The Occupiers have their own legal adviser, John H. Branson, who has negotiated a one week permit to occupy a space in the city of Portland for a week. This makes the Occupiers markedly more professional than the Tea Party who would most likely use a Tea Party volunteer to obtain any necessary permits. Does the Occupier’s legal adviser work on a volunteer basis? If not who pays for John H. Branson's services?
The occupiers identify their actions as inspired by the protestors in the "Arab Spring" with "Arab Spring" being yet another media concoction that suggests the motivations and outcome of events in the Middle East are the subject of media fairy tales. The one thing that we do know about the events in the Middle East is that the end game of the protestors was clearly defined- the ousting of the dictators in the various nations. Who knows what "democracy" means after that? In Palestine it meant electing Hamas as the controlling political power.
The occupiers repeat media generated lexicon, such as "the Arab Spring" and channel politically generated mantras such as "fair share", both of which, like "hope and change" are murky terms that are wide open for interpretation by anyone anywhere.
The occupiers are here for an indefinite time until the indefinite goal of "change" is achieved. Well buddies you can leave now because change is the only constant. Other than "change" there does not seem to be any specific measure to signal that the occupiers have achieved their goals. They don't seem to get that the ones they emulate, the Arab protestors had a specific and measurable goal- to over throw a dictator. If the Arab spring is romanticized as a "democratic" revolution, once the dictator has been disposed the great challenge of forming a constitutional democracy becomes the new goal. If it is a pure democracy, it can mean the tyranny of the majority and if that majority is the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't make for a good fairy tale ending.
Meanwhile we already have a constitutional democratic republic. We already have a system, which like all systems works as well as the character of the people. Our system was designed, with the vast range of human character in mind, as a system of checks and balances. It is the fact that we already have a constitutional system that protects the rights of assembly and freedom of speech which makes the occupiers right to be heard a fact. What the occupiers don't like is that our constitutional system is based in a political philosophy that protects property rights and the right to the fruits of ones own labor.
Whenever I hear "fair share" I wonder why it isn't applied to government? Why does government sector have a right to spend the wealth that others create? I think government is well over its "fair share" already. But the concept that 'fair share" can be applied to the government sector is completely occluded from the meaning of this politically generated mantra straight from the Obama team, trying to repeat the great success of the "hope and change" mantra.
Now that the unions have joined with the occupiers in NYC, it just won't be complete until the government employees embrace it as well. More and better government pension plans!