I think that's true. The only people "no demands" isn't working for is the msm. Let them squirm!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:38 PM, rob hollander <email@example.com>
Whatever the reason for no demands, it has worked well. People across the nation understand the issues being addressed by OWS without being it spelled out to them. And since they themselves don't know enough to determine the best solution, there's nothing gained by telling them any one solution.
The message is the imbalance in our governance. Whether that is cashed out as impossible idealism or level-headed pragmatic measures, the direction is clear and broad and principled.
And it's not, as the Tea Party was, directed at a particular elected official, or created as a response to a particular elected official. In that sense, it is much, much larger than the Tea Party and much more principled.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:55 PM, gail zawacki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for its lack of clear demands, but how do we issue demands, when what we really want is nothing less than the more beautiful world our hearts tell us is possible? No demand is big enough. We could make lists of demands for new public policies: tax the wealthy, raise the minimum wage, protect the environment, end the wars, regulate the banks. While we know these are positive steps, they aren't quite what motivated people to occupy Wall Street. What needs attention is something deeper: the power structures, ideologies, and institutions that prevented these steps from being taken years ago; indeed, that made these steps even necessary."
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
622 E 11, #10