Forum Post: Unnofficial de facto

It seems at least that the blogging part of this movement is suffering from lack of cohesion and resolution. See http://occupywallst.org/about/

1. The title of this post. Can the author explain how this phrase is not an oxymoron?

2. How is OWS capable of referring to its "own inclinations" when it welcomes those of all beliefs? It seems the movement at least needs to establish those who it does NOT include in order to establish something proactive. Is this movement open to domestic terrorists? People who resist the police? Should it allow input from non-US citizens who lack a constitutional right to representation? Is it open to Wall Street executives?

3. How can OWS be controversial in a meaningful way when it advocates "collective decision making" that is "non-binding"? A real Arab Spring demands representation with teeth.

4. What, precisely, is being resisted? No one is actually occupying Wall Street buildings. Those that have tried have been arrested. It's unclear what the others are resisting if they aren't breaking any laws. Those engaging in civil disobedience have earned the right to refer to themselves as "resistance". The rest are merely exercising their right to representation. So change the word, or follow leaders in this movement who have been arrested.

Rainmud is willing to boycott. Good. Economically this is unlikely to accomplish anything significant, but it will prove that participants are serious. As for organized labor and those like Cadriscoll calling for others to strike -- remember, it's organized labor that gained the most from the vehicle company bailouts. Can these people really be allies of a movement protesting something about Wall Street?