Monday, August 11, 2014

Former Occupy Wall Street protester found dead in park

from nypost



Former Occupy Wall Street protester found dead in park
The corner of West 97th Street and River Side Drive.Photo: Google Street View

Anne WiswellPhoto: William Farrington
A former Occupy Wall Street demonstrator from Queens was found dead in Riverside Park early Saturday, surrounded by empty beer cans and prescription bottles, cops said.
Anne Wiswell, 25, of Astoria, was discovered by a dog walker at 6:45 a.m., ­police said.
The Southport, Conn.- raised woman struggled with mental-health issues and was on a leave of absence from Hunter College, said family members.
Wiswell told a Web site in October 2011 that she became involved with Occupy after she had to drop out of the New School when her parents could no longer ­afford the tuition.
“It was this massive realization — oh my gosh, I have to support myself,” she told Marketplace.org. “Welcome to the real world.”
There were no obvious signs of trauma, and the Medical Examiner’s Office will determine the cause of death.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

One-fourth of U.S. families "just getting by"

from cbsnews





As of September 2013, when the central bank conducted the poll, a quarter of families said they were "just getting by," while an additional 13 percent were struggling to make ends meet.
Asked to compare their current financial situation with how they were faring five years ago, as the housing crash was wreaking havoc on the economy, 34 percent of respondents said they were doing "somewhat or much worse" than in 2008. The same percentage reported essentially treading water, while 30 percent said they were doing better.
"Given that respondents were being asked to compare their incomes to 2008, when the United States was in the depths of the financial crisis, the fact that over two-thirds of respondents reported being the same or worse off financially highlights the uneven nature of the recovery," the Federal Reserve said in the report.
The Fed found that more than 60 percent of U.S. families were either "doing OK" or "living comfortably."
The survey of 4,100 households was conducted between September and October of last year. Since then, economic growth has been inconsistent. The nation's GDP shrank 2.1 percent over the first three months of the year, when harsh winter weather slowed consumer spending and dented the housing sector. But GDP surged to an annualized 4 percent between April and June, while the job market has strengthened in recent months.
Americans' biggest financial concerns centered on three issues, the Fed found: retirement, education and jobs. And even with the economy seemingly on the mend, other findings from the Fed survey highlight the financial challenges many Americans still face.
For instance, a third of households who had applied for credit in the previous 12 months reported being turned down or getting less than they asked for. Meanwhile, 10 percent of households said their income fluctuates significantly from month to month, largely because of an irregular work schedule or because respondents are unemployed.
Wage growth has been soft throughout the recovery, which officially began in June 2009. That has strained household budgets and damped consumer spending, slowing the pace of recovery. Average hourly earnings for all private nonfarm employees was essentially flat last month. Wages are now growing at an annualized rate of only 2 percent, barely keeping earners ahead of inflation this year.
Other key findings from the Fed survey:
  • 31 percent of nonretired respondents said they have no retirement savings or pension.
  • 26 percent of households expected the value of their homes to rise less than 5 percent over the next 12 months.
  • 24 percent reported having some form of education debt as of September 2013, with 18 percent of this group indicating they were behind on payments.
  • Over 50 percent of renters said they had to curb their spending over the prior 12 months in order to pay the rent.
  • 57 percent of respondents with credit cards reported paying off their balances in full each month.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon

from oregoncatalyst.com


Tuesday, August 5. 2014



welsh jim 125x150 Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon

Keynote :Councilor Jim Welsh on Occupy Wall Street
Oregon Executive Club
Wed. Aug. 6th, 7:00pm
Portland Airport Shilo Inn – 11707 Northeast Airport Way
Bring a friend! ~~ $20 buffet option ~~ no host bar
Jim is a grocery store owner, a Nehalem city councilman, retired military communications analyst assigned to the NSA, family man with his wife,8 children and 16 grandchildren.
It was as a councilman that he first learned of the quiet Occupy Wall Street immigration to Nehalem. So he studied them. Then he talked to them.
And now he’s raising the alarm on Occupy Wall Street. That’s why he’s our speaker this month.
The Occupy Wall Street anarchist planners (isn’t that an oxymoron?) are in Nehalem.
And the word is out: “Don’t give interviews!”
It’s time these Occupy Wall Street folks get some sunlight, isn’t it?
You really shouldn’t miss this Executive Club.
Join us Wednesday night.
tt twitter big4 Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon tt facebook big4 Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon tt linkedin big4 Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon tt reddit big4 Executive Club: Occupy Wall Street still alive in Oregon
Posted by  at 02:00 Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments yet, we're awaiting your thoughts. |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

New York Settles Suit Over Arrests of Occupy Wall Street Protesters

from nytimes




Jennifer Peat, 36, and Garrett O'Connor, 34, both plaintiffs in the Occupy Wall Street lawsuit, at a news conference Tuesday. CreditJake Naughton/The New York Time


The City of New York has agreed to pay nearly $600,000 to resolve a lawsuit accusing police officers of falsely arresting Occupy Wall Street participants who were walking on a sidewalk in the East Village on New Year’s Day 2012.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlements were the biggest yet connected to claims stemming from Occupy Wall Street. Officials from the city Law Department and the Office of the Comptroller could not immediately verify that assertion, saying they do not track Occupy settlements as a category.
Last year, the city agreed to pay $230,000 to resolve a suit stemming from the loss or destruction of books from the Occupy Wall Street library. A group called Global Revolution was also paid $75,000 for lost computer equipment. Other lawsuits are pending, including a class-action claim stemming from the arrests of about 700 people while they marched on the Brooklyn Bridge roadway on Oct. 1, 2011.
The lawsuit stems from the morning of Jan. 1, 2012, after a turbulent evening at Zuccotti Park, where hundreds of protesters gathered, some dismantling metal barricades ringing the park and scuffling with police officers. After the police cleared the park, about 200 protesters marched to the East Village, accompanied by a large number of officers on foot and in vehicles.
At the corner of Second Avenue and 13th Street, officers halted the marchers as they walked along a sidewalk. The complaint filed by the plaintiffs stated that the officers surrounded the group and ordered them to disperse despite not allowing them to do so. They were then arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, the complaint said, adding that the Manhattan district attorney’s office had declined to prosecute those cases.
A video on Ustream showed senior police officials, including James P. Hall, then the chief of patrol, consulting as the marchers chanted, “Are we being detained, are we free to go?” A police captain told the marchers that they were blocking the sidewalk and pedestrian traffic. A few moments later, the video showed, officers moved in and began making arrests.
Twelve plaintiffs will receive $20,000 apiece; two participants who agreed to settlements earlier will receive $5,000 apiece. The city has also agreed to pay $333,000 in legal fees.
“In this case and many others we have seen that the police do not understand the rights afforded individuals under the Constitution, especially with respect to expressive speech activity,” said Wylie Stecklow, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer on the case. “Our hope is that this is the starting point for police retraining.”
Andrew Lucas, a lawyer for the city, said that the lawsuit involved “a fast-evolving, complicated policing situation,” and added: “Settlement was in all parties’ best interest.”

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Occupy Wall Street fades, but fight continues today

from lohead.com


Meghan Barr, Associated Press;10:26 p.m. EDT April 30, 2014

Wealth Gap Occupy
(Photo: Mary Altaffer AP)


Glimmers of Occupy Wall Street will surface this week in a smattering of cities as activists join rallies for workers' rights, as they do every year on May Day.
Occupiers likely won't show up en masse, but they will hold signs and chant, railing against social and political issues, including one that recently captured the attention of world leaders: income inequality.
How much credit Occupy deserves for propelling the issue onto the political agenda is a matter of debate. Some economists maintain the same forces that sparked the protests would have eventually caught the attention of world leaders. Others credit President Barack Obama for making it part of his agenda after re-election.
But this much is clear: Occupiers ignited a global conversation, crystallizing for the public a concept long known among policy wonks and making their rallying cry of "We are the 99 percent" part of the global lexicon during the feverish autumn of 2011.
"There's nothing like a phrase for a bumper sticker to help," said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Would President Obama have chosen to take up this theme if Occupy Wall Street hadn't occurred? Who knows? But it didn't hurt."
Occupiers took up residence in a small granite plaza near the New York Stock Exchange in September that year and helped spark a movement that spread worldwide. It fizzled out after police broke up encampments that had grown into small cities of their own, splintering into smaller activist groups that now champion various causes.
On Thursday — International Workers' Day — Occupy activists in New York City will join labor groups for demonstrations, as they have every year since the encampments disbanded. The planned protests include a march to Wall Street and a gathering in Zuccotti Park, the site of the original camp. Protests are also planned in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston and elsewhere.
Occupy popularized the concept of the financially elite 1 percent, which was based on revolutionary tax research conducted by French economist Thomas Piketty. Using tax records, Piketty and his team had quantified how much money it took to belong to the 1 percent and what share of personal income that group controlled.
Piketty's research inspired Occupy's fixation on the wealthiest echelon of society, but he didn't attract renown until the publication of his recent best-selling book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century."
The gap between the richest Americans and everyone else is indeed widening, a trend that has emerged gradually over decades but accelerated with the Great Recession. The difference between the income earned by the wealthiest Americans and by a median-income household has risen 24 percent in 30 years, according to the Census Bureau.
For at least a year after Occupy's demise, there was little talk of the issue, a lag some experts believe was intentional.
Back then, many world leaders refrained from aligning too closely with Occupy, whose anarchist message and eccentric tendencies alienated some people. Many Americans as a whole were wary of the "scruffy-looking people" camping out in the street, said Robert Shiller, a professor at Yale University who won a Nobel Prize for Economics.
"Maybe their publicity was useful, but maybe it's better for the cause that they're not out there anymore," Shiller said.
Talking about inequality used to be taboo for major world leaders, relegated to "fringe-left" academics until that stigma faded a little over a year ago, said Laurence Chandy, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"It's a watershed. And I don't know why it suddenly became OK for everyone to talk about it," Chandy said. "But it now seems to be like those organizations, they feel if they're not talking about this, that they risk either irrelevance or being out of touch."
Experts say Obama's entry into the fray was a game-changer that steered the global narrative. At the same time, a drumbeat of reports about worsening income disparity sounded the alarm, with Pope Francis denouncing trickle-down economic theories for espousing an unethical "survival of the fittest" mentality.
The economy itself may have been the driving force behind the rhetoric. When ordinary, middle-class Americans are generally faring well, they tend not to notice how the wealthiest are doing, economists say. But when the economy goes south, so does sentiment toward the rich.
"The big change between 50 years ago and today is, back then we were looking down at the plight of the poor," Galston said. "Now we're looking up at the privileges of the wealthy."
The prevailing feeling among many original Occupiers is one of bittersweet vindication. They're happy people are talking about the wealth gap — and take credit for that ongoing conversation. But they're disillusioned by the lack of concrete economic reforms.
"You cannot be a person paying attention to the developments of the world any longer and not be familiar with the case that we have a massive income inequality and wealth inequality crisis," said Michael Levitin, 37, who lives in the San Francisco area and helps run Occupy.com. "In essence, it very much vindicates the work that Occupy Wall Street did. We were there to ring the bell."


Saturday, April 5, 2014

THE SPOILED BRATS ARE BACK

from wnd.com

REAL AMERICA


Exclusive: Patrice Lewis hits Occupy activists for 'at the point of a gun' demands


So I understand the “Occupy Whatever” crowd is back. “An associated Facebook page announced a protest against the ‘regressive 1% agenda of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and for a truly progressive one that includes the basic needs and human and environmental rights of the people.’ Similar calls for Friday protests were issued by Occupy Philly and Occupy DC.”
Doubtless you remember the Occupy crowd’s collective temper tantrum a couple of years ago when thousands of young people assembled in various public places, camped for weeks, stank to high heaven and demanded equity of resources and paychecks regardless of whether or not they wanted to work for a living. Most of America had a good chuckle at their expense.
But now they’re baaaack. According to organizer David Swanson, “Awareness has grown, education has spread, and ideas have sunk in. People now know that we can’t lift up the poor without pulling down the plutocrats. It’s understood that we can have democracy or billionaires, not both. The notion of shifting priorities is even making headway; behind the screaming of ‘no cuts!’ and ‘less spending!’ there’s a steady, rising voice – ebbing and flowing like the ocean – insisting that we can move the money from the military and the oil corporations and the bankers to green energy and schools and trains and parks and actual aid to everyone on earth, with plenty of tax cuts to spare.”
Wow! That message is completely different from the last time these yahoos decided to have nationwide urban love-ins on other people’s dime.
Mr. Swanson’s rant embraces many things he finds objectionable – health-care inequity, weapons sales, international political interference – and somehow he feels camping in Zuccotti Park and other locations will correct these issues.
I’d like to make one thing very clear: I don’t necessarily object to many of the issues the Occupy crowd wishes to address. I believe America interferes too much in international affairs. I believe there is an incestuous and unholy alliance between big bankers, Wall Street and the government. I believe there is a horrific amount of domestic spying going on.
But if you look at the root cause of all these complaints, the one unifying factor is government.When Occupiers say they want health care for all, or wealth to be redistributed, or social justice, or fairness, or any other complaint they feel can best be expressed by breaking windows, what they don’t say is that the only way these goals can only be achieved – literally the only way – is at the point of a gun through government coercion and at the expense of freedom and liberty.
When it comes down to brass tacks, the Occupy solutions call for more unconstitutional government regulations … not less.
It’s gotten to the point where neither Democrats nor Republicans, neither Occupy brats nor Wall Street executives, will admit the depths to which our government has departed from the original, streamlined, minimal role it was supposed to play.
Occupiers blame government corruption on corporate and wealthy elites. In their psychedelic worldview, the poverty-stricken (but progressive) politicians are being seduced by the evil banksters. The reality is the reverse. Politicians have unconstitutionally created legislative loopholes, sweetheart deals, backroom agreements, defacto monopolies and other shady arrangements. If we returned to the limited government envisioned by the founders, within a short time these abuses would correct themselves. After all, there’s no point in bribing someone to do something they can’t do.
Remember, bankers and corporations cannot hold a gun to my head and force me to comply with their wishes. The government can, and does. (Health care, anyone?)
The government is doing its best to ensure future generations of useful idiots (such as the Occupy crowd) by instigating such farces as Common Core, which informs sixth graders that the Bill of Rights is “outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer,” and encourages children to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two” amendments to the original document.
This is what happens with government schools (government again!). Frankly, any time Washington gets involved in private affairs such as education, health care, welfare, corporate assistance, etc., the result is corruption, monopolies and manipulations on an unimaginable scale.
In short, if the Occupy protesters want the wealth in this nation to be redistributed more “equitably” (or any other social justice claptrap) by increasing the power of government and placing morechains on the individual, then they’re just as evil and mistaken as the banks and politicians they claim to protest.
Now remember what the Occupy crowd was like two years ago. They had to be booted from public places because the garbage and human waste was so bad. Disease spread. Rapes were reported. They weren’t another Woodstock; they were a laughing stock.
And above all, the Occupiers didn’t understand the ideals they purported to endorse. They stuttered and hemmed and hawed and demanded the usual progressive cadre of unrealistic and unconstitutional twaddle (all of which are proven historic failures) and then applauded their own eloquence. After all, “Every liberal idea is so good that it has to be mandatory and enforced at gunpoint; just ask a left-winger and he’ll tell you so,” noted Phil Elmore.
The difference with the Occupy crowd versus the capitalists they profess to hate is the Occupiers want equal outcome, not equal opportunity (which already exists). They want money and health care and housing and a college education, but they don’t want to work for it. They want the government to “do” stuff for them or “give” stuff to them, whereas capitalists want the government to get out of the way so they can get stuff done themselves.
If the Occupy crowd really wants to work toward reform, they should work toward reducing the size of government and re-establishing free-market capitalism. We need government interference out of businesses, out of education, out of medicine, out of health insurance and out of everything not specified in the Constitution.
There is no other way America can survive. Occupy that.
Media wishing to interview Patrice Lewis, please contact media@wnd.com.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Mellman: Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

from thehill.org






Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party followed similar trajectories. Both grew, seemingly as grassroots movements, enjoyed brief popularity and are now widely disliked by the electorate. But the two movements bequeath different legacies. 
While Tea Party power may have ebbed somewhat, there is no doubt the movement achieved real power and exerted (for the worse, in my view) real influence on national policy. Occupy Wall Street left us with little more than a piece of an idea — the 1 percent — and many Democratic politicians would rightly argue they had been using that language long before Occupy made it famous.
Why the divergent legacies? Politics matters. 
Of course, the Tea Party had its own TV network, as well as national funding and some centralized institutional control. Fox News helped build the Tea Party, covering rallies of 20 and 30 people while almost ignoring gatherings of hundreds of thousands for progressive causes. Moreover, Fox provided its viewers with information on upcoming Tea Party events and urged viewers to participate. Financial support came from the Koch brothers, while FreedomWorks, Russo Marsh and Rogers and the Tea Party Express provided organizational muscle. 
Occupy Wall Street lacked some of those initial advantages — its media advocate was an obscure Canadian magazine called Adbusters. Yet it too generated a good deal of coverage, and ended up bringing tens of thousands of people to tents in some 600 communities.
Both movements were popular at their start, but both developed negative images. In January of 2010, 33 percent of Americans viewed the Tea Party favorably and 26 percent harbored unfavorable opinions in a CNN/ORC poll. By September, more people were unfavorable than favorable, and by the end of 2013, just 28 percent were favorable toward the Tea Party with 56 percent unfavorable, an increase of 30 points in unfavorable ratings. 
Occupy suffered a similar fate. In February 2010, 35 percent reported favorable and 22 percent unfavorable views. By October, more were unfavorable than favorable, and by March of 2012, unfavorables jumped 29 points to 51 percent, while favorables views declined to 30 percent.
Perhaps the most important difference was the choice each made about politics. The Tea Party was avowedly political. It participated in campaigns and ran its own candidates, some of whom were successful (though others were spectacular failures). But the end result was Tea Partyers in the halls of power and almost every Republican lawmaker looking worriedly over his or her right shoulders at every vote. The Tea Party had power in the sense defined by my teacher, Yale’s Robert Dahl, who died last week at 98. “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” The Tea Party demonstrably got Republicans to do things that they would not otherwise have done. 
Occupy Wall Street moved in the opposite direction, actively eschewing politics. Its members saw no place for themselves in the electoral system and often shooed away elected officials who attempted to visit their encampments, displaying contempt for politics and politicians. As a result there were no Occupy members of Congress, nor did anyone look over their left shoulder worried about a primary threat from Occupy.
The only residue they left in the body of politics is a slogan — and it’s not a slogan they invented. Polemicists have talked about the 1 percent for centuries. Al Gore accused George Bush of supporting the “wealthiest 1 percent” several times during the 2000 presidential debates. And other Democrats regularly used the phrase, though Occupy brought it to new heights of media attention and fame. But without a base in politics, the flame fizzled. 
The more long-lasting influence of the Tea Party demonstrates that political involvement matters. Those who don’t want to get their hands dirty may remain pure, but their impact will remain limited.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the majority leader of the Senate and the Democratic whip in the House.


Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/198157-mark-s-mellman-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street#ixzz2tS97yizN
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook