"Take the Horse:" Scenes from Saturday's Occupy Chicago March

bunch of losers

D,
That makes the insult coming from you or him all the more pleasing.

Lonely days, lonely nights.

"Lonely days, lonely nights."

Is that some Soviet movie or something?

Concern trolling aside,
I think the park is a little to far away from the center of the loop/financial district.  As far as a symbol goes, I agree it doesn't seem as effective.  I too think one of the loop plazas would be more symbolic.

I'd love to hear your definition of "concern trolling."  Because it seems to include an awful lot of argument types.  Slippery slope, hypothetical bad outcomes, complaints of bad precedent, etc. all seem to fall under your "concern trolling" catch all.

Maybe I'd give you "concern".  But "trolling"?  Gimmie a break.  I don't see much trolling from the regulars here and when I do see it, it tends to come from you or people with a personal history of arguing with you.  Lord knows I enjoy the Navin bait that get's set around here...

But the trolling I see here isn't about concern.  Those are valid arguments.  If you don't like them, show they are wrong.  Shouting "troll" at those that disagree with you is so, well, trolly.

Basically: subtle (and not so subtle) undermining, insincere, negative comments presented under the guise of helpful, constructive criticism by somebody who in reality just doesn't agree with the cause.

Some people here are offering genuine criticisms, others not so much.

What if they aren't under a helpful guise?  For instance:

Giving the OWS unfettered access to grant park sets a terrible precedent and I'd be concerned if *any* group of protestors was allowed to occupy a public space in Chicago.

Concern trolling?

No, I think you generally just dislike the protesters and the movement period.  Your criticisms are just for the most part: angry, profoundly wrong, and wildly incoherent.

Bwa ha ha.  Thanks for that, Navin.  Laugh of the day, especially coming from you.

I may not be particularly sympathetic to your cause, support every liberal movement that comes up or be the most kind to those that disagree.  But incoherent? 

You really don't like people who disagree with you, huh?  Because you really don't treat them with much respect.  Go away, donkey.

The way you're treating the protesters with "respect".  Are you a two year old?

Ha.  Disagreeing with their tactics, message and goals is now "disrespect"?  God you are an entitled twerp.  Anyone who disagrees, even an iota, is the enemy, to be ridiculed, ignored or called crazy.

Your mode of argument is truly appalling.  I understand the good reverend's frustration.

See, only Navin knows people's true motives. He possesses an insight and telepathic ability heretofore unseen in Internet commenters. Support OWS but lodge some constructive criticism? You're "ridiculing" them. Even suggest that perhaps their goals would be better served by using slightly different tactics? Well you really "dislike" them and are "concern trolling".

Don't waste your time with that idiot.

"Donkey"Ah yes, beloved equus africanus asinus.  A true friend and helper of mankind since the days of old Mesopotamia.  A true companion and major player in the development of civilization.Thank you.

Also: stubborn and not very bright.

Well yes, your argument is incoherent. Your statements show a willful ignorance of the very nature of civil disobedience. Notice that other people are not so much disagreeing with the civil disobedience itself as they are disagreeing with the venue.

I disagreeing with civil disobedience?  News to me.  All I'm saying is that: a) people who break the law should expect to get arrested even if they are protesting and b) I don't think the city should capitulate to the protestors' demands and give them a permenent base of operations.

My argument has been remarkably consistent and pretty damn straightforward:  disobey if you want, just stop expecting special treatment.  This citizen, at least, doesn't want them to get it.

I also disagree with OWS choice of venue, but that is just one in a long line of disagreements I have with their priorities and message.

You should only take it as "concern trolling" if I am asking about you personally.

*snore*

Oh shit, are you OK!?!

On one hand, camping in the park is pointless and the City has every legal ground to close the park and arrest people who are there after closing.

On the other hand, if the "occupy" protesters were just walking up and down the sidewalk somewhere pointing out the various ways that we as a nation are shooting ourselves in the foot economically, would there be this press coverage and/or discussion.  They absolutely need to be "occupying" the news cycle - but devolving into a group that's focused on camping in the park is a risk.

This game (camping in Grant Park) has been played.  If they have a group of people who are willing to be arrested to make news stories, then they need to find novel ways to make pains-in-the-ass of themselves to keep novel stories in the news.

(Oh, and if "getting rid of the Fed" is a major focus of people in the "occupy" group, then this is all a pointless exercise.  That's what Quixotic Ron Paul campaigns are for.)

they absolutely need to be "occupying" the news cycle - but devolving into a group that's focused on camping in the park is a risk.

"Even though members managed to collect the funds in a few moments, police refused multiple requests to post bail and held five people until a court hearing today."

Wasn't this because these people were in violation of the bond from the arrest last week? That seems like a pretty predictable consequence of two arrests in a week.

"While Occupy Chicago has a point - free speech doesn’t have a curfew"

Why perpetuate this point? There is almost 100 years of law on this. It is a point that doesn't hold up to even two seconds of scrutiny. It almost doesn't qualify as a point because while it looks good on a bumper sticker there is absolutely zero chance that there can be, or should be, the sort of freedom of demonstration these people want.

The entire last paragraph is a bluff. It is a bluff by a group that is losing its focus. This focus on Grant Park is the same mistake they made in 1968. It does nothing to highlight any issues, and is so easily swatted away in the courts that it is, at best, a minor inconvenience for the powers that be. 

Yes, it was predictable. However, from what I gauged on the scene (I was at 18th and State for a few hours in the early afternoon) and the people I spoke with, the offer was given by police, then immediately retracted once the money was presented. So either someone on the police side of things made a mistake, or someone on the occupy side of things misunderstood, or both (both is most likely).

Either way, the difference between this week's arrests and last weeks' arrests was stark. Police waved various procedures last time and began releasing people at 4am, less than half an hour when the last wagon showed up with some of the 175 arrested. This time, police held people in general much longer. That's their choice to make, as it's their choice to decide what charge to arrest people for. However, the choices they've made clearly show their intention to posture, just like people on the occupy side have made choices that show their intention to posture as well.

Are things getting lost in minutiae with the struggle for the park? Absolutely. But, my question still stands - you say there is zero chance that there can be or should be the sort of freedom of demonstration they want - so why then, is it allowed in other cities? Wouldn't it actually be easier for the city to say "sure, here's your little patch of land along Michigan Avenue, don't ask for anything more" and be done with it?

But again, none of this is -- or is supposed to be, from what I can tell -- the point of these protests. What's the end-goal here? If the Occupy Chicago's whole interest is in changing the law such that protest groups are allowed to camp in Grant Park, then they're doing a great job.  If, however, it's something other/more/larger than that, then they're doing a tremendously shitty job of staying on message and focusing on what matters.

Shit like this is why I'm consistently disappointed in liberal movement politics: they invariably get all bogged down in tangential, largely inconsequential bullshit and fail to materially change anything. Somebody needs to tell Occupy Chicago's leaders that a movement's relevance can be judged solely on the basis of the number of minds and policies it changes. And all this silly season "Let us put up tents here!" nonsense is doesn't do dick to change either one.

Because the protestors aren't owed anything?  Because the mayor of Chicago is less sympathetic to the OWS cause?  Maybe because the mayor and CPD don't think there will be public outrage over curfew arrests in Grant Park.

Chicago, after all, isn't LA or Seattle.  For better or worse, our mayors tend not to be the unabashed liberals that the mayors of those cities are.  Like NY, Chicago voters tend to side with more complex, dare I say, more corporate, candidates.  I wouldn't call the Daley's safely liberal, for instance, nor would I call Rahm a dyed in the wool liberal.

Personally, I don't think the CPD or city should capitulate on this one.  NY has allowed them in the park (from what I've read) mostly because it is a private park and the park's owner has gotten threats from a lot of politicians not to kick them out.  The city really doesn't play into that decision as much.  Personally, I don't want the OWS folks to be able to use one of our city parks (which belongs to all of us, after all) as a permanent base of operations.  I'd prefer to keep it a park.

NY has allowed them in the park (from what I've read) mostly because it is a private park

All things being equal, I'd be fine with seeing them set up shop there, via some permitting process or something like that. But as ChicagoD already mentioned, that opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms.

"Wouldn't it actually be easier for the city to say "sure, here's your little patch of land along Michigan Avenue, don't ask for anything more" and be done with it?"

First, aren't you writing the *exact* same piece if they outgrow that patch? Sometimes "no" is better than "OK, just this once."

Second, a lot depends on the exact nature of the place that is being occupied, so I can't speak to other cities. However, for the city to shortcut its own processes to do as you suggest would be a terrible precedent for the future. Today is Occupy. Tomorrow is can be the American Nazi Party (which, you may recall, is the group that led to the need for a lot of these rules). If you did a nod and wink with Occupy, you will absolutely lose in court if you don't do the same with the next group. It is bad policy for the government to favor one set of speakers over another, and I hope the Occupy people can see this.

I will say again, the plaza in front of Chase across from Italian Village. Private property, hard for Chase to order the Gestapo to remove peaceful protesters, etc. etc. Move there.

I agree 100% with the Chase Plaza suggestion, and when you have 200 people being hauled off to jail for occupying Chase Plaza to protest banking regulations, bailouts and foreclosures, it's a hell of a lot more dramatic (with a more significant impact) than when some crust-punks are being hauled off at 2AM for tryuing to pitch a tent in a public park.

I love the Occupy movement, and I support it 100%, and have gone to the big marches. But I can't abide with the Take the Horse BS they're pulling.

Absolutely. The act (peacefully occupying a bank-owned plaza) is in that case inherently and unmistakably connected with the message. Attempting to occupy Grant Park sends the message of... uh... well I'm not sure, exactly, and I doubt anyone else really is either.

what is going on with occupy chicago? it seems like the movement has shifted from being about corporate greed, ending the fed, and wealth inequality to just being about taking the horse and fighting rahm. from my perspective and some of the people i have gone down with, this really isn't what we want to fight for but it seems the focus of the leaders in this movement from the facebook and twitter activity. you guys are going to loose momentum with this approach.  just because they sleep in a park in new york city does't mean we have to in chicago.

ending the fed

OWS may be about that for a handful of libertarians/paultards, but not really for everybody else.

I see it as "saving capitalism from itself .... again."  Capitalism, like a garden, needs constant pruning.  You need to save seeds for next year, you need to spend some money on fertilizer and plowing rows for the plants, some types of counter-productive plant growth needs to be trimmed off frequently.  During the 90s and Zips, we backed off too much on the pruning and let the garden get out of control.  We looked at the garden and though "look how fast it's growing, man we have tons of vegetables (well, tons of vegetable plants anyway, there must be a bunch of tasty veggies hidden in all that foliage!)."  But anyone who grows tomatoes knows that if you just leave them alone, you get giant bushes of plant, with a few tomatoes, but if you prune them regularly, you actually end up with more tomatoes.

We need to reinstate a lot of that pruning and weeding.  I'm not going to try to stretch the metaphor far enough to equate the Fed to, uh, compost or something - but let's just say that it's a crucial, if imperfect, part of the system.

I've thought for a long time that Ron Paul's campaign slogan should be "An 18th Century Government for a 21st Century America!"  Just as a 1790 farmer would have no idea how to manage a 21st century farm ("Ye speaks of "the combine", "the futures market" and "nitrogen", what manner of witchcraft are these?"), Ron Paul's vision of a stunted government (with gold based currency and no Fed) would cause the country to implode, quickly.

A return to an antebellum power structure seems to be his bag, not surprising it's why so many people with peculiar views on society and equality seem to be so attracted to him.

And I like your gardening metaphor ;)

Ding ding ding. I'm all for Occupy Chicago pursuing legal means by which to realize their interest in camping out in Grant Park. But it's things like these that tend to get left wing movements off message and into irrelevance. They need to stay on message (a message which I still think could use some firming up) and if they really want to camp out in Grant Park, pursue that in such a way as to ensure that the coverage of the pursuit is secondary to the coverage of the message. I fear it's already sliding out of control: protest the prohibition on being able to camp in Grant Park, get arrested for protesting there after hours, protest the arrests for protesting after hours by protesting after hours, get arrested then, protest those arrests... too much more of that silliness and people just stop giving a shit. At some point it looks less like there's a message there, and more like people just protesting to protest. And not many serious people are going to be very interested in that.

Yeah, I don't understand why the protest has to be 24 hours a day at all. Whose hearts and minds are you winning over at 4 AM?

Homeless people?  Really early commuters?

I don't think they are thinking about this that way. It is more:  I have the right to do this!!  Why are you trying to stop me?

In fairness, the camping surely builds a sense of camaraderie and keeps people from going home at night, getting caught up in a Storage Wars marathon and not coming back. As a matter of team-building it is not terrible strategy. 

Absolutely.  And if they think that is important, they should find some place they have the right to be to act as a base of operations.

I just resent the OWS implication that Chicago needs to provide them a public space as a base of operations.  Just ask my wife:  we were required to get permits--and pay for it--when we got married in the park.  And that was for a lousy 2 hour timeslot.  There is a reason those rules exist (beyond a source of revenue) and that is to keep the park accessible to the general public.

Yes indeed,
Like one of the many campgrounds in The Loop perhaps?

Thanks for proving my point.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of protest and civil disobedience.

What are you on about? The whole point of civil disobedience is to get arrested. It forces society to decide whether that is how it wants to operate.

As I have said before, it was Letter from Birmingham Jail, not Letter from a Birmingham Starbuck's.

That is what I was telling Tafter.  Are you high or something?

Yes, yes.  You are the one telling us "how it is".  We are crazily and incoherently misunderstanding you.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of our laws.

Sure, you can go ahead and obstruct roads, trespass on private property, form a human chain around a building and refuse to move or occupy public space that has restrictions on access.  Go for it!  Forward the cause!

But you know what you need to be prepared for?  To face the laws on the books prohibiting that kind of behavior.  Laws that have been routinely upheld and that I support fully.

Go ahead and protest by breaking laws.  Just accept the consequences and don't expect special treatment because you think your cause is a righteous one.

That's the nature of civil disobedience. 

Clearly people feel the moral cause overrides city park permit law.

So we agree. The difference, it would seem, is that you expect law enforcement to stop enforcing laws and I expect the protesters to be arrested. Let's see how it plays out...

Since you were apparently born yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...