Mayor Reed issued an Executive Order that gives Occupy Atlanta the right to stay in Woodruff Park until the end of the Atlanta City Council meeting on October 17.

In other news, here’s some fact checking of last nights WackosRUS Republican debate.


37 Responses to Mayor Reeds Gives Occupy Atlanta Five Days

  1. JMPrince says:

    More than 6mo ago there were demonstrations, large ones, over the deluded idiocy that corporations are/were ‘people’. It’s part of a very long debate. Tom Hartmann has been on that score for years if not more than a decade by now:

    I happen to own quite a bit of stock. It’s also pretty delusional to think that anyone not having a ‘significant minority interest’ of say several $10’s-100’s of Millions can have much of any influence on the people/boards who manage most large corps, and that’s been true for quite sometime. Professional advisors will advise you that the best you can do is to sell your holdings as a sort of protest over what’s going on. But in most instances? There’s not even any competition for any of the managing board seats, and there’s an interlocking daisy chain of crony connections shot throughout the entire structure so that pay is being constantly ratcheted upwards and often dramatically. Many of us have taken pay cuts in recent years due to poor performance, adverse market conditions, and a general lack of demand. For the ‘masters of the universe’ who did indeed blow up the world’s economy? They faced one ‘down year’ and now they’re back at it, demanding ever more take & ‘bezzel’ from the public that invests with them.

    So no, overall they (most Large & esp. multi-national corps) really don’t have to answer to their shareholders, not at least most of them anyway. Again that’s likely a ‘specialty grievance’ to some, and perhaps not at the top of many of the OWS lists.

    So there’s plenty wrong that needs fixing, reforming and new ideas on same. Perhaps in a few years monkey’s pounding away at keyboards might come up with some too. But at the moment here in reality, voting (generally) still matters, and we can neglect it at our peril. That’s a simple message that MLK & generations of Civil Rights crusaders and campaigners both before & after him understood. It’s something that’s not yet vital or significant to the OWS efforts. It will naturally tend to limit their effectiveness, whether they believe it or not.

    Accept no substitutes. JMP

  2. JMPrince says:

    Well yes & no, but no need to argue at great lengths. ‘What did it look like & how might we do better?’ That might be some questions that are worth exploring.

    We’ve got one. This is what it looked like in 1968:


  3. Brett Johns says:

    Dr. King’s movement was as much (and later in his life much more so) a movement about economic equality as it was about racial equality. The civil rights movement wasn’t just about black people, it was about all poor and disenfranchised people. There are very direct parallels to be made between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the 1960s civil rights movement.

    Here’s a history tidbit: we all remember the March on Washington, but we forget its full title. It was the March on Washington FOR JOBS and Freedom. We dishonor Dr. King’s legacy if we view him simply as a fighter for racial equality. That is but one facet of the movement.

  4. GAPolitico says:

    Mayor Reed, you have an important decision to make within the next 24 hours – Are you going to honor MLK and the Civil Rights Movement and be on the side of Civil Rights or, like the police in Selma, arrest those who fight for their rights?

    • ire says:

      Yep its totally the same. Good job there boyo! You’re fighting the power

    • Steve Golden says:

      Yeah sorry, Dustin. That was a little too hyperbolic. I think you completely misunderstand the history of the Civil Rights Movement if you think this is even remotely comparable.

      • GAPolitico says:

        So you basically say its hyperbolic and wrong without explaining how… I’m convinced.

        • Steve Golden says:

          Well, for one, the Civil Rights movement was one wholly fought to combat an injustice of being. If you were black, you basically could not be. You were legally an inferior being. [Note: if you even try to argue that the current tax structure makes 99% of Americans ‘inferior beings,’ I will bring a stack of books about American history so tall it will make your head spin]. These people were, and in many respects legally were, beaten, lynched, called some of the most derisive and disgusting terms another person could be called, and exercised civil disobedience to combat this human injustice. This was not an economic injustice. It was an injustice of basic human existence. It was about basic human and civil rights.

          Contrast that with the OWS movement. These people are being asked to leave a park, where they have been allowed to be for a number of days (and in some cases weeks). Those that decide not to leave will probably be peaceably arrested, unless they decide to use force against police officers. Those officers that choose to use undue force will likely be investigated, but overall, the intent is one of peace and respect.

          Every time there’s a protest, and someone gets arrested, it doesn’t mean it’s time to compare it to the Civil Rights movement and the legacy of MLK. If you want to find something remotely apt, maybe talk about gay rights or immigrant rights. But even in those situations, the institutionalization of accepted violence and bigotry is not as widespread (though, admittedly in those cases, it exists).

          In both cases, sure, there are people practicing civil disobedience. But any person who has studied the civil rights movement will tell you– there’s so much more to it than that. I just don’t want us as conscientious Democrats to overuse an extremely poignant and important chapter of our nation’s history at just any time. There’s a time and a place.

          • GAPolitico says:

            Well, bring your books. As Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere.

            And as far as an injustice to “being,” I think we can still apply this. When people get naturally sick and cannot afford to get treated – they are in trouble simply for being. When someone cannot afford exist because they have cancer and no health insurance – they are being punished for being. When one has diabetes, but cannot afford insulin, they are being punished for being. When one has worked 30 years of their life, but must choose between food and medicine – they are punished for being.

            And you are right, not ever time a protest happens should we invoke the name of King. However, I think we can on this one. But again, you can take that up with President Obama – he was the one who brought it up at the King Memorial. Far be it from me to question the President and the leader of the party.

            As far as violence, take a look at these photos:

            Nothing civil about kneeing someone in the throat, grabbing girl under her shirt, or dragging people down the street.

            You’ll come around eventually Steve.

            • Ed says:

              Out of curiosity did you study philosophy at all? If so, you’d recognize that, at the absolute very best you can determine from the OWS movement is a bunch of shit based in ought statements. Corporations ought to do X. The government ought to provide Y etc. Of course, it is a big stretch to apply this to even a significant portion of OWS. And before you try to waste bandwith arguing otherwise, I was just at Zucotti Park. It is a completely nihilistic organization and the “leaders”, erm, “facilitators” have even acknowledged that they have no goals at the moment, and very likely never will.

              So for the first instance where you are wrong, they aren’t advocating for anything. Kind of hard to compare yourself to a movement that had a very clear set of goals (abolishing laws designed to make blacks second class citizens) to one that has no goals. At the very least you can clearly see one has a greater level of seriousness and it isn’t yours .

              Further, because the OWS movement is based on oughts, that significantly weakens the moral authority of the movement. The civil rights movement was about fundamental human rights. Having a greater say as a populace in the affairs of corporations and limiting their influence is not a fundamental human right. (Side note: It actually is possible to exert control on corporations. Buy some fucking stock). (Side note to the side note: I’m sure the Free Tibet activists, the Native American rights people, the anti-MSM group, the forgive student loans wackos etc. would dispute my claim that this is about corporations but that is neither here nor there). Corporations exist as a result of human work and do not have the same obligations as, say governments. I mean, without even getting philosophical, they only have to answer to their shareholders. No one else. So if corporations do something immoral (which is funny because they are amoral) you need to be angry at shareholders–you know, people–not corporations at large. Then again, no one would ever accuse OWS of misplaced and ill-conceived anger. No way.

              In essence, you’re strongest claim that OWS=CRM is from a loose application of a single MLK Jr. quote. Truly stunning work.

              Before you reply, I’m honestly not even going to bother or read anything if you claim OWS stands for something. Why? Because it doesn’t. Unless you have the ethos to be able to refute,, you know, the ACTUAL OWS folks and what they say the movement represents in which case you need to state those up front.

  5. CatherineAtlanta says:

    Bloomberg is kicking them out of Zucotti Park for cleaning. When they return they can’t bring their gear and tents.

    Zucotti Park is privately owned.

  6. Juliana says:

    If I were involved in the OWS stuff here, I’d pick 8 parks and Occupy them for a week at a time and move on to next one.

    It would be a rolling protest, they might pick up new folks along the way. Just a thought.

  7. griftdrift says:

    It is our park, right?

  8. GAPolitico says:

    Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed issued an executive order Wednesday giving Occupy Atlanta protesters five days to vacate Woodruff Park.

  9. GAPolitico says:

    Bad Move on the part of the Mayor.

    • Suddenly Not Anon says:

      Care to explain why?

      • GAPolitico says:

        He is essentially limiting free speech. It may be legal, but it isn’t really the best idea. If he is truly worried about the grass/area, he should ask them occupy another area. Simple as that.

        Even Bloomberg, who is an independent, let them stay on Wall Street in New York. Athens gave the protestors a permit that lasts until January.