And now we're terrorists..

[Aadill]

Yes and no... I mean unless I'm mistaken, "no untraceable anonymous money in campaign funding" is a big one. Amendment 28.

Things like reinstating Glass-Steagall because that's where shit started getting fucked up may not be on every person's mind in particular, it's another big issue. Maybe I'm only speaking from my experience with ORaleigh (and maybe we're a bit more organized), but those are two really big things that for some reason people still seem to think is not the issue and instead focus on whiny college kids getting pepper sprayed for trespassing.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OWS can't have that impact until it decides exactly what it is that it wants to do.

Adopting the goals stated by the Occupy London Movement might not be a bad idea, for starters:

• The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
• We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
• We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
• We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
• We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
• We support...actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
• We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
• The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations.
• We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Aadill [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes and no... I mean unless I'm mistaken, "no untraceable anonymous money in campaign funding" is a big one. Amendment 28.

Things like reinstating Glass-Steagall because that's where shit started getting fucked up may not be on every person's mind in particular, it's another big issue. Maybe I'm only speaking from my experience with ORaleigh (and maybe we're a bit more organized), but those are two really big things that for some reason people still seem to think is not the issue and instead focus on whiny college kids getting pepper sprayed for trespassing.

It's not that people think that's not the issue. It's that those two issues are some of the least divisive being supported by OWS, and they're muddled by a dozen other issues that aren't supported by the average citizen. You can be pro-life without being a Republican. Similarly, you can be pro-Glass Steagall without sympathizing with OWS. That's because OWS has a platform that's far too wide at the moment.

For example, another of the common complaints of OWS is wealth inequality, but the average American voter does NOT believe wealth inequality is something that needs to be legislated against. There is an ideological reason people from lower income brackets consistently vote against tax hikes on the richest of the rich. Without passing judgment, many of the 99% don't feel entitled to the wealth of the 1%. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's true. So when you conflate that with Glass-Steagall, you're going to lose supporters.

Another example is the general anti-war rhetoric of OWS. Many OWS protesters have cited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military spending in general, as targets of their protest. But there are a lot of people that would be on board for campaign finance reform and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, but are not passionately opposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or military spending.

The point isn't that people prefer focus on kids getting pepper-sprayed. The point is that the general public may agree with some of the goals of OWS, but they are alienated by others -- and that prevents them from buying into the movement.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Adopting the goals stated by the Occupy London Movement might not be a bad idea, for starters:

• The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
• We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
• We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
• We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
• We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
• We support...actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
• We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
• The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations.
• We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.

This is a perfect example of the problem with the OWS movement.

First of all, it's absurdly vague.

Global tax injustice? How so? What is unjust about current tax rates? How could those rates be fixed? If you ask conservatives about tax rates, they say they're unjustly harsh for the rich.

Actions to defend? That's unbelievably vague. You're never going to see a politician say he is attacking your health services. They all are "defending" your health services, welfare, education, and employment. The point is: how?

That group of statements touches on government bail-outs, taxes, corporate regulation, health care, welfare, education, employment, military spending, military action, foreign aid, environmental conservation, economic reform, and foreign policy. It doesn't cite or promote a single piece of legislation or any particular reform. It's unbelievably broad and vague.

You might as well draft a policy goal of making the world a better place.

[Hasbinbad]

Therefore we propose to make the world a better place.

What the fuck is wrong with that?

You "don't" get it bro, it's cool. We understand that there are going to be intentionally ignorant people.

We'll help you anyway.

[Daldolma]

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't mean anything. Proposing to make the world a better place isn't a policy point. Everyone from Obama to McCain to Palin to Richard Simmons could run on making the world a better place. The "how" is what matters.

As of now, OWS has no "how". Or more accurately, they have a hundred "hows". It's impossible to gain enough public support to sway elections with a group of loosely affiliated people that really don't even agree with each other over what reforms are necessary. In order to impact the government, it's going to be necessary to target specific policies that can gain broad popular appeal.

And I don't see how you figure you're helping me. As of now, you're not changing anything. Once you decide what it is you're trying to change, then we can decide if it's helping me or not.

[Hasbinbad]

Question: What are we trying to change?
Answer: Everything.

the only solution is <big>WorldRevolution</big>

[Daldolma]

Haha, okay. Good luck with that.

I'm assuming, eventually, some prudent people become leaders within the OWS movement and limit the scope to bringing about a few significant changes. It would be a shame to waste so much political will.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't mean anything.

I understand what your saying, but defining goals is the first step in the how.

And I agree the movement is lacking direction. The fact remains that a lot of people get the fact that a lot of things are wrong, and that the non-rich haven't been properly served for a very long time.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm assuming, eventually, some prudent people become leaders within the OWS movement and limit the scope to bringing about a few significant changes. It would be a shame to waste so much political will.

Totally agree.