We are being subjected to a police state where protesting is not being tolerated. These evictions exemplify the suppression of our civil liberties including the right to organize, one of the basis rights set forth by our founding fathers. Police brutality is running rampant under orders from Governors who have their pockets lined with Wall Street and Special Interest monies. Stand up and lend your voice with these free posters I was compelled to design on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/11/propaganda-for-occupy-movement.html

Has anyone noticed that the police called it off at midnight Friday morning, probably due to the fact that the media was there with reporters and cameras, and that there were about two thousand observers and supporters there as well, many with camera phones?
So, why am I not surprised that the raid was re-scheduled for 5 AM Saturday when there was no press and no observers, and when campers were shaken out of sleep, thereby hampered as far as taking any videos of the raid?
Fact: there is ALWAYS something wrong with ANYTHING done under cover of darkness.
(Bible: John 3:20 "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."

Yes, they have a right to protest.
The issue to me [and other non-Occupy people I've spoken to] is that many of the OWS claims seem conspiracy-theory-based. I also detect thinly-veiled anti-Semitism in some of the claims regarding control of banks and newspapers.
Somehow the recession has nurtured an ugly Culture of Blame among fundamentally unhappy people.
If I have failed in life, somebody is to blame:
Some evil plotting group: bankers, corporations, capitalists, the rich, or a certain privileged ethnic minority.
There is seems to be zero interest among those who have failed to thrive in life in examining personal reasons for their personal failure.
These un admitted reasons include untreated mental illness, substance abuse, and an unpleasant self-obsessed personality.
My experience with people has taught that losers blame others for their failure.
Ayn Rand aside, all personal failure really is personal at the end of the day. Rarely is the cause institutional.
People destined to succeed in life fail, learn, and try again. Sometimes several times.
Poverty, homelessness, and suffering need to remain the consequence of being lazy, actively drinking or drugging heavily, or having an often-defiant attitude when working under the supervision of others.

If the squatters volunteer to help repair the beautiful land they destroyed, then I'll have a modicum of respect for them.

I'll be taking some pictures of the "destruction" on Dewey Square. then we can compare them with the garden spot that existed before the occupation.
As for repairs, I will be happy to help with reseeding the grass area -- I see no need for re-sodding it. I have grown kid-proof and dog-proof lawns from seed during the few years we lived outside of Boston, and they took hold better than the more expensive sods some of my neighbors put down..
What did the occupation accomplish? It demonstrated just how many mean-spirited people there are in this country. To treat homeless people like they have no voice in these demonstrations is a gross sin. Everybody tolerates and even feels sorry for them as long as they stay invisible. Those who are not homeless who actively support the Occupation have at least a social conscience, and care about those less fortunate than themselves. Others are hard working people who have lost jobs or suffered foreclosure and who never looked for anything for free, and still do not. And finally, the students -- full of youth and energy and very necessary to carry on the movement -- they are worried about a jobless future with huge student loan debt. Telling people to "get a job" is about on the same par with telling them to "get a million dollars". It's just NOT happening for four out of five job seekers!
The movement will go on until something changes.

What I'm reading here in some posts is shocking callousness to the plight of many Americans and a trigger-quick readiness to accuse the un-employed for their inability to feed their families in the worst recession since 1929. These attitudes seem to me akin to those of the 1930's in Germany when "undesirable" and "unhealthy" citizens were identified, gathered up and sterilized against their will in order to assure a new generation of "pure Aryan" blood. Our police state may not be as advanced in inequity as some, but we are surely driftting far from our American civil liberties when the police can arrest people for assembling and protesting.It should be remembered that our brave men and women police carry guns; this gives them unbridled power over us citizens. That brute power in return must be used with justice and wisdom, which often these days it is not.

Now that it is "over" perhaps the battle should stop. Grass cannot be planted until the spring, and meanwhile there are barriers up that prevent anyone going in there to do anything at all, including "repairs".

What a waste of time. There was no message, no leadership and the loss of a huge opportunity to channel all the very real frustration to where the blame lies for all our ills - Congress.

This will all come back in the Spring. 2012 will be that kind of year.

Actually, the blamers of the unemployed as undesirable people (notice "alcoholics") is a dangerous view where some people "deserve" to be accused, shunned and left to starve or die from lack of care. What's next? Jailing them? Sterilizing them? Sending them to a Camp? As soon as we begin to categorize people this way, we lean toward fascism. It is easy for the so-called "superior" group to blind themselves to the plight of the
"inferior". There are still elderly in Germany who say they had no idea what was going on during the Nazi period. The U.S Constitution stresses the equality of individuals; not inferiority and superiority.

Owen C.--while I agree with you that comparisons to Hitler are a bit extreme, the definitions of fascism I found, whether from Merriam-Webster, (a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition) or Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) still make sense within the terms of her argument.

If an individual feels that we're sliding towards a system in which power is centralized and dissent isn't tolerated, referring to one possible end result as "fascist" isn't an incorrect use of the word. The real question is whether we're heading towards that system or not, and why or why not. Do you disagree?

Kasey,

I think the definitions provided support my point to a certain extent. Over the years, "fascism" has become the generic term for an authoritarian/totalitarian society. Yes, the world's experience with fascism was on of brutality and extremism. But unreality there has only been one fascist country: Italy from 1921 to around 1943. I read a great book on this a few years backed titled "Fascism: Past, Present, Future". It breaks down the different arguments about fascism and comes to some eye opening conclusions.

So, in terms of a rigid, authoritarian government finding a place in the U.S., no I do not feel we are heading that way. I believe that we have more freedom of action today than other generations have had.

Speaking of jailing... I may be a neophyte in the definitions game, but maybe we should be looking more closely at how Washington DC is removing our civil liberties. Smells something like fascism developing, from the news reports about how our country is being run these days.
Any of us can now be picked up and jailed indefinitely, without trial or any legal representation. Don't tick off the wrong people in DC. :-)
*
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074576/President-Obama-signs-law-detain-terror-suspects-indefinitely.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
*
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-defense-20111216,0,2896118.story?track=rss

Joe Gray,

As long you are not involved with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, you have nothing to worry about.

The war on terror is a reality that we face nowadays, and Al-Qaeda has not been shy about wanting to recruit home-grown terrorists to further their nefarious cause, so this law addresses this particular issue.

We need to give law enforcement all the tools necessary to combat this evil and crush the jihadists and their movement.

Chris,

First if all, it's part of American tradition that we're wary and paranoid of the government stepping over the line. But they rarely do. Second, law abiding Americans have the reasonable expectation that they are not going to get taken away indefinitely, as they should (even with tougher antiterrorism laws on the books.

Chris,

This might sound arrogant, bit were these 200 average Americans who were randomly pulled off the street, then held without charges and released years later? Were they our neighbors, teachers, small business owners?

D, Owen: if you keep up with the news you know that innocent people who were neither Al Queda nor Taliban have been detained for long periods by the U.S. government without charging them for a crime. You also know that since 9/11 America's civil liberties have seriously eroded; the First, Third and Fourth Amendments being now deeply in danger. The government now wiretaps Americans. The military lures impoverished young people with dreams of a career ,, never mentioning the tragic risk of dying in Afghanistan or coming home with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome And as for the government "rarely" stepping over the line, it does so often but rarely is called to account: for example, both Bush and Cheney by constitutional war are war criminals due to their approval of torture at Abu Graibh. In many countries, both of them are currently subject to arrest. Why did not Obama pursue constitutional law on this issue? Good question.

Well, Joseph, unfortunately most non-Muslims are not aware of it but Muslim Americans are living in a "virtual internment camp" in this country. A kind of hell due to discrimination. Just one example: the FBI has detained or arrested an estimated 6,983 Muslim Americans by the government's own estimate while other estimates run as high as 15,000. Sadly, one has to awaken oneself and take time to educate oneself as to what's happeniing. Islamophobia is the new racism in America. Yet the Bush cleverly named but inaccurate "war on terror" has so frightened the American people that we are allowing our constitutional Amendments numbers One, Three and Four to be erased It is partially these Freedoms that have made America, until recently, the envy of the world.

Lita,

Please provide a source for your statistics.

Lita,

Who do you know who has been wiretapped or detained without charges? Your neighbors? You? I doubt it. Our rights are still in place. I would venture a guess that if the U.S. went through another attack, many people who are hatching conspiracy theories would be complaining that the government didn't do enough. It's the same principle when people criticize the police and abuse them of excessive force but then complain that there's never a cop when you need one.

Really guys? This thing has been over for weeks and we're still talking about it? Give it up or take it offline - no one cares.

Not sure about your civil rights, but mine are intact and well bro.

I am passionate about ending the conversation re: Occupy Wall St.

Friends, readers,

These issues we are discussing online are very very serious issues that are the very lifeblood or our democracy. As a patriotic American no right as more important to me than the one that we are using right now: the right to have our say.

The Occupy conversation thread may be fading, but the issues brought up have been around for a long time and will be with us next Spring, when I predict that some remnant of the Occupy movement will try to resurrect itself in time for the Fall elections.
I'll hope to agree to disagree with those who think our civil liberties are safe.
Now it's nearly illegal to smoke on your own time in your own home, by yourself. We're pushing to outlaw cell phones in cars. Tasty transfats have been banned. They're going after salt and sugar. Five or six year olds can be jailed or suspended for hugging. You can be convicted for your thoughts(intent). Videocams watch our every move about town. Proposals to put chips in our cars and tax us per mile driven. Every phone conversation legally listened to by the FBI... without warrant. "Anyone" in America legally arrestable by the FBI... without warrant.
Our rights are intact, until someone takes it completely away and it is now legal to do so. That law was signed.

Ban cell phones in cars? I'm all for it. As for the rest of your claims about our civil liberties and the FBI...do you have any sources on that?

Everyone can Google news articles just as well or better than me. If people don't pay attention to the news, don't expect me to always do your research for you.
All people have to do is scroll upwards a few lines in this very same message thread to read links of sample news articles about the bills congress just passed within the last ten days, containing provisions to strip away some of our rights.
The president has already agreed to sign these new bills into law.
Google warrantless wiretaps and other fun terms:
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/presidential-surveillance_n_229595.html
*
This is all old news to some of us.

Joe, don't you think there has to be a difference between laws for protecting Americans' civil rights and laws to protect our health? It does seem foolish if a citizen were not legally able to smoke in their own home (whom else are they hurting?). But don't you think we should be protected from other citizens' smoke? After all, it has been proven what second-hand smoke does to human lungs. And a driver using a cellphone in a car threatens other people on the road.

Yes, it is now law that the FBI can expand their wiretapping activities to wiretap anyone.One source to read about it: Go to FBI Wiretapping Feb 2011.

Right, anyone who disagrees with you just isn't paying attention. Great logic.

No, anyone who claims "our rights are intact" and doesn't know about this FBI law may not be paying attention. Or why wouldn't they know about it?

"Might" not be paying attention. Anyway, the only conclusion we can come to is that recent antiterrorism laws don't bother me as much as you.

"They came for the Communists but I wasn't a Communist so I wasn't bothered.. They came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't protest.. They came for the Muslims; I wasn't a Muslim so I didn't protest. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to protest,.

Contemporary proverb

Lita,

If we were living in a totalitarian society I would agree with you. But we're not. Tell me, if the U.S. is so oppressive, then how are we able to have this discussion without fear of arrest? Answer: WE'RE IN A FREE COUNTRY.

Owen,

Yes, thank heaven, WE'RE IN A FREE COUNTRY. We're not yet living in a totalitarian state. In many countries we could be arrested for having this conversation! That's what makes me happy to be an American and determined to speak up for my rights.

Currently many American citizens of the Muslim faith would say this country is not free; they face daily discrimination, as did once African Americans, as did Gays .Finally, in those cases, the people rose up and changed the society. Right now the excuse is fear; then there were other rationalizations. But if we go on letting Congress and the Executive branch chip away at our constitutional rights, we may get closer and closer to that time when we can't have this conversation.

So the time to protest when rights are being taken away is now. The time to notice the drift toward totalitarianism is now,before we can no longer have this conversation.

Truce, Daniel,? From what war?.

Question: why don't you folks who want a truce or an end to discussion just stop reading?

Owen, Daniel and everyone contributing to this discussion: may we all have a happy, stress-free Holiday with its emphasis on peace and love of our fellow human beings, whatever all of our different beliefs. And with joyful recognition that we sre in America still free to have this discussion!

And yes,, Owen let's go on with our discussion, Christmas or not!.
More opinions, anyone?

Owen, regarding sitting down and reading legislation, I occasionaly do that but more often rely on constitutional scholars who do it. The one who comes to mind first is Jonathan Turley. But there are others, sometimes on both sides of the aisle.

Merry Christmas. A Massachusetts woman almost got tagged for terrorism in Vegas at the airport for carrying a delicious frosted cupcake for her infant. They let the thick humus sandwiches go through. Good thing she didn't get hauled off and jailed indefinitely without trial or access to an attorney. We are slipping. Just be glad it isn't our turn, when the Jack Boots come. Many of us don't see our rights slipping away till we get stopped for the most ridiculous things.
*
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/security-theater-tsa-confiscates-womans-frosted-cupcake/

Joe,

Or maybe she just got her cupcake taken away and was in no way in danger if being arrested. Way to blow the story way out of proportion just to further your overblown sense that the secret police are watching you every move. Also mentioned in the article was that the cupcake was replaced. I read this story a week ago and was as unmoved then as I am now.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Because I dare to disagree with you, I'm burying my head in the sand. To make this right, I will immediately draft a plan to have my congressman introduce legislation to protect of right to carry cupcakes in masonry jars. This story is what is known as "first world problems".

Your last point actually supports my to a certain extent. I ackowlefge that throughout the history of the U.S. there have been occasions where the government oversteps their bounds. It's an imperfect system. However, at the end if the day, it is self correcting. Jack boots are not forthcoming.

It's not about carrying cupcakes Owen, it's about an American's civil rights being taken away.

Civil Liberties: Year in Review.
The condensed information in this article is enlightening. Those who choose not to believe, need not read the facts presented, as it will only cause them to lash out at those of us, who are aware of what is happening.
*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/2011-a-civil-liberties-ye_b_1165451.html
*
Maybe this is inevitable. There seems to be no stopping our loss of liberties with the way the world is today. Our children will become used to this new world order. Too bad.

We're not going to agree on this. I believe that you're overreacting and you seem to think a woman losing her cupcake is the biggest threat to American civil liberty since the Japanese internment camps.

Joe, I'm glad you posted that piece. Perhaps a few more people will wake up.

But the situation reminds me of the old proverb, "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

However, I am not quite as pessimistic as you. The rumblings of the Arab Spring and the worldwide Occupy Movement seem extremely portentous and positive to me.

Some are fixated on sugary treats, while the rest of us are talking the bigger issues of civil liberties "today", not generations ago. While things may have been done by executive order many moons ago, they are being codified into law by congress during current times and then being expanded during successive administrations in the White House. From the day Jimmy Carter signed the Patriot Act into law to today, things have gotten stranger for our liberties. The odd stories keep evolving and getting stranger these days. The future(next year) is going to be wild.
We're looking at the same facts from different perspectives and seeing or NOT seeing what is happening. Que sera sera...

Owen, at what incident would you think we are not overreacting?
When would you begin to worry about America's becoming a police state? Tanks rolling down your street? Waterboarding of America citizens? Sudden knowledge that your phone was tapped? Or your neighbor's?Where do you personally draw the line and begin to be concerned about American liberties? Is anything not OK with you?

Look at the election results for Egypt. Yeah, Arab spring is a resounding success. Islamic hardliners replacing a dictator. Awesome. Listen, I appreciate the concern about civil liberties. I just believe that there is a certain group of people who will sound the alter for absolutely everything. Ok, I'm kind of ready to be done with this discussion. You all have a great rest of the holidays.

What's next? Is TSA going to grope me every time I get in my own car in my own driveway, every morning? I don't believe this is going to end. The police powers of the fed is expanding. Huzzah...
*
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8481493

Lita is right. I am displaying a hot streak of pessimism. I still pine over the 1975 let down I endured from joining a national movement in believeing in Jimmy Carter. I was too young to understand why I felt let down for decades. I view all national political movements with a critical eye now. Trusting politicians is difficult for me. I admit it.
A favorite saying of mine is "how many times do we have to get lied to, before we realize that something is not right?"

Joe, I totally agree with you. I would go farther. I would say politics corrupts. I can give Obama the benefit of the doubt and believe that he thought he could keep his campaign promises but became almost immediately corrupted by the system.

This is the main reason why I think transparency is so important. Obama promised transparency, yet now what is he doing? Prosecuting Assange of Wikileaks who is making politics transparent.

It's all about, not "What shall we do that's best for the country?" but instead, "What shall we tell them that will get us reelected"?

Lita,

You have obviously never worked in a job in the national security field. I have. Wikileaks endangers lives by releasing information that has not been deemed safe for declassification. Contrary to what you and many like you without national security experience believe, not all information should be at your finger tips. You just don't have the need to know. While you most likely think that statement is fascist and authoritarian, all it is is the basics of information security, and, contrary to what you believe, it keeps you and millions of others safe.

And President Obama was not "corrupted" when he took office. He simply realized that it's not all as "transparent" and people think it is.

Welcome back, Owen! You had said you wished to end the discussion perhaps after reading the facts about what is happening to our civil liberties? Glad you're still with us.

No, I have not been worked in the "National Security field". Nor would I.

We have an ongoing debate in this country regarding whether national "security" merits the erosion of our civil liberties.

I have known a few national security"experts" who seemed to me dangerously on the edge of paranoia to the point of being certifiably deranged.

I would vote any time for transparency v.s. "national security" concerns You can find almost anything you need to destroy this country and the planet on the internet anyway if you are so inclined.

Joe Gray:

Politics is corrupt by nature, if you haven't realized that by now, there are just different degrees of corruption, and more or less corrupt politicians in the system, more or less corruption by country in this world, and how much corruption can people take or tolerate in a society.

Lita Newdick:

I'm afraid you have a pretty naive viewpoint, and Owen is spot on. There are certain information that the public should not be privy too, that our government should absolutely not share with, for national security reasons. We were a "free-er" society about a decade or so ago, but 9/11 changed all of that, and we cannot take any chances with these radical Islamists wanting to kill Westerners and destroy our way of life.

Lita,

I was content to be done with it until I saw your very misguided statements regarding national security, and how we should just throw everything out on the table for all to see. As for any "facts" you claim to have presented, I have yet to see you provide anything to support your notion that our doors are going to be kicked in any day now. Also, I am a bit insulted that you characterize people working in national security jobs as "paranoid" and "deranged". I am sorry if this insults you, but you don't really know what you're talking about. "HuffPost" articles does not make one an expert.

D,

Uber-pessimism is a sign of a grossly uninformed individual.

Just stopping by as a result of noticing that "Occupy" still is listed under reader comments. Now I note that Owen is still here, still arguing his points, still refusing to consider alternative views. Lita, it is useless to argue with some people. I dropped out of here once I realized that my very valid arguments would be subject to attempted shoot-downs by Owen. He will NOT discuss anything, so why argue with him? Once again, I bid you all adieu, and perhaps I'll see you all in the spring.

Jan,

I don't see Owen "refusing to consider alternative views". I just see it as you and him having a disagreement on this issue, and not seeing eye-to-eye on issues, which is ok in our society, because no individual thinks or sees things the same way as the next person. So, just leave it at that.

Regarding OWS itself, I agree, to some degree, with their message, but I was never a fan of their tactics, and I believe their message never got through to the so-called "99%" of the population. I am part of the "99%" that OWS claims it represents, but I never felt and still do not feel that OWS speaks for me, so, in that respect, I consider the total movement as a failure.

Jan,

I'm civil to people like Lita because she is civil back. Not so much with you because you have been downright rude to anyone who has disagreed with you. So...

Are you so thick headed and biased to the far left that you would make such asinine statements like your last post? Yeah, I'm still arguing my "same points". Why? Because I believe in what I believe in and I'm not going to back down. Ever.

Also, Lita has been arguing her same points as well. But you choose only to attack me.

Lita,

Thanks for being reasonable.