Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
Jennifer HemmingsenI'm a columnist and member of The Gazette's editorial board. I live in Iowa City. Twitter: @jhemmingsen, or Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hemmingsenyah |
|
Define “Occupy”
The Occupy Iowa City campsite is seen at College Green Park in Iowa City on Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011. (David Scrivner/The Gazette)
Occupy Iowa City, we hardly knew ye.
You remained an enigma from your first, tentative steps in October through your swelling ranks and bulging statements of principles to your quiet dwindling as the days shortened and nights grew cold.
Some will argue that Iowa City’s decision this week not to renew occupiers’ permit to protest in College Green Park is no big thing — that it just marks one more transition in an ever-evolving movement.
But “movement” is beginning to seem a generous word for what Occupy has become: a loose affiliation of people who occasionally get together to form committees or heckle a presidential candidate.
I’m starting to wonder if we pinned too many hopes on an event which, after all, started out as a magazine “what if.”
Instead of crystallizing our discontent, the occupation has confused it, snowballing from a protest against Wall Street and runaway corporatism into an unwieldy list of gripes.
Back in October, I took some grief for saying I didn’t get what Occupiers hoped to accomplish. The vagueness, the diffusion were part of the process, supporters said. The Occupation was a crucible from which every good thing would be forged.
But here we are, four months older. What exactly has it wrought?
I can’t help but think back to successful grass-roots movements in recent Iowa City memory.
Take Students Against Sweatshops’ six-day occupation of University of Iowa administrative offices in 2000, which gave birth to a code of conduct for all companies with UI licensing contracts, prohibiting child labor and guaranteeing that workers producing university-related goods are paid decent wages.
Or 15 years earlier, when UI students and their peers at other college campuses pressured the institutions to divest from dealings with segregated South Africa.
Those movements had a lot in common besides success. They had a clear message and a clearly defined goal. They relied on a core group of motivated members unified around a specific, common purpose. They fought for something, not only against.
I first asked the question last fall, and still I wonder: What is Occupy Iowa about?
It might not be too late to make this primordial soup of activism coalesce into a movement — or many — with the power to enact positive change.
But if Occupy doesn’t want to waste away the way the physical protest did at College Green Park, it will have to work even harder to figure out, and help us see, exactly where it stands.
Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
The Occupy movement can keep redefining It’s self all it want’s. What they really want to do is occupy my wallet.
OK, let’s look at the two things student protests did do according to you: neither of those things confronted our government. Both were aimed at people outside this country, mostly, workers in foreign places and a government in South Africa. So when the protest points to the meanest, most powerful player in the world, that commits its people to war everywhere, violates all sorts of world rules, plays among the rest of the nations like the bully it is, and eventually allows certain people to bully and control our very government, all it amounts to is a “bitch session”? Speaking as a person who used to expect the forth estate to understand the importance of “Freedom” especially that of the press, you have fallen off the wagon and into the mud.
Steve: Both those actions caused a public entity (the University of Iowa) to enact specific, powerful changes to policy that made a practical difference in people’s lives. My point is that if Occupy focused their attentions, they could have a similar effect. Help me understand how I’ve failed to grasp the concept of freedom here.
The creation of this country was manufactured through protests and protesters. We didn’t tell the King what to do, he did whatever he wanted and we, as subjects were not part of that process. We have returned to those days and not even the news media understands these current protests are the beginning of revolutionary change. Originally when the constitution was written, the people were not satisfied – they required specific rights to be included so there would be no mistake what the peoples rights were. Freedom of speech, was top on the list. Now when people protest because so much is going wrong, you seem to think they are suppose to have an agenda or the protest is not legitimate , what was the agenda at the Boston Massacre? Since when does the rights of growing grass supersede the rights of speech? If speech is indeed free, and constitutional, then that right has to be assumed to be over arching to any permit, any city code violation or any other law less than the constitution in and of itself. This is a multi-level protest, it isn’t one thing, it is a whole series of things and many people can identify with many if not all of them. To relegate the movement to something un-important by the media, of all people, suggests the media no longer holds sway over the people or the government any longer. It has become a tool of those we fear the most; those who can be bought and sold who are suppose to represent us.
Ramble much?
Ramble? Tell me how do you explain the concept of freedom in the US in 35 words or less? How do you say it is wrong to apply local statutes to end constitutionally guaranteed rights? That you don’t need to have an agenda to have a protest that is so wide ranging in order for it to have an effect? Try it, and see how you fare.
Ramble – you shift from the media, to some King, to the Boston Massacre, etc. That’s rambling. However, what you are saying is that it’s ok for me to camp in College Green Park or on Mays Island for however long I want, just as long as I’m protesting something.
Using your augment, you must also agree that city, county, or state laws restricting firearms is also unconstitutional. After all, haveing to obtain a permit from the county to exercise my second amendment rights isn’t right (the second most important amendment). It would also be a violation for a city or county ordnance to restrict my second Amendment right in that same park.
Steve,
The Occupy movement is not “unimportant” as you use the word, but I think Jennifer is right when she describes them as unfocused. Any movement must ask something or someone to “move”, by its very definition. The 60′s war protesters were clear in what they wanted: End the war. The Anti-Apartheid Movement was clear in its expectations: divest yourself of South African holdings and tell those Wannabe Klansmen that we don’t do business with slavery advocates.
What does the Occupy Movement want us to do? We had an Occupy group in St. Louis, and every accommodation was made for them, but they still never told us clearly what they expected us to do, or how. Distrust Wall Street? Most of us did already. Raise your voice against greed? Fine. HOW? You mistake our confusion for antagonism. My sympathies are with the Occupy movement. I think we need a little popular rage these days. What I do not know is how I can help further their goals, whatever they might be.
I find that the problem probably lies in the fact that there is SO much wrong with this country right now you can’t get a group of more than two people to agree on where to start. The multitude of problems facing us today leaves people attached to causes nearest to their concerns and everyone has different priorities. How bad have things gotten in America? Ask Kurt Haskell, read his victim impact statement he offered yesterday at the conclusion of The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber Trial. Try to sleep tonight after reading that.
Forgot to add, Steve, you are my hero. You are consistently on the side of “the good” around here, and I, for one, appreciate it. The “rights of growing grass” line made my day!
I agree that the Occupy Movement is unfocused right now. Here’s what makes me unable to join them: they’re just sitting around. I know, I know, “occupy” means be there… but I just wonder how effective it is to occupy a park in Iowa City, or a riverbank in Cedar Rapids. I’d like to see this group DO things. What about: helping the people who are oppressed by the banks and system that is being protested. Help someone work through the foreclosure process or sign up for part of that (unfair) settlement. Those would be helpful actions. Geez, make a donation to a food bank in the name of Occupy Cedar Rapids. Shovel the sidewalk (if it ever snows) for someone facing foreclosure…and then publicize that action. I could get behind that. But this sitting around stuff. No. You all say, there’s a lot to do. Start doing it.
I fail to find how someone facing foreclosure is a victim. Yes, some people have encountered forces outside their control, but there are dozens of actions a person can take to avoid foreclosure. You can always decide how to handle adversity.
How about they shovel the sidewalk for the elderly or disabled? Mentoring a person who is unemployed. Adopting a needy family. There are a dozen things that a group can do. Someone going through a foreclosure is not a victim and can shovel their own sidewalk.
I still don’t understand this venoms hatred of banks coming from people that support a president that pushed for the bailouts of the vary banks they hate. Oh by the way, Obama has dozens of staffers from aforementioned banks working on his staff. If you hate banks, why do you support Obama?
I also don’t understand how someone who voluntarily took out a loan they cannot afford is a victim. I’ve worked with people to help get them into homes. I always tried to keep them in homes they could afford, and the lenders never tried to up-sell them. I don’t know a single Realtor or lender that pushed arms or subprime mortgages. People knew the interest rates and payments weeks before closing, and usually had a good idea before they even picked out a house. There are some few exceptions, but for the most part these are people with simply too much debt.
That’s a pretty narrow view of the mortgage process – but normal for someone who was selling mortgages. While many Iowa mortgage sellers, associated with a bank or not, handled the process legally and respectfully, there are problems today including upside down or under water mortgages.
And, the unfortunate truth is – the mortgage market was mishandled. Bank officials selling mortgages across the nation have admitted they were handing out mortgages to anyone “with a pulse” (their words) so that they could then strip the mortgage apart and sell the pieces as fake product.
Also, many in this process got the bum’s rush through the system and just signed whatever in order to be a homeowner.
Then in the foreclosure process banks have robosigned and even falsified documents because – since the mortgage has been pulled apart and resold to others – they don’t even own the mortgage. Maybe half a dozen entities now own it or who even knows.
So yes, foreclosure people ARE victims, and if Mr. Fisher doesn’t know any who are also poor, and facing a homeless shelter, well – then his experience might be a little limited.
However, I totally agree – there are MANY other charities that Occupy could help. I’m involved with a good one who would love help every day to do their mission. Again, it’s the sitting around part that I object to. I suggest they get busy and show they can make the change happen, one good deed at a time.
Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac set the standards for borrowers. They hold half the mortgages in this country. So if Bill wants to buy a new house, he goes to the bank. The bank looks at his finances and compares it to what Fannie and Freddie will buy. If they say he can buy a 200k house, that’s what the bank tells Bill. That is what started the whole mess. Then, banks started carrying these loans also, and had to repackage them because they knew they would default. Both the banks and the government messed up, and neither paid for it, but it still doesn’t relieve the responsibility of the borrower to ensure that they can pay back a loan.
Before you get holier than thou on me, I’ve been broke. I’ve had to ask for food because I could not afford to buy it. I’ve had to make deals with utilities so my power and gas were not turned off. I had to ride the bus because I didn’t own a car. I’ve lost a house to foreclosure. However, I put myself in that position. I was broke because of the decisions I made.
I do agree with you on the foreclosure process though. If the banks were breaking the law repossessing homes, which they were in some cases, those banks should pay. But again, that doesn’t mean someone who took out too big of a loan is a victim.
To Mr. Fisher-:Until there is legal precident about what constitutes “free” in speech, yes, you can expect to protest in any public space. What determines gun use has already had it’s day in court and I do not find it the most important of the rights granted because it concerns only the militia, not private gun use necessarily.
To Mr. Davis: Putting a voice to popular rage is what Occupy was about. To say”we are mad as hell about so many things” and finally getting the attention of the media was far more effective than protest marches in Washington, which got no coverage at all. To be able to show this anger was manifested not by a few dedicated people on a specific single issue that could easily be ignored, but by people across the country by the thousands, politically scared the begeeses out of those who thought they could get away with simply ignoring the people.
and finally to Laura:
On the face of it, if sitting around gets the point across, then I’m for sitting, but in reality there is and continues to be more happening. One only has to review the film “Gandi” to see how using non violence and some rather inane subjects (making salt) will confound the people at the top of government into action they had previously refused to consider. When everybody is looking to see what this is all about, it has grabbed the attention of the nation and THAT is what it is about. Where it goes from there still remains to be seen.
“What determines gun use has already had it’s day in court and I do not find it the most important of the rights granted because it concerns only the militia, not private gun use necessarily.”
Are you kidding me, Steve? You are so concerned about “individual” rights, as you spoke of earlier in this thread:
“Originally when the constitution was written, the people were not satisfied – they required specific rights to be included so there would be no mistake what the peoples rights were. Freedom of speech, was top on the list.”
And second was gun rights…all individual rights. It is this skewed view by progressives of the 2nd Amendment that makes me quesiton just how serious they are about other “individual” rights….you have already forgotten about the 10th Amendment and the rights it gives the people in the different states.
Unbelievable.
And of course, you fail to grasp the fact that there are limits on free speech.
I agree only with an idea I have adopted, that the second amendment is the one that makes all the others possible.
Yes gun rights had its day in SCOTUS and it was determined and upheld that “the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals,” NOT just militia! That was the end of that argument Steve. and….. attempting to stay on subject…… the occupy movement could have been effective but wasn’t/isn’t! Winning support through chaos is a BO strategy which should be proven ineffective this November.
So, I am to believe that in an age of no standing army, everybody needed a gun for their individual protection and not to provide for the common defense? My understanding of a civil society is we need fewer guns, not more guns; and if you are worried the government will take over, well all the small arms in the world isn’t going to stop that, maybe you need nuclear weapons just to keep pace!
“Free Speech”: The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is “the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” The way you protect that right is you use it, you don’t have to have a gun to do that.
You want to know what the occupy movement is/was about? OWS was an orchestrated movement by the administration and their surrogates to build up rage going into an election year against the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, whom they classify as the “wall street candidate”.
Steve: Just what did the Occupiers do with that attention? It reminds me of a scene I witnessed at a VA hospital that was largely there to serve Vietnam veterans. A counselor from the benefits office rose to greet a veteran who had come in. He did not say anything, or even answer when she asked him how she could help him. He stood there, ponderous and menacing (or maybe he thought he was: I do not know). She finally told him: “I can stand here as long as you can. You came in here because you wanted something. What is it?”
The menacing psycho jungle fighter disappeared, and the guy who desperately wanted help for his PTSD came out. Now we have asked the question of Occupy: What do you want? Pain and frustration were all over the guy in the VA, and in a way, it is all over the Occupiers as well. A lot of rage comes out of pain. Putting a voice to popular rage is fine, but the scruffy war protesters of 1968 articulated their rage, and housewives and businessmen and cops and doctors and Congressmen followed thereafter. It isn’t “popular”, if it does not include more than a single segement of society. Occupy was painted by its detractors as a bunch of unwashed, jobless welfare chislers who just wanted to make trouble. I know the truth was different, and Steve, so do you. A coherent message from Ocucpy would have helped dispel that erroneous image.
Also, how did we get to gun ownership on this thread? Peace, everyone. Don’t shoot!
I did two years in Vietnam, I know what you are talking about. Understand if Occupy had one or two things that needed fixing, it would be easy to deal with in making those few cases. The work continues to try and lay down all the many things that need to be addressed, but that doesn’t happen over night. It isn’t like the platform committee of the Democratic party at the county level. It took years to make somethinig out of individual protests that eventually formed the Declaration of Indepenence and all the documents that followed. It consisted of protests of everything from the tax on tea to the housing of soldiers, but in the end it all came together and shelved the English creating a new organization altogether. Who lead the protest that spawned the Boston Massacre? No one really knows; did they really have a consistant voice in what they were protesting? I doubt it. When the Brits responded to snow balls with lead shot, it created situations much the same as we have seen in Oakland and around the country. What you are witnessing is the gradual turning away from the way the 1% wants us, all of us, to believe.I am hoping this changes the system toward something different. Something more like the ideal one we asked for originally and not one bent on allowing only one small faction to have their way and the rest have nothing.
Okay, so we don’t have the right to camp overnight at Mays Island but, we do have a right to examine every document at City Hall.
So why not do what we still have the power to do and thus remove those from office taking away our rights to say, Camp at May’s Island.
Protest this; Protest accomplishes what ? Nothing !
But, Slamming City Hall could be what; “Priceless” !
the real culprit is the press – they’ve simply abrogated their responsibility to give people accurate, truthful information. Several weeks ago, New York Times “reader’s representative” Andy Brisbane actually asked readers whether reporters should be concerned with the truth. Honestly. He did.
We are now stuck with a media that puts “balance” or “objectivity” before truth. As Eric Sevareid said:
“Our rigid formulae of so-called objectivity … have given the lie the same prominence and impact that truth is given; they have elevated the influence of fools to that of wise men; the ignorant to the level of the learned; the evil to the level of the good.”
This is more true today than it was then. And without a press devoted to honesty and accuracy, our ship of state runs on yarns, myths and the modern day equivalent of “bread and circuses,” and we are at the mercy of the evil, the foolish and the ignorant.
As long as that’s the case, the whims of the 1% will rule and your pay will continue to erode, or your job will exported to China or India or Honduras or anywhere the plutocrats are free to exploit workers and the environment. Or to places like Germany, where they don’t buy into the myths, and an active government role assures high-wage jobs and general prosperity.
At the end of the day, trying to run a country according to the rules of fantasy island isn’t a recipe for success. But it does serve the interests of the 1%.
John Atcheson