More supportive? Damn right.
(CNN) – “As Americans learn more about Occupy Wall Street, they are becoming more supportive of the movement's positions, according to a new poll from ORC International.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/03/more-americans-supporting-occupy-wall-street/
While more people are inclined to support Occupy Wall Street protesters, more are also finding ways to participate in the growth of the Occupation Movement. Some have taken to the streets (see video). Others have taken the time to attend a General Assembly. And we have seen a conversation about issues that affect all Americans occurring here and elsewhere that never occurred prior to September 17th when Occupy Wall Street began their siege on the financial district in New York.
Now the media is obliged to post global accounts like this one:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2098549,00.html
Things are changing rapidly, but only because politicians have been forced to reckon with the pent-up dissent that has spilled onto the streets. But the same politicians, especially mayors, are beginning to get the message:
“So the mayor (Ed Lee of San Francisco) has not only ‘softened’ his stance on Occupy San Francisco’s encampment, as The San Francisco Examiner reported, he’s all but reversed it.”
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/occupy-oakland-drama-takes-spotlight-grateful-ed-lee#ixzz1ce9vUe00
Here’s another account of the Oakland march:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/03/BANI1LQ2HO.DTL&tsp=1
And the quote of the day:
“Occupy Wall Street began with a simple act of civil disobedience, but Occupy Oakland's success in disrupting commerce on such a large scale represented an escalation of that tactic.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/242762/20111103/occupy-oakland-strike-hi...
All of this means that the Occupation Movement is showing no signs of weakening or dissolving as Wall Street and the dominant political parties had hoped. On the contrary, more people are joining the movement in sometimes-subtle ways like the effort by a few restaurateurs to decline credit card purchases or Men’s Wearhouse closing its doors in support of the Occupy Oakland general strike.
Everyone can contribute in their own way. There is no membership fee, no commitment of any kind. Unlike some other organizations that have used the movement to fatten their coffers, the Occupation Movement has made no concerted effort to solicit funds, only donations to keep us powered-up and fed. (And many thanks to those who have contributed).
There will be lots of post-strike reporting and commentary today. Much of it will be critical. But as the movement inches towards a framework for an organizational structure, keep in mind that the 99% are beginning to become more cohesive on their own, without the help of the media or any apparatus for recruiting members or soliciting donations.
The Occupation Movement is spontaneous and remains fluid, an amorphous work in progress; a phenomenon that defies explanation and traditional reporting. (And you can’t help but enjoy the confusion caused when marchers suddenly change course and decide to march to a different location). Where are they going now? Nobody knows. But wherever it may be, we will continue to be fascinated by the magnitude, the drama and the spontaneity of these actions.
Please note that the Farmer's Market is directly across the street, and as of this morning, no hard feelings about the move. All the more reason to visit our compatriots.
3 Comments
You have 4 aces why don't you play them??? REPEAL SBX211
Submitted by dan cooper on
If we could put together a petition to repeal SBX211 (retro active immunity) given to judges for taking bribes from the county and given to all governmental employee's that gave the bribes, Then you would put yourself in a very stong possition for further negotiations. LET ME PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY.
1. judges get paid a state salary of $178,789.00 a year with medical and retirement benefits up to 75% of their salary from the state.
2. Los Angeles County is currenty giving the judges an additional $57,688.00 per year per judge. there are 460 judges that equals to $26,536,480.00 per year.
3. in the case of sturgeon vs Los Angeles County those payments were found to be unconstitutional / illegal. after that decission the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 ( retro active immunity from prosecution)
4. There is no bigger user of the court then L.A.County, put it this way, if you and I were in court and my name is L.A. County and your name is OWS and I hand the judge $57,688.00 and I tell him I'm concerned about his retirement and I want to give you some suplimental benefitts. THAT IS A BRIBE.
5. If we demand to repeal SBX211 and demand that corperations and governmental agencie's are held to the same standards of the LAW that everyone else is held to the LAW. then we could exspect juctice and fair play.
6. demand that the $26 and a half million spent on suplamental benefitts be appropriated towards a fair and open banking commitee. ( don't worry about those judges they allready well compensated by the STATE as per the CA constitution.) Also if SBX211 was repealed the the judges would be forced to return all the money they took from the county. APPOXIMATELY $400 MILLION. If you want a bank oversight committee you will need to hire alot of accountants. $400 million plus $26.5 million annually would be a very good way to actually do it.
7. here is a list of reasons for the petition to repeal SBX211.
A. SBX211 does not restore due process
B. SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9
C. SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)
D. SBX211 violate checks and balances between legislative and Judicial powers.
E. Judges do not disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest. (Judges violate Judicial codes of ethics)
F. Judges refuse to recuse themselves when requested under CCP170
G. Judges find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.
ADDITIONAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT BELOW
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.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. Robert Kennedy could not stop them.
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.
Why didn't everyone participate in the solidarity march?
Submitted by nobody on
There was a solidarity march with OO last night, but a whole lot of people didn't go. Instead, they hung out at the encampment. Why did this happen? I find it troubling. I made an effort to go, even though I am not camping out, and got it at the end. I'm not 100% with the messages at the rally at the end, but I went to support because it's critical that we have unity between the different occupations. You can't grow without solidarity.
Well, if literally *everybody
Submitted by PC on
Well, if literally *everybody* went on the march, the camp would be unguarded and we could have gotten back to City Hall and found that the camp had been cleared while we were gone. I know what you mean, though. A lot of people clearly have come to Occupy LA to see what it can do for them (e.g., provide them with a 24/7 party spot) rather than the other way around.
Pages