The interwebs is all ablaze this morning, after the city surprised Occupy Wall Street protesters with a late-night eviction from Zucotti Park and the arrest of about 200 people.

The park served as the birthplace for a movement that has swept across the nation in just two months, since a group of activists angry about the unbalanced influence of wealth in government first took up residence in the Financial District-area park.

But public reaction to the city giving the activists the boot is mixed. Some are expressing gratitude that the park got cleaned and the space reopened for locals, while others say the city pulled a dirty trick with the late-night maneuver. Some activists are also alleging police mistreatment, saying they were overly aggressive in how they handled activists. What do you think?

Related posts

  • http://twitter.com/stefamafone Mos Stef

    The NYPD destroyed 5,000 books from the OWS library, and wouldn’t let journalists cover what was going on. They blocked NBC/CBS choppers from the airspace above, and shut down subway lines in the area. And of course, more pepper spray and batons were used.

    It’s funny, because this is only going to backfire and end up strengthening public support for OWS.

    • Kon

      At first, I did not support OWS. But then, through their hard efforts in protesting for the return of Arrested Development, Arrested Development got a new season. So now, if the OWS protesters get Firefly back on TV, they will be my BFFLs (Best Friends For Life (For you old people.))

      Edit: OH and they can protest to save COMMUNITY. NBC is on the verge of canceling it.

      • Allanb

        Whoever gets Firefly back on TV is a god!

        • Kon

          Chuck is ending so Adam Baldwin is free. Summer Glau is probably free right now because every show she’s been on since Firefly got canceled. Sean Maher and Alan Tudyk haven’t done anything of importance since Serenity. Nathan Fillion is doing Castle, but I’d be fine if it was canceled. It’s not that good anyway. Gina Torres is doing SUITS. She isn’t really that important on the show. Ron Glass is probably napping somewhere until someone wakes him up for his next job. Am I missing anyone? Nope. Good. Oh, wait. I forgot Inara Baccarain. Yeah. She isn’t doing anything other then looking sexy. 

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

            i love Adam Baldwin, going all the way back to “My Bodyguard”!

    • Anonymous

      Damn Right!

      My only concern is…. Where did they get money for all them Signs?  if they trying to protest against not having money.  Perhaps they should have saved the 40′s and 70′s dollars that were used to buy food. and what not.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        They are getting contributions from everywhere. Buys food and signs.

        Even some of the 1% believe they have something of value to say.

        • Anonymous

          Oh.

          • nolastname

            ;-) , You’re just jealous they did not buy the signs from you. LOL.
            Hey, there’s an idea.

      • guest

        The protest has nothing to do with not having money or being poor. Its about corruption and corporate greed.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

        • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

          you mean government corruption too, right?

    • Anonymous

      They were give time to leave, those that did not got what was coming to them.  I supposed you would like to have 1000 stoned-out maniacs camp out in-front of your house.

      • nolastname

        Yes.

    • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

      I’m glad it was finally broken up, for practical reasons. You know there was going to be either 1) some nut in OWS was going to shoot or knife a cop, or 2) some cop was going to shoot one of them… I was afraid of a Kent State repeat.I’m sure many of OWS were aiming for such a martyred status, maybe not shooting, but certainly trying to incite police violence. And there was probably more than one cop looking for the first chance to beat a head or two in.

       Listen. They had something to say, and there’s certainly validity to the growing income inequity in this country.  But taking over a park? Nah, it can’t be allowed to continue.

         I wanted the Tea Party to take over a corner of Washington Square Park. But of course there would have been hypocritical howling, demands to shut them down, and when asked about the change in opinion, the usual “but  this is different” explanation would have ensued, with some cockamamie warped logic.

  • Brightonresident

    The police even beat a City Councilman in the process.  The 1% is getting ver nervous!

  • 99

    Police state tactics. 

  • Stan D

    You can’t just occupy private property. Enough is enough – about time they kicked the bums out.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

    The methods used this morning were illegal. This is Chicago 1968 starting all over again.  While Bloomberg lacks the color of a Richard Daley he certainly has the same arrogance.

    • Stan D

      Hey, it’s a private park. If you want to invite them over your house or your neighborhood – that’s cool with me, but I understand the people who live and have to work there are not too happy.

      • 99

        They were only in a private park because camping in public parks is prohibited altogether. So basically you’re saying any long-term public assembly can’t be allowed.

        • Allanb

          They can protest in a public park all they want, they just can’t “camp” there. No one said they couldn’t protest in shifts. 
          This OWS lacks organization and structure. They need a CEO of their own.

          • 99

            You’re about a month and a half late with this “no organization and structure” critique. A structure has been evolving there through the organization of different committees and working groups, and the GA process had become more efficient.

            Funny, if it started off as a top-down organization with clear leadership, a lot of the same people here would be calling the Leninists. Instead you have a bottom-up democratic deliberative process and people are bitching that it has been taking too long to organize. I guess you just can’t win.

          • Allanb

            Your contradict yourself. Either it has an organization and structure, or it’s on it’s way there. Regardless if they’re in the process of organizing, they’re still not. There’s a huge difference between being in the process of something and having finished. 

            The point where we win, is the point at which the organization is finally formed, makes a clear point of focus for their agenda, and then goes after the very root of the problem they were against. There’s nothing that prevents an organization incorporating and making the service or product they offer the right to live without having to suffer the results of greed (which itself is not illegal) and the corruption it breeds within the financial sector and our government.

            I stand by what I said. The OWS still lacks organization. They need a CEO. Regardless of how they get there, through a democratic process or by appointing one immediately, bottoms up or top down, they need leadership and proper project management. Only then will they be able to send a clear message that will be heard. 

            If they can afford signs and the ability to begin the process of organizing now, they’ll be able to afford marketing and PR campaigns later on when they are organized.

          • 99

            There is no contradiction. Quite simply: it is a movement whose identity evolves through its own everyday practices. This distinction you make between process and existence doesn’t fly – most things in the world are not an either/or. An acorn and an oak tree are both different and at the same time the same, since one is in the process of becoming the other. Same for OWS: you don’t wake up one day and all of a sudden see what was a disorganized protest the night before become a political party machine the following morning. Process is important. Whatever OWS develops into in the future doesn’t make it any less of a movement right now, and it doesn’t make the issues they raise any less pertinent.

            Maybe one reason the ruling establishment doesn’t know quite how to handle this is because they (and we) are so used to politics simply being a list of demands that you hand to your representative, or meaning you go to the polls once every 2 years. And that’s a tactical advantage that OWS can exploit, if they’re smart about it. 

          • Allanb

            “it is a movement whose identity evolves through its own everyday practices.” that’s a load of crock if I ever heard one. It’s a bunch of unorganized people that don’t have any clear focus, plain and simple.

            An acorn and an oak tree are indeed two different things, and not the same. What kind of attempt at zen is that? 

            You’re correct, process is important, but while in the process of organizing, they are not yet organized. If they were, they would be sending a clear message. They’re not sending a clear message, and a list of demands is necessary if we expect those demands to be met.

            If OWS thinks they can change the way we do politics in this country, then more power to them, and I certainly hope they do. But they are still unorganized right now, it is just a movement, no matter how important some people might believe that to be, and until they do form a recognizable organization, they have nothing to stand on.

            The ruling establishment knows very well how to handle this. It’s through bully tactics and slander. That’s how the opposition wins in their world. Unless OWS forms a recognizable organization that can earn the respect of the ruling establishment, they won’t be able to fight for what they want. 

          • 99

            Once again and without fail you miss the point. No movement remains the same so long as it is a movement. There are not two stages: 1. disorganization and 2. organization, after which nothing happens. What OWS started off as in September is not the same as it is now, both internally and in relation to other Occupy groups in the country. I don’t know how to put this in any more simpler terms. And it’s not zen, Allanb, its dialectics. In this context, it illustrates what we understand as reality is almost constantly in flux. An acorn has the potential of the oak tree immanent within it. Was the 5 year old version of you the same person as you are now? I bet you’d say yes, but also different in many respects. It’s the same thing.

            The OWS message is clear enough to those who are paying attention. There is a polarization of wealth in this country; our political system is broken and not representative (if it ever really was); people are lacking things like affordable housing and health care that citizens of most other industrialized democracies have; and the list goes on. Or is that not enough? Is OWS supposed to propose concrete policy suggestions as well? Saying there are no demands is just unthinkingly repeating what you hear from mainstream media.

          • 99

            Let me add: I’m not opposed to organization on principle, although some people in OWS clearly are. It’s probably true that OWS needs to organize better if it wants to become a sustainable and transformative movement in the long-term. Where I disagree is that this needs to be done before people have to take it seriously, which is where I think our conversation has been going.

          • Allanb

            To your first point, no, the 5 year old version of me was not or is not the same person I am now. I also don’t view this as separate stages, but as a simple matter of fact. No recognizable organization and a recognizable organization. At what point in the process of maturing the unorganized becomes organized, I can’t tell you, but when it does, it becomes recognizable, and that’s when I can take it more seriously.

            As for the OWS message being clear, that’s a fallacy. To say there is a polarization of wealth in this country – show me, I don’t see it. I want concrete proof, not here say. Is the political machine broken? absolutely, which is where I agree there needs to be reform, because I do see how people are lacking affordable housing and healthcare, however I still attribute this to our government being too big, getting involved in the financial sector and allowing the financial sector to get involved in politics. This is one of the reasons I believe, as you mentioned, our government has stopped being representative.

            It would make things a lot more clear, and prove to be a lot more serious, if OWS did indeed propose suggestions of concrete policy changes. I would certainly take OWS a lot more seriously if they did.

            I never said they have no demands. I said they need focus and structure and organization, and that their demands were unclear.

          • 99

            To extend the analogy further, is last week’s or last month’s version of you also a different person? Where do you draw the line between something that is and isn’t identical to itself? Stating that its just an obvious “matter of fact” doesn’t really clarify anything. I still maintain that organization and disorganization are not a dichotomy with a clear boundary, but are both part of a process. Organization is not  a point that you reach once and for all, but an ongoing activity. A movement doesn’t renounce the possibility of changing itself after it is organized.

            It’s not hard to find statistics and research on the growing inequality in America. A quick google search helps. Here’s one: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph. What OWS has done is make this a relevant public and policy issue once again. But there’s a simple reason the people there are not giving concrete policy recommendations: they’re not technocrats and its not their job to figure out. They’re simply people who know something is wrong and making their voices heard. The people in government are the ones who need to rack their brains. Plus, I’m sure if OWS started issuing policy memos those against them would argue precisely that they shouldn’t do that because they don’t know anything.  

              

          • nolastname

            2 months of an unorganized movement… Yes, no one is watching and no other states are supporting them. Maybe not doing things your textbook style is spreading. 
            Ya see, not everyone is believing the slander and BS Bloomie is dishing out.
            Most people are aware of the jokes the city passes off and they do not roll with it.
            Bloomass (and his buds), still too worried about the market in Europe…….now back to him asking people to support his investments.
            Ya’ gotta’ believe for the market to support the 1%. Too pathetic.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            They can camp there. The eviction was illegal on its face. The hearing today is to decide whether there are extraordinary circumstances in which their eviction would be warranted. We shall know in an hour whether the claim made by the city have credibility in a court.

          • Stan D

            Just said they can’t camp.. hah.

          • nolastname

            And that may be a good thing….now they will have to set up all over NYC. Hah….ha-ha!
            Like come SQUAT in my back yard, you poor slob. Right Stan? Do you recognize sarcasm? 
            The goings on of city,state and feds is screwing us all. That is unless you are the 1%. 
            Sorry your above blissful statement will be short lived. 

        • Stan D

          “long-term public assembly” – is that a fancy term for squatting? Why bother paying rent – let’s just build huts on parks and sidewalks! So, basically you are saying I can come over your house and hang out in your backyard for a few months and when you try to have cops kick me out – I’ll just yell “The world is watching!”. 

          • 99

            It means taking up a public space (it’s irrelevant if the park is privately owned, it’s still a public area) to give voice to popular demands that have not been heard. And policymakers only listen if there is consistent and growing pressure applied by the people, so it needs to be long-term. I don’t know where you’re going with this park-home analogy, since they’re obviously very different examples.

            About squatting: I don’t know about you, but I see a huge problem when condos and new developments are still being erected with this city with no one able to afford them, or if empty lots just stay that way for years because of lack of capital for development, while many people continue to remain homeless or are being evicted or having their homes foreclosed. That itself should be a sign that something with this system and its enforcement of property rights is very wrong. As Anatole France wrote, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike
            to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

          • levp

            Nice quote!

          • Stan D

            “It means taking up a public space (it’s irrelevant if the park is privately owned, it’s still a public area)” – it’s only a public space at the discretion of that space’s owner. You have to follow the rules if you want to stay there. Kind of like nobody would let pro life protesters occupy an abortion clinic for two months. 

            As for the second part, if investors choose to buy land and spend their money on construction of condos that nobody can afford – that’s a bad investment. They’ll either lose money or the bank will lose money if they foreclose (just as the folks you’ve mentioned foreclosing on a bad investment). 

            As for the quote – style over substance. Not sure what it has to do with the OWS protest.

          • Regina

            The risk those investors who built condos took has destroyed the quality of life on my block and in my neighborhood. Partly developed and abandoned projects accumulate trash that no one picks up, whole blocks filled with families who supported local business have relocated, with no one to replace them. Rat populations grow and grow, the people left behind struggle to maintain the value and appearance of their own home-but it looks like a dump anyway, and feels like a ghost town. WE ALL PAY for those risks. The bastards who built these hideous things will probably file for bankruptcy or get bailed out otherwise. I would sooner see squatters, low income housing or just about anything move into these buildings and depress the ridiculous rent prices to where they belong. OWS and the 99 per cent are welcome in my back yard.

          • Stan D

            Which condos are these?

          • Regina

            Here is one. Enjoy the fantasy photos. http://www.sochionbanner.com/ That’s just one example.

          • Stan D

            Hah, I did see those on Trulia – yea, they are overpriced. Someone took a gamble and lost money. What’s the solution? Abolish private property? As for wanting low income housing there – riiight. I highly doubt the neighborhood with support that idea.

          • Regina

            What neighborhood? I could count who’s left there on one hand. I am the freakin’ neighborhood and I’m not a NIMBY a-hole.

          • Regina

            But really, I am going to check my reflexive/ defensive behavior here. I don’t know you and you probably want solutions, too. I don’t suggest abolishing private property but I have nothing against squandered resources being used in a way that can improve people’s lives, no matter their income. Low income housing is not a dirty word. NY’ers are filing for food stamps in unprecedented numbers. Poor people are not some weird boogeyman, they are your neighbors, your co-workers, and possibly even friends of yours too embarrassed to say anything. Besides as expensive as it is, it doesn’t take much to BE poor in NY. I would love to see some form of action that corrects a neighborhood problem. Me reporting to 311 all the time isn’t enough, and OWS hasn’t convinced some of you that they are working for a better situation for all of us.

          • Stan D

            “squandered resources” – the resources that were squandered were private. Were they not? You are not suggesting we start taking resources away from people, cause we think we know better how to apply them than the people who actually own them? “Low income housing is not a dirty word” – sure, but let’s not ignore that crime usually goes up – not down, around “low income housing”.   “OWS hasn’t convinced some of you that they are working for a better situation” – yes, nothing says serious like forming drum circles and wearing masks. Very convincing!

          • nolastname

            Seems to be working Stan. The other states getting in and supporting OWS are convinced,no?

          • nolastname

            reflexive/defensive? Please just let them fly. I am short and to the point. I do not copy and paste. I speak from experience and memory. Good is the intelligent and as good is the person with patience. But to me it is easier to say STFU Stan. It is a waste of breath to say more to an ass. An ass will only blow it back in your face.

          • Stan D

            I suspect you’ld find some resistance to public housing being built there. Now, if your backyard is big enough to accommodate such a unit you can go ahead and petition the city to have it built there. Ofcourse, then, many of your neighbors might get pissed about it and the affects it will have on the neighborhood – much like you are pissed about the Sochi condos… Funny how private property works, isn’t it?

          • Regina

            I doubt that the resources that are used to fix the mess will be private. One way or another it is everyone’s problem, not just the developers. I never implied that a solution would require removing private property-that was you.  When the owners of the property fail to take care of said property the city wastes its resources to do so. When I call 311, someone has to come out and take a look and maybe ticket all the other poor shmoes with infinitesimal cracks in the sidewalk, rather than tackle bigger problems. It is not funny how it works, it’s serious, and you are the one delegitimizing the problem. You can make fun of drum circles all you want, I’d rather look for solutions, and possibly even explore some that look unpalatable at first. 

          • nolastname

            Pathetic how some people logic.

          • nolastname

            STFU already. All the condos. How’s that for an answer. All the bank supported developments that have turned this area into shit. No fancy talk just SHIT.

          • nolastname

            These people are not squatters, they have jobs, families and homes that they are doing without for a cause. Something that you (even though you don’t realize it) will benefit from…..unless you are the 1%.
            PS….why would you be in my yard? Is it because you are protesting for a cause or squatting because the system has failed you?

          • Stan D

            Are you under an impression that one must be unemployed or not have a family to be a squatter? You are a squatter if you squat – it’s that simple.

          • nolastname

            Ya’ want to put it that way? The people in alphabet city were squatters 30 odd years ago. Some of which won residence. 
            Simple?

          • Stan D

            Were they squatting on private property?

          • nolastname

            No slums created by the banks.

          • Stan D

            How does a bank create a slum? Enlighten me.

          • nolastname

            Are you kidding me? I worked in the realty field, any any ass sees the repocussions.

          • Regina

            Hmmmm….that sounds so familiar, and oddly current. A lot of those squats matured into well cared for affordable housing, arts organizations  and led the way for neighborhood improvements. Squatter does not always = lazy or unambitious. Many properties that were deteriorating were rescued and improved by squatters.

        • nolastname

          The way I see it is he’s saying let them assemble everywhere else. OK with me.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        Brookfield, the owner, has chosen not to act to have them removed.

        And a lot of people who work in that neighborhood don’t mind them being there. Probably many don’t care one way or the other. That opinion comes from being down there and talking to people

        • Stan D

          “Brookfield appreciates the peaceful and professional response of the NYPD, the FDNY, and the Department of Sanitation, and thanks Mayor Bloomberg for his leadership. As had been widely reported, conditions in Zuccotti Park had become dangerous, unhealthy and unsafe,” the company said in a statement. “In our view, these risks were unacceptable and it would have been irresponsible to not request that the city take action. Further, we have a legal obligation to the city and to this neighborhood to keep the Park accessible to all who wish to enjoy it, which had become impossible.”Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/protestors_await_judge_decision_vJIEosynd87dIwc3vMpRHK#ixzz1dp77B1I4

      • nolastname

        Please OWS come to my neighborhood, include C.I, Brighton, Midwood, Canarsie and everywhere there are people who know they are the 99%. 
        Duhh.. I think the internet is working on that. 

  • Allanb

    One does not simply occupy wall street… okay, the lord of the rings thing may not work here…. 

    joking aside, it’s unfortunate that this entire event has not been covered in an open and fair manner by any of the news media corporations, and not nearly enough by local bloggers. It’s also unfair that police stormed in and kicked people out of a peaceful protest, however, it’s unfair to the people of the U.S.A. that OWS is still so unorganized and lacks a clear message and focus.I’m willing to bet that if OWS organizes, structures itself and possibly incorporates itself from a movement into a legitimate organization, they’ll find themselves with more rights and capability to speak out against what the small part of the financial sector that screwed the rest of us over is, and have a real chance and creating some real dialogue with the city and the nation regarding the corruption of meddling politicians in our financial sector, and the financial sector lobbying as much as they do (or at all) “funding” our politicians.

    They need to create a focused, organized list of grievances, rather than simply hanging around a park with signs asking in general for equal rights and financial reform.  They need to approach the issues as a corporation would, by becoming incorporated (fight fire with fire).

    But I can’t blame the police (or more specifically, the mayor and the city and all it’s bureaucrats) for kicking them out of the park, even if it is a shame, because it needed cleaning and care on a professional level. The city can’t simply stop operating because a bunch of trust fund babies are upset that their trust funds are not worth as much as they want them to be which means they might have to actually work hard to earn money in the future. I’ll agree wholeheartedly with the protests when the protests are focused with legitimate concerns (concerns that can be explained and proven beyond “I heard from…” or “I read somewhere…” and pose an actual threat to our society on a social and economic level) and show a structured organized front.

    I also don’t blame NYPD for following orders. It’s their job. The police are not here to protect us, they’re here to enforce law and put down civil unrest. They are not your friends, they’re your allies when you’ve been unlawfully offended. They’re civil soldiers, not bodyguards, and the fact that they do go above and beyond to help save lives and protect us in times of need deserves respect. The fact that they’ve been ordered to evacuate protesters, to keep vandals from causing more mayhem and harm than they already have, and to ensure peace on our streets, is a liability that should be assigned to the bureaucrats and politicians that give them those orders. Yes, they have gone too far, too often, in executing those orders, and those responsible should pay the penalties according to the law, but just as equally as those “protesters” that instigate and act as the catalyst for many of the situations where police brutality and unnecessary force were used.

    There will not be a proper dialogue between  government and the people unless the people organize properly and within the boundaries of the “system”. In this day and age, it means becoming a corporation. It takes a corporation to take down another corporation. 

    I wish there would be an end to the blaming of all CEO’s, simply because they make a lot of money. There’s nothing wrong with making money, it’s encouraged in fact, and good for the economy. Work hard, and you’ll earn your keep. It’s the illegal or suspicious practices in the financial sector that are to blame for our economic and social issues, not “the rich”.

    Stop the practice of lobbying, get religion out of politics, get government out of the financial sector, and we’ll be well on our way to correcting our financial state of the union.

    • Local Broker

      I guess this is a response to Neds FB post. Good job. 

      • Allanb

        Does that fill the quota for the week?

        • Anonymous

          it does

        • Local Broker

          I dont know about you but after i post this response i want a bonus for going over my quota. 

  • levp

    I thought I would never say this: here is a Republican I could vote for.
    http://www.buddyroemer.com/

    • Allanb

      I’m actually for Gary Johnson, conservative (really more libertarian) with a good head on his shoulders and great experience.
      http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

      • Anonymous

        Why not support Ron Paul who actually has a shot.

        • Allanb

          Just because a politician has a shot does not make them worthy of being in office. I’ll vote for the right person because they’re the right person, not because they have a shot.

        • 99

          Because a nutjob is more ideologically consistent than his opponents doesn’t make him any less of a nutjob.

          • Anonymous

            What’s that Trosky? Did you say you want a bigger more corrupt government.  March on comrade. 

          • 99

            Trollolol. Go ahead, get government out of the economy. It worked perfectly for the British up till about 1873. Like, free markets and stuff, bro.

          • Anonymous

            Hey you always got pro bail out, pro taxes pro big government Obama.  I hope you like being a corporate slave.

          • 99

            Actually I’m not an Obama supporter. And the only corporate slaves are tools like you that refuse to see how corporate money already dominates politics, and would do so even more in the absence of regulations. But nice lingo, I’m sure your employer is proud.

          • Anonymous

            Regulations and other laws are in most cases advocated by corporate interests.  Well Trotsky good luck with the revolution, try not to take too many drugs if you go back to OWS.

          • 99

            Where do you get this nonsense? Example: the repeal of Glass-Steagall was pushed by Republicans in alliance with corporate interests, not the other way around. Either you pull your head out of your ass and make some factual assertions, or just give up. Have fun at Opium tonight, bro.

          • Anonymous

            Have fun at Opium???  What does that mean?  Bank bail outs, war funding, fed manipulation, no bid contracts, all corporate interest backed.  Have fun at Opium…. That’s your big finish, huh.

          • 99

            And your brilliant solution is what? That by removing regulations you’re going to return the economy to a competitive equilibrium? A few things you obviously don’t know: 1. That equilibrium has never existed at any point in history. It is the result of deductive economic modeling that has no correlation to economic processes in the context of politics and society. 2. The state has ALWAYS been involved in the economy, including in the 19th century that people see as the age of laissez faire capitalism. This isn’t even a point of contention among economic historians anymore. 3. Capitalism naturally tends toward monopolies, as competition dwindles to a handful of powerful enterprises. Then you’ll know corporate slavery. 

            What next? You’re gonna call me Trotsky again?

          • Anonymous

            Ok, Trotsky

            1)  What equilibrium are you talking about exactly, the one between poor and rich people?  Yes there have always been poor and always been rich.  There are always people who are smarter and who are better off and those who aren’t.  Nothing you can do will ever change that.  The most government can do is make sure that everyone has a a certain minimum living standard.

            2)  You said it well, the state or in this case the States need to be responsible and regulate themselves, not the federal government, which with the creating of the FED and the income tax has created  a bureaucracy exploited by the corporations and those in power.  Take power away from federal government and give it to states and local communities.

            3)  While there is theoretical basis for this statement the fact is that the majority of today’s rich are self made rich and are not rich through family.   Think google, aaple, facebook, and other companies.  Why even Ted Turner. 

            Got it Trotsky?

          • 99

            Not much for original thought, huh? You couldn’t have at least thrown a Lenin or Stalin in there once?

            1. The equilibrium I’m talking about has little to do directly with what you’re talking about. Its the Hayekian idea that markets will by nature tend toward an equilibrium of supply and demand, considering all other things equal and impediments removed. I figured anyone who supports Ron Paul would know what “competitive equilibrium” would mean in this case.
            2. Do you think the development of the U.S. into an economic superpower historically had nothing to do with the expansion of the federal government? My point is that capitalism NECESSARILY exists as an economic system tied to a state. Anything else is a utopian model that it’s not even worth debating. But if you’re so concerned about corporate slavery, I’d like to hear your explanation of why states and local communities will be better able to resist corporate influence in local politics than the federal government. And why will states be any more responsible in regulating themselves?
            3. Many of today’s rich also came of age in a time where a proactive welfare state promoted an equality of opportunity that we increasingly don’t have today.

          • 99

            Also, state means any modern nation-state, not a smaller unit of a larger federal state like in the U.S. So your point about states vs. federal is mostly irrelevant to the point I was making.

          • Anonymous

            1) Yes I read Hayek and the other Austrian economists.  We’ve never really had a type of government they advocated so you don;’t know what would happen.  Also the equilibrium would be to remove the boom/bust cycle.  You would still have rich and poor people.

            2) Being a superpower is not necessarily that advantageous. You can have a huge GDP and still have plenty of poor people cause the money is not going where it needs to go. The Soviet Union was a super power, and livign standars sucked.

            3)  If a welfare state was breeding grounds for opportunities than Europeans would be on the cutting edge of technological developments.  Instead they are on the cutting edge of falling apart.

          • 99

            1. That’s precisely my point. We’ve never had that type of government because it can’t exist. History determines what is and isn’t possible. The origins of capitalism date back to the 15th century, and from then to the present the state has played a vital role in its development, from protecting property rights to opening new markets through conquest to stabilizing recessions. Because it resides in theory but not in history, laissez faire capitalism is a utopia. (I know well enough that there would be rich and poor in a competitive equilibrium. The real question is: can it actually exist?)
            2. Superpower status is advantageous for a certain time because that country can set the terms of the global economy. There have really only been 3 in the long history of capitalism: the United Provinces, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Each came and went, and arguably the U.S. is on a downward trajectory now. (The Soviet Union was never really a superpower, despite the Cold War rhetoric, since it still lagged behind the U.S. in GDP and only 1 superpower or hegemon can exist in the world at a given time period.) And where does the money need to go? To corporations so that they can “create jobs and wealth”? Think about it: if you have decentralized political authority (ending the federal government) plus centralized economic interests (cutting regulations on corporations), what is going to happen? To me it sounds like a recipe for economics dominating local/state politics even more than they already do.
            3. Why are technological developments the benchmark of how we evaluate these things anyway? I’d say over the long term the Europeans have done pretty good job for themselves, the Euro experiment aside. Higher standards of living, much better social mobility, lower rates of poverty and unemployment. Basically everything the U.S. pretends it is. Or you can take another welfare state, Japan, as one that most people would say has been pretty damn innovative in technology.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            Wait a moment. Republicans and Democrats killed Glass-Steagall.

            The Democrats are only the lesser of two evils. There is a great difference between the two, to be sure, but in all fairness, deregulation was a bi-partisan effort.

          • 99

            Hence why I said above that I am not an Obama (or Democrat) supporter either.

      • levp

        Well, Johnson has no chance either.

        From Republicans who are at least somewhat sane, Huntsman came closest.  That’s the debate I would watch: Obama vs. Huntsman…

        Anyway, the reason I mentioned Gov. Roemer is his support for OWS, which is logical due to his position against corruption and greed.

        • Allanb

          Johnson has no chance because he hasn’t been accepted into any of the debates unfortunately. He’s the only one on a republican ticket that I can agree with though.

  • levp

    ZOMG!  You know which other Republican supports basic message of OWS (even though not saying that directly)?

    Tom Coburn (R-OK)!!! No kidding.

    “In a new report — titled “Subsidizing the Rich and Famous” — Coburn makes an argument for closing loopholes for millionaires. “From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous,” Coburn writes in the report. “This welfare for the well-off — costing billions of dollars a year — is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future generations.””

    Read Sen. Coburn’s report here:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/72804282/Subsidies-of-the-Rich-and-Famous

    Quote source:
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/coburn-end-welfare-for-the-well-off.php

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

      Obviously a communist sympathizer.

      Seriously though, perhaps Senator Coburn represents the next incarnation of the Republican Party.

  • nolastname

    With all the web connections I am receiving Thursday will be a massive march.
    Bloomie should have left well enough alone. He just helped spread this movement. Wow, I finally have something to thank the bloomin’ idiot for.

  • RKramden

    I was neutral to the whole thing until I read about workers in the area getting laid off because the foot traffic into local businesses had slowed tremendously.  On top of that, you had a few bad apples running around giving the whole thing a bad name.

    Most everyone would like to live in a world free of greed and corruption,  but come on people…these have been the virtues and traits of those in power since time immemorial.  It’s human nature…to rise to the top, you have to be willing throw morality into the wind.  Perhaps there may be a few rare exceptions to this rule, but it’s true for the most part.

  • nolastname

    The way  see it OWS just let Bloomberg dig his own grave. 
    His Wall Street buddies must have threatened to leave him flat……broke.
    He made a cute speech though.

  • Anonymous

    i think the protesters need to stop. and start somewhere else…

    LET’S OCCUPY ACTIVISION!!!!!!!!!!!! 

    http://www.redmondpie.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-sells-12-million-copies-pulling-in-34-billion/

  • Slickwilly320

    I work as a private security guard in a corporate retail store. yesterday, a woman came in with a 99 percent button and bought a cannon camera. today, a woman came in with a 99 percent button on, she asked for cardboard. i asked her if she needed it for new signs, she told me yes. i told her to tell her friends a corporation helped her.
     my point: i hate corporations……. but i hate phonies, hypocryts and parasites even more.

    • levp

      Would you suggest protesters should produce their own cardboard?  That’s actually possible, but would be much tougher with cameras…

      The point is, not all corporations are bad (even “mom and pop” stores are corporations – “99c Store Inc.”), the ones screwing with the law and/or buying politicians are.  Even with those, it is not the goal to destroy them (need to fill up car with gas myself), but to apply and enforce rules to keep illegal and/or immoral business practices in check.
      So, no hypocrites here.

      Lastly, I hate parasites as well – like fleas, for instance.  Is that controversial?

    • 99

      Really? This is the same nonsense as when people say “well how can you REALLY be anti-capitalist if you use iPhones for organizing and streaming, etc etc.” What do you want people to do, tie a string between two cans?

      But I bet saying that made you feel really good about yourself. Congrats.

  • winson

    Kicking them out was the right thing. OWS has every right to protest, but have no right to take over an entire public park, treat it like it is their home, and take it away from other people. First Amendment rights are not absolute and I am fed up with people constantly using this as an excuse to accuse others of wrong doing. OWS has just became a pack of liars with no directions in life.

    • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

      Protesting is 1 thing; squatting is quite another.

  • Andrew Kent

    It was inevitable that the City would have to take action to address the public health and safety concerns, but they should have given the protesters adequate warning, with a clear deadline to vacate and an opportunity to have the matter litigated.  Instead, the NYPD came in unannounced, risked a physical confrontation with uninformed and unprepared demonstrators, confiscated protesters’ personal property, tents, sleeping bags, and books, discarding it instead of vouchering and holding it for later retrieval, and, although numerous demonstrators were able to film the raid as they were being evicted, the police made it difficult for known and accredited journalists to adequately cover the operation, arresting or roughing up several of them.

    This could have been a public relations disaster for the OWS movement had there been violent resistance or if the occupation had continued long enough for the handful of skells and lowlifes who had infiltrated the occupation to commit violence or other criminal acts. So, given the widespread disapproval and criticism of the Mayor’s and the NYPD’s actions, most notably from many area residents and local officials, and the continued widespread support for the OWS movement, the timing seems to have benefitted OWS more than it has the City or its proposed agenda to limit the scope of the occupation.

    But the income inequality that is the focus of the OWS movement is just the tip of an iceberg that, within a short time, could result in many more people sleeping in parks and public spaces, not because they are demonstrating, but because they have nowhere else to sleep.  Spiraling rents, the paucity of affordable housing and rental subsidy programs, widespread home foreclosures, and escalating and seemingly unremediated unemployment are forcing an increasing number of New Yorkers into the ranks of the homeless just as the Bloomberg Administration is attempting to limit access to the City’s inadequate number of homeless shelters.  Zuccotti Park, at its worst, was but a microcosm of what we could be seeing in many of our city’s parks in the coming years, a scene not only reminiscent of the great depression, but one increasingly common in war-torn and impoverished parts of the third world.  Is this part of the “American Dream” our parents, teachers, and the Conservatives told us about, or will this become America’s worst nightmare?  Something’s gotta change, and soon.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    It would have had to be done sometime; other than the evening after the PM rush, however, when else could it have been done without disruption to traffic and the mass transit network? The subways were bypassing the area late last night, or you could not access the subway in lower Manhattan last night.