Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: WTF is going on with OWS blacklisting homeless people from meals??

Posted 10 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 2:59 p.m. EST by LaughinWillow (215)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Just read this story: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

What is going on there? You guys have $500,000 in the bank but can't spare some spagetti for street people? I'm hoping this is about the kitchen workers being overworked, and not about classism on the part of OWS. How are you going to demand better from this country when you're acting like Rush freaking Limbaugh over some food? Christ. Really upsetting.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by RealityRadar (5) 10 years ago

I was down there....and the food line was going for HOURS on end at dinnertime....they are overworked as hell

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Fellow protesters should help

[-] 4 points by paplanner (58) from Mt Union, PA 10 years ago

Like the post is a credible news source. I'm sorry but Onion News Network is more credible.

[-] 4 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

The article explains WTF, wtf is up with the misleading title and information of your post and the grave concern, when apparently you didn't bother to read the story?

Staff is sick of working 18 hour days to feed non-protesters who aren't coming to eat from a lack of other options but because the food is tastier than at local soup kitchens, and after eating it seems, are not remaining to become part of the protest.

They blacklisted no-one, but stopped serving for 2 ours to discuss the issue with organizers and seek a solution. They will be refusing no one but switching to more spartan meals like brown rice and veggies until the grub hounds move on to where they came from.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 10 years ago

Replace a few of your words and who do you sound like?

"Taxpayers are sick of working 18 hour days to feed non-taxpayers who aren't coming to eat from a lack of other options but because foodstamps gets them tastier food than at local soup kitchens, and after eating it seems, are not learning how to feed themselves."

[-] 1 points by eattherich (14) 10 years ago

I say make the homeless folks do an hour of work first...then they get the free grub.

There should be no free lunch for anyone...if they can do a bit of work first.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

The distinction that the kitchen staff is making between protesters and the "professional homeless" is a little less apparent from the outside looking in. I have to work each day in order to earn the money to feed my family and pay for place where we live. Neither New York's homeless, nor the people camping full-time in Zuccotti Park as an alternative to working a job, have to do that. Because they both have a different means of support. If a protester is living off of donations that people have sent, then isn't he a "professional protester"? If he's doing that in Zuccotti Park then he's he a "professional homeless protester"?

In Animal Farm, all animals were equal, but some were more equal than others. In Zuccotti Park, all homeless people are equal but some are more equal than others.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

You're a bit off, in my opinion. I believe your misconception stems from the thought that those at Zuccotti Park think the homeless are "less equal." No. They just want people to take part in the process. They are drawing no lines in the sand and blacklisting no one. In fact, they'll probably be serving more healthy food until this is over with. So, it's not that they object to professional homeless - they object to those who don't respect the process of direct democracy. It's your spin to call those at the park homeless. The park is their home. It's your spin to call the homeless professional homeless. No. They are just homeless. Fine lines make all of the difference.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

"professional homeless" was the label that the kitchen people used to disparage the people who they don't want to serve food to.

[-] 1 points by doctorproteus (84) 10 years ago

in some cases "vagrants" or "slackers" were also the accepted disparaging labels.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

Really, huh? Every member of the kitchen crew, which has over 10 members, used that term?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I'm just quoting the Post article:

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.


Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL#ixzz1c2cVpOg8

[-] -1 points by doctorproteus (84) 10 years ago

EXACTLY what I have been telling people myself.

[-] 0 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

Grub hounds? Are you serious?

I'm sorry, but I sent money to OWS, and I have a real problem with them having $500,000 and claiming to care about poor people and then "switching to more spartan meals" in order to get rid of homeless people. So THEY deserve to eat fancy meals, but homeless people should just move along and eat the crap they serve at the soup kitchen? This is why I no longer live in a commune - they were all "love this love that" all the freaking time, but wouldn't let single mothers stay because they were worried that the moms couldn't work enough.

On top of everything, they're giving the establishment another nail to hammer in the coffin of this movement. Staff is tired? Decide that everyone will take a turn in the kitchen. Is it really that difficult? God.

[-] 2 points by turtlebeanz (40) 10 years ago

thank you for your comment about communes & single moms. thank you for saying that. i'm a single mom -- disabled as well -- who is about ready to barf from the crap i have heard from communes that don't want to take a chance on us. as well, am having a heck of a time making my voice heard in this movement -- being a single mom i can't even get to ga's to talk about the sorts of reform my child and i, as some of the poorest people in this country, could really use. thank you. peace.

[-] 1 points by PolkaDot (121) from Manhasset, NY 10 years ago

I know you were responding to someone else, but I wanted to wish Peace to you as well.

[-] 2 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

Whether it sucks or not, unfortunately activities encouraging the large homeless population in NYC to continue to be attracted to the site is just as quick a way to "hammer a nail in the coffin" of the movement, which I would prefer we avoid as a donor myself. And keeping this going involves dealing with certain realities, realistically.

First, unlike staff or at least management at soup kitchens, who have experience working with the homeless, OWS does not have the ability to deal with them even if they had all the food service staff and all the food resources every penny of their money could buy. While NOW all the trolls in here want to acknowledge the plight of the homeless needing the tastiest food available and being cruelly denied to highlight the callousness of OWS, should the act of continuing to bring them to the park with no efforts to discourage the growing numbers leads to any incidents where any are injured, which IS irresponsible, then all of a sudden, the trolls will are start shrieking about the dangerous situation created by OWS to continue to attract homeless to the park, just for the PR boost of feeding them.

And if bad press is truly your worry (which seems unlikely and more like what you are trying your best to create with your uproar and misleading post, as sensationalist and inaccurate as any troll dropping), then consider that while the Homeless's plight is for a rare moment finding much acknowledgement here by the opposition discussing this propaganda piece, if any actions perfectly understandable with the plight of the homeless but which would be unacceptable for protesters, are encouraged by the open invite OWS should extend, then predictably those present here and their ilk will manage to overlook even the existence of the homeless within a square mile of the protest and any actions on their part will be conveniently labeled as the actions and consequences of disrespectful and rude protesters.

Also, for one with a more long view concern for the homeless and understanding of reality than you seem to be able to muster, I know that those homeless denied the tasty food you so want OWS to provide for them, will actually benefit as much or more than any of the other 99% should the protests achieve a more fair system where the compassion of the people as opposed to that shown by the corporate wellfare state in place now, is given the political empowerment and resources to put in place the programs to not only replace all the ones cut with the collapse but to also extend services.

This requires that OWS win, which in turn requires they be in this for the long haul. The amount of funds raised truly seems like a huge number when trolls toss it around to prove how rich the movement is, but for a protest that needs to continue for the long term, and cover every aspect of planning and implementation, not just now but as a pool in the future when even with popular support they must keep going while the country takes a nice break to celebrate thanksgiving and Christmas, and then after these likely lower than normal fundraising months begin the push to be out in full force the first day of spring. So I am damn glad to hear they are being frugal with their money.

And while you feel that asking that the protesters eat rice to prove their liberal cred, in order to satisfy folks who indicate they feel nothing but disdain for liberals, anybody with a clue and a desire to succeed knows that's not fair to ask folks sitting out in the cold while she sits at home, eat rice to prove solidarity with the homeless, no matter how much her donation was, and seems like a pretty good way to sabotage a movement where the boots on the pavement aspect requires morale boosters, food being one of the only ones available that OWS can provide as a guarantee, day in and day out..


[-] 0 points by PolkaDot (121) from Manhasset, NY 10 years ago

" I know that those homeless denied the tasty food you so want OWS to provide for them, will actually benefit as much or more than any of the other 99% should the protests achieve a more fair system where the compassion of the people as opposed to that shown by the corporate wellfare state in place now .....This requires that OWS win, which in turn requires they be in this for the long haul ..... So I am damn glad to hear they are being frugal with their money. "

Ahhh. The old "burning the village to save it" strategy. Well played.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

Ahhh the old straw man argument, well exaggerated :)

Whether the homeless folks in question eat a more extravagant meal in terms of cost and labor at OWS, say Vegetarian Chilli with cornbread and a brownie. Or whether they eat an equally tasty but slightly easier to prepare and less costly meal at the soup kitchen they normally attend, like Baked chicken with potatoes and greens. Or whether they eat the most simple and cost conscientious fare of the options at OWS, Rice and Black Beans and an apple, and assuming portions are adjusted so that all three meals provide the same caloric value and with all other factors being relatively trivial and individually variable so as to balance out, then no matter which of these three options end up in the bellies of the homeless (the "village") in question, the result for them is the same. They are fed.

Since the option to eat at the soup kitchen exists for the homeless regardless of whether the OWS protesters provide an alternative or not., the analogy should read either as "leave a village alone to save it", or "provide a village with one extra option for a meal than it had originally in order to save it", and as no matter which of the three options they have to choose from the result is essentially that they are fed and not hungry, by extension the core argument is "See a village fed in order to save it", or if those of us who thought we were supporting a direct political action instead of homeless outreach were mistaken, then the argument is "Feed a village in order to save it, maybe, if saving it and ourselves doesn't get in the way of feeding a village that was already being fed"

Either way, no one gets burned, they DO get fed either way, whether the village ends up saved or no. Your analogy amounts to a straw man fallacy.

[-] 2 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 10 years ago

If the poor are who you're concerned about, why are you sending money to protesters who have parents, credit cards, cell phones, iPods, computers, homes, time to camp out, etc? Why not give your money to homeless shelters, missions, soup kitchens and food banks? Better yet, take care of the needy in your own community.

[-] 3 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

I give money to a variety of causes, though my family isn't well off or anything. I gave to OWS because I assumed the money would be used to finance protest and continue this movement. I guess I also thought they would be willing to use the money to feed homeless people if need be...so hearing that they were not was somewhat shocking.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 10 years ago

You had good intentions but they are not going to honor your wishes. They don't need your money (though they've amassed a hell of lot). Keep doing good and always help locally and give to the smallest groups or organizations. I learned this through years of environmental and animal rights activism/experience. At one point, OWS wanted to rent a financial district apartment and by clothes for a handful of the self appointed"leaders". I don't know if the apt was rented or not but even suggesting such a thing shows how quickly money corrupts.

[-] 1 points by SmartAlx (59) 10 years ago

You know what they say, give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

This is closer to what the OWS movement is about. The problem isn't that the poor lack money. The problem is the system makes it difficult for the poor and the middle class to pull themselves up.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

Continued from below...Finally, if this is a black eye, proving OWS lack of wisdom and fodder for criticism from the opposition who will criticize ANYTHING the OWS does, try to remember that while here they decrie the elitism to not ensure to welcome the homeless without reservation despite the fact that no matter how much food they may have they have too little of every other resource, not least of which being toilet facilities. Odd this since their concern for the inconvenience of local residents and business, which critics moan are sorely abused by EVEN THE SLIGHTEST UNSANITARY DROP from any protester going wee wee in the bushes, even though considering the sheer numbers and the perversity of the city making sure no extra facilities may be brought in is quite rare and protesters have gone out of there way to be polite at great inconvenience.

Apparently the hostile opposition only have a limited space for compassion in their black little hearts, for with the trolls sudden worry here for the homeless, they have immediately forgotten all about the poor local residents and business people and how as they have already cried, their needs must stay foremost in organizers minds.

So please dear, since I doubt that your generosity can be that much greater than the limited forbearance you have shown for any OWS straying from your childish and unrealistic demands for how the protest be run, let me know how much you donated and I will gladly match that so you can stfu and grace some less important movement with your questionable support.


[-] 0 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

You're a freaking jerk, first of all. An arrogant, obnoxious, freaking jerk.

I am not in opposition to OWS. I was pissed off by this story. I do not expect OWS to "welcome the homeless without reservation." If some homeless people are there harassing people or fighting or being violent or whatever, I think OWS is totally reasonable to want to get rid of that element. HOWEVER, I think it is really messed up to say that you are going to switch from free-range chicken and organic vegetables to rice and beans in order to get rid of undesirables. Part of this probably stems from the fact that I ASSUMED (how CHILDISH of me, I know) that this movement was partly about people who are suffering the most under it. Which would be the homeless. I would think that people who are supposedly fighting for the poorest people among us would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to feed the homeless nourishing, organic, food. Especially since much of the food is donated. I am hoping that OWS will find a way to manage the crowd if the crowd is the problem.

And for all your nonsense, calling ME the troll and accusing anyone you don't agree with of "hostile opposition," I'd suspect that if anyone is a troll, it is you. I continue to support this movement as a whole, regardless of the fact that I do not agree with every single thing it does. Period. I don't agree with the behavior in this instance. If that's makes me a troll, I'll go back to my mushroom house now.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

And you are an ignorant twit, it's hard not feel a bit smug when one finds themselves arguing with a mental midget, and a tantrum throwing ass-hat unable to put together a logical argument from the get go, much less answer any points made by parties who disagree. First, In all my posts and comments I actually take great effort to make the distinction in any discussion about or with those with alternative views between the thoughtful opposition and the hostile opposition. The distinction involves not even an iota of difference between the amount of vigorous disagreement with supporters nor the level of criticism of the aims or methods of OWS, but simply in the amount of productive dialogue or distracting divisiveness inherent in their demeanor and their presentation The thoughtful opposition present their points with at least a minimal civility, and no matter how heated or even snarky the debate may become, manage to refrain from relying on just flinging insults to stand in for countering ideas. Furthermore, the thoughtful opposition, understanding the rules of dialogue, refrain from unfair tactics such as presenting information so as to mislead or twist the facts, misquoting the replies made to their post, or expecting that the other members of a forum, a place for dialogue, be satisfied with them using simply using it as a place where they should be allowed to rant instead of engage in debate. Nor do those thoughtful opposing voices feel that when challenged they should be given a pass to ignore the salient points made regarding the weakness of their argument in favor of repeating essentially the same crap at double volume, as if this forum were their personal little blog. The hostile opposition in contrast is hostile and rude from the start, and does not refrain from these tactics, misrepresenting sources and the statements made by challengers, substituting logic with fallacy and repetition and expecting that they should be given leave to be snippy and condescending in their manner of address, but when responded to in kind feel it reason to huff and puff and act righteously offended, rather than recognizing that they set the tone and should be able to get as good as they give.

You began with a post that misrepresents the info you linked to, with a sensational and misleading title claiming that OWS blacklisted the homeless, indicating that they turned away hungry homeless which they have not done, and then continued to misrepresent the facts, presenting the carefully prepared meal of the article misleadingly, your description coming closer to sounding like OWS was so cheap they couldn't share canned rations instead of the reality of their trying to make meals an extra-special morale boosting comfort for those engaged in an arduous undertaking, which understandably would create a logistical burden while trying to also feed an increasing number of homeless citizens. You also mislead when you "hoped" it was a matter of labor resources and not classicism, when the article clearly showed that the staff had been pushed to working 18 hours, and that their needing to delay the next meal by two hours to find a resolution had created problematic friction among the protesters and still resulted not in a blacklisting but a solution instead that both reduces the labor required by the kitchen staff and discourages the problem from growing by not being as enticing an option.

I then pointed out the facts as relayed in the article and noted that your rendition was misleading, choosing to assume you hadn't read the article, and requesting an explanation for the discrepancy first, rather than assume the other possible conclusion, that you were an intentional liar.


[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago


This was rewarded with a condescending and snippy reply which conveniently ignored the patent truth that you misrepresented the gist of the article, and wasn't unreasonable for someone to point out, and instead acted like my smart ass description of the homeless traveling across town for a gourmet meal instead of their usual soup kitchen fare as "grub hound" was akin to referring to them as human scum, and while barely sketching a coherent argument, using question marks to act like you were somehow schooling some out of line dip shit with your drivel, instead of earning a richly deserved smack down. Deserved not for your concerns or disagreement, but for your manner of engagement and disregard for someone simply for presenting a perfectly justified but civil challenge as I did in my initial response to this post

I then countered every one of the scant points you made in your condescending and snotty little scolding, and then some, NEVER calling you a troll, you illiterate brat, and always referring to the trolls you had attracted with your troll bait by using "they" or "their" , using their likely spin as examples of what the worst PR spin could be, since you noted worry about the impression the incident would make to onlookers, and then showing it not applicable even if any attempt were made to take it to the most unflattering conclusion, as it was in the numerous in-thread comments from the KNOWN provocateurs you attracted (among those comments by those with honest concerns, which I take no issue with). I stated that your OP was "as sensationalist and inaccurate as any troll dropping", which any 6th grader would be able to decipher as being a comparison between your post and the type of post the provocateurs in here use to misinform and present OWS in the worst light, yet that nevertheless maintained the distinction as NOT having come from a troll. Was it snippy and condescending? Yes, yes it was. Which is in line with the tone you set, so eat it you petulant whiny and insufferable wench.

Your reply turned up the volume and repeated the same steaming pile of crap that passes for thinking with you apparently-- ignoring most of the points I made, barely referring to others yet still failing to address the gaping holes in your logic I had discussed, misquoting me by claiming I called you a troll, and accusing me of being intolerant of disagreement which I am not, just intolerant of deceptive spin and garbled hostile disagreement such as that presented by the aggressive Trolls in this Forum and flung out like poo by nasty little snits like yourself. While it's clear your feeble intellect isn't up to the task of addressing any challenges to your little online tantrums, in the future I'd advise then that you treat people with a little more respect if you expect to get any, and that a guppy like you not try to toss insults in a shark tank, unless you are ready to get torn a new asshole.

:Double Facepalm:

[-] 0 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 10 years ago

Welcome to what OWS is pushing! They can't even control a minuscule amount of people. And this is supposed to go global/nationwide?

The happy feely lifestyle hits a roadblock when it figures in human nature.

[-] 3 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 10 years ago

Wait a minute!!!

What happened to the ideal that we are supposed to provide for everyone, for the needy?

I thought the Republicans were the ones who wanted to deny hungry people food?

What's going on here?

[-] 3 points by turtlebeanz (40) 10 years ago

for one brief, shiny moment, it looked as though the meek really were about to inherit the earth. and then those purporting to speak on their behalf told them to get the f*ck off the food line.

okay, listen, i'm not going to let this break my faith in this movement.

but i am going to say that when i was there and saw homeless people treated with respect, it was a source of hope for me.

and when i left there and saw homeless people -- foolish me -- it did occur to me to tell homeless people they might go there to be fed and treated with care.

and if they can't be included, then for whom — really — is this movement?

i am a disabled single mother and i am beginning to fear this movement will not be for ALL of us.

to wit, i fear it will not be for those of us who can not attend general assembly meetings in person.

many, many single mothers like myself can't show up. and yet children and the women who are left with the full burden of raising them when dead beat dads hit the road -- we are the poorest, most disadvantaged in the country.

but we are not part of the conversation. not really.

as a disabled woman traveling with a small child, it takes everything i've got to get there for a couple of hours -- and i need days of recovery time after. i am doing my best to host people who need a break from the elements, to share shower and food. but really -- the one ga i got to (@ washington square in daytime hours when i could be there with the kid), he got sick and we had to leave.

similarly, i see issues being framed in terms of a relatively privileged class. for eg. worrying about debt forgiveness for people who assumed they'd be able to pay off college debt at the end of higher education, versus considering the plight of the children who never even consider college. we should start figuring out that college is most definitely not necessary for all of us. but that those who have real want or need of it should have equal access.

anyway, i don't want to see the homeless shut out.

and i don't want to be shut out.

the meekest need a place at this table -- quite literally.

[-] 1 points by Owlet (99) 10 years ago

Women are already being told to "shut and up and take it for the team" when they're being groped and assaulted. How is that different from the society they're trying to replace? If I want to live in a society where women are told to shut up for the Greater Glory of Utopia, I don't need to camp out in a wet freezing cold tent for that. We already HAVE that.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

This is an example of constructive concern and disagreement with the choices that OWS appear to be making in the article. I think it the best argument yet for why maybe a compromise should be attempted between understandably being unable to logistically feed everyone gourmet meals if the homeless come to eat, and then only providing the barest minimum since they can't do the maximum. I don't know, it's a complicated issue. The protesters have been living outdoor in increasingly cold and rainy weather, with as may jeers as words of encouragement, so I feel it unfair for us to judge their compassion because they don't want to forgo the one luxury we can give them since it can't logistically be managed to include a growing number of homeless whose rights they are also there for, but who in many cases can not provide them any aid or even thank you's.

Considering none of us are out on the street making this happen, would we who are concerned with the comfort of the homeless over that of the protesters (in a perfect world we'd have enough cooks, enough funds, enough portapotties to invite every homeless person in the city, but this is not that world). But we expect them to freeze their asses off for our movement, and since they cant invite the homeless to share in the one luxury a day they are getting to help them tough it out, will those so concerned vow to turn our heat off and shiver this winter, and share the lesser menue we expect them to eat so they can share with any and all comers? I've seen no one sitting toasty at their computers in this thread, with heat, access to a shower, a bathroom we don't have to trek a mile to or wait 45 minutes for, a fridge full of our favorite goodies, so concerned about sharing that they have even symbolically offered or given lip. service to giving up anything themselves to provide moral support and solidarity to help them feed the homeless, much less tangible help like, I'll take the next shift? Even when judging them for not wanting to give up their best meal of the day because they can't manage to offer it to any who ask.

I see a contradiction there, when folks here poo poo the difficulty of what they are doing. I have spent 3 weeks in a tent outside in the winter, in California which is much warmer, and with my own kitchen and not needing to rely on a kitchen and mealtimes, and easy access to a shower and toilets, and I was fucking miserable. And without those resolving to stay as long as possible, even if not all winter, and then go right back to it full force in the spring, what the fuck is this forum worth or any of it?

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

LOL,. The NY post! really,. because that is a well known source of hard and accurate news! No right wing edge to that rag at all,. . lol.

[-] 3 points by Teacher (469) 10 years ago

Is it a crime to feed people beans and rice? I love beans and rice. A free meal is a free meal, in any case. If I were homeless, I'd head straight to where the best food is at. Lots of homeless go to churches for free meals, that doesn't make them all religious. The point is, the protestors are eating beans and rice too. Its not like they are throwing food on the sidewalk for the homeless, they just want to bring down the work load.

When did all the anti-OWS people suddenly care about the homeless?

[-] 3 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 10 years ago

This is a sticky issue. I dislike the idea of telling them to beg elsewhere... but this movement will have enough issues without also becoming a soup kitchen. This crap needs to be prioritized, feed the people who are there for a purpose... not those who drop by for a free meal! This isn't about being greedy, it's about keeping this movement alive - it's unfortunate we live in such a world that allows people to be homeless, but that's another issue for another time.

There are other avenues for these people, far better suited to care for their needs than this movement. I think those in charge of the resources allotment should be ruthless in their prioritizing of OWS members first and always. That's what the money was donated for in the first place! If at this point in society a protest movement has to be responsible for feeding the homeless, well, who's fault is that!

[-] 0 points by imthe4percent (56) 10 years ago

Of course it is an issue for another time and of course the "movement" isn't responsible, after all, why actually live up to the lofty ideals you demand of society in general? Maybe after a few more weeks in the park, some of you may gain an understanding of why and how society really works and why it is dysfunctional is some regards. Welcome to the real world where slogans and good intentions are hard to implement and keep alive.

[-] 3 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

Not sure I see so much of a problem here. They're still feeding anyone who comes. If they don't like the taste of rice and beans and have no interest in the movement, they'll go somewhere else.

[-] -1 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

Compare that to taxpayers who are demanding food stamps not be used for sodak chips, frozen pizza, etc and we are called heartless, racist, blah, blah blah. Changing the menu to discourage feeding people you deem unworthy is worse because you are supposed to be for everyone ( except the 1%, tea party members, republicans, conservatives, people who watch fox news, Ron Lawl supporters, homeless, vagrants, people from the south, baptists, catholics, Jews......)

[-] 3 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

They aren't changing it to something unhealthy. Rice and beans would be a good night at Occupy Wall Street, health-wise. And it's not about them being unworthy. That's your interpretation. They are discouraging people who are coming for the food alone, not the process. They CAN still come. They ARE feeding the homeless. Your argument is pretty weak.

OWS is about direct democracy. If you come, you are a part of the conversation and you have a voice (whether you're the 1%, tea party members, republicans, conservatives, people who watch fox news, Ron Lawl supporters, homeless, vagrants, people from the south, baptists, catholics, Jews, etc.); if you don't, or if you just come for some pasta, you don't want to be a part of the conversation and/or are happy with being represented by corrupt politicians.

I'll leave you with this. The people on this forum represent themselves. The movement represents the movement. It is about direct democracy, consensus, and anti-corruption. It's clear as day. If you have a problem with the way things are being done in NY, you have a problem with the way things are being done in NY. Simple as that. If you take some people, selectively, as your picture of the entire movement, that's your problem. You are free to form your own opinion.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

The 1% feel the same way, dont you get that?

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

What? They want us to join in their direct democratic process, which actively seeks to find consensus? Sign me up.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

go to local city council meetings. take initiative to vote in the right people in congress. If an option you like is not available, promote a candidate that you do like, start a grassroots movement and get him elected. Yes you need to participate in the democratic process for it to work for you and it starts on the local level. You would be surprised.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

Democracy is bullshit. It's two wolves deciding how to eat a sheep. Corporate money has corrupted the entire process. Direct democracy is completely different and it is the future, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

Have you ever gone to a city council meeting? Have you ever organized your neighbors to do the same? Then how do you know the process doesnt work if you, and most of America (aside from the ones who use the system to get what they want) dont participate in it? Read the constitution, please, so you will understand how its supposed to work.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

Supposed to provide for the landed elites, I've read all about it. And it still does that relatively well. There is rampant corruption in our government at nearly every level, mostly because of the influence of special interests. This is the effect of a profit-oriented system. I believe that much smaller, community-centered government is the answer, not only for jobs, but for issues much more important, like the future of our world. No thank you for the condescension.

[-] -1 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

What was the purpose of the menu change? To discourage the homeless and vagrants from breaking bread with you. That was made very clear by the kitchen group and approved by the GA. Who cares if they are protesting with you or not should not be an issue as your goal is to change the process for 100% of the people. You either include them all now, or make plans for further exclusions later.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

They are excluding themselves. We can't force them to take part in the discussion. It's your spin to say that we don't want them to break bread with us. We do want them to break bread with us, because that would mean they'd probably exchange a few words. The menu is being changed to discourage those who just come for the food, nothing else. If they have a taste for rice and beans, I guess the kitchen staff will have to expand.

[-] -1 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

Unfortunately for you, in this "democratic" movement, the vast majority disagrees with you. Perhaps the majority can vote for your expulsion.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

No, I think they actually agree with me.

[-] -1 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

I am not talking about the .001 pct you are hanging with, I am talking about the millions of other Americans that believe you to be misguided fools.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

Ha. Okay, man. Believe what you want. All polls indicate that more Americans sympathize with the movement than not.

[-] -2 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

They DO NOT sympathize with the desire to push away the homeless.

[-] 3 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

As I said, that's not what they're doing.

[-] 2 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

I think its a good idea. not to use foodstamps for junk. Its not junk food, cause its not food.....its just junk.

[-] -1 points by Rob (881) 10 years ago

It has been tried in the courts and denied. Community organizers have labeled the idea racist and unconstitutional. Go figure.

[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 10 years ago

NY tried to ban buying soda with Food Stamps. The USDA told them they couldn't do this.

The soda & junk food industries do heavy lobbying to make sure there are few if any guidlines set to restrict their sales.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 10 years ago

so now after giving poor people food stamps, you are going to baby them by telling them how to eat and what to drink.

next you're going to tell them to sleep at 10pm, wake up at 6am, workout 3x a day, scrub the toilets, make the bed, wear these orange jumpsuits...

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 10 years ago

I'm not going to do anything. I am stating facts in response to what the person above me posted.

[-] 3 points by Eco (9) 10 years ago

I wonder how long it takes for OWS to realize that this innocent, well-intended act by over-worked and under-appreciated individuals has just revealed OWS' ideals around wealth distribution and alternative economies to be nebulous and impossible, and that the 'movement' has just proven the 'system' to be a more valid social contract.

[-] 2 points by PolkaDot (121) from Manhasset, NY 10 years ago

Who knew that there are people in society who don't do anything but put their hands out for free stuff and expect someone else to do all of the work and to pay for it?

Wow. Did not see that one coming.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

give a man a fish and fed him for a day

teach a man to fish, and he'll want shore front property

[-] 1 points by classicliberal (312) 10 years ago

Fist bump.

[-] 1 points by imthe4percent (56) 10 years ago

Oh my god, the nerve! People who haven't worked or contributed wanting handouts from those who do. I can see why OWS would be upset.

Wonder if OWS will see the irony here? Probably not.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 10 years ago


Thanks for the laugh, needed that after all of the trolls and insults around here.

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 10 years ago

wow. who businesses were going to have to start paying the real cost of business because they kicked out their exploitable labor?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Whether OWS realizes this or not, "the whole world is watching", and many of them do realize that. If the point is to demonstrate an egalitarian utopia without wealth disparity, then 'this is what failure looks like'.

[-] 1 points by JeffCallahan (216) 10 years ago

Here are some documentaries on finance, and politics, I think you would both enjoy, and find interesting. Your obviously a smart guy so you may have seen them, if so, let me know I have a few more that might interest you. Finance: Born Rich, Breaking the Bank, College Inc, I want your Money, Inside The meltdown, IOUSA, Maxed Out, Mind Over Money, Money Masters, Speaking Freely, Ten Trillion and Counting, The American Ruling Class, The Best Government Money Can Buy, The Big One, The Card Game, The Corporation, The Madoff Affair, The Warning, Trading on Thin Air,

Politics: After Innocence, An Inconvenient tax, An Unreasonable Man, Burzynski, Business of Being Born, Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington anymore, Casino Jack, Electile Dysfunction, Flow, Freedom Fries, Homo Toxicus, Ken Burns America the Congress, The American drug War, XXI Century,

[-] 3 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

This is the issue with very extreme left-leaning thought. The assumption is that everyone will work towards a common good and there is enough money and resources for all -- even the non-contributors.

But the simple fact is - there isn't.

The 99% are realizing a very big issue the conservative base has against social programs. They sound great in theory, but in reality they are a nuisance and a drain on production and those involved with bettering society.

The solution, in my opinion, is not that of the conservative which would be to cut them off. But rather put them to work. If you want to have what we have here and do not want to be part of the protest - FINE. But you will help with work around the camp - cleaning, cooking, etc. At the end of which, you earn a "food token".

It allows those that are needy to be taken care of. Appeasing the liberal mindset.

It helps society and does not allow people to freeload. Appeasing the conservative mentality.

[-] 3 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

This is perfect, however many people would flag it as conservative.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

I think some would, but I think most people are middle ground.

Most people are rational and not fundamental. They realize that there needs to be temperance and rationality injected into their ideologies.

I mean, sure I have heard plenty of far right wing conservatives scream about the "poor and starving" draining society. When I ask them directly, outside of a crowd, if they propose allowing these people to starve to death or freeze to death within US borders -- they say no.

Reality dictates reason.

[-] 1 points by Frankie (733) 10 years ago

"Workfare" has seen support from both conservative and liberal sides. Coined by Evars, promoted by Nixon, revived again by Clinton/Gingrich.

[-] 3 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 10 years ago

Not everybody down there is an anarchist-utopian-far leftist.

Personally, I'd have no problem with giving dope dealers, sex harrassers, panhandlers and anyone else threatening the integrity of the community a tune up when the cops weren't looking.

But it's not my show, I'm just along for the ride, so I keep my mouth shut and hope that the kids will figure this out.

New York is full of people who would be happy to take advantage of the naive, well-meaning people running OWS.

Let's hope they wise up.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

I like your post, but I disagree with one thing. It IS your show. It's all of our shows. That's what direct democracy is all about.

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 10 years ago

Well, I'm a pretty authoritarian, conservative person outside of economic issues. I always thought that the whole anything-goes spirit of OWS would come to grief. I find the anarchist thing to be far fetched and utopian. Still, they made something happen that I've been waiting for, so I respect their whole "trip" as the hippies used to say. If it were me, I'd run Zuccotti park like the camp of an army on maneuvers...but it ain't me. I'm just one guy and everyone else seems happy with feeding bums and letting the drummers play all day and night.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

I agree. I don't even think that 30% of the group is utopian-far-leftist.

My point is that every extreme view is destined for failure. Extremes and fundamentalism don't work. The reason is that they require an absence of critical thought and believe that people/society behaves in accordance to their belief, which is usually a far cry from how people actually behave. Extremists don't broker discussion.

But, OWS is your show. It's everyone's. We should be striving to make it the best it can be. A shining example of how a spontaneous society can spring up and exist harmoniously.

[-] 1 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 10 years ago

my opinion is this:

The left leaning extremists are the shock troops of the movement. Their participation is necessary in order to pull the Overton Window to the left. It's the mirror-image of the way once-marginal Bircher views made all-or-nothing free-market radicalism safe for discussion in public. (See Ryan, Paul).

They'll be rewarded for their effort and faith with disappointment and cynicism. This is sad.

They are necessary, but doomed to be let down.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

I see where you're coming from. The "door in your face" tactic. Offer something completely nonsensical so that the less-extreme alternatives come across without seeming nearly as extreme.

[-] 2 points by yosteve (64) from Newbury, OH 10 years ago

why can't people have opinions devoid of political parties?

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

They can. And they should.

Don't confuse parties and ideologies. In this case, I'm talking about ideology. People innately have an internal barometer for what they see as fair and sensible.

Extreme ideologies are nothing more than fundamentalism that are unrealistic. That's either right extremism or left extremism -- both are unsuccessful in the real world and require human behavior to be robotic and within a sub-set of expected behaviors.

[-] 1 points by yosteve (64) from Newbury, OH 10 years ago

then one would think the majority would vote for moderate candidates in their party primaries.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 10 years ago

No they wouldn't. In fact, quite the opposite.

The people that feel strong enough about the beliefs of a particular party would innate want and vote for someone that is entrenched in the rhetoric. It's the party leaders that usually temper this knowing that America is won on the moderates.

Republicans will vote for a strong republican. The Democrats will vote for a strong Democrat. The middle guy will vote for the party that makes the most sense and/or offers the most election to election - or will refrain altogether.

[-] 3 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

There are about five billion homeless people in NY, so I can see their problems. We should defend them, but logistics are tough.

[-] 2 points by turtlebeanz (40) 10 years ago

okay, well, here's a suggestion. every time i have been there, i have seen stacks of pizza boxes, being delivered pretty regularly. it is my understanding that ppl from around the country are donating those. i also see things like mega-big boxes of twizzlers or whatever, that look dropped off. perhaps the no- or low-labor food items like that could be available to all. but i also think that it is more than reasonable for the group who are permanently encamped and needing real, solid warm nutrition to get them through the really difficult camping ahead to make and prepare meals just for themselves. anyway, i'm going to try to hold on to faith that these kinds of situations will be resolved and that that's part of the beauty of what is possible there. and i truly hope this will be a movement not just for those hearty enough to camp, but as well for those too desperate and too attached to children to be there, as well for those who have truly left the system and are homeless and friendless. i hope we all search for ways to help as we can and find true inclusion when we reach out. i've seen some sketchy stuff in my minimal visits there and i'm believing that an elegant solution is reachable.

[-] 2 points by Art (17) 10 years ago

The money was sent for the protesters, not panhandlers. The protesters want jobs, but can't find any. Panhandlers (In my experience, flame away) don't want jobs. There is a difference for all the fogies spewing about hypocrisy. We should not allow people's good intentions to be taken advantage of by miscreants and other parasites.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 10 years ago

the money was sent for the 99%.

unless by 99% you mean everyone except the top 0.5% and the bottom 0.5%, then i stand corrected

[-] 2 points by WolfmansBrother (5) from Union, NJ 10 years ago

I'll add my .2 and say that when I was there a while ago there were a few homeless people taking advantage of the free clothing being given out. I don't necesssarilly agree with choosing to not feed them, but I understand the logic

[-] 2 points by gdarapper (50) 10 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/preventing-the-police/ We must stick up for each other!

[-] 2 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

I dont know if any of you protesters care, but this is the end of my support for this movement. Though two weeks after the protests started and all that was done was more protesting, I supported OWS for its values. The movement has lost its values now. I was homeless at one time, it was my grand protest of the system. Every homeless person I know has spent more time than you iPad loving hypocrites protesting the system. It isnt something they just decided to do, its their lifestyle. Ive been arrested defending my right to sit in a park that my taxes (anyone who buys anything pays taxes) paid for. Wake up OWS your NOT above the homeless guy who wants a meal and then splits, cause he wears his protest on his back every day of his fraking life. If you dont understand that, then your part of the problem, and no amount of protesting is going to fix it.

[-] 2 points by sassafrass (197) 10 years ago

The language of the article is pretty obviously slanted to sound melodramatic and divisive, with words like "freeloader", “revolution”, “violent”, and not-so-subtle twists of phrase like “protesters clashed with police” etc. It also seems to make a point of trying to paint the protesters as hypocrites, suggesting the food is “high end” and “upscale” (as if chicken, spaghetti and salad with cheese in it are so extravagant) and does not mention anywhere how protesters are trying to peacefully discuss and resolve the overall situation, which surely they are, before “cracking down” with their decisions. It may not be perfect there, but society isn't perfect. Yes, there’s an issue. As there would be with any group protesting in a public space that long. Making it sound like a high-noon showdown is a bit much, though.

[-] 2 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 10 years ago

What are you sick of really? It seems you're sick of people. I'd like everyone in the world to act in a more becoming manner, but some people just won't. Does that mean the movement, which stands for direct democracy and consensus isn't worth supporting? Please, bro.

And please, the entire media machine is out to destroy this movement. They are the establishment and they are protecting their own hides. Doesn't mean that every story that comes out is not true, but there's a whole lot of spin going on.

[-] 2 points by demonspawn79 (186) 10 years ago

New York Post, owned by News Corp (yes, Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine). I'd believe more of what I read in the National Enquirer.

[-] 2 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 10 years ago

LaughinWillow, you fed any homeless lately?

[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 10 years ago

Even Wikipedia doesn't consider the NY Post a reliable source.

And the way you wrote your message, you are twisting even what the Post wrote to make things seem more dire than they actually are.

Stop the dishonesty.

[-] 0 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

Though I have now been called a troll and PM'ed by someone who claimed god would send me to hell for lying here, for the record, I actually didn't mean to sound "dire." I was honestly just pissed off by the story and pissed off at several other stories I'm hearing coming out about OWS fighting over money I and other people have donated, making themselves look like petty hypocrites. I was hoping someone would have real information about what the hell is actually going on there, because I don't necessarily trust the news. Though this story was reported in multiple places, not just the NY Post. That just happened to be the article I linked to... My point here is that I originally posted because I wanted someone to explain what was going on there, not so I could fight with people about whether I'm a "troll" or not. I'll also admit that I'm relatively bitter as a former activist who saw this same kind of crap go down in all the organizations I worked with - including actual communes - and I'm just sick of it.

[-] 2 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

Had the OP chosen more honest title for this post it would read: Read this post to see the feeding habits of trolls.

[-] 0 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

Oh shut UP. I'm not a troll. I've supported this protest since the second I heard of it. I've sent them money, encouraged my friends and family to send them money, and gone down to my local city protest despite the fact that I have 4 kids and work. I spent at least the first 10 years of my adult life protesting war, the IMF, capitalism, etc etc. I've lived cooperatively and communally. I'm sick of this crap - "oh, you said something I don't like, you're a troll!" Bullshit. I don't like that these people who claim to care so much for the poor are now withholding decent food in order to get rid of homeless people. Sorry if that makes me a "troll" in your eyes. Ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

You shut up, I did not call you a troll, since your post provided the "meat", my reference to the feeding of trolls meant the folks inevitably drawn to your dire tale, like Moving12China, a hard working misinformant and provocateur who isn't even close to on the fence, but comes here to do nothing but post negativity and insults. Learn to read.

Some in here are folks genuinely disappointed, and I take no issue with that, and in fact, I took no issue with your sentiment, just your manner of engagement which was immediately defensive and rude for no good reason, and played right into the spin machine I work my ass off to counter. The dismissal of me as simply intolerant of different opinion is beyond ridiculous, and in fact aside from pointing out provocateurs briefly if I am snarky, and more often rather politely, You are the only person on here I have outright told off, and I challenge anyone to find me engaging with lack of civility anywhere else, only with you, so look at my initial reply and your own response and consider why that might be.

[-] 0 points by doctorproteus (84) 10 years ago

AMEN. LaughinWillow I am in a smaller boat right behind you, I don't have children. I was out there when GWB "won" twice, for all the Anti Iraq war marches, rallies, etc., the RNC, marriage equity (even though gay marriage does NOTHING for me) etc.

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 10 years ago

In my all white suburb that Im from we dont have homeless, I think their yucky.

I dont like Ron PauI either, he hates poor people.

[-] 1 points by Doog (28) 10 years ago

Let me also say that we have plenty of resources. I mean food and money. The problem is that it takes ALOT of work to feed so many people. The problem is with distribution, and I believe we need to develop a system so that everyone gets fed.

[-] 1 points by Doog (28) 10 years ago

I work in the kitchen, I go to meetings, and I was there when what you're talking was decided. First let me say, it's not true. We are not blacklisting the homeless. There is an obvious problem with the distribution of our resources. I feed some people, often homeless people who do not participate, three plated of food, and when we run out of food someone who has been working all day will come up to me and say they haven't eaten in days. That's not fair. We're working very hard to resolve this issue. I am actually on hunger strike until it is resolved, so I would like to see it resolved quickly.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

Thank you for responding with actual information - this was really all I was looking for. Thank you also for doing what you do. I hope ya'll can find a way to feed anyone who needs it. Peace.

[-] 1 points by marxist (1) 10 years ago

I've read through a great many of the posts in this thread. I keep thinking about the Black Panthers and the ways in which they reached with grace to those in their communities (including the free breakfast program). What was revolutionary about the Black Panther Movement was their constant engagement in being the change through the models they created to serve and empower the members of their community. Whether the Post article portrays a truth or lies about the movement don't seem (to me) to matter as much as what has been uncovered. The movement has to decide who it serves - the bottom 99% or the middle 40%.

[-] 1 points by Julianzs (2) 10 years ago

WSO cannot waste time responding to propaganda emitted from NY Post. Ignore!

[-] 1 points by tarnfeathers (39) 10 years ago

Well the word hypocrite comes to mind.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 10 years ago

Isn't this what government does? They take your money and then they decide what to do with it. You might not get any benefit from it.

It's better when the individual keeps his own money and spends it on things he thinks is important. If he is eating a footlong sub and sees a skinny homeless person walking by, he can choose to give her half of his sub. Or he can keep eating. It should be up to the individuals conscience. When you try to form a collective and have it choose you end up hurting individuals.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 10 years ago

I wonder how many of those "homeless" were really paid agitators?

[-] 1 points by Fredone (234) 10 years ago

Wow, if there is one thing that dooms this movement, it is that people are as stupid as the ones in this thread. Ny post is a complete propaganda rag, I have seen outright lies there many a time on the subject of OWS, plus grossly dishonest omissions and spin doctoring.

Me, I went to go look at the GA minutes. They are not up yet. We''ll see tomorrow. I bet anyone here $500 that the situation is totally different from what nypost is implying. Seriously.

[-] 1 points by omg (5) from Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 10 years ago

They're hypocrites.

[-] 1 points by BlacqueJacque (1) 10 years ago

I've managed to choke my way though most all of the posts on this thread and it's clear (to me) that we are nowhere near where we need to be. But at least we're pissed and that's something.

Your 'professional homeless' are the result of the society that we've built and have been habituated to their parasitism just as the rest of us have been. Everybody's pissed because the 99% woke up one day and realized that they, contrary to their indoctrination, would not be able to feed off of society like their lords and masters (Get a good education and a good job and you can be just like us. Remember?) After all, a body can only handle so many parasites, somebody has to take a hit for the team.

The facilitators and 'leaders' have only had the 'leaders' of our own society to follow as a model, so what do you expect them to do? The thing is, there has not been near enough time for this whole movement to develop into what it should be. So there's going to be a lot of things going on that just won't work for everybody. What's that you say? You don't like 'freeloading' and people that won't participate in direct democracy? Is that just since you figured out that 'freeloading' and non-participation isn't going to pay the dividends you thought it would? It upsets your sensibilities that somebody got irritated because they felt like somebody else wasn't carrying their end of the load? Well, nobody likes a fucking parasite. A rich one or a poor one. It's reasonable and correct that everyone should contribute to their ability. But first, you have to give them a reason to contribute. Then, you have to allow them the opportunity to gain the tools that they will need to be able to make that contribution, and then you will have to make room for them. Finally, you will have to accept that some contributions may not be, in your eyes, as good as the next. In my book, I'd rather carry a thin parasite for a while than a fat one forever.

Without the tools that people need to become effective producers in a society, there is going to be some lopsidedness. So yeah, you're going to get people coming in for a free meal then disappearing until the next meal. Am I going to refuse you or just give you beans and rice because you don't participate? No. Because I haven't made the space for you to learn to do other than be a parasite. But make no mistake, school WILL be in session.

At some point after we have stepped up to make the society a place where all have enough of what they need, and dropped the notion that we are entitled to more than we need, we can start bitching about who is or isn't doing what.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 10 years ago


[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 10 years ago

There is no room for freeloading in this movement and it should not be weighted down by those who are truly useless. It defeats the whole purpose and gives the other side ammo.

Folks that aren't doing anything for the cause shouldn't eat. This must be incredibly difficult to implement, however. I sympathize with those who have to make the decisions about who to serve and who to turn away.


[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 10 years ago

they can't work. they're tired, homeless, weak, sick, poorly educated, ill-informed, ignorant, disadvantaged, disabled. they need people to stand up for them.

[-] 1 points by Dubby (146) 10 years ago

It is very important while the world is watching, when a challenge arises, to take the high road.

The world is watching. The high road was not taken.

With every one of these incidents, when a choice is presented and the high road is not taken, more and more supporters will be lost.

Throw a bottle at a cop. You are doing your part to lose support.

Call a homeless person a deadbeat and send him packing. You're doing your part, too.

[-] 1 points by LaughinWillow (215) 10 years ago

Right - and you've got these people out there supposedly speaking for the movement, saying they object to "professional homeless," which is just so hypocritical and insulting. And this isn't coming from the NY Post - this is these people IN these interviews. Same for that dimwit who went on tv and said the protesters in Oakland were throwing bottles. Idiot. So all day for the last 2 days, every single rightwing talk show host has been nonstop mocking them for their hypocrisy and admitted "violence." And just laughing it up. And while I generally don't give a shit what Rush Limbaugh says, millions of imbeciles in this country do.

[-] 1 points by jsparks60 (1) 10 years ago

Who says that the OWS people in the park need to have gourmet meals instead of PB&J and rice? I understand where the OWS food workers are coming from - the donated $'s for the food budget are to feed the protestors (the workers). If you're not working why do you think you deserve a meal? If the homeless or the 'slackers' want to participate (as they should), then they should also work for their meals. It's just fair. They should participate in protests, clean or at least offer themselves to do something.

[-] 1 points by gdarapper (50) 10 years ago

We cannot rely on big brother to help us, we people must help each other out.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

I dont know if any of you protesters care, but this is the end of my support for this movement. Though two weeks after the protests started and all that was done was more protesting, I supported OWS for its values. The movement has lost its values now. I was homeless at one time, it was my grand protest of the system. Every homeless person I know has spent more time than you iPad loving hypocrites protesting the system. It isnt something they just decided to do, its their lifestyle. Ive been arrested defending my right to sit in a park that my taxes (anyone who buys anything pays taxes) paid for. Wake up OWS your NOT above the homeless guy who wants a meal and then splits, cause he wears his protest on his back every day of his fraking life. If you dont understand that, then your part of the problem, and no amount of protesting is going to fix it.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

It's a shame to see you go, especially over an article that is from a media conglomerate devoted to spinning the movement in the worst light, and not above outright falsehood which I think some of the "name calling" the article claims as coming from the cooks is, and then the further spinning in here, also coming on many parts (not all though) from a dishonest place.

Considering that outside of campaign contributions, the political process is also in the thrall of corporations through the insinuation of black box proprietary voting machines, owned by neo-con interests who are damn determined to finish what they started and see us at war with Iran, I mourn the loss of any supporter, for all of us, the homeless included. Because if we are going to make it work every supporter is gonna count, and it's gonna take awhile. And if we don't make it work, it's gonna be a long time before we get a chance to see someone who will do anything for them elected, and in the interim more safety net services that they depend on will be cut, just as all the folks who thought it would never happen to them and already out of work, out or soon out of savings, and fast out of couches to sleep on will be joining their ranks and swelling their numbers-- not to mention all the vets unless we create enough jobs for them and don't cut their benefits as we have with the soldiers from every other war, once the public forgets about them-- and even if we go to war again, they'll have no use for the ones too broken in their last war to serve their purpose by pulling tours in the new.

I have also been homeless though, and while lucky enough to have spent most of that year couch surfing, there were several months over the course of it hunkered down in my car, or at a camp ground, so I understand your position.

I hope that you keep an eye on us, and as things smooth out and we figure out logistical solutions and get more organized, and if in this we articulate ourselves to in some way prove to you that we include the least fortunate among us in this fight for change, that you reconsider and return your support. Stay well in the meantime.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

I was homeless off and on for ten years. Not once did I have a car, because to have a car meant that I was a hypocrite. I walked or rode my bike. I didnt couch surf because it meant that I would have to deal with someone's rules. I wanted freedom. I was in protest of any and everything that took that freedom away. If the GA wants my support again, it needs to recognize the homeless as the front-line soldiers in this fight, and realize that in many ways they are fortunate in ways we are not.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

yea, I think this may have done more to break up the movement than any fox protest.

[-] 1 points by stevilism (130) 10 years ago

Yeah, I already suggested...they should put those homeless to work. Clean up the park, pick up supplies...etc. Can't just feed them when they do nothing.

[-] 1 points by duranta (52) from New Orleans, LA 10 years ago

You defend the homeless by advocating for housing for all. IT's time to occupy buildings.

[-] 1 points by Soul (9) 10 years ago

Ron Lawl

[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 10 years ago

I lawl'd at that

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 10 years ago

There some VERY wealthy unions down there. Why don't they set up a food kitchen for the poor?

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

So when someone works 18 hour days and doesnt want to share what they worked for its wrong, but when you work 18 hour days and dont want to share its justified? This type of reasoning is why I find it hard to support the movement sometimes. All that money is just going to waste. The homeless need better mental health services, and a structured system to help them get on their feet. If they are not victims of this than neither or you.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

I'm dissapointed

[-] 0 points by Killumination (80) from Los Angeles, CA 10 years ago

We need to bring some guns!

[-] 0 points by w9illiam (97) 10 years ago

I know it sounds bad at first glance but for real have you ever talked to some of these homeless people. They are predators. Not all of them but many of them are not like you and I (that is hard working or willing to work) they are looking for a hand out. There is a guy who lives here on the streets of Fort Lauderdale. Every day he goes and lays down in the same intersection in the middle of the road and claims heart problems. In fact he often times has several hospital bracelets still on his arm. The ambulance comes and picks him up and takes him to the Hospital. 7000$ every time they pick him up. 7000$ dollars of taxpayer money to come and pick this lazy fuck up to take him to the hospital just so he can have a bed to sleep in. He makes no effort to find a job, refuses to go to homeless shelters because they don’t except drunken people and doesn’t want anything he has to earn. The homeless people that visit the NY campsite have other options. They want the tasty food the movement provides not the plane food the soup kitchens have. On to of this they threaten to deface the image with their bad behavior. I Don’t know about NY but a lot of the bums down here are kind of nasty and very aggressive they are like leeches and have no interest in participating in the movement or contributing to the cause. They just want to suck anything free they can get out of them. In a way they are the reverse side of the 1 %. Doing anything they can to avoid having to actually work for a living. Don’t get me wrong the fact that there are any homeless people on our streets and the fact that 70 plus percent of them are veterans is very disturbing to me my heart goes out to them, but we can not let them disrupt the operations of our movement and upset the chefs at Liberty Square. It is a hard job to cook food for a thousand people. I am a chef I understand their frustration. The kitchen at liberty square was put there for the occupiers and people participating in the movement not leeches and freeloaders with no connection or interest in our activities.

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 10 years ago

Hahahaha. OWS is doomed. They are calling for eat the rich, but now against feed the poor. What a bunch of entitled little twits. And to hear them complain about 18 hour days, while complaining CEO's don't work hard. Protip: food prep, unlike running organizations, can be done on two shifts. Besides, most of the OWS crowd could use the food prep experience for their next jobs. Why yes, I will take fries with that!

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 10 years ago

I dicussed it with the kitchen staff, the NY Post printed a terrible lie; the kitchen simply established three day temporary closing hours because they were fixing things and setting up tents to make things more sanitary. They've also been simplifying the menu for a few days for the same reason.

They are still very much helping the homeless.

[-] 0 points by AntiCorp (187) 10 years ago

So the 1% have too much and are evil....the OWS protesters are the 98% who have in bad but haven't hit rock bottom yet and then there's the other 1% of people who are really bad off.....perhaps even homeless and maybe even hungry. Now the other 1% is being denied food by OWS? Who's evil?

[-] 0 points by MeMyselfandI (85) 10 years ago

LOL.. So the same people who want those who have more than they do to be forced to give them their stuff.... refuse to share their stuff with those who have less. Priceless.

[-] 0 points by bohratom (22) 10 years ago

I got a kick out of the one ows protestor calling them derelicts. Aren't they still part of the 99%?

[-] 0 points by bohratom (22) 10 years ago

Its a dog eat, dog world....

[-] 0 points by angelofmercy (225) 10 years ago

Saw this myself , and was laughing. Do as I say , not do as I do. Priceless. :)

[-] 0 points by xesyagffur (8) 10 years ago

I'm done with OWS! Lack of compassion, greed, hierarchy, and CENSORSHIP!

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 10 years ago

LOL, you, no doubt about it, should please gtfo, since you are done with OWS, awesome, must mean your done shit talkin and bitching, and can go back wherever you crawled out from under....

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 10 years ago

This is sad commentary, the 99 percent has become the 1 percent, leaving the homeless to fend for themselves. It's a world of haves and have nots even at OWS.

[-] 0 points by dv8 (25) 10 years ago

The homeless - are they 99% or are they 1%? I'm confused.

[-] 0 points by PolkaDot (121) from Manhasset, NY 10 years ago

I guess the bottom 1% of the 99% wants to eat just like the top 1% of the 99%, but the top 1% of the 99% isn't too keen on having their (donated) food redistributed among the poor.

[-] 0 points by doctorproteus (84) 10 years ago

interesting how that plays out right? i really had support for this whole thing up til today.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 10 years ago

Homeless people, like illegal immigrants, are a great tool to use when you want to score some political points, but at the end of the day, they are just nuisances.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

You don't suppose, just for one second, that even a reasonable percentage of them may very well be homeless due to the rigged game and fraud perpetrated upon all US citizens?

I'm certain not all of them want, choose or enjoy that way of life and perhaps just those who have never lost everything and hit bottom have the same elistist attitude of those at the top........ like get a job and if you were my equal, you wouldn't be doing the OWS thing, you'd be up on the balcony planning our next jet set adventure.

Feed the hungry and educate all as once you start down the other path, you too may find yourself in the same shoes. If they are there you should respect them like human beings and not look down on them so that you can engage in non-prejudiced civilized exchanges of ideas.

Those who do this and are also intelligent enough to persuade and convince, will retain some and likely find more than a few gems in a mountain of people. You can bet most all of them know the streets and cities better than you.

Surely nobody thinks the movement has to win everyone?

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 10 years ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my post. I was trying to express the view that many others hold when it comes to the less fortunate in our society. I know that many homeless people do not want to be in that situation and even more are homeless due to mental illness that they have. My hometown recently had a problem with the homeless setting up camps here and the police created a task force that helped get them to their families or shelters. We also had people donate enough money to help those that were functional to get cleaned up and look for any kind of job that they could find. It takes the efforts of many people to address the homeless problem and unfortunately, money is a huge part of that help and there isn't much of it floating around these days.

[-] 1 points by peacescientist (169) 10 years ago

I think its hypocritical.