The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"How exactly are you seeing a creep towards marxism in this country?"
"Ok by definition we are a social democracy."
Thanks for making my point, paikinator.
Social democracy:
"1: a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2: a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices "
"But who is directly to blame for mortgage backed securities? The banking industry and financial interests."
Banks will do what they are permitted to do within the law. Prior to Gramm–Leach–Bliley , this could not have occurred.
"Has the constitution been eradicated somehow and I missed the memo?"
Eradicated, no. Seriously damaged? Yes, primarily by the distortion and essential abrogation of the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8.
Part zwei:
Let's take your social institutions one at a time. It is absolutely essential to view these areas at the Federal level. Cities and States can do what they want within their individual Constitutions:
Public Education ... at the Federal level. Please justify this under the commerce clause. What is being regualted? Pencils? Desks?
The public road system - Constitutional under Article 1, Section 8. I classify these areas as "infrastructure" - certainly appropriate under the Constitution at the Federal level.
Medicare/Medicaid - Unconstitutional. There is no authorization under the "general welfare" clause to provide payments from the Federal Government to any individual citizen.
Social Security - UC for the same reason
Childhood healthcare - UC for the same reason
The New National banking system - Will have to think about this one, but if you mean the Federal Reserve, I am with Ron Paul on this one
The VA Hospital - Constitutional because it is part of the armed forces
The Post Office - Constitutional, clearly in Article 1, Section 8
Jails - If you mean Federal Prisons, that's an interesting one I've never heard mentioned before. I would have to argue for its constitutionality under the various "punishment" clauses in Article 1 Section 8
Unemployment - UC
Part drei:
Parks (national and city) - National parks - sure, we'll call it infrastructure
Beaches (national and city) Privet beaches are nuke beaches - Don't know what that last part is, but ditto
Libraries - A close call. Library of Congress seems reasonable. Federal money to states or localities for libraries? No way.
Street lamps and or any lighting paid by the Gov't (city included) Federal? Never.
The U.S Military (Paid by the Government using tax dollars) - Clearly constitutuional under Article 1, Section 8
FDA - Under Commerce yes, but only interstate regulation
EPA - Under Commerce yes, but only interstate regulation
Would be happy to debate any of these with you paikinator - not on the basis of "what seems justifiable, needed, or right", but what the Constitution allows.
paikinator,
"Germany has preserved its production base and its peoples lifestyle better I would argue. They have secured a more lucrative future for their citizens than what we have done. "
Are you familiar with life and work in Germany? I am (a little). So, here is my take on what happened there and why:
Just a few years ago they had a very socialist-like labor law and generous unemployment benefits. Basically, even if you are a private company, you couldn't fire any of your "permanent employees." That's a good thing for the employees, right? Yes, but what happened is that...companies stopped hiring permanent employees! If you were young and out of school in Germany - there was a very slim chance that you would get hired. So, the unemployment skyrocketed.
In addition, their unemployment benefits were so high that many people just chose not to work. I bet that's what many of the OWS protesters would want - a guaranteed minimum, enough for a tiny apartment in NYC, plus cash enough to buy food and to have a beer in a pub a couple of times a month.
To remedy the situation, the Germans changed their labor laws and allowed companies to hire temporary workers, and part-time workers, who would get smaller salaries and no lavish benefits that the "permanent employees" got. Plus, they curtailed unemployment benefits to make people more interested in getting a job. And - voila! - their unemployment rate had gotten smaller. Of course, their export orientation also helped, as the middle classes of China, Russia and Latin America started craving BMWs and other quality German-engineered goods.
So, in a nutshell: Germany started to succeed precisely because they started to scale down government support - i.e. reducing socialism.
ecgberht wrote:
"Ok by definition we are a social democracy."
Thanks for making my point, paikinator.
How did I make your point by saying we are a social democracy. We are a state that incorporates both socialist and capitalist practices. And we have been so since our inception.
That is a statement of fact about what we are. We are still no closer to marxism or state control of means of production or of state ownership of all property.
I don't see how we get there with the constitution intact.
You seem to be a big supporter of the idea of a slippery slope to total socialism, and yet to me that is impossible without eradication of the constitution.
What do you think is going to happen really?
houblon wrote:
So, in a nutshell: Germany started to succeed precisely because they started to scale down government support - i.e. reducing socialism.
-----------
Good to know. Thank you for your insights.
So basically a better balance was struck. That is great!!!
"How did I make your point by saying we are a social democracy. We are a state that incorporates both socialist and capitalist practices. And we have been so since our inception."
OK, if you skip definition 1 and go right to definition 2.
Definition 1 says a social democracy is "a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means"
"You seem to be a big supporter of the idea of a slippery slope to total socialism, and yet to me that is impossible without eradication of the constitution. "
The Constitution does not have to be "eradicated" if it is made of no effect. Interestingly, the Supreme Court decision with respect to the public mandate to be rendered next June, is critical in this regard. If the mandate is upheld, the slope gets not only slipperier, but steeper as well. If the Congress can mandate the purchase of Health insurance they can do anything.
I await your response on the list in my previous post.
ecgberht wrote:
So basically you are are what a strict constitutionalist. More like Justice Bork or Scalia.
Most everything a society would want to do for itself is unconstitutional using a strict interpretation of the constitution according to you and others is what I am understanding.
Most trappings of modern industrial society are prohibited is I get your understanding correctly.
Do you believe that the founders accounted for everything needed at the time of the founding of our country?
Do you believe that they would wish the constitution to serve as a strict coda for our nation and not a living changeable template which can adapt and be adapted to changing times?
Do you believe that the items you deem unconstitutional are things leading to the downfall of the nation and a march to marxism? Most of them are social programs, so I am assuming you view them as the slide to a sinister socialism which will in the end destroy the constitution or something? Am I right. I don't mean to speak for you but I don't really understand where your fear is taking you.
I suppose there would be no way to sway your opinion or come to some wider agreement since I believe these things you say are unconstitutional are in fact derived constitutionally.
I believe that interpretation of the constitution by the courts is a valid means for the government to adapt to the times we live in whereas you view it as a distortion. I am not a strict constitutionalist. Therefore the constitution allows more than you would have it allow.
ecgberht wrote:
OK, if you skip definition 1 and go right to definition 2.
---------
Definition one and two are separate things. I was referring to definition 2 and not to a political movement. I read definition 1 but since it didn't apply to what I was talking about I went on to definition 2 which does apply.
1. is about the goals of political organizations
2. is about the status definition of a state
That doesn't make them the same.
Social democracy the movement is simply not the same as Social democracy the state to which I was referring.
Most words or phrases will have several or dozens of differing usages, yet you would not say that all must apply when you are referring to one usage.
How can the constitution be made to have no effect exactly?
I agree that the government mandate to purchase health care is ridiculous and be thrown out, but even if it isn't, I don't see how we get to an overarching socialist state.
In a future date if deemed so such mandates will get disguarded as new paradigms and realities confront our nation. We cannot account for all that will come. The constitution is an extraordinary thing really. The pinnacle of enlightenment thinking of the age. Franklin didn't think the experiment would last 5 years an yet hear we are muscling in on almost 250. I think the constitution has more legs than you give it credit for. The most important thing in the entire constitution is the idea that humans have the right to direct their government and that is America's gift to the world.
ecgberht wrote:
I be happy to debate any of these with you paikinator - not on the basis of "what seems justifiable, needed, or right", but what the Constitution allows.
-----------------
I suppose that is what we are doing... debating or sharing our thoughts.
I am no legal scholar and rely on my sense of justice and what is right to fit the needs of our times. But those are my thoughts and not the inner workings of the great legal minds of our country. I must confess to not being a legal expert.
I do think that doing point for points is a little silly since most of the time everyone including me is looking up stuff on the web to bolster their own arguments. It is apparent that we have differing philosophies on the subject of the constitution as is elegantly pointed out by your summary of what is or isn't allowable under the constitution.
I don't think it is necessary to do a bunch of point counterpoint stuff since it will end up being largely circular. The constitution seems plain and allows for interpretation by the judiciary, which has happened over the course of our history. That is more a reflection of how not static the document is at least to me.
You seem to prefer a static interpretation.
How did you feel about Citizens United? That too was an interpretation as well.
Do you think that somewhere in all of your understanding that the founders would have decided to give corporate entities the same legal standing as citizens of the US? Just curious.
ecgberht wrote:
Public Education ... at the Federal level. Please justify this under the commerce clause. What is being regualted? Pencils? Desks?
------
I'm not sure what you are meaning here. Could you elaborate?
ecgberht wrote:
"But who is directly to blame for mortgage backed securities? The banking industry and financial interests."
Banks will do what they are permitted to do within the law. Prior to Gramm–Leach–Bliley , this could not have occurred.
----------------
Hmmm do we have an agreement on Gramm -Leach-Bliley... I think we might.
That was one of the many things that went down over a 30 year period which helped lead us to the collapse.
In the end it was the screwy derivatives which hosed us. But who bought out congress and then wrote the laws which repealed all the protections and bent the law to allow for all the screwy shenanigans. It certainly wasn't average joe citizen with low to no access to the political process.
The financial sector and their revolving goldman sachs-to Fed athon. The same people who wrote the laws were the people in the industry designed to take advantage of things.
Okay, I have a new question for those who are excited about the OWS movement and defend OWS protesters.
Basically, what OWS protesters claim is that they are unfairly shut out of the economic opportunities, which they see as dominated by corporations with big bucks.
But let me ask you: Did they (OWS protesters) build this economy? Did they participate in it and then got shut down? Did they have a place in it and then lost it through no fault of their own?
To me, all answers seem to be "no." It's the corporations and businessmen who created the present economic opportunities. They built their own "house" - and if you want to get in, well, you gotta try your best, and even then it's not a guarantee.
The snapshot of an average OWS protester is this: Young, with a college degree in humanities, saddled with debt, unemployed, stubbornly clinging to the idea of making a living by doing "something creative." This is not someone who helped create economic opportunities and had done very little to exploit the opportunities created by others.
So, what right do these people have to demand a break for themselves?
ecgberht wrote:
Part Deux:
"Our neurons are not binary."
Actually, they are.
------------------------
Actually they aren't. Although the physical firing of one particular neuron in isolation many be a binary action the neurons are reactive and carry more information than a simple 0 or 1. Timing and frequency also carry information. A neuron itself may be clicked on or off, it exists in a networked system and not a linear one. What the firing means differs and varies according to what else is or isn't firing and at what rate. The complexity is enormous.
It seems fair to say that an neuron firing is like me saying no. It matters more of how I say no, the volume I say it, the social context, and a myriad of other things as to what it no means. No doesn't always mean no. This is what I mean by nuance.
I think it is fair to say that our neurons are not binary in their communication although the firing may be binary. The firing is a secondary thing... it happens, but isn't relevant to the bigger picture.
Kind of like sleeping. We could say humans are either asleep or awake, but that doesn't tell the entire tale of each day. Sleeping is binary, but it isn't really now is it.
From an MIT brief:
"For decades, researchers tended to use digital computers as a conceptual model for the brain. Yet the brain does not function digitally. The rate at which a neuron fires its pulses can be varied continuously, and neurons can generate and react to slow continuous-wave electrical potentials . These are the behaviors of an analog , not an all-or-nothing digital circuit."
This is pretty old knowledge that I learned in medical school neurology class first year.
"So basically you are are what a strict constitutionalist. More like Justice Bork or Scalia."
Yes, if Bork were a SC Justice.
"Most everything a society would want to do for itself is unconstitutional using a strict interpretation of the constitution according to you and others is what I am understanding."
False. only at the Federal level.
"Most trappings of modern industrial society are prohibited is I get your understanding correctly."
False. Only at the Federal level. What most fail to understand is the brilliance of the concept of the Constitutional republic put in place by our founders; a small central government with specific power that ONLY MAKE SENSE at the Federal level; military, coining money and counterfeiting, regulation of commerce disputes between states, patents, etc. There is a reason the 10th ammendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution is intended to be a state-centric document. That's why, when asked about the outcome of the Constitutional Convention with respect to our form of government, Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said, "A Republic ... if you can keep it". I believe Dr. Franklin would be ashamed if he saw what we've done with the founders' Republic.
"Do you believe that the founders accounted for everything needed at the time of the founding of our country?"
Of course not. Neither did they. That's why there's an ammendmet process.
"Do you believe that they would wish the constitution to serve as a strict coda for our nation and not a living changeable template which can adapt and be adapted to changing times?"
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little... see ammendment process above.
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)."
"The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819. "
If the Constitution is a "living changeable template", then term "supreme law of the land" has no meaning. If the Constitution is a "living changeable template", why was an ammendment process provided?
"Do you believe that the items you deem unconstitutional are things leading to the downfall of the nation and a march to marxism? Most of them are social programs, so I am assuming you view them as the slide to a sinister socialism which will in the end destroy the constitution or something?"
I don't know. Maybe. The answer is irrelevant. Misrepresenting the Constitution is a means to an end - whatever that end is.
"I suppose there would be no way to sway your opinion or come to some wider agreement since I believe these things you say are unconstitutional are in fact derived constitutionally. I believe that interpretation of the constitution by the courts is a valid means for the government to adapt to the times we live in whereas you view it as a distortion. I am not a strict constitutionalist. Therefore the constitution allows more than you would have it allow."
I would just like to hear you justify one of the items I have claimed are unconstitutional - say, the Department of Education - under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8. I believe there is only one provision that could possibly allow you to do that, and that is the commerce clause. So what is being regulated amongst the several states?
------I think I just threw up in my mouth a little... see ammendment process above.
Just asking the questions .... no need for bodily misfunctions. hehehe
----If the Constitution is a "living changeable template", then term "supreme law of the land" has no meaning. If the Constitution is a "living changeable template", why was an ammendment process provided?
The amendment process is a giant part of the changeablity of the template. The other seems to be judicial interpretation. These are the 2 main ways that the laws have been changed in our history. Do we agree at least on that?
---Misrepresenting the Constitution is a means to an end - whatever that end is.
So do you think the justices who are interpreting the constitution are by an large involved in some plot?
"I don't think it is necessary to do a bunch of point counterpoint stuff since it will end up being largely circular. The constitution seems plain and allows for interpretation by the judiciary, which has happened over the course of our history. That is more a reflection of how not static the document is at least to me. You seem to prefer a static interpretation."
Interpretation of the judiciary applies to specific cases. It is not a means to broaden the intent of Constitutional provisions, though some courts have certainly tried to do that.
"How did you feel about Citizens United? That too was an interpretation as well. Do you think that somewhere in all of your understanding that the founders would have decided to give corporate entities the same legal standing as citizens of the US? Just curious."
I've written on this here before. I'll answer your question with a question. If you believe the court should have decided differently, how should they have decided? Start at the beginning of the case, with "Hillary: The Movie" and go forward.
ecgberht wrote:
--------The Constitution is intended to be a state-centric document.
I see your point. It is sound.
---------I believe Dr. Franklin would be ashamed if he saw what we've done with the founders' Republic.
I'm not really fit to judge what Dr. Franklin would feel. I only know he had an expansive mind and a very inquisitive one, but all I know is from books and his Autobiography. His experience of the world was broad.
-------That's why there's an ammendmet process.
Sounds like we need another constitutional convention so we can freshen up our document.
ecgberht wrote:
I would just like to hear you justify one of the items I have claimed are unconstitutional - say, the Department of Education - under the provisions of Article 1, Section 8. I believe there is only one provision that could possibly allow you to do that, and that is the commerce clause. So what is being regulated amongst the several states?
----------------
Ok here goes.
The federal government has been the key leader in establishing public education since before the ratification of the constitution. The land ordinance of 1785 and eventually the Northwest ordinance of 1787 clearly established the mechanism by which public education would be established in each of the new territories and provided a funding mechanism. This was done because as Washinton said that public education is one of the three legs upon which the republic rests. ….( I am paraphrasing). Washington signed the northwest ordinance. And it was one of the triumphs that provided the foundation of western expansion.
The 1787 ordinance allowed for federal sovereignty over the territories including setting up education until states could become states. Administration of education has been a federal mandate from early on in our country.
The department of education is just current interface of the federal government and its continuing role in public education to keep the republic strong.
part deux:
Article 1 section 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
The general welfare would include such things as education, unemployment, medicare, social security and any other things deemed by we the citizens to be part of our welfare.
The constitution clearly provides for this and original intent is clearly on the side of public education administered by the states but overseen by the federal government. The federal government has been providing for and administering public education since before the constitution.
ecgberht wrote:
I've written on this here before. I'll answer your question with a question. If you believe the court should have decided differently, how should they have decided? Start at the beginning of the case, with "Hillary: The Movie" and go forward.
---------
Clearly the court should not have established personhood for entities. Such right are reserved for people, humans only, .... citizens.
Hillary the movie was a political speech in the guise of a movie. As such it fell under election laws. I couldn't be broadcast within 30 days of the election. That seemed fine until the court decided to say that Citizens United's (a group) free speech should not be abridged and not only that but expanded it to basically any entity including unions and corporations or whatever organization wants to rally vast sums of money for propaganda purposes. Citizens United could have broadcast their film in a myriad of other ways within the 30 day window, but they wanted to broadcast it in a way which was prohibited. But the court chose to not simply look at this case but broaden it to include other entities. So what we have all sorts of organizations which have first amendment rights. Great!!!
This decision is simply not healthy for America.
Organizations should have never been given personhood.
Organizations now have equal standing with a citizen even though they are a collective.
Organizations were previously barred from certain behaviors designed to influence elections. unfairly.
This distorts the electoral process even more than it ever. Now hundreds of millions to billions of dollars can be thrown into campaigns effectively marginalizing the citizens. Yeah corporatism, Yeah Unionism... the citizen becomes a whack a mole.
Justice Stevens had the best arguments that I read.
ecgberht wrote:
Medicare/Medicaid - Unconstitutional. There is no authorization under the "general welfare" clause to provide payments from the Federal Government to any individual citizen.
-------
Yes there is.
Providing for the general welfare is like a get out of jail free card.
It allows for lots of things as far as I am concerned.
You spend a lot of time worrying about the commerce clause.
I spend more time thinking about the general welfare and how that has lead to so much of our modern society. I leave the legal wrangling to those who spend their lives doing it, but the general welfare goes a long way in how I view what our government needs to do for its citizens. Apparently, lots of other citizens feel the same way which is why we have such great things as Social Security, Medicare and Children's health insurance program and now a flawed health care bill for the rest of us.
houblon wrote:
-----So, what right do these people have to demand a break for themselves?
The right of every citizen to proclaim injustice where they see it.
Aren't you being overly general?
-----To me, all answers seem to be "no." It's the corporations and businessmen who created the present economic opportunities. They built their own "house" - and if you want to get in, well, you gotta try your best, and even then it's not a guarantee.
Nobody created everything by themselves. Corporations are only as good as the people who make them up. Corporations have benefited from the wealthy market of our nation and the stability our constitution has built for us.
------------But let me ask you: Did they (OWS protesters) build this economy? Did they participate in it and then got shut down? Did they have a place in it and then lost it through no fault of their own?
Can you answer your own overly general comments? Certainly you can't answer them factually since you lack any data on any of it.
--------The snapshot of an average OWS protester is this: Young, with a college degree in humanities, saddled with debt, unemployed, stubbornly clinging to the idea of making a living by doing "something creative." This is not someone who helped create economic opportunities and had done very little to exploit the opportunities created by others.
And again with the dirty shiftless hippy loser talk. Why don't you open your mind a bit and let the messages sink in. Or if you don't agree you can simply say that without mocking the people who you disagree with. The discontent is bigger than rif-raf you seem to want to think it is comprised of. And the number of people who are starting to wake up is growing. Disparaging the movement is just Ad Hominem attacks and places what you say in the realm of logical dilemma.
paikinator,
"The right of every citizen to proclaim injustice where they see it."
Fine, then I proclaim it a great injustice that Anthony Bourdain travels the world and samples new food every day and I do not. I should occupy his neighborhood, I guess.
"Corporations are only as good as the people who make them up. Corporations have benefited from the wealthy market of our nation and the stability our constitution has built for us."
All fine, but what do OWS protesters have to do with all that? They don't make up corporations, they are not wealthy to invest, and they want the stability disrupted. I do not see how they fit in.
"Certainly you can't answer them factually since you lack any data on any of it."
As a matter of fact, I was going by the data provided during the radio broadcast, as well as several anecdotal stories published in magazines and online so far. Sure, there have been no census-like polls that would capture the statistics about every OWS protester, but, then again - in statistics it is often sufficient to collect a random sample and make conclusions about a larger population based on it. After all, that is how political polls are done - 1,000 people are asked a question and the results are projected onto the entire population.
paikinator:
"Why don't you open your mind a bit and let the messages sink in."
For the same reason that you wouldn't let me read you a lecture on, say, medieval French literature, or have Hitler talk about salvation of humanity. It matters who says things. So, when an OWS protester says that he is not given enough opportunity - and then elaborates on how he majored in visual arts at an expensive college and now owes it $100K while being continually unemployed for the reason of being unable to find a buyer for his acquired skills - the "message" simply does not hold water for me.
And, according to the radio broadcast and those anecdotal stories published so far - that seems to be the majority portrait of the protesters. A random guy roamed Zuccotti Park for several hours and realized that he didn't meet a single person with a background in engineering or science, then published his findings online. That's enough for me to get an initial picture.
Houblon
-----Fine, then I proclaim it a great injustice that Anthony Bourdain travels the world and samples new food every day and I do not. I should occupy his neighborhood, I guess.
If that is your greatest grievance they maybe you should. Personally I just don't watch his show and that take care of my finding a disparity between my level of travel and his.
----- They don't make up corporations, they are not wealthy to invest, and they want the stability disrupted. I do not see how they fit in.
That is a pretty sweeping assumption and not accurate. Once more you are trying to say that the OWS movement is rabble and should be discounted. That can be your opinion, but mis-statement of fact are not to be unchallenged. Many of those in the crowd have investments of some sort or another. Most may not, but that doesn't discount what they say.
The way the original articles of confederation were written only those who owned land were able to vote and only men and only white men. Even the constitution was flawed because it didn't give equality to everyone.
It seems to me that you would like to go back to that. A sort of aristocratic way of thinking. The poor or less fortunate don't and shouldn't say anything or be listened to because they don''t have investments or jobs. Nice!
Your logic boggles the mind, but it is the very kind of thinking everyone in the republic needs to guard against.
Houblon
----- in statistics it is often sufficient to collect a random sample and make conclusions about a larger population based on it.
Yes, but statistics only are valid without selection bias or a myriad of other factors which render them invalid.
As Mark Twain so elegantly put it.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
I would have to say that polling and statistics are a double edged sword. Just from my experience in science which is more concrete, statistics are more often than not used incorrectly. This is even more the case when statistics are used for a political purpose to show how bad your political enemies are.
Just as is the case for most political polling. Political polls are tools riddled with selection bias and they basically are at best a snapshot of a limited timeframe. They are not really reflective on much more than the particular wording of the questioner.
-houblon
And, according to the radio broadcast and those anecdotal stories published so far - that seems to be the majority portrait of the protesters. A random guy roamed Zuccotti Park for several hours and realized that he didn't meet a single person with a background in engineering or science, then published his findings online. That's enough for me to get an initial picture.
-------
So those who are not in engineering or science are not at the rally so therefore it is not a valid rally?
The grievances people are expressing are not real because the physicists are tied up in the lab?
If that is enough for you then so be it, but the world is a bigger place than scientists and engineers.