Occupy Wall Street: Protests travel to homes of ultra-rich

A doorman looks out the entrance to a Park Avenue building as members of the Occupy Wall Street walk past in protest through the upper east side of New York October 11, 2011. The Occupy Wall Street movement took protests to the New York homes of super-wealthy executives on Tuesday as rallies against economic inequality were planned this week for over 50 U.S. college campuses and in several cities around the world. Police response in New York City is expanding. (REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton)

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: occupy wall street • ows

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Cowicide

Nice, fitting sign…
- Mister44
  
  Yeah… if she is so eager to get redistribute her wealth, what’s stopping her from giving it somewhere? There are tons of organization, from ones to help social problems, to those who focus on finding cures, to higher education, to the arts, to exploratory science, etc etc etc. Start your own philanthropic organization (see the Bill Gates Foundation).
  - Navin_Johnson
    
    False dilemma. People who are looking for progressive policies don’t see Dickensian “charity” solutions as the answer.
    - Mister44
      
      Increasing taxes is not a “progressive policy”. It might be part of a solution, but closing loop holes and special treatment of corporations will do an even better job. The Reps and Dems aren’t our friends. 1/2 of them in congress are millionaires – with the other half working on it. It isn’t in their interest to do anything “progressive”.
      
      Dismissing “charity” as not being a solution shows a lot of shortsightedness and contentment to complain with out doing something about it. Not every charity is equal – but there are a lot that do GREAT work. From my example, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is working to save millions of lives with their malaria research and distribution of simply things like mosquito nets.
      
      In general, the closer you are to a problem, the more good it will do. Sending $1 million to the federal government isn’t going to go nearly as far as $1 million in targeted research/help.
      
      I guess my point is, if you feel you have so much money that you deserved to be taxed more, give that money away until you feel you have given your ‘fair share’. IIRC, can’t you over pay your income tax as well? (But I guess the counter point is many of them don’t do enough for charity.)
      - Navin_Johnson
        
        The most successful countries in the world have a high burden on the wealthy, closed loop holes, and a lot of transparency. We only have to look to our own laissez-faire history to see how relying on charity *instead* of social programs is disastrous. Charity in itself is fine, to paint my comment as “dismissing” charity is deliberately dishonest.
        
        The Reps and Dems aren’t our friends.
        
        Which is why I don’t vote for either.
      - Mister44
        
        I can’t read your mind. When you use words like “Dickensian ‘charity’”, it sounds condescending. Not dismissing charity then, fair enough.
      - Navin_Johnson
        
        Fair enough, I was referring to more laissez-faire times, when charity was a substitute rather than an enhancement for help by the state.
  - Cowicide
    
    Yeah… if she is so eager to get redistribute her wealth, what’s stopping her from giving it somewhere? There are tons of organization,
    
    You sadly miss the point she’s making. Then again, you missed the point of this entire movement from the beginning. You have been one of the most ardent and condescending naysayers from the very beginning.
    
    You mocked Occupy Wall Street’s humble beginnings and predicted this wouldn’t go anywhere at all… and now you’ve been proven wrong (which I’m sure you won’t admit to and will simply move the goal posts or go into panic mode and jump into a trite semantic argument or other desperate diversion).
    
    So why should I listen to you NOW? …when you’ve been proven wrong and won’t even step up and admit it no matter what?
    
    The POINT she’s making, is that there should be more contribution to society from the fortunate (at large) to the less fortunate (at large). It’s a moral and ethical thing to do as a society. She can give away all her money and it would be pissing in the winds of these giant societal problems. It would be ineffective. She’s doing MUCH MORE by spending her time supporting this movement than she could ever do by spending all her money.
    
    This was common sense to me.
    
    So why are you here? What do you hope to achieve with you rhetoric? Your message is very muddled.
    - Mister44
      
      re: The lady with the sign.
      
      It just rubs me the wrong way. I can’t quite put my finger on it… A sort of privileged smugness? I know one part is she says she inherited her money. If she was against more taxes, the fact that she inherited her money would be a strike against her. “What does she know? She was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, she didn’t earn it. Yadda yadda.” So why should she sway my opinion? When someone like Warren Buffet speaks up, I pay attention.
      
      re: “She can give away all her money and it would be pissing in the winds of
      these giant societal problems It would be ineffective.”
      
      Which is why the super-rich set up schemes where they basically operate off of interest or investments, never actually touching the capital. And I do understand her point – like I said, it just rubs me the wrong way. To enact the change proposed would take, literally, an act of congress. A million dollars in the right spots can change so many lives for the the better – more so than being one small cog in a large wheel.
      
      re: The movement
      
      It was pretty good. Not too hard or anything.
      
      re: Oh THAT movement
      
      I have never mocked it. I have repeatedly said that the proposed demands on the main site I mostly agree with. Still, I have been very skeptical of it accomplishing anything. I will admit I am surprised about the size and scope of it, but in my short time on this earth and reading/watching history, I just have a low expectation of it actually changing anything (optimistically pessimistic). I would LOVE to be proven wrong. Thus far, other than getting some decent attention, NOTHING has changed (that I’m aware of). I think one of it’s effects will be to have politicians run as “bank busters”, making sure the tax code is more fair, etc. (Of course, that doesn’t mean they will follow through.)
      
      re: “So why should I listen to you NOW? ”
      
      It’s a free country, and I am hardly an expert on it. Feel free to ignore me, it really won’t hurt my feelings. You’ll be just like my parents and probably won’t lock me in the closet as often.
      - EH
        
        I have repeatedly said that the proposed demands on the main site I mostly agree with. Still, I have been very skeptical of it accomplishing anything.
        
        Ah, so you mostly agree, but you’re going to spend your energy nipping at their heels with pessimism? I’m sure Malcolm X had something to say about your approach, but I think it’s probably the height of bad faith to say you support the protests when you have so many fundamental disagreements with them (namely: that it is worth doing at all). Like those who temper their support until there is a unified message and/or list of demands, you will be a vocal critic until they “prove you wrong.” Well, that just means you’re going to wait to support them until they’re already a success, which I think is usually called “jumping on the bandwagon.” Kudos for admitting as much.
      - Mister44
        
        Other than the lady with the sign, I don’t believe I have been critical of the movement at all. (I may be forgetting something I wrote.) I am just not looking at this like it’s the French Revolution or something. I am generally optimistic about things, but I just don’t see this panning out into much real change. Maybe I am just old and bitter, but protests rarely change anything – especially peaceful ones. I’d love to be proven wrong. It’s just “same as it ever was” in my book.
        
        But hey – I guess you can have a Bush-esque “You’re 110% behind us, or against us.” attitude.
        
        Like I said, voting in politicians running as OWS advocates could be one way it succeeds and implements real change. There is another article on BB that says basically the same thing, that taking control at a local level is easier to do and able to enact real change.
      - EH
        
        Well, you can go back to your other comment and look at your “pessimistically optimistic” neologism, which appears in context to be a weasel-word form of “pessimism.” I get it, you want to like the movement, but you don’t, and you won’t until they actually accomplish something. Well, the French revolutionaries didn’t set out to create something called The French Revolution, it’s not a product to be manufactured.
Antinous / Moderator

But…but…isn’t that Charlotte York-Goldenblatt’s building?
Eark_the_Bunny

Uh oh, the peasants are at the gate of the castle! Somebody get the boiling oil!
sata blank

Speaking of increasing police action, there are possibly going to be arrests happening soon in Dallas http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Occupy-Dallas-Protestors-Push-for-Longer-Permit-131542953.html Anyone who is out there right now be careful and good luck!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Ruub/100001126835657 Bob Ruub

The peasants are revolting!!! Indeed.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Oliver-Schmieding/100000452523362 Oliver Schmieding

pack torches and pitchforks, guys. tried and true since 1789. ;)
pinkymcgroo

Surely this is the doorman from that Seinfeld episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaBhnlZgNIo
tnmc

Looks like he’s sucking on a tube of Ketracel-white
niktemadur

Inscrutable expression there, not quite sure if it’s amusement or contempt, if contempt maybe directed at the brouhaha outside, maybe directed at those who sign his paycheck and feel entitled to treat him as inferior, so he’s gotta watch himself.
GeorgeStanton

It’s one thing to be protesting on wall street, but is it really necessary to terrorize people’s families?
- EH
  
  Terror, eh?
  - donovan acree
    
    Didn’t you get the memo. We call anything we don’t like terror these days. It has zazz!
- Just_Ok
  
  that’s part of what it’s about, how wall st terrorizes families…but I think you’re talking about something else.
- atimoshenko
  
  Peaceful assembly terrorises no one.
- CastanhasDoPara
  
  Sometimes the best weapon can be some (rich persons) kid tugging at mommy and daddy’s collective pant leg and innocently asking “why are all those people so upset with you?”
  
  Granted I’m cynical enough to think that most of these ‘grown-ups’ are much too heartless to give two shits about what their kid is saying (let alone actually be in the same room with them for more than five seconds) and at that level of arrogance and disinterest in other people, the protesters are merely a nuisance for the underlings to handle while the bosses go about eating breakfast and reading the WSJ before the helicopter arrives instead of a limo.
  
  Regardless, it’s still worth a shot and it’s hardly terrorism.
  
  @CoyoteDen:disqus and no, if the protesters cross the line they better go all the way or take their lumps. There is no room here for whining that you got thumped by burly security agents for doing something stupid and illegal. My opinion anyway.
  - aynrandspenismighty
    
    I imagine that the rich bastards would call over their nanny and have them take care of little Thurston and Porche.
    - CastanhasDoPara
      
      … you mean like ‘take care of them’, take care of them? *points finger-gun to head and wiggles thumb*
      
      Guess that would be the logical solution to the kids asking such irksome questions or not fully internalizing the family ‘values’. Can’t have them getting all soft and cuddly about the rabble after all.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3J2FCT2VHD6DDIACR23NEVTEJQ Jesus
  
  If that’s terror, you live in a very mild and meek world.
bruckelsprout

Boy oh boy, I can’t wait to hear how Fox News pundits will discuss this development.
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefan_e_jones/ Stefan Jones
  
  “I can’t wait to hear how Fox News pundits will discuss this development.”
  
  They’ll have to phone it in from their besieged apartments.
  - Robert Sanderson
    
    The other news channels are huge multinationals. Shouldn’t the Mayor or the guys at CNN New your be huddled in their homes too? They don’t drive policy because they want to. They drive policy because you let them. Remember their pockets are lined by Advertisers and they will report and inflame based on the desires of who is paying them.
Sunshine Kukulcan

OK I say with almost complete certainty that isnt any regular doorman, its Chevy Chase!
koko szanel

Just let them eat that damned cake already!
PlutoniumX

I thought it was a still for a new Bruce Campbell movie…
Lobster

This is getting dangerously close to a class war. It’s one thing to say the system is unfair and another to take it out on the people who have benefited.
- Guest
  
  Uhm, where have you been? The whole point is that there ALREADY is class warfare, and it’s the rich who have been waging it mercilessly, first on the poor and then on the middle class. And not with angry words, but with weapons, both of the physical kind that kill people, and the economic kind, which also kills people through disease and starvation. And no, it is not unfair to retaliate against the people who benefit, as those who benefit are also the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity.
  - Guest
    
    He was off being suuper nice to ‘the help’ and waiting for his cookie.
  - Robert Sanderson
    
    And still the sheep go back to the well. Go out and make the convenience items that they sell to you. Quit buying from them and tell your cronies to also. Vote for people that really mean what they say and have both experience and a track record of pulling it off. Once you quit feeding the monsters you quit giving them power. Standing up for what you want means you have to fight with the tools you have and the best tool is not your voice, it is your actions. Just because you can talk a good game…
- Moriarty
  
  “This is getting dangerously close to a class war.”
  
  It started out dangerously close to class war. It’s been full blown for a while now. Explicitly so, even. What is all this “the 1%” stuff if not defining the “enemy” on the sole basis of having more wealth than me?
  
  ” It’s one thing to say the system is unfair and another to take it out on the people who have benefited.”
  
  This^100
  - Guest
    
    See my response above: the rich started it. If they don’t want a class war, they can start by not waging one themselves.
    - Robert Sanderson
      
      Who made them rich?
- donovan acree
  
  There it is! That old apologist trope ‘Class Warfare’. What a laugh. Of course this is class warfare. The rich and corporate interests started it and now the rest of us are fighting back. Between 1979 and 2007, the income gap between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the poorest 40 percent more than tripled. The pay scale gap between CEO and their employees has generated enough infographics to choke a Google. Our politicians are chosen for us and they clearly work for the lobbyists.
  And can we please stop saying the classes are rich, middle class, and poor. It is clearly divided along the working class and the wealthy.
  Just to be clear, you may think it’s unfair to go after those who benefit from this lopsided system, but you would be dead wrong. It is those very same people who crafted the system into what it is today – a front for banking and corporate interests designed to keep the working class distracted by us vs them, red vs blue, dems vs rebs, black vs white, etc etc while they get rich off the backs of the American worker.
  Yeah, it’s class warfare all right. And so what if it is?
  - ChicagoD
    
    I feel like Lobster was not being completely serious and that all of the responses to Lobster have shown a grave lack of a sense of humor.
  - Moriarty
    
    “Yeah, it’s class warfare all right. And so what if it is?”
    
    Then it’s insane, and you can’t possibly claim to be the good guys, and you make things incredibly easy to Godwin. Witch hunts and angry mobs don’t have a great track record, historically.
    - Mister44
      
      I dunno, they did wonders for guillotine technology.
- Guest
  
  ‘dangerously close to a class war’? HAH! Right. Soooo close… XD
aynrandspenismighty

I like to imagine the thought going through his mind is “Any more crap from these asshole tenants and I’ll let these guys in when the time comes.”
Stonewalker

Mark me down for the “this is not cool and will not accomplish anything positive for anybody” crowd.

The problem is government-subsidized wealth, as Ron Paul calls it, “Corporotism”. Trying to make rich people feel bad isn’t going to help when the root of the problem is a Board of Directors who is simply making the best and most profitable decisions for their businesses by manipulating an already-willing government into giving them more money. Bonuses all around! Again, the problem is not that we have billionaires, it’s the special privileges they receive. That is the real class warfare, and it’s supported by Dems and Repubs alike. And I’m not talking about taxes.

Cut the cord, America. Meanwhile, keep it up OWS, protests are the beginning of change in our societal values. This is effective for politics because the House of Representatives is supposed to affect change on our behalf (and if they don’t then we can take out the trash), but protesting is only the beginning. This type of movement is also effective for changing our culture in the macro-sense for civil rights, but the real fight of policy is generally done in the courts, which is why it’s so damned important that the average citizen understand how our Justice system works.

If you have a cause you want to support, find a civil rights litigation group and get to work donating. If you don’t have a job where you can make money and donate it, then get out there and volunteer, protest and spread the word. Or do both if you have time. Just make sure the Communists don’t join your cause… that’s a sure way to kill widespread support for it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/oct/9/picket-communists-hijacking-occupy-wall-street-mov/
- Navin_Johnson
  
  Which is worse? Them or the Paul guys? I don’t know…
  - Stonewalker
    
    (1) Not true,
    
    (2) Do you have anything to say other than taking pot shots? I didn’t even denigrate the Communist party, I make a true statement about something that I saw and thought was pretty funny. Geez, butthurt much?
    - Navin_Johnson
      
      I’m making a true statement as well, I found it funny that you quote Paul when Paultards were at the protests here tainting the message with their anti-government rhetoric.
bonkus

Feel free to delete this – I just wanted you to know that if you posted to B-Sides more often I’d visit more often.

Edit: I’d visit B-sides more often. I’m on boingboing like six times a day wether there’s animated gifs waiting for me or not.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

A little piece of history:

“The student protests in Washington also prompted a peculiar and memorable attempt by President Nixon to reach out to the disaffected students. As historian Stanley Karnow reported in his Vietnam: A History, on May 9, 1970 the President appeared at 4:15 a.m. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to discuss the war with 30 student dissidents who were conducting a vigil there. Nixon “treated them to a clumsy and condescending monologue, which he made public in an awkward attempt to display his benevolence.” Nixon had been trailed by White House Deputy for Domestic Affairs Egil Krogh, who saw it differently than Karnow, saying, “I thought it was a very significant and major effort to reach out.”[1]”
If Nixon was man enough to show up in person to the protest camp, these banksters can man up or shut up. If you protest at the BoA headquarters, the first people to deal with you are clerks making $14 an hour. They are not the people you are trying to reach. If you go knock on the CEO’s door, you’re more likely to send a message.
- Robert Sanderson
  
  Knock on his office door. It is in very bad taste to knock on the door behind which is innocent children live.
sdmikev

I have a feeling phones are ringing off the hook in DC for a couple senators.
My feeling about it – fuck them. This is what you get when the bulk of the population of the USA is roundly ignored and/or shit on by the other 1 percent because they have all the power. Fuck ‘em right in the ear.
- Robert Sanderson
  
  How stupid is this? YOU are the 99%. They only have the power because you the shepards have convinced the stupid sheep to forget that you have teeth. You forget that you have wool. You forget that you have meat. There are more of you, more hands, more minds. Once you realize this, you can take the power back. You don’t have to threaten families to prove it.
Teller

This is the analog version of hacking a corporate site. The difference between a peaceful demonstration and a mob is one thrown bottle. Mind the assholes.
Navin_Johnson

It’s not like there isn’t a precedent:

Miller: They’re marching down Prairie Avenue, okay, the very
citadel of capitalism. And it’s hard to march on a plant, but they’re
right at the homes of the capitalists. Never happened anywhere else
like that. They collect what they call hoboes but they’re anarchists as
well. And they’re going up and they’re ringing the doorbells. And of
course nobody’s answering the doors. But they’re screaming that they
want bread or power. There’d just never been a direct demonstration
quite like that.

Narrator: Albert Parsons read from the Epistle of St. James:
“Your riches are corrupted…Your gold and silver is cankered, and the
rust shall eat your flesh as it were fire…We do not intend to leave
this matter for the Lord,” he concluded. “We intend to do something for
ourselves.”

Narrator: They approached the Prairie Avenue mansion of
Marshall Field, whom Parsons had attacked for discriminating against
immigrant women shopping in his store. “Our international movement is
to unite all countries and do away with the robber class,” Samuel
Fielden told the marchers. “Prepare for the inevitable conflict.”They
marched on the Prairie Avenue mansion of George Pullman.

Adelman: George Pullman was absolutely horrified with the
sight of poor people walking up his street and ringing his doorbell.
The next day he went to his attorney, Wert Dexter, and he said, “I want
you to get this guy Parsons.”

Schneirov: They were Catholic, they didn’t speak English, they
spoke German, they drank beer on Sundays, they went to saloons on
Sundays. They were a threat. They were totally alien to this American,
Protestant way of life.

Narrator: They marched on the Board of Trade when it opened an
elaborate new building on LaSalle Street the next year. “The Board of
Thieves”, they bellowed, stood for “starvation of the masses, privileges
and luxury for the few.” One in the crowd yelled, “Blow it up with
dynamite.” To Chicago’s business leaders these were not idle threats.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OKEONAMLFIOS5WI7MPQY6SXBCQ IRMO

“Yeah… if she is so eager to get redistribute her wealth, what’s stopping her from giving it somewhere?”

If this were, say, 1997, I would agree with you. But it’s 2011. Congress wants to lower the deficit. And the Republicans are literally talking about lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor (specifically the 43% of the poor who don’t pay a Federal income tax). What’s more is that the Republican legislatures in Wisconsin and Michigan have already done exactly that. Strange times we live in.
grimc

I wish wingnuts would make up their minds. Either be tough-talkin’ he-man patriots that don’t take no guff; or unjustly bullied innocents that need to be protected lest they be despoiled.
http://twitter.com/geminilove_ca The Mastermind

It used to be, once a long time ago, that being a politician was a service to your country. Now it’s a stepping stone to a higher office, a cushy pension and possibly a book deal. It seems a great many of them have lost that sense of obligation and duty to their constituency, or at least the non-corporate portion of their constituents.

It’s too bad in some ways that we estabilished the idea of corporate personhood. As with many ideas, it was subverted. The intention to be able to enforce contracts and to sue a singular entity for recourse instead of trying to track down particular employees (which, as we know, allows for the BoD shell game to begin), now we have corporations that contribute to political campaigns or through PACs. Is it any wonder that a politician looking for secure his next 4-6 years of sitting on his ass (sorry, taking his appointed position) in DC would choose to curry favor with the PAC that’s $10m strong vs. the neighborhood PAC of families and grannies that managed to scrounge up a few grand?

As for the young woman who joined the protest, sure, she could donate every penny she had to charity. Great idea. She could accomplish a lot with that. Would it be publicized? Possibly, more than likely not. If it were, probably half the people reading it would deem her a “kook” who squandered her inheritence and move on. Sure, she could also overpay her income taxes and refuse any refunds. Again, little to no publicity, and what she gets is a reputation for being a “kook”. Instead, by joining the protest, she may still have a reputation for eccentricity, but now she’s an eccentric people are talking about. She’s placed a very real face on her position. And for all we know, she does make large donations to worthwhile charities, in addition to this. Or she might not. It’s only speculation either way. Still, this is a case where a picture is worth a thousand checks.

Personally, I’m torn on the idea of protesting in the residential areas. On one hand, it makes the protest much harder to ignore. After all, I’m sure some of the intended recipients of the protestors’ ire have more than enough vacation time or ability to work from home that they simply avoid all this messiness by not going to work. It’s a bit harder to avoid the rabble when they’re holding signs up while the doorman is hailing your cab. On the other, then the protest is brought down on the heads of their families. Now, granted, spouses have a certain idea into what situation they married (or I hope so, anyway!) but their kids, even if they are spoiled little brats with uppity names, are still children. They no more asked to be born to Mr. and Mrs. One Percenter than any other child asked for their parents.

I am also concerned that moving into the residential districts will turn what has largely been a peaceful protest into a riot – or at least allow the media to present it as such. It’s harder to sympathize when bricks start flying.
Navin_Johnson

A reporter from NPR was with the march yesterday and was saying that loads of doormen and maintenance workers were giving the marchers cheers and thumbs up.
- Robert Sanderson
  
  And then collecting their check for doing their job. Would it matter if they flipped the crowd the bird? Probably. No door jockey wants to be the Little Dutch boy.
EH

man, it would be nice if maybe there were some posting numbers next to peoples’ names. there seems to be lots of driveby shit-disturbers who would be easier to ignore if we knew that their one post was their first as well.
teemo

Whats the point of descending on the ivory towers of those who’ve benefited from a system the government put in place and allowed to happen? Shouldnt there be marches on congress, the white house, the lobbyists offices? I think the focus is misguided. You’re going to lose a lot of support if you start going after people instead of those actually responsible (e.g. the government). These folks worked the system. Attacking them wont do any good. You’ve got to root it out at the source. How many of you can honestly say you havent exploited a system for your gain simply because it was allowed, even though you knew it was at best suspect? Where’s the commons sense here?
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  How many of you can honestly say you havent exploited a system for your gain simply because it was allowed, even though you knew it was at best suspect?
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
  - teemo
    
    If you’re suggesting that I’m projecting on others because I am ashamed i took more than one candy when the sign said take one, you’re wrong. Thanks for the snark and the link. :)
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      If you’re suggesting that I’m projecting on others because I am ashamed i took more than one candy when the sign said take one, you’re wrong.
      
      No, you’re projecting that behavior onto everybody else. Greedy people, cheaters, liars, etc. always assume that everybody acts exactly like them. It’s not true.
adammtlx

I can get behind correcting injustices in the system. But going to people’s houses, around their families, and trying to scare them or intimidate them because they have more money than you? That’s just insane, and disgusting.

But I guess that’s to be expected in a movement with a theme of military action written right into its name.

Let me know when I can classify it as something other than the Tea Party of the Left.
http://twitter.com/ducchau99 duc chau

The 99% fear for the well being of their families. Nothing will change until the 1% feel the same way.
millie fink

Thank you, that’s a great point, and so well put.
Guest

The 1% fear for the well being of THEIR families too. Especially when their houses are being surrounded.

Stand outside their office and tell them they should care about you, fine, but it doesn’t make it right to stand outside their house and make their family feel threatened.

If you advocate the harassment of individuals and their families as an answer to economic hardship, that is the textbook definition of terrorism. It doesn’t have to be violent, but I fear it will turn that way. The biggest problem I see here is mob mentality. Sooner or later something really ugly is going to happen, probably to someone’s kid.
Robert Sanderson

Terror of physical assault? Really? You may be confusing socio-economic policy with the threat of physical violence. Only the weak minded would feel comfortable with using the threat of bodily harm as a means of making a social or economic policy change. Or haven’t you noticed the war that has raged across the Middle East and Asia for the past decade?
mark

Also, being employed, those executives would be at work rather than at home while these people were outside yelling.