{"items": [{"author": "Dan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/300909116591726?comment_id=300917806590857", "anchor": "fb-300917806590857", "service": "fb", "text": "Taking the kids to Wall St tomorrow. :)", "timestamp": "1318599622"}, {"author": "Rick", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/300909116591726?comment_id=300920936590544", "anchor": "fb-300920936590544", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm having trouble understanding this movement. Mostly what I hear is, \"Im mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!\" I have heard many things that many of the people involved with the movement are against, although it doesn't seem to be a cohesive list, and varies amongst participants (much like the Tea Party, in this way). I have not heard any constructive proposals for moving forward, or what should be done differently. I will be interested if this is presented in a clear way.", "timestamp": "1318600078"}, {"author": "Kevin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/300909116591726?comment_id=300984446584193", "anchor": "fb-300984446584193", "service": "fb", "text": "hi Rick!

here's one excellent perspective on the lack of a clear message:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/.../occupy-wall.../...

I read another article describing how the lack of coherence is working in the protest's favor, but can't find it now.

To me, I worry that clear specific policy demands hurt the movement for several reasons.
1. although a majority could agree on certain policy actions, there is no universal consensus, same as within the american political spectrum. articulating policy demands excludes some individuals. this movement is about bring ALL of the 99% together, and frankly, the 99% doesn't have consensus, and its not realistic to expect that it will anytime soon, especially in this {manufactured} political climate.
2. the moment clear policy demands are articulated, one political party or another (perhaps libertarians) can co-opt the movement. \"they're supporting our policies, occupy wall street is on our side.\" that is the moment when this movement ceases to be historically relevant. then its just jammed into playing the same old partisan game. see this article for a partial (somewhat disjointed) discussion of how that looks: http://www.reddit.com/.../an_open_letter_and_warning.../

I think this movement exists to give voice to frustration, not just within the ranks of the protesters, but in the national discourse. It's carrying with it a cloud of discussion, and some new vocabulary, and new expectations... reminding the nation of what our society is supposed to look like. I think that's it's policy-related power, in bringing the rest of the country along for the ride and changing our policy expectations.

another way to say \"no clear policy objective\" is \"no endgame.\" that's totally intentional. this protest is, broadly, challenging a system, and vanishing after any one or three or ten specific changes to that system's codes may not cut it.

in conclusion, i think the protest applies pressure to lawmakers much better without policy focus than it would with. the unstated ultimatum is: \"you'll have to learn to think in a new way, think in a way that sees through the invisible power structure, and you'll have to take it apart and give 99% of the power back to the 99%. until you do, you'll have a noisy disruptive force wrecking your poll numbers and creating political discontent.\" that's the takeaway message. and its survival doesn't depend on the continued presence of protesters in any city or at all; \"the 99%\" is now organized and connected and talking and shaping the discussion. to me, the writing is on the wall.", "timestamp": "1318608282"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/300909116591726?comment_id=301104376572200", "anchor": "fb-301104376572200", "service": "fb", "text": "The economic swamp we are in is a direct result of most citizens ignoring the complex, difficult to understand regulating of the market place. The market place has been operated by very intelligent folk who understand how to milk it. And these folk have the money necessary to buy the politicians to regulate it to their advantage.

The overwhelming majority of the cubic yards of the US tax code are waivers, exemptions and favorable rules for the special interests that own the congressional politicians.

Some suggestions for focus by the demonstrators:

1) Keep the capital gains taxes low, but only on long term gains from investments. Investments drive job creation. Encourage that. But tax the hell out of the short term gains that roil the markets.

2) Regulate to prohibit the irresponsible risk of many people's money to gain huge payoffs for the individual manipulators, both in corporations and financial institutions.

3) Rewrite election finance laws to prohibit aggrandized entities - corporations AND unions - from making unlimited contributions. Limit the dollar amount that individuals can contribute, including in soft money to PACs. (We need to tread very carefully here to stay on the correct side of freedom of expression.)

4) Rewrite the tax code. Reduce it to cubic feet, instead of cubic yards.

But none of this matters if citizens don't care to the point of paying close attention and voting thoughtfully.", "timestamp": "1318623884"}, {"author": "Yaron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/300909116591726?comment_id=301585173190787", "anchor": "fb-301585173190787", "service": "fb", "text": "In a way I do understand the lack of solution proposals. It's not their job to come up with solutions. It's not my job either (though I have expounded some, from the comfort of my computer chair, as Mr. Sloan did above). We elect people who get paid to come up with solutions. They're not coming up with solutions, or at least ones that are acceptable to us. And by \"us\" I mean me and people who agree with me; there are obviously lots of people out there who disagree with \"us.\"

And in fact, most protests don't offer thought out plans. They are either against a specific point or in favor of a specific point. I guess this protest falls under \"against\" - and there are so many things to be against in our current national socio-economic predicament that it's hard or impossible to distill it to a specific point.

(And the tradition of conflating random external causes into existing large-scale protests - \"No blood for oil! Save the porpoises! Elvis is alive!\" - is as old as protests.)

This begs the question, though, is camping out on city park property the right way to carry across the message and try to effect change? Are the protesters confronting the right \"adversary\"? Should the protest be taken to the homes and offices of the elected representatives? But ultimately - can the change be effected if, as Mr. Sloan points out, there are multitudes of voters voting a contradicting position? Should the efforts in fact be directed at... other voters? Many of whom would be very hard for \"us\" to reach (physically, intellectually, emotionally) b/c they are very different from \"us\"?

And is a long-term, tent-city protest paradigm ultimately capable of effecting change? This is eerily reminiscent to me of the Tiananmen Square protests. In interviews I've seen, the organizers have said that they realized at a certain point that the protests can only end in disaster - with people getting killed - but they felt they couldn't put an end to them, b/c that would be seen as shameful capitulation (and, it being China, they'd have probably been jailed/tortured/killed). They conducted assemblies, with a supposedly democratic process for making daily decisions, inc. whether to continue the protest - but as they pointed out, \"those who didn't want to continue protesting voted with their feet\" - so the protests continued, with fresh supplies of transient protesters arriving continuously.

This being the US and not China, hopefully the Occupy movement wouldn't come to as tragic an end.", "timestamp": "1318708468"}]}