> 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 <email@example.com
>> "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."
> Rob Hollander
> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
> 622 E 11, #10
> NYC, 10009