 years (well, OK, New Jersey gave them the vote early on, but in 1803 they realized they fucked up and took it away) It took, what, 50 years or so of marching, demanding, and political machinations to get an amendment passed guaranteeing them the vote since Stanton, Mott, and Anthony started making noise. Wanna hear some "specific" demands-- read up on how Emmaline Pankhurst talked truth to power.

For a hundred years some states acted like the Civil War was never fought-- "black" drinking fountains, poll taxes, lynchings... then one guy put it all together with a simple demand and clear vision.

Fair wages, women voting, black citizens actually being treated like citizens... You would think these would be the EASY ones. So obvious to any decent person-- how could they possibly be denied? But it took generations to get it done.

And you think hanging out in a park for a few months will get you this "change" you assume everyone understands and agrees with?

[Bluenorthwest]

21. The Occupations are based on picket lines...

an odd thing to say, that Unions did not stand and make noise and march with signs for endless weeks and months as part and parcel of how they were founded, and to this day how they strike for progress. Thousands upon thousands of peaceful strikers and organizers took millions of actions for every one of your 'blood on the streets' moments, which no one should long for.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. And where would they be without the NLRB, Taft-Hartley, or...

the Adamson Railway Labor Act? Note today's news about the NLRB and the general anti-labor stance of the other side. Our people in office may not be that great, but they are NOT the enemy.

My point is that marching means nothing without some juice backing you up.

Don't give up on the only allies you have just because they aren't "good enough."

[enough]

24. So, TB, what I don't understand is why not let them do it whatever way they are doing it,

and simultaneously put into action the way that you know is the right way. Is there something about the fact that "they" are doing this that prevents others from doing what they think needs to be done?

[TreasonousBastard]

38. What makes you think I want to stop them, or that they are in the way...

of progress?

I'm simply not going to celebrate them unless and until they have something to show. So far, it looks like a highly publicized waste of time.

[russspeakeasy]

17. thanks for saying it. Some people will NEVER get it.

keep saying it...

[Paka]

20. I do get it, but I'm old and I've seen and lived through a lot.

So maybe that gives me an edge. The only thing I don't agree with is when you say "I should not have to be writing this AGAIN..." Change is a difficult concept for most people. It is the very soul of life and they need reminding at every turn of the road. :hippie:

[Phlem]

25. Amen that brotha!

simple, concise, straight forward, and almost everything I'v been thinking of in a nutshell.

you da man! And I stand with you.

-p

[TygrBright]

27. ::koff::...sista...::koff:: But thanks. n/t

[Phlem]

33. Oops sorry my bad, but

the solidarity is still strong in this one.

-p

[bertman]

30. I get it. And you nailed it!! OCCUPY!! REC.

Also, please note that Occupy groups are beginning to list some of the changes they want to see, but that does not mean that they are the ONLY changes they want to see occur.

Another forgotten concept among many of the 'questioners' is that OCCUPY is open to many different ideas and tactics. Direct actions are taking place all over the country (and world). They are being formulated, created, and carried out by individuals and groups of Occupiers. That's the beauty of this movement.

Peace and solidarity.

[Arctic Dave]

34. Exactely!

I get it.

[pauldg0]

35. Good job....

....You've touched a few nerves.

[Canuckistanian]

36. Masterful rant.

With a cogent point. Couldn't have said it better.

K&R

[JackRiddler]

37. The crazy thing about the New Yorker passage you quote is...

It's positing an opposition where none such exists. OWS and the activists who literally occupied the space around the White House to stop the Xcel pipeline are part of the same movement, many of the anti-Xcel protesters went home and straight back to their local OWS protests. This false contrasting of the two is a cheap divide-and-conquer trope that no one involved in either action would accept. There is no doubt that the the anti-Xcel drive fed off the spirit of OWS, which has revived the legitimacy and effectiveness of protest. (And a little bit of vice-versa!)

[truedelphi]

45. I wouldn't doubt that many who did the protest of XL

Pipeline are also part of OWS.

Good point to make.

[FedUp_Queer]

73. BINGO.

In fact, the people who surrounded the White House to get O(GOP)bama to "reconsider" the XL Pipeline directly credit the OWS movement. Go back and listen to the Democracy Now episode the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

[JackRiddler]

76. Yes, I've been getting much of my XL and OWS news from Democracy Now...

which is why I thought you spell it Xcel, not XL. Damn radio.

[FedUp_Queer]

108. Hmmm...maybe it is Xcel. Either way, it's bad.

[bluestateboomer]

40. K and *&%$@#**^ R!

:fistbump: :yourock: :patriot:

[Jim_Shorts]

41. Who would OWS make their demands to?

A bunch of bought and paid for politicians who won't listen anyway.

I'm all for a National General Assembly next year, we can establish an agenda and draw up a list of demands there like the 99% declaration.
http://occupyphilly.org/99declaration/

In the meantime who gives a shit what the corporate media says.

[donheld]

42. Read

[BlueMTexpat]

46. Unlike those who keep saying that you weren't "specific" enough

about CHANGE, it seems to me that you explained yourself pretty well. Hopefully with your permission, I quote:

"You know DAMN' WELL what 'change' means, and what it implies. Among other things, it means a world where ordinary working people are valued, compensated fairly, respected, and regarded as fully participating members of their communities, with an equal say in how things are done and why. A say equal to that of the rich folk and the business barons.
Among other things, it means a world where people are people, and a Constitution written and implemented to protect and guarantee our rights is a living, powerful document that DOES NOT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS.
Among other things, it means that the RULES for making money are focused on preventing those trying to make money from doing so by screwing hell out of the rest of us.
I invite others who 'get it' to add to the definition of 'change,' but, really, it SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY."

In other words, the Occupy movement wants fairness, justice and equal application of the law for all living, breathing human citizens. While I believe that those are universal sentiments, it is the actual steps to achieve those goals that need to be worked out. But I believe that those steps can evolve naturally.

The Occupy movement is a necessary first step on that road, IMO. Because it is forcing TPTB to recognize it, even if they do "dis" or ridicule it, it has already succeeded. If it doesn't just fade away - and so far, there are no signs that it will - the next steps will begin to evolve.

In case there is any doubt, not only do I fall within your description of yourself, I fully support the Occupy movement and will continue to do so, although for the time being I must do so from afar.

P.S. Like you, I do not include "corporations" as living human citizens or having the same rights as living citizens have. On the other hand, it could be fun to use pro-life rhetoric against those who do include them. Thus, if corporations are people, wouldn't they have the same rights as living humans (or as some would grant fetuses at any stage, even when they are not so keen to grant the same rights to the "born")? Wouldn't declaring bankruptcy be akin to abortion or murder? Wouldn't raiding the pension coffers be akin to criminal mugging, abuse, assault and battery? Etc., etc., etc. Perhaps then those who have misused/abused their privileged status could be better seen as the sociopathic thugs that they truly are, no matter how much they bathe, how well they dress or how rich or powerful they are.

[Recursion]

47. Legally, corporate personhood is the only way corporations can be sued

That's why I'm iffy on just saying "corporate personhood is wrong": it's the only way legal liabilities have ever attached to corporations. It's also not a new concept but dates back to 17th-century Amsterdam (Scalia's innovation was in asserting that the 1st Amendment in general applies to corporations engaging in political rather than directly commercial speech).

[snagglepuss]

80. I didn't know that but what law written in stone? Laws can be changed.

What would be the problem of removing personhood from corporations and making a new law stating that business entities can be sued?

[Recursion]

98. That's basically the extent of legal personhood

The ability to sue and be sued (and enter into contracts, but practically that amounts to the same thing). So I'm not sure what that difference would make.

[TygrBright]

102. ::koff:: political donations as "free speech" ::koff:: Citizens United ring any bells? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

105. it's the only way legal liabilities have ever attached to corporations.

That's only because that is the way the law reads. Without corporate personhood people would instead sue the officers of the corporation - and they would be PERSONNALY liable for corporate wrongdoing. Instead of continuing to rake in millions while the corporation declares bankruptcy, THEY would be declaring bankruptcy - right before going to jail (something else a corporation will never do).

You think that might make some of the re-consider the decisions they make, if they know they will be on the hook for the millions they steal?

It also means that corporations would not be able to flood the electoral system with cash - the 'corporation' would only be able to contribute what the individuals running the corporation could contribute.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

60. I had a conversation yesterday along these and the OP's lines

Nowhere near as cogently stated as you both did, though.

I wanted to write a post in this thread to articulate my thoughts (I do that better in writing, than in speaking), but you captured the points I was thinking much better than I could have.

I also match Tyger's demographic, and I "get it" too, or at least I like to flatter myself by thinking so. The Occupy movement represents a collective shout of solidarity among the many people who have long been aware or are somewhere along the spectrum of waking up to the unjustness of the "system". It absolutely THRILLS me!!

The protest is calling attention to a leviathan that is so huge that even coming to the point of collectively putting the awareness into one basic frame of reference is a stunning achievement, in istelf. After awareness comes solutions...and solutions will be multifaceted, because the problem is so endemic, so intrinsic to the lower nature of human beings....the "haves" taking unfair advantage through power, money and access to legislation, of the "have nots".

How the changes happen will vary because the injustice is so widespread, acted out in a bazillion different settings. Changing a social system of this magnitude doesn't happen from outside the system, doesn't happen as a result of one revolution. It happens through MASSIVE and continuing awareness which therefore, as a matter of course, lead to change in the hearts of millions of people, who then can act within their respective circles to effect specific changes based on human justice.

Massive change, and yet, it starts with a change in just one individual.

[bvar22]

48. Well Done.

Kicked and Recommended.

:patriot:




Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HCE SuiGeneris]

49. Brilliant.

:kick:

[ismnotwasm]

52. excellent

I ask skeptical folk, so how, exactly did the basis for our economy turn into spreadsheets and quarterly reports? How does that translate into human being? How is it possible for the short term profits of these very large market entities to stay non-toxic in a cut throat system that also happens to be both vulnerable and fragile, but ever so much less vulnerable and fragile than the human beings who are forced to rely on it?
Change? Spot on

[BlancheSplanchnik]

53. One of your best articles ever! Right on target.

I'd like to share this around, if you don't mind..make it my standard response to anyone who claims not to get it.

[TygrBright]

57. I'm honored. Go right ahead. n/t

[Beavker]

55. All these 'smart' guys that write for a living just need to read

Read some fucking signs and put 2 and 2 together. I'm sure they had to learn some deductive reasoning skills when they got their Journalism degree...hell, probably even took the SAT's, maybe the ACT, or other tests where you have to be able to connect the dots...

I think the OWS people ought to have a day where they go to each place, and in a smart ass fashion, line up in tight groups with a huge sign above each group with each of the major, common thread, grievences that these morons can't seem to understand independently (RIP investigative journalism).

Then, after they have the attention of these chimps, they all disband, spreading out in a jumbled group as they are now, all with their different signs.

There...if you need us to get together and say we don't want corporations influencing our elected officials, our government siding with these large corporations, or handing out our hard earned (non-capital gains rate) taxed money to these scumbags without consequence, then that's what OWS should do...for one day.

But, that's not the point. These people don't want to understand, that isn't their goal. Their goal is to say negative things over and over until the sheep in our society watching Fox News start repeating it.

[Uncle Joe]

59. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, TygrBright.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amonester]

69. That's.Effing.It.

TPTB.Don't.Care.

It.Should.Be.Clear.By.Now.

[Grateful for Hope]

63. Brilliant, Bright

K&R

[harun]

65. They want OWS to have leaders because their propaganda machine is setup

to take out individuals, not groups.

[BrendaBrick]

82. A Yep!

[unionworks]

66. bloody f'kn awesome! k&r n/t

[Desertrose]

70. Awesomely spoken, Bright.

CHANGE


Really. It's that simple, and that complex.


Thank you!!!!

[DeSwiss]

77. Actually Bright, I think ''they'' know exactly what it's about.

But they don't want to name it. Because by naming it, it'll make what is happening that much more REAL.

Their ''confusion'' is just one more delaying tactic to avoid the truth. It's not about making this rotten system better, it's about true equality and getting the Establishment's asses OUT so we can achieve it. Because we know we never will since the country is run by liars and thieves (not to mention all those sick, twisted mofo's who like killing, raping and torturing people and then calling them free). It's about changing the system completely!

- This is an ''unarmed'' revolution. If anything, it's the non-violence that confuses them.....

K&R

[patrice]

79. 1++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

[AntiFascist]

81. That may be why they are so afraid of the movement...

they can't quite wrap their minds around leaderless demands without a specific goal. It threatens to turn their world upside down.

[BrendaBrick]

86. Never underestimate the element of SURPRISE!!!

[hulka38]

85. Awesome

and very, very hip fwiw.

[Kaleko]

88. I've said this before.

If you don't get what the Occupy movement is about - immediately, viscerally - you are part of the problem.

You have lost touch with your human heart.

For those who have escaped into their heads for too long and are unable to feel humanity's common plight deep inside their guts and their heart-centers, there will be a lot of confusion, anger and fear coming up in the very near future. It cannot be otherwise because this movement is an evolutionary leap into the recognition that we are One.

"We are One
but we're not the same.
We've got to carry each other,
sister and brother."

- U2

[DeSwiss]

93. Exactly. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

89. Excellent post....KR....but on a side note..to answer that age old question of the meaning of is....

Are you the famous Bright, who could travel faster than light...you know, the neutrino thing that happened next week....If so...the meaning of "is" is "was"....sorry just couldn't help it...

slapping myself back to the matter at hand, good post and good way of putting it...but now OWS has made clear the meaning of change, for those brain challenged folks who could not get it if it was a cobra swaying to the music in front of their face...

Basically, get money the hell out of politics and our government...which would, in itself, effect that "change", putting us back on a system governed by the people and the constitution...but then for some it is easier to pretend they just can't figure it out...

A delusion without which, they could not be vicious, nasty and condescending.


As far as the silly part...

Ref: There was a neutrino called Bright....that could travel somewhat faster than light...leaving Cern on a Monday...stopped in Gran Sasso and came back the previous night...adding to and poorly paraphrasing from a clever poster who posted something vaguely like this on the faster than light discovery posted here on DU.

[geckosfeet]

90. I am a clueless unthinking witting shill for the beloved oligarchs.

Not.

[Ignis]

91. K&R

Why is "change we can believe in" a great--even amazing--campaign slogan, but not good enough for a larger, more amorphous movement like OWS?

Great post.

[onethatcares]

92. as an over 60 person, I get it.

and I want that change not so much for me, but for my grandkids.

The entire scam of American democracy has devolved into trading lives for dollars, and the rich are LIVING well while the rest of us, not so much.

I agree that there be no singular spokesperson or leader because we've seen over and over how a leader can get poked in the eye or shot in the head. But when an idea spreads it can't be poked or shot, it can only be picked up and carried along.

As one poster said, there are a lot of things that need changing and what I want changed might not be what you want changed but if you want a better world for all of us, we have to work together to get change for each of us.(did that make as much sense in print as it did in my mind?)

OCCUPY YOUR HEART BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO WRONG WHILE TRYING TO DO RIGHT.

You folks here on DU rock. Peace

[firehorse]

94. I would never expect the New Yorker to "get it." It's a blue blood waspy mag of the 1%

They have good stories usually, and I like the style of the magazine, its history, and usually the quality of writing. But lets face it... its kind of an old school waspy blue blood mag. The people who write for it are not hanging out in Zucotti Park, they probably live on the upper east side and have inherited so much money that aspiring to write for the New Yorker or Harper's magazine just seems like a natural extension of their prep school and ivy league college liberal arts degree.

[deutsey]

95. I think so many people in general have been so conditioned to see only

the parameters of officially defined reality that they honestly can't understand anything that falls outside those parameters.

I think at its heart, the OWS movement is about changing not just the political and economic systems but the very way we behave and interact with each other.

But we're conditioned to see politics and economics as we see professional sports: who's up, who's down, who do you want to win, etc. And we go on consuming, commuting, competing, working, taking care of families, watching TV, etc. Direct participation is removed from our every day experience. It's Business as usual no matter who is up and winning in politics and the market.

What OWS attempts to do, imo, is have us start rethinking all that and to start living more authentically meaningful lives, individually and collectively, right here and now and then translate what develops into how we participate in politics and the marketplace.

[RufusTFirefly]

101. +1 Wonderful, thoughtful reply.

And right on target, methinks.

[Blue_In_AK]

96. Anyone who doesn't understand the demands

and desires of OWS is being willfully ignorant, IMO.

[RufusTFirefly]

97. Occupiers know the system is broken. How dare they not use that broken system to express this!!

:sarcasm:

(Sorry about the grammar. Space was a concern.)

:blush:

It's OK to say the rules are f&%ked up. But you've gotta follow those rules when you say it.

[PatrynXX]

100. actually more like a list of at least 3 demands

Change yelled loud enough even the deaf can feel it. get the fucking money out of politics (like religion, yes I believe in Christ, but religion corrupts people, ask Mitt Romney) and third. is like duh. JOBS. those have been consistently the demands. Except of course the MSM is 1. biased, 2. deaf, 3 braindead.

then you got the idiots like my brother saying hey the protestors have no rights if they break the law (fucking permit crap) seriously I wanted to punch him out. But thats what he wants so oh well. He can pass gas where he wants. I'll just find a cork with super glue and see where it fits. :P

[shanti]

106. Awesome!

you laid it out, tygrbright! The change we want is the change we wanted in 2008!

[RainDog]

107. k&r n/t