John, is this what you are looking for?
the important part is at the end: these grievances are not all-inclusive!
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:18 PM, <email@example.com>
I like positive love filled sweep of this piece. I agree with most of it. But I do think we need to communicate something more concrete to the 99%. People who are out of work and losing their house are not interested in grand visions of a possible world. They want solutions to their problems. It may be that the mere existance of OWS and a big message will help, but I think we can oppose things that are obviously harmful. I personaly am not asking anyone to give up "rational self interest." I am only asking them to give up greed, which is irrational. Far sighted rational self interested saves the people and the environment and the economy all at the same time. The rational part means you have to figure it out and make it work though.
We could start be putting forth a set of principles, that would communicate to the world the general direction that we want to go. There was a group working on such a thing but I don't know where to find them. Demands don't always have to be in the positive either. End slavery is a perfectly reasonable demand. Like I said I like the article, but many in the 99% need real help right now.
On 10/10/11, gail zawacki<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
"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."