Looks like we're at a standstill. I find your justifications of protests immature and uncivil, whereas you find me blind and naive. And it seems none of us seem like the type to have either of our view point swayed. So I'll just be the first to back down. I still highly disagree with your point of view, however it is your prerogative to think so, and I respect it.
I actually agree with you that they were actively baiting police and in this case, "suffered" the consequences. However, what they did was perfectly legal (dressing up as a tent) even as they seemingly breeched the peace by appearing to violate (I suppose), some municipal ordinance against erecting tents on public property. The aftermath, IMHO the police too, were actually pretty restrained even as they took away their tents. Sidebar: I'm sure that officers who initially backed off then had their superiors check with higher ups, who in many cases is their city attorney, to find out what, if any, action can be taken against such protests that would conform to the law. In this case I suppose that their legal decision came down on "no tents in the park," whether erected or worn. Thus, the police took action to remove the tents from the protesters, which in my view, is also perfectly legitimate. Another example of civil disobedience is the "sit in" protest. This is where people purposely trespass and get arrested; it may seem like fruitless exercise to some, but in essence it is the heart of protest. One does something narrowly "illegal" to get across a larger political point. These antics show the passion of protesters and their willingness not only to adapt but to use guile as a political foil, baiting and perhaps, embarrassing the police for the broader political voice. In this regard, they were marginally successful; Melbourne was given peaceful pause, and something made the news; the movement stays alive. LOL... You certainly don't need to ever "back down" as I absolutely respect your right to express a point of view, even if I may consider it wanting. I don't think we so much as disagree on principles as we do on process. We both obviously want "fairness" but deciding on what is or isn't; well, that's been the basis of nuanced debate. But, as long as everyone remains respectful of each other, there's no reason why divergent points of view cannot be openly discussed. Peace.
First off, thank you all for continuing to discuss this. I don't have time right now to read all of the posts that have been added since I Last checked this thread, but I hope to soon (after finals are over, specifically). Since I posted this thread, there have been a lot of changes in the Occupy Movement as a whole and the various other protests Occupy Wall Street has inspired worldwide. ---I am disheartened by how some Occupy protests have turned into protesting for the sake of protesting. And I'm even more disheartened by the violence perpetrated by some people who have claimed that they are a part of the Occupy protests (if you have been following this movement from the beginning, though, you will know that it has always strived to be a peaceful protest). ---But, despite these disheartening aspects, I feel that the Occupy Movement has many successes. Most importantly, it has shifted political discourse in the United States (and worldwide). We are now finally addressing socioeconomic inequality in the US and the disproportional influence people with money have in our government (so that our government is now a government for primarily the rich instead of a government for the people. As a government for the rich it passes laws to favor rich entities and encourages irresponsibility on their part at the expenses of every day citizens--furthering both the inequity in income and socioeconomic power amongst your common citizens and the corporate elites). ---Additionally, the Occupy Movement has encouraged people to care about what is happening in the larger world. As part of a generation in the United States most associated with the time it spends on facebook, I'm glad that young people nationwide are actively getting out to engage others with what they see as wrong with the world and to offer up solutions for fixing these issues. If we could get publicly funded political campaigns out of all of this, then I'd be ecstatic. Is that too much too hope for? I feel that it shouldn't be. Again, thank you all for contributing, I hope to address your posts soon.
I found a really provocative article on CNN today, and how this change in the OWS strategy may actually have a powerful political effect, providing a lasting focus for the movement. Essentially, that people just occupy and squat in homes that have been foreclosed. Note, literally thousands of foreclosed and shuttered private homes have been held by banks for years as a result of their bad loans and robo-signing foreclosures. This was one of the main reasons that wall street was roiled in the first place:
