Question: why are the Occupations not mustering crowds in the tens of thousands?

[elocs]

In Madison last winter we were able to have protest crowds at the capital that on one Saturday was 100,000 and a following Saturday approaching 200,000. The population of Portland is comparable to that of Madison while Denver's population approaches 3 times it size. This especially is a question I have in a metropolitan area like New York which has millions of people as well as San Diego.

The police in these cities would never be able to handle crowds that approach 100,000 occupiers or greater. The only way the governments could deal with the protesters is to call in the Guard, with troops and tanks.

The whole world would truly then be watching and as bad as it is now with the police this nation would look no better to the civilized countries of the world than those nations which have used armed force to put down popular demonstrations by their own citizens.

When will our Democratic politicians, the ones with power and clout, take their fingers out of the wind, do what is right, and support the people?

[TBF]

1. Two different questions

(1) why not more people? guess it's not quite bad enough yet - 1/2 of the people that should be out there are still watching fox news
(2) when will democratic politicians listen to "the people"? Depends which people you're talking about. They listen just fine when you're in the 1%

[elocs]

8. Yes, it is 2 questions. The main one is why the crowds are not absolutely huge

with the support the movement apparently has across the nation.

As for the other question, I do wonder when our elected Democrats in Congress, not to mention the one in the White House, will come out with unequivocal support for the peoples' constitutional right to peaceably assemble, one that cannot be trumped by a local ordinance or police.

[former9thward]

31. Maybe the "one in the White House" does not unequivocally support

the Occupy because he used to teach Constitutional law. He knows you are wrong when you say people can peaceably assemble with out restrictions from local ordinances or the police. The right to assembly has always had time, place and manner restrictions upheld by the courts as constitutional. If you want to violate those restrictions, fine, but you will be subject to arrest.

[sabrina 1]

35. Two recent court rulings disagree with you. And I hope there

will be more, as more of the occupiers take this 1st Amendment issue to court also.

Local ordinances do not trump the Constitution. When citizens are acting under the umbrella of the 1st Amendment, that trumps local and state ordinances.

Just because the Constitution has been consistently violated in the past, doesn't mean it has to continue to be violated.

[former9thward]

42. I am in the field and no there have not been court rulings disagreeing with me.

Interesting you did not cite them. Local ordinances do not trump the Constitution but they don't have to. The Constitution allows for reasonable regulation of first amendment rights. We don't live in an anarchy.

[JDPriestly]

59. Where in the First Amendment does it say anything about reasonable

regulation of first amendment rights. It requires that assemblies be peaceful. But beyond that?

Again, for your convenience:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

No laws "abridging" the freedom of speech, or of the press.

What does abridging mean to me. If anything abridges the freedom of speech, it is the concept of time, place and manner restrictions.

I used to have to write memos on all that rubbish case law too. The Supreme Court twisted its 9-foot tail around its necks to try to interpret all that complexity into the simple linguistic construction of James Madison.

All power to the people, I say.

So, just what is protected speech? Well, in this case we shall define it this way. Hee, hee, hee. We like this defendant. It's the KKK this time.

But in this case, we shall define it this way. Bunch of leftie agitators. We'll show them.

First Amendment law is one nauseating exercise in politics. All of this is just my opinion. And in case you are wondering, I'm retired and can say what I want.

[former9thward]

70. I am not retired and since I work for myself I can say what I want also.

Where reasonable comes in with the First Amendment is in the meaning of "peaceful". Someone might considered a tiny zone in the public square a place where a peaceful demonstration can take place without bothering anyone. Someone else might consider that taking over the biggest park in the city and camping there with tents to be peaceful. So courts have said local cities and others have the right to reasonably regulate gatherings as long as they are not stopping the message.

For your view to prevail the first amendment would have to be amended with the word 'peaceful' taken out.

[JDPriestly]

80. The plain meaning of peaceful.

: peaceable 1
2
: untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion : quiet, tranquil
3
: of or relating to a state or time of peace
4
: devoid of violence or force

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceful

The OWS movement is as quiet and tranquil as downtown Los Angeles or downtown New York at any time.

Try a busy lunch hour in any major city.

I have been to the OWS in LA and in Portland. There are a lot of people. That necessarily brings noise. But no more than the crowds around the courthouses and other places. It goes on on all day, but then so does the traffic noise. And the traffic noise in LA with the crossing of several freeways that encircle the town is pretty extreme.

Further, the LA courthouse where OWS is staying in LA is just a couple of blocks from a Plaza where you can hear loud, live Mexican music on the weekends.

So the noise argument is pretty foolish.

The revolutionaries who wrote the Constitution knew very well what they wanted to say. They themselves wanted the right to assemble and speak pretty much where they wanted to and when.

Men stood and gave speeches in public areas for hours back at that time. They did not get permits, I assure you. That is the kind of freedom of speech and assembly that the Founding Fathers intended us to have.

The big problem is that the idea of getting permits would be fine except that it requires a lot of money to form an organization that can apply for a permit.

At this time of national crisis, only the wealthy and their lobbyists can obtain access to government to ask for the redress of grievances. People are simply doing what they would not be able to do if they did it any other way.

The news media do not address the problems that the OWS movement is addressing. Members of Congress give protestors the "call my voice mail" bit. Sometimes when you call a congressman, you even reach a sweet young aide who is sympathetic. But that aide never has any power to sway the congressman.

I have to be fair. My congressman is Becerra. He listens to and communicates with ordinary constituents which is probably why he is a progressive. But he is the rare exception.

The current SC interpretation of the First Amendment simply is not working for the people or the country. And what works is what inevitably prevails.

[pilar007]

93. noise

There is no one in the area of OWSLA after 6:00. No one lives in the immediate area to bother. I thought the noise issue was made up.

[JDPriestly]

94. The noise issue is ridiculous in LA.

This afternoon, I was in my backyard planting my Fall and Winter garden. After all, Fall and Winter are the growing seasons for lots of things in LA.

And the entire time, I was disturbed by the sound of helicopters and the freeway. You can hardly escape the sound of helicopters overhead in LA. It can be especially bad in the middle of the night.

Noise cannot be a reason to evict the Occupy movements.

Nor can the health of those participating.

In Portland there were complaints about homeless youth ODing. That happens all the time on the streets of big cities. Drugs are a huge problem. But the are no greater problem in the Occupy movement than they are in other places.

As for violent crime, I'll bet there has been less violent crime around the Occupy sites (because of the constant flow of activity and people) than there is around the areas in which there are a lot of bars and dance clubs.

The excuses given for evicting the groups are unpersuasive and could probably not be backed up by statistical evidence.

It's about politics and inconvenience. The rich do not like to be reminded that the poor exist. And the Occupy movement is confronting the rich with their existence every day. In fact, that is the moral purpose of the Occupy movement.

I am proud of the Occupiers. And grateful to them for finally yelling out "The Emperor has no clothes."

[JDPriestly]

55. Because people are unaware that their personal rights are under attack.

In Wisconsin, public employees were quite aware that they, personally, were under attack. That is also true in Ohio with regard to Proposition 2.

People who are facing imminent foreclosure or job loss are embarrassed about it. Some trying to wish their problems away.

And most of those who have already lost their jobs and/or homes are just depressed and blaming it on themselves.

The protestors include a few of the people who have really lost a lot, but mostly people who have seen their friends and family lose everything or fear losing everything and are incensed at the injustice of what is going on.

Then among those of us who sympathize with the protestors are people who have been deeply disillusioned by what has been going on since Reagan.

[JDPriestly]

57. Interesting about the time, place and manner restrictions.

If you read the First Amendment, it specifically states that Congress (and it was intended that the states also be prohibited from what I have read in a biography of Madison) shall "make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

No law shall be made that would even abridge, much less deprive someone, of the freedom of speech.

In addition freedom means without restraint.

I know. I read quite a few cases on time, place and manner. They are a web of deceit. The Constitution is absolutely clear. Time, place and manner are simply artifacts that sound quite innocent but that deprive those of us too poor to hire our own lobbyists from enjoying free speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully (the only restriction the Constitution provides) or to petition the government.

I am no anarchist. But when it comes to speech, the First Amendment is absolute. No restrictions. It would seem to me that the time, place and manner regulations, tediously intricate as they are, were made up to contravene the Constitution's clear intention.

There is really only one way to interpret the actual language of this First Amendment.

[former9thward]

71. So if I want to park in front of your home from midnight to 6 am

with a sound truck blasting my political views that would be ok with you? Afterall no restrictions, right?

[bigmonkey]

78. The response would be:

So if the merchants in the town want to restrict free speech to every other Wednesday from 10am to noon (but only if it's raining), in a marsh on the edge of town, that would be considered "reasonable"? After all, it's clear, relatively easy to comply with, and restricts no actual speech. After all, convenience is for the obedient, isn't that clearly implied by "common sense"?

[former9thward]

79. That would not be the response of any court in this country.

They have more common (and legal) sense than you do.

[bigmonkey]

82. So, the parameters of "reasonable" are politically determined.

Not as a result of "objective" consultation of the law. Given that, the objection of the OWS is that, in such an exigency as this, the suppression of peaceful, cooperative overnighting is unreasonable. Your extreme example is on the other end of the continuum. How is that helpful?

[former9thward]

84. My "extreme" example?

It is helpful because it shows that restrictions on what you can and can not do under the First Amend. are reasonable. That has been the position of courts -- and civilized society -- for all of this country's history. If you reject that, you are on the losing side of history -- but don't worry you have alot of company.

[bigmonkey]

85. All you've said is that the courts rule on the "reasonableness" of restrictions on free speech.

Which is precisely the bone of contention. It's like you don't want to take a human stand, just a professional one. In a situation like the current one, that amounts to enabling oppression. Good job!

[former9thward]

90. In my profession (law) I tell my clients what the law is. Not what I may want it to be.

Or what I think it should be. I responded to this OP because the OP said the 1st A meant the city could impose no restrictions on OWS. That just is not true. If OWS wants to violate those restrictions, fine, but they are legal.

[bigmonkey]

92. You still don't see it.

You portray the actions of the courts as an empirical phenomenon, but you also admit that it's politically contextualized. This is a political struggle, not a set of natural facts that simply play out according to established pattern. Your professional life may have made it impossible for you to see that. My example was meant to show that there are parameters for the restrictions, you pretend they are immutable.

[JDPriestly]

81. Yes. There are noise restrictions. We have loud parties in our neighborhood all the time.

But the limitations are on the number of decibels, not on the existence of noise.

If you sat in front of our house and blared your stereo, my husband would politely go out and talk to you and listen to what you have to say and gently suggest that you might want to turn down the music. It always works -- like a charm.

If people want OWS to be quiet, then they should address the protestors with respect, explain why they are being too loud, and explain why the protestors should be quieter.

It's called showing others respect. As I said, we live in a neighborhood of very loud people. Whether it is a preacher with a bullhorn or a teen party with a DJ, addressing the problems or needs of the loud people and asking them respectfully to address ours always works.

The problem with OWS is that the people who are protesting have been ignored so long that they have reached the point of ultimate frustration. They need to be given an opportunity to speak out and be heard and they need to receive a meaningful response to their grievances

[former9thward]

83. Noise restrictions are a reasonable regulation of the First Amendment

Thank you for making my point.

[JDPriestly]

88. The people have been left no alternative but to assemble

without violence. The coffee houses and restaurants are too expensive and not large enough for such a crowd.

The sentiment of the protestors, their style and their sincerity will ultimately overwhelm all objections to them.

[gateley]

14. Not everyone who isn't involved is "watching Fox news". My friends

are Democrats but, and this goes to the first part of your first answer, they're currently doing fine.

They understand (to a certain extent), support the movement (to a certain extent) but haven't been driven to the point of outrage yet.

[RKP5637]

21. Yep, I think you hit the nail right on the head! "... they're currently doing fine. " Many

people IMO just don't get the transformation this country is going through because they have not been hit yet ... so it's acknowledgment there is a problem for some, but they don't see it yet resting on them too ... they haven't felt the pain and desperation. I have a lot of friends that fall in the same category.

[lbrtbell]

2. They're scared of the riot police - n/t

[roamer65]

3. Lack of empathy.

[gateley]

15. Glad you're not going to be St. Peter's assistant at the Pearly Gates.

[roamer65]

28. If people truly cared there would be thousands in the streets.

Go to Europe where they care more and you WILL see thousands in the streets.

America is social darwinism at its "finest".

[TBF]

30. I think you're right about that -

in Europe folks seem to be raised with more of a sense of community or looking out for others. Here we are trained to be individuals and look out for #1 first. It's a very different mindset.

[roamer65]

37. To truly see the difference, one has to watch Moore's Sicko movie.

The responses of Canadians on health care drilled it home for me. To them, there was no question that it was a right. Here most people are endoctrinated that it is a privilege.

[TBF]

41. Or talk to someone from Europe -

my husband is British. He has a different perspective on various things but the focus is off individuals. For instance, he thought I was crazy to want to put our wedding picture on the wall. "A picture of ourselves?" was his response ... we compromised on an upstairs hallway :)

They grow up with less space there, less privacy, it's very interesting and different.

[eilen]

67. Europeans don't have to worry about losing healthcare with their jobs nt.

[CTyankee]

4. the people are cowed, they are afraid and just trying to get along...

there is no energy and strength, just weak hope. They just cower and hope in the shadows. It is a hard time now for them. They cannot step out.

I sincerely hope we get leaders that will help them step out...

[dana_b]

10. agreed - when they are really down

then they have nothing to lose and will join. Right now many people are in the "keep your head down and keep moving" line of thinking. most of the people in my life are like that.

[elocs]

12. I just watched a livestream on my 50" tv and those police in riot gear were scary.

If this movement does not historically change the direction of this nation and people truly are cowed and afraid of their government, then it is over for the 99% and the 1% will prevail and we will without pretense be their serfs.

[JDPriestly]

60. Don't they look like the Darth Vader's troops in Star Wars?

[Scuba]

26. Wow! What reports have you been seeing?

OWS seems to be doing fine without leaders, and absolutely are NOT cowering in the shadows. Did I miss the satire thingy?

[Cid_B]

27. Some Dems I know think that the movement is ineffective...

... and something they don't want to be associated with.

[slackmaster]

5. Lack of a clear unified message, and most people have jobs and/or families to care for

HTH

[TheWraith]

7. +1. nt

[frazzled]

18. Pretty much my reasons

I just watched a Reuters video feed of protesters being led from the Portland camp, and one, as he was being arrested, was carrying an "End the Fed" sign, written on cardboard. I thought, what the f***? Who believes that nonsense? It's really hard to commit oneself to a movement that you agree with in general but are not sure you want to associate yourself with in particular.

That, and I've been crazy busy with work and in the middle of it all had to have some surgery. No way to carry your computer there to focus on detailed work and at the same time protect your surgical stitches from being infected. Yes, we all have lives to live, and can barely cope with them as it is. If you have kids, multiply the complications.

It doesn't mean we are not somewhat sympathetic. It does mean we are busy trying to cope and somewhat wary of what the specific agenda, if any, is.

[slackmaster]

33. I saw a guy with an "Abolish the Federal Reserve" sign talking to a "Down with Israel" dude here...

...in San Diego on Friday. I was on my way to the Veteran's Day parade, which seemed a whole lot more positive and meaningful to me.

[girl gone mad]

45. I can't think of anything more positive or meaningful..

than ending the control banks and corporations have over our government and dismantling the war machine which has wasted so much human life.

Like it or not, the Federal Reserve is a deeply corrupted institution. Wall Street has profited immensely while the veterans you cheer for were given very little in exchange for risking their health and lives. The people of OWS hope to do much more good for our veterans than any parade could ever accomplish.

[slackmaster]

72. Eric Holder's Justice Department is a deeply corrupted institution too

Should we eliminate that as well?

[coalition_unwilling]

61. You must have missed the guy with the "Federal Reserve

Equals Israel" sign :) JK, but there's a lively curent of anti-semitism beneath a lot of the anti-Fed\snti-bank sentiment. It's clap-trap and kookery, of course, but I doubt it's keeping many people away.

[girl gone mad]

38. "Who believes that nonsense?"

I do, as do countless other intelligent, informed progressives.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/12/01/end-this-fed-28595/">End This Fed

[frazzled]

48. Actually, no progressives believe that

It is a strictly Ron Paul Republican and Cato Institute principle. If you think that, you are definitely not a progressive.

[Capitalocracy]

54. No true progressive believes that, you mean?

I'm no friend of Ron Paul, but I think the Fed needs to at least be reformed.

[girl gone mad]

65. Read the link I posted.

It was written by a true progressive, former sernior policy adviser to Alan Grayson.

I can assure you that my liberal credentials are flawless.

Our Central Bank should not be controlled by private banking interests. Now I ask you: On what grounds could a progressive possibly support our Federal Reserve in its present form?

[doc03]

23. +1 n/t

[HappyMe]

73. Exactly.

If you are lucky enough to have a job, doesn't seem likely a person would quit.
:shrug: People have lives & responsibilities. I don't think it has anything to do with people being 'afraid' or 'cowed'. Most people don't have the luxury (or the desire) to just dumping everything.

[Xithras]

76. ^^ This. Or, to put it another way...

...most people prefer to protest FOR something, and not AGAINST something. OWS is against a lot of things, but they're so disorganized that they don't seem to be for anything.

Give me something clear and concrete to fight for, and I'll do it. Ask me to wave a sign and complain, without any idea what we'd end up with if we actually "won"? No thanks.

Last weekend, I went hiking along the upper Tuolumne in Yosemite. After that, I spent half of Sunday on a 30 mile bike ride with my sons. THOSE were great ways to spend my day. If you want to convince me that OWS is more important than enjoying my life, then OWS needs to offer something more than "Banks suck! Down with the system!" I agree that banks suck. I agree that the system needs to be changed. But bitching about it while camping in a park and listening to a drum circle isn't going to accomplish a damned thing. If I'm going to waste my time, I have more enjoyable ways of doing so.

[Wind Dancer]

91. Oh brother!

You're quoting right wing talking points beautifully.

:eyes:

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Germany saw yesterday a pair or 5-9,000 member protests against the banks

and Barcelona saw perhaps half a million march last month.

We just haven't been hit as hard (yet) by the bank pranks. Take away more of our Personal Convenience and you'll see more out in the streets, alongside the kids who already have nothing to lose.

What we have here is an opportunity to reverse here what Europe is currently experiencing; let's hope we can pull it off!

[virgogal]

9. I think NYPD could handle 100,000 easily.

[elocs]

13. Really? Easily? Without bloodshed, people hurt & killed?

NYC would really want to hold that reputation up to the whole world?

[virgogal]

29. I would assume there would be problems but I was

referring to the first paragraph in the OP where NYC is put in the same category as San Diego,which is ridiculous.

100,000 in NYC would be quite a different thing than in San Diego,and the NYPD could handle that amount of people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. They had 10k overnight

Cops waited for crowds to thin.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. They're all at home watching it on their 50" TVs.

[elocs]

20. Clever, but I was protesting in Madison twice last winter.

Once on the Saturday when there were 100,000 people at the capital and another time during the week when there were only a few thousand. Madison is a 2 hour drive from where I live, not a subway ride across NYC.

If I were near any of the major Occupy cities I would be there. Would you?

[kas125]

32. Many people are attending local occupy events. Here in my

little corner of Indiana, there are at least six Occupys, not counting Chicago, within an hour's drive. Some think it's more important to get local people involved than to attend the protests in major cities.

[Lady President]

17. Not an organized and widespread protests

I'm going to speak more about the Ohio Statehouse protests last year because I'm more familiar with it. The crowds weren't as big as Madison, but still larger than in Portland...

I see a couple important differences:

1. These are grassroots protests, as opposed to having some union organization. It's the beauty and the challenge of OWS.

2. The protesters or potential protesters don't have their livelihood directly threatened. There are a lot of teachers and law enforcement officers that attended the earlier protests because it was easier to frame the issue-- i.e. your job is at risk. The OWS don't have the same focus.

3. With a lot of union protesters comes a lot of shift workers. For example, it was easier for firefighters to protest at different times with the support of their union. Here, people have to get ready for work on Monday.

4. The protests are widespread. People from all over the state came to the Ohio protests, and all over the country for the Madison protests. Here, every city is drawing from a local base.

[Riftaxe]

19. Probably because

they are perceived as a disorganized mob with an incoherent message.

[doc03]

24. +1 n/t

[Riftaxe]

49. Perception is the problem, i have no troubles

understanding that those few who are out there protesting, are doing it truly heart felt.

It does make me a bit sad that the only thing i can give them is my support for them to ineffectually protest, when there is a complete history of organized protests that have achieved their goals :(

In this case they have never defined their goals, which i suspect is the limiting factor for a wider public support.

[PETRUS]

22. Geographical and temporal diffusion?

The US is a big place, and there are numerous protest sites. Also, the protests are ongoing, and people are constantly in and out. If one could count everyone that has shown up at a protest site in support at one time or another, what do you think the numbers would be? Polling indicates strong support among the general population.

[JVS]

25. The number of people willing and able to commit themselves to a protest of indefinite length is...

limited.

[sabrina 1]

34. You must have missed the march of 100,000 in the middle of

last week in Oakland, and the over 30,000 in NYC again, on short notice, in the middle of the week a few weeks ago.

Wisconsin was one place, this movement turns out thousands around the country every day in different places.

They are engaged in different actions, they have put words long since missing from the national dialogue, into the discussion, such as 'income inequality' and 'money in politics' among many others.

Add up all the people each day engaged in different marches and I think you'll see how big and how widespread this movement is. And it continues to grow.

It is not for a month, or a year, it is until this country is back in the hands of the people, which could take years.

Not worried about the numbers on the streets at any given time, for every one on the streets, there are hundreds, possibly thousands supporting them.

The latest polls shows support only growing, with 60% of the public now supporting them. And this despite the negative of the MSM and the far right.

[doublethink]

36. Interesting thread thanks. n.t.

[girl gone mad]

39. Nothing they do will ever please the likes of you.

Oh well.

[NorthCarolina]

40. OWS really bugs the crap outta you huh? Personally, I think they are

pretty effective...oh but wait...that's the rub isn't it?

[spanone]

43. most people will participate via the ballot

[AntiFascist]

44. This has already happened in Spain, Italy and Greece...

people may be feeling it more in Europe. If you take away their football, then you'll seeing massive rioting in the US.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Well, the large crowds in Madison weren't really about politics, but about specific economic

self-interest. It was easy to rally people to a cause where the policies pushed by the governor were targeted specifically at the right for workers to collectively bargain for higher wages and better benefits.

OWS? Most Americans don't really have the slightest clue what the crowds in those rallies and protests want, and though most sympathize with their anger at corporate abuse and power enabled by a corrupt political system, they don't see a direct link between their economic well-being and what is going on with the OWS protests.

The day that link is convincingly made, whether it is by OWS or any other movement, is the day you will see millions in the streets.


Edit: typo.

[elocs]

47. Wow, I thought OWS is about economics, about the 1% controlling most of the wealth

in this nation. I thought it is overwhelmingly about economics.

[fried eggs]

50. I'm not living in a tent, and crowds freak me out

Too many germs, and I don't enjoy confrontations with the police.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. When you reach the point where EVERY POSSIBLE FUTURE is

worse than your present, you will overcome your dislike of germs, tents and crowds. I'm with you on 'angry confrontations with the police,' though. Most of the time, the anger seems to originate from the police and not from the Occupiers, at least based on what I've seen these past 8 weeks.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. When you reach the point where EVERY POSSIBLE FUTURE is

worse than your present, you will overcome your dislike of germs, tents and crowds. I'm with you on 'angry confrontations with the police,' though. Most of the time, the anger seems to originate from the police and not from the Occupiers, at least based on what I've seen these past 8 weeks.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. It's what social scientists refer to as a collective action problem

If we presume that human beings are rational utility maximizers (and they're not, but I'll get to that in a second), then they would have no reason to protest if their desire is to change policy. The reason is that the policy outcome will be the same regardless of whether any one individual decides to participate in that protest (unless said individual is an extraordinarily influential figure).

The reason we call this a collective action problem, is that it's actually good for society if thousands or even millions of people participate in the protest (or vote, conserve energy, recycle, any number of things). But individually, they have no rational incentive to protest unless they just like protesting, and some people do.

However, human beings are not Vulcans and thus we don't always act based on reason. It's not that we're unaware of the rationality, either. I bet if you sat down and analyzed the situation with most people at OWS, they would admit that they understand that their individual decision to be there is not making a difference. But their emotional desires win over reason and society benefits because of that.

The people who support the movement but aren't there are acting rationally and maximizing their own utility by doing things they would rather be doing than showing up at OWS. But don't worry, I guarantee you they act irrationally plenty of other times.

[Amonester]

52. I am 58 (going 59).

While I support every peaceful protests (not the criminal-minded 'effers'), I have a hair-cut that makes me 'look' like an old cop. Many young dudes don't like my 'look' and I don't blame them. (When I was 20, my hair looked like John Lennon's, but not anymore).

Sorry if I just don't feel like I really want to join in (looking 'suspicious' to some, while far from 'being' suspicious).

That's the way it is for many like me, I have no doubt.

[Capitalocracy]

53. How many would you have if you add them all together?

That would be an interesting number to know.

[ellisonz]

56. Lack of organization.

[randome]

74. Amen.

No organization means no unifying message. OWS stands for 'Occupy Wall Street' and yet the individual movements (note: not one movement) seems focused on fighting local skirmishes with police, far from Wall Street.

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. Because everyone is distracted by the payment structure of DU3?

:shrug:

[countryjake]

64. Bwahahahahaaa!

But seriously, to add a small remark to the OP, when 50 or so come out on weekends here in my neck of the woods, a county with barely 100,000 total, I'd say that's pretty damn good. Organizing around it, educating, and simply discussing the Occupy movement at our measly little protests is slowly awakening people to their own strengths; visibility is helping to make the others who see our signs, as they pass us by, agree or, at least, ponder their own positions.

It is not something that you just add water to, nuke, and you have an instant humongous movement. With the onset of some really nasty weather, I look forward to what's going to happen once good weather returns and Spring arrives. It's going to be one really hard winter for many many folk in this country and I ain't talking about the weather.

[eilen]

66. I am sympathetic and empathize with the occupiers

and if I were in a different place in my life, I would join them. However, I have higher responsibilities. I take care of my sick mother, I have a kid in college I am supporting that relies on me to pay his tuition (our position is that we will not send him out in the world overwhelmed with debt), I have another child I am caring for who is in high school, and a husband-- they all require dinner every night, laundry washed, a sanitary environment and groceries in the cupboard. I also work full time taking care of very sick people. I have limited time and many demands on my energy and resources and honestly, I am dog tired every night. Two weeks ago I spend 48 hours at the hospital when Mom got sick, 2 days later, after bringing her home, I sprained my foot and couldn't walk and had to take almost a weeks worth of work off to visit doctors and elevate and ice my foot. My mother also empathizes and sympathizes with the occupation however, she can't walk across a room without getting out of breath and has been sick. Whenever she is exposed to a cold, she gets a COPD exacerbation that can kill her.

When my familial responsibilities become radically diminished I might be able to attend to dissent activities. Meanwhile I continue to serve my community by caring for their sick.

I support OWS and our local iteration. If asked about them I verbalize my support and add my voice and opinion of their cause. Most in my profession know the system is broken.

[Hotler]

68. I have mine. Fuck everybody else.

[Zorra]

69. Because many folks that would love to participate

have to work, have families that require attention, and/or cannot often drive 100 miles to the urban area where their most local occupation is occurring.

Madison was a single unifying event directed at a specific outrage, but Occupy is an ongoing protest where many individuals come and go as necessity dictates. One person has to leave, another shows up, etc. Some that can swing it stay for the duration.

We are marshaling our forces. Raising awareness of the situation through the occupations was critical. we have been successful thus far. When we reach critical mass, it will be time to strike. As in general strike. But it will take more time to gather enough aware people to participate.

Many of our Democratic politicians are owned by Wall St., and will never do what is right. Republicans are anti-human, so there is nothing we expect out of them except corruption and evil. We expect much more from Democrats.

That is a primary reason why OWS came into being. We elected a huge majority of Democrats to Congress, and put a Democrat in the White House. We were hoping for change. (Fool us once...)

All we basically ended up with by electing Dems was lip service from Wall St.

Solidarity.

[snot]

75. A lot of DU'er's haven't made it yet, either. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2298281&mesg_id=2298281

[jtuck004]

77. Because their outreach, their marketing, sucks. /nt

[Javaman]

86. Occam's Razor.

the weather.

When the weather is better, there will be more people out there.

[Throd]

87. Most people don't have time to camp out in a park.

[LynneSin]

89. Apples and Oranges - here's why

First, OWS isn't focused on one city but across the country so the numbers even up.

Second, many people can't be a part of the permament encampments but they do take the time to show up for weekend protesting.