BTW, I thought your "Democracy Is Working" statement is very intelligent!

Filing as a 501c3 seems to be in direct opposition to the implicit and explict goals of Occupy LA. Unless I'm mistaken, taking the steps to become a non profit organization requires defining roles of leadership and accountability that Occupy Wall Street in general is against. Those who would be listed as governing the 501c3 (members of the finance committee I assume) would have more power than the people. And while hierachies and rigid organization may be practical inevitabilties, I don't beleive that at this point, when Occupy LA is less than a month old, we need to adopt an undemocratic system in something as important as finance.

Ruth, I agree with every point.  But, maybe things should be made a little clearer.  Democracy is needed for people to make and pass decisions.  Although, to protect our rights that are in the Consitution of the United States we should protect the republic.  A republic was the initial style of government within this country and is the basis of government in the Constitution.  It ensures that all people's rights will be protected, gives voice to the minority and protects all right's within the Constitution. 

Also, the people at the occupation should be made aware of the reasons why Occupy LA is exists.  To be at Occupy LA means to be involved in your government in any way; Occupy LA is involved through dissent of government's current condition.  People being there and not knowing why they're there gives the movement a bad name.  People there should at least be knowledgeable of the reasons. which right now everyone is unified under the PROBLEM of everyone's situation, because they represent the people of the occupy movement just by being there.  It is imperative to reach out to these people who seem to be merely loitering, but I'm not attempting to ostrescize them because they're are important, they are needed and we are all part of the 99%.

I’m writing this because I’m tired of this movement being used by people and organizations with their own agenda. I'm concerned that this blog is just another self-promoter trying to take advantage of Occupy LA. I hope this blogger is “keepin it real’.

The last thing this movement needs is another opportunist. We already have the unions, the city council, and every other blow hard that's trying to rent out the occupy LA "movement" for its own agenda. While attending Occupy LA committee meetings might get people to read your blog and then might get people to be interested in your next book, real activists and thinkers are not getting a voice at Occupy LA—real occupiers are being crowded out by self-promoters. The hi-jackers, freeloaders, and ego-trippers far outnumber those who are "keeping it real"—despite the commendable efforts of the Keepin It Real affinity comminity. I'd love to think that this blog was written by someone who is committed to Occupy Wall Street and, in particular, Occupy Los Angeles....but I’m concerned that it isn’t. It sounds like it could be another freeloader trying to sell their wares by using Occupy LA--in this case, it isn't the city council's agenda, or the unions, it's the written word of the writer. I'm hoping I'm wrong. Is Occupy LA a publicity stunt? How about sticking up for something that matters.

What does this blogger stand for? What does this movement stand for? It seems to stand for whatever anyone wants it to stand for, depending on their agenda. I'm responding to this blog post because the writer sounds intelligent and able to communicate in writing fairly well. I wish she would use her talents to push the movement forward on the subject of economic injustice. This blog post seems to be trying to challenge the movement and praise it. That is good, but this particular challenge encourages more self-indulgence and self-reference, which is the last thing the movement needs--if there even IS a movement in LA. I’m starting to wonder. Self-indulgence at Occupy LA is rife. Occupy LA's favorite subject is itself. The majority of the occupiers’ favorite subject is their own self. Those who want to fight for something are silenced or at home.

Why else, in the media capital of the world, is the media tent so tightly controlled and so inadequate? It's my opinion that the people running the media tent aren't very experienced in media and fear letting more competent people in--they aren't revolutionaries, they just don't want to lose control or lose their own position of power. Let some people in who know what they're doing. What does the media tent stand for, other than itself and its own position? You can’t build a movement on that.

And what about you, Ruth Fowler? What do you stand for? I mean other than yourself and your writing career? You came to LA to fight for freedom? I suppose that is highly possible. But I wonder. I'm from here, and you sound unconcerned about LA to me. And what brings you to Occupy LA from lands so far away? Was it the opportunity for your next writing project, or was it to fight for economic justice? I noticed your take on Occupy LA’s cozy relationship with the City Council is, shall we say, less than locally informed. It seems that the majority of occupiers at Occupy LA are not informed about LA at all. Maybe they’re mostly from out of town, like you. There is nothing wrong with being from out of town, but if the uninformed are dictating the debate and self-promoting, the movement will crumble. Maybe that’s why no one is questioning the strangest self-promoting bedfellow of all in the movement: While chillin at the self-promotion party, your sharp wit and intelligence has missed the most self-indulgent player of all in this--The Los Angeles City Council.

Occupy LA’s relationship with The LA City Council is the most revealing aspect of the occupation in that it shows that this movement has a lot of tents, but it doesn’t have a lot of guts. One can be forgiven for giving local police a pass, after all, most of the officers are part of the 99%, so it is much easier to forgive the many transgressions of local police departments, including corruption and brutality. But the City Council? Come on. You’re a smart girl. Do your homework. I can see you researched the Occupy Wall Street movement’s financial structure, you made yourself aware of local farmer’s issues, you studied 501c3 and 501c4—but nothing on the LA City Council?

I guess it’s all about you and how down you are with your homies at the media tent, the facilitation committee and the Keepin It Real affinity comminity. Why is the media tent controlling the message so tightly, but then it allows this blog to be front and center. Can anyone blog on the website? Or is it controlled? And if it is controlled, why was this blog allowed through?

Getting the endorsement of the LA City Council is like getting the endorsement of Goldman Sachs. If you were looking for a group of people that represents the interests of the 1% you couldn’t have done better than the LA City Council. These are serious power brokers and they respond to the 1% as faithfully as any Democratic or Republican Party. Los Angeles isn’t a two-horse town, and City Hall isn’t a campground. It might make you feel good to be so cozy, but the LA City Council isn’t in bed with the 99%, they’re in bed with the 1%, while, at the same time, they are the 1%. Why not research that issue. Maybe all of your new friends at Occupy LA will listen to your take on Occupy LA’s love affair with the 1% LA City Council. Right now, instead of news coverage about the LA City Council’s shady-ness with every land developer and powerful elitist, the coverage is about how the LA City Council endorses the common citizen of the 99%. It’s a PR cream-dream for the city council. Meanwhile, there’s a campout at City Hall. Who needs to hire fancy PR firms when you got the 99% camping on your lawn and making goo-goo eyes at you publicly and in the media?

Meanwhile, every self-promoter from out of town has descended to fill the vacuum. While the movement stands for nothing, the self-promoters fill in the blank with their own standing-up for themselves. Fill in the blank: blogger, city council, union, software salesmen, unpopular political parties--it's up for grabs.

So, Occupy LA doesn’t know what it stands for, yet. That means that it doesn’t know what it stands against. It’s not against any of the authorities, it’s not against the city council, it’s not against anyone. It’s not for anyone, either, except for “the 99%”. But we don’t know who the 99% are—apparently it includes the LA City Council, whose wages, by the way, are the absolute highest in the entire country. When you don’t stand or against anything you allow the movement to be hi-jacked by those who do have a clearly defined agenda of their own. That is what is happening at Occupy LA so far--those with their own agenda are using the movement and taking advantage of its lack of focus.

Why isn’t New York’s occupation so confused? The 99% at Occupy Wall Street are against any and all forces that allow a small minority of powerful individuals to economically oppress the rest of us—why are they so clear in New York while we’re so confused in LA? The New York occupation is clearly a protest. They might welcome help from the authorities, but they aren’t kissing up to them.

And has anybody wondered why the Occupy LA movement only planned for a few days before attempting to illegally occupy the land outside of city hall, making little or no preparation for all of the complexities that such a maneuver would entail. Luckily, the city council was on board before anyone could yell "PROTEST!" It seems the city council was more prepared for this than LA was.

People at Occupy LA say it isn’t a protest, it’s a movement. Well, so far it’s a bowel movement. Can we get passed that now?

There’s a lot of people down at City Hall who are ready to fight the powerful and oppressive forces in government, in the financial industry and in corporate America—you have met them in the Keepin’ It Real Party. I’ve heard them complain about their efforts being rented out to the highest bidder and the loudest mouths. I hope you aren’t the latest opportunist trying to rent them out for yourself.

 What do you stand for?

Say something!

dpeoples,

I think many of your concerns and questions are valid, although I think personalizing the issue with this particular author's interpretation of the events she's witnessed is antagonistic, and a bit of a strech.  Everyone has their reasons for documenting and participating in this movement, whether it's here, or in another part of the world.  Everyone has ego, it's not a flaw, it's a fact.

The problems you outlined however, are valid and make several points about the boggy-ness of the LA situation.  You're absolutely correct, the relationship with the city is calculated on their part, for reasons I'm not willing to speculate on.

As to not succeeding in the ways NYC, or Madrid for that matter:

1. NYC General Assembly met and organized for 3 MONTHS before committing to an occupation.  They had many work groups and functional committees formed before hand.  They figured out how to take finances and the like. They were coordinated. They also were experienced at what i call playing the "General Assembly Game."  General Assembly is like a game, it's goal is to build consensus and keep people participating.  It requires time, and practice.  In LA...we practiced for like a week...in NYC, they had 3 months.

2. Los Angeles isn't a metropolitan city like other cities are.  Geographically, Los Angeles doesn't have a right to exist or at least, maintain the population it does have.  Our water comes from somewhere else.  Furthermore, people in Madrid, in NYC, in San Francisco live on top of eachother.  They are used to being around different people and packed in tight with people you would never expect being with.  Angelenos come from a variety of sub-cities and neighborhoods that are spread out, and distant.  It's also harder to organize here rather than in, say, the Spanish experiment with popular democracy, because in Spain people more/less speak "the same language."  I don't mean Spanish, because Spain is a multi-lingual society (Basque, Catalan, Galego, Castilian, Valencian...and Andalus--pidgin spanish), but what I mean is there's a more common history, a common way of operating.  What also exists there is a much more contemporaneous experience with radicalism and radical thought.  The Grandparents taught the grand-kids about life before the dictatorship.  The parents taught the kids that a democracy called into existence by a king is faulty...and so on.  People know, either because their GPs told them, or they participated in squatter occupied social centers that are based on autogestation.  Here, the only radical conflagration most peoples' grandparents have in their history is WWII.  Consensus building is new, and it weirds people out when they're compelled to decide on things in a way that doesn't present them choice A or choice B and expect them to choose, or appoint somebody else to choose for them.

I think some people have however, been too focused on the relationship with the cops and the city.  People need to see that relationship as a something that can be (to use the parlance of our age) capitalized upon.  This means we CAN organize effectively without too much pressure.  What I see happening howevever (and this is improving) is a lot of complaining, and not a lot of participating.  Pissed off that finance is talking about a 501c4? Well...go join the finance committee...think people are doing a bad job facilitating...well...go to a facilitation meeting!  Not happy with the relationship with the city? Go to the city laison committee!!

What we need to understand is that this process involves the scouring away of IDIOCY. And I use the word IDIOT in a specific way.  Idiot comes from the greek word Idiotes....The greeks had a sexist and class based democracy.  But those bestowed the priviledge of citizenship were expected (yet not compelled) to participate in their democracy.  That meant going to Assembly each week, rotating into administrative, political, and military offices, and other matters of civic importance.  A man who could participate and refused to...was called an idiot.  This idiocy is with us at OccupyLA; and it is hard and slow to erode, but it's erosion is moving forward.  The GAs have been improving, the committees are growing, and people are realizing that to get a change they want...camping out, smoking weed, and bitching about the cops not beating us up ain't just gonna cut it.  Find the tools, they may not be perfect, and use them, instead of tipping over the box and crying about the mess!

If government would only adhere to their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws we would not be in this horrible mess. But instead they take bribes/ campaign contributions and either give massive bail outs or they violate the Constitution by granting Retro Active Immunity from prosecution.

 Robert kennedy spoke out against retro active immunity..."QUOTE" (The very idea of "retroactive immunity" ... is so radical, so repugnant to the most basic principles of the "rule of law," that only one prior attempt can be found in recent history (at least from my research): the efforts by some in Congress (in 1965) to enact a law retroactively legalizing the mergers by six large banks which clearly -- as a federal court found -- were illegal under our nation's antitrust laws. 

The banks knew when they merged that they were almost certainly violating anti-trust laws. But they did it anyway. And when courts began ruling that their behavior was illegal, they ran to Congress to demand that a law be passed granting them amnesty, claiming that the consequences would be ruinous if they were held accountable under the law. )  But the very concept of retroactive amnesty, the idea that corporations could break the law and then have Congress pass a special law legalizing their lawbreaking conduct, was so profoundly offensive to Sen. Robert Kennedy (who had been the Attorney General when the banks broke the law with their mergers), as well as then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, that they engaged in extraordinary efforts to try to put a stop to this Congressional travesty.    If Robert Kennedy was able to stop them at that time in our history then we would most certainly not be in this possition today. What will happen in the future now that it is legal for judges to take bribes? How could you bring evidence of corruption and violations of the LAW when you have a court that has been granted RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY for taking bribes.  

 The change must start with the courts. Without a fair and unbiased court you can not have JUSTICE, YOU CAN NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS. In the constitution the right to due process is stated over and over again. Our founding fathers knew the dangers when judges could be bought. They knew the dangers when the financial institutions became too big.

 SECTION FROM SBX211 

 This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. (NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW) SBX211 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

SBX211 is evidence of conspiracy of the California legislative branch of government to cover up the multiple felony's committed by the Judicial branch of government. By an act of Legislation, California's judicial branch has admitted to be corrupt.

 HISTORY OF RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES

1. given for illegsl use of torture

2. given for illegal merger of banks ( we can see the effects of that now )

3. given to telecom company for illegal wire taps. (Fisa bill that led to the patriot act)

4. given to Judges for taking bribes. (SBX211)

SBX211 does not restore due process

SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9

SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)