“Showdown” seems to be the word of the day as provocateurs continue to arrive for the purpose of instigating police responses. This appears to be a strategy, the fallout from the Oakland shooting providing a good example of how a few of these people can generate enough bad publicity to justify police action.
Oakland Cops say out now:
Mayor Quan invites protesters to leave:
There are many anecdotal stories that support the view that the “problems” encountered by Occupy Wall Street protesters are strictly the result of a strategic effort by those who desperately want to end the Occupation Movement. They don’t like the marches. They don’t like their banks being closed down. They don’t like the message. So they have found ways to interrupt or interfere with the processes which are crucial to the organizational survival of the Occupation Movement.
The situation at Occupy Los Angeles has run into similar problems, all of them external, that is caused by people who have nothing to do with the Occupation Movement, that in fact don’t have a clue about any of the issues being discussed here. They only see free food, handouts and an opportunity to steal property when it is left unattended. We have social services arriving on November 19th. Bringing people on-site who are equipped to handle the homeless and the mentally ill is the best we can do. We are not a social services movement, but our camp is now comprised of hundreds of people who need these services.
Obviously, this sort of behavior is antithetical to all of the principles outlined so far by this and other Occupy locales. There is nothing to support the view that Occupy Los Angeles, or any other group, has an obligation to provide services or resources to those who have plenty of places to get them. There are many established groups and agencies that provide food and social services, none of which are political. Therefore, when these resources are used by people who commit crimes, interfere with General Assembly functions, cause police actions, or other acts that are counterproductive to the movement, they are welcome to visit those with the resources, and the mandate, to provide them.
They have no “right” to commit crimes under the auspices of the Occupation Movement. They have no “right” to be provided with food, clothing, tents or other resources. They have no “right” to do anything except demonstrate peaceably, petition the government, and participate in activity protected by the First Amendment.
Strangely enough, the voices that are at least in theory supporting the Occupation Movement are diverse and thoughtful.
Colin Powell remarks: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68154.html
Bloomberg News observes that Wall Streeters are maintaining a low profile: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-11/occupy-this-occupy-wall-street-...
There will be more on these subjects later in the day. Unfortunately, those that have come here to instigate violence, steal property, disrupt meetings, or think that the Occupation Movement is obligated to provide social services, have begun to stifle the processes that are necessary for the organization to survive.
“We ask for investigative action, and support all concurrent efforts by Treasury and Justice to hold accountable those parties responsible for the massive losses incurred by their procedures and practices. Specifically those practices that used artificial valuation or false pretenses to profit from the losses they intended to incur on depositors or investors, those that entrusted their money with them or their institutions.”