NYPD raze the #OWS library, throw out over 5,000 books

Discuss

158 Responses to “NYPD raze the #OWS library, throw out over 5,000 books”

  1. Crispian says:

    “Will they burn them?”

    Stupid question amounting to “will they perform an action that is more symbolically significant because throwing them in a dumpster isn’t quite that bad somehow?”

  2. thebelgianpanda says:

    Regardless of the movement, I have an intensely negative, viscerally angry reaction to destroying or trashing books.  I know it’s a lot to ask, but if the police are going to confiscate property can’t they at least donate it to charity?  Oh wait, there I go being naive again. 

  3. Chauncey Scott says:

     I don’t know where I fall on the OWS fence. While I hear the true legitimate concerns voiced by the people, I don’t know if in this day and age “sit in protest” is the way to accomplish things. Why empower the police/govn’t? They’ve wanted to clean the park for a month now, distributed pamphlets saying the cleaning was coming. I would’ve been prepared to move. Anything left behind is trash and will be treated as such, by a lowly sanitation worker. I feel like with access to technology that we have in America, there could be a better way to conduct this uprising against the machine.

    • BarBarSeven says:

      You’re right. What has occupying one place have ever done. I mean it’s not like Rosa Parks sat on a bus, Greensboro Four sat at lunch counters and ordered coffee or others have done similar and gotten anything done.

      • Curtrude says:

        Yes, those actions did help push the social goal of allowing all people to be able to do those exact things freely.  The problem with the OWS camp outs is that they are not trying get the right to camp out in a public place freely.  They are trying to end the economic inequalities that currently exist in our society.

        I think that the camp outs did a great job of raising awareness and starting a movement.  In my opinion, the movement has gotten stale and the camps are being used for purposes other than promoting the goals of the OWS. (What specific goals the OWS has, I’m not too sure) .  I think that if the OWS movement wants to affect changes, it needs to evolve and move to a more productive strategy. 

        • BarBarSeven says:

          What is more of an “effective strategy” than keeping these protests alive through the 2012 elections?  Seriously, you folks have no clue how marketing works. Without OWS the 2012 would be a tedious bore that might end up in a Republican take-over. Now OWS has shown the whole country that you can speak out and be heard.

          Also, OWS already has a message but some people are too dense to see it: Prior to OWS the whole discussion in this country was focused on race & religion divisions as the excuse for the crappy economy.  What OWS has effectively done is show this has nothing to do with race or religion: This all has to do with gross economic inequity with race & religion being used as a tool to divide and conquer the working class and erode the middle class.

          It’s the economy, stupid.

          • Curtrude says:

            Well, calling people stupid is a more effective strategy ( sarcasm)

            I didn’t say stop the protest.  I said evolve it.  The 2012 elections are a great time for this movement, but just the occupation of some parks is not enough.  Not when those occupations are being derailed by the misgivings of a few trying to benefit from the occupation rather than participating and promoting in the actual OWS movement.

          • mccrum says:

            History and context of “It’s the economy, stupid”:

            https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

            He’s not calling you stupid, he’s quoting James Carville.

          • Curtrude says:

            Mea Culpa.  

          • BarBarSeven says:

            It has evolved. The initial “Occupy Wall Street” was just a march. The park encampment was an accidental outgrowth of it. Other cities following in their example happened afterwards thanks to social media. And now that they have been kicked out of the main OWS encampment here in NYC it’s not ending.

            It is evolving and it isn’t going away.  Here in NYC the transit workers have a scheduled rally connected to contract negotiations planned for today. They have officially stated that the actions at evicting OWS will now be addressed at their rally.

            This is truly a movement.  And on topic to this post, the NYPD throwing out 500+ books in one of the publishing capitals of the world is not going unnoticed. If anything this eviction is inspiring others to join in and contribute in any way they can. Now don’t be shocked to hear about donation boxes for books popping up at bookstores.

            The folks on the ground at “Occupy” protests are the leading edge of this outrage. There are more and more people who support them who are now stepping up to the plate.

          • Curtrude says:

            I know that it has evolved, I am saying that it needs to keep evolving.  And after thinking about it, I don’t think that the occupations necessarily need to end, they need to address the issues that are hurting the OWS cause.  The issues of crime and sanitation are some.  I know that some efforts are made on that front already, but I think more needs to be done.  Also, there is the issue of the OWS occupation being hijack by other movements, ie legalization of marijuana.  Those issue also need to be addressed.

      • Chauncey Scott says:

        Jake, Rosa parks didn’t have the internet, is my point. Like I said, I don’t know where I fall on this. And as I said, I’m not sure, if a sit in, is the best course of action NOW. Not 60yrs ago….What has been accomplished thus far, by the OWS movement? What sweeping changes shall I expect? College loans forgiven? Nope. New glamorous jobs? Nope. I think it’s exceedingly naive to compare the civil rights movement, to this. What’s the common goal with OWS? What needs to be accomplished? The end of Capitalism? Help me out here..

        • Daniel says:

          Go to a GA and make a suggestion.  They’re open to the public.  It’s completely democratic.  If there’s something you don’t like, complain.  If there’s something you don’t understand, ask.

        • BarBarSeven says:

          Jake, Rosa parks didn’t have the internet, is my point.

          And OWS does have the Internet, has effectively used it and has mobilized disparate people across all races, religions & economic groups across the U.S. And the point you are making is what exactly?

          Please go to sleep already.

          • Chauncey Scott says:

            My point is, mobilizing people within their communities is probably more useful, that occupying a public place, that people utilized for lunch and fresh air to get away from their jobs. In the grand scheme of things, are the 100,000 are so people associated w/ movements across the country making a difference. Mainstream media ignores them, unless there is something that they can sensationalize, or there is a rape or drug deal. I feel all the time and energy spent would be better served by donating time and resources to the less fortunate. Developing a legitimate political party, grooming candidates and things of that nature. (I know it’s only a few months, but I never hear those things/feelings) Not impeding people who have to get to work, draining the resources of the US’s largest cities, by spending countless hours on overtime for police who are the 99%. That’s my point. And there is no need to be snarky behind the wall of the internet, just because you disagree.

          • Guest says:

            When you’re in charge of them, you can decide that.

            You’re in charge of YOU. What are YOU going to do?  Armchair quarterback, or get out there?

          • Chauncey Scott says:

            All I did, was share an opinion, but somehow that’s wrong, Officer.

          • travtastic says:

            I feel all the time and energy spent would be better served by donating time and resources to the less fortunate.

            Makes you wonder why most of them are less fortunate, no?

            But really, are you telling Occupy to stop being a social justice movement, so that they can help people?

          • Chauncey Scott says:

            The problem, in my opinion, is the ideal, that every American is one step away from being a millionaire. We can trace back the issues, but really the economic turn down reaches to the sub-prime mortgages. Realistically, if you make 45K a year, you shouldn’t A) be approved for a mortgage on a 350K house. B) think that the math makes sense. C) be arrogant enough to think, that you are just one promotion away from being the boss. It’s not Capitalisms’ fault, that your degree in Japanese Art History, isn’t landing you the level of work, your self-inflated image thinks you deserve. I know the current system is garbage. But I also know, standing occupying public places without a unified message isn’t going to result in much. When I watch the GOP debates, the proctor doesn’t ask, well how about OWS? I feel all the energy and vigor being extolled would just be better served, as a political movement. The people in power aren’t going to say tomorrow, everything that makes us who we are is wrong and needs to change. It’s just not how it works. We as Americans aren’t oppressed, in the way the countries of the “Arab Spring” are. So there isn’t going to be this groundswell governmental overthrow. I’m all for the right to protest. But do it smart. Use websites. Twitter, Facebook, create some new networks. Don’t sit in a park, in what is essentially a 2 month long festival, without a voice. Like I said previously the only attention the media gives OWS is negative/spin. I’m sure there are brilliant people at Zucotti park, in Oakland, Portland etc. The goal shouldn’t be, to get beaten by cops to cause change. That is the silliest thing ever. The goal should be an overhaul in policy over the next 30 yrs, via our(18-40) generation. I think it could be best accomplished, thru uplifting each other and gaining a voice, but it takes time. 2 months is but a drop in the bucket of America, we all need to realize that. It’s about to get very cold out thru most of our Nation. This will lose steam if not nurtured correctly.

            trav – not directed at you, just got rolling. best wishes.

    • greebo says:

      @Chauncey Scott: Thank you for your instructive critique of OWS, and especially thanks for providing an extensive list of alternative, more effective ways of bringing about social change. Given the length of your list, it will take us some time to explore these alternatives and get them organized.

      • Chauncey Scott says:

         Like I replied to JakeGould, I don’t know if this is worth anything more, than a blip on wikipedia. There are people who are very invested in the movement. I’m not one of them, I’m sure I could think of 50 ways to do it differently. Would it work, who knows. I just think, that if each step of the way, the protesters took the high road, the message may be stronger. But than again, what is the message? We all know the system is screwed up. Walk down any street in NYC and someone asks you for money, or a moment of your time, yet we send billions overseas to protect strategic interests.

    • jacobian says:

      Perhaps you could give a constructive alternative.  People have been looking for better ways to conduct an uprising against the machine and lots of people are waiting to hear of a better solution.  In the meantime the best thing we’ve got going appears to be the occupation movement.

      In periods of high unemployment unions find it difficult to find traction.  I think that militates against a strong syndicalist resistance movement.  My best guess is that since corporations have been given free reign, we need to somehow make use of that fact to create corporations that are democratic and people orientated with an eye perhaps to federating democratic corporations to bring to life the vision of the “federation of cooperatives of producers”.  That’s a long term prospect however.  In the mean time it’s good that someone is giving a voice to the fact that things are way out of whack.

      • Curtrude says:

        I am not really an OWS supporter, but I think I am sympathetic to some of the ideals that I think the OWS movement stands for.  My thoughts for a more constructive protest…end the occupations, they have lost there usefulness (IMHO) and are becoming used more and more for purposes other than what was initially intending.  Start fund raising for a political solution.  We need to elect people that are going to promote and pass the legislation that supports the OWS movement.  The tea party did it, why aren’t OWSers?

        • mattlove1 says:

          It’s much easier to get a tea party candidate into office, since tea party goals are quite mainstream in this sorry, debt-ridden, hateful, delusional country of ours. Occupy Wall Street is starting from scratch, there are no progressive instututions in this country. It takes time to build. I believe they are having General Assembly meetings every day – seems like a good place to start.

          • Curtrude says:

            “I believe they are having General Assembly meetings every day – seems like a good place to start”

            You’re right, that is a good place to start, but it needs to evolve faster than it has to not be ended by the misgivings of the few that are ruining the purpose of the occupation.

            Also, economic equality is a pretty mainstream idea as well, the mainstream just doesn’t know what policies and what people to back to make it a reality. 

            My real feeling is that most people don’t want to put the effort into the voting process and really educate themselves about who is running and what the effects of their policies really are.

        • johnson_lee says:

          The Tea Party leaders/founders were already political insiders/hugely monied people. It was already their game.

          • Curtrude says:

            True, that is why they can afford to do it with less people.  Each person has more money to give to the cause.  If OWS is as widespread as they would like, more people giving less money each can still do just as much.  More people would be better anyhow, same amount of money plus more votes when the times comes.

      • johnson_lee says:

        (I’ll copy/paste a response from earlier) Occupy Boston with russell Simmons today unleashed an Amendment that we should all back concerning elections funded publicly. An awesome first step and the real goal of the winter: Amendments/Bills, legal cases against cops/precincts, recalling elected officials and BOYCOTTS!!!

    • [/cheese] says:

      As these officials mess up and end up pepper spraying and beating people on YouTube, the cause gets bigger because people who didn’t care before, will care once civil liberties break down. It’s called propagandizing. Anonymous is the trump card to then post all info about the guilty party(ies) family and life, forcing accountability. Accountability isn’t something public officials are used to having. I think this is a very effective method of protest.

      • Chauncey Scott says:

         But what is the goal of the protest? Blow up Captialism and turn into ancient Greece?  OWS needs a way to affect policy moving forward. A few thousand people in a nation of 300 million isn’t really going to accomplish that. I’ve watched plenty of police brutality in my life, way before OWS, and youtube, twitter etc. But that shouldn’t be the spark that causes people to say hey that isn’t right. The intent of OWS is genuine, but the people in power aren’t going to say here, you come get my Senator swag, first class flights, 6 week recesses. OWS needs to be a defined goal(s) and push that agenda. Has OWS raised a million dollars yet? Because the sexaholic Herman Cain, raised about 6 last week.

        • [/cheese] says:

          The brilliant thing about revolution is that it leads places that no one can predict. This movement doesn’t need a purpose yet, it just needs more mishaps by police, gov’t officials, etc to fuel fire and gain more people. Once it becomes apparent that current government can’t do their jobs based on how they handle these situations, people will have to notice, and change will occur. Wait for one of these rookie cops to beat someone badly and watch as the whole prerogative changes. That’s why they’re occupying everywhere. All it takes is one cop in Arkansas to lose it and the fire is fanned for the whole world. The other part of the puzzle is that some common citizens know more about computers than any member of the government and can use that against them. It’s rare in history that people have so much power over communication. This could end up interesting. I also have heard that the books are safe and can be picked up tomorrow, so it’s a moot point now anyways :P

      • Chauncey Scott says:

        Really? The goal of OWS is to get pepper sprayed, so your message with then gain validity?

    • Mandy Poirier-Kratz says:

      the problem with this statement  “I don’t know if in this day and age “sit in protest” is the way to accomplish things” is that the people are resorting to this because other means are not working and they are not listening and the rest are complacent about it. Technology is great but it is also either too far easy to ignore or garner the same sort of negative response (and ignore after the fact). Sometimes people just have to show they are angry and go out and be seen to make their point. People will try to turn us against them, but that alerts me further to there being a big problem that needs to be publicly questioned and addressed. 

    • Guest says:

      I feel like with access to technology that we have in America, there could be a better way to conduct this uprising against the machine.

      So do that, and the OWS folks will OWS, and then we’re all busy moving forward and not forming a circular firing squad.

    • gregbarris says:

      like what? what are you doing? what are your ideas? it’s easy to say ‘there could have been a better way” but why dont you name that way? what is more effective? this is at least affecting the world, literally. so what is your idea here?

  4. awjt says:

    “Hey, guys, help me carry these books.”  (?)

  5. Justin Sabe says:

    I think that politicians have been cold to OWS because they don’t see how it gets them votes. It is becoming pretty clear that this is how they can loose votes though.

    • Phil Fot says:

      Or gain them some votes from the rooftops…

    • Guest says:

      You’ve summed it up perfectly. I think that’s the point. I think that’s exactly why people have been demanding their list of demands… without knowing exactly what they want, how could it be denied them in a showy way that might earn someone votes?

      Much better this way where these encampments are giant bags of flaming dog poo that politicians are forced to stomp out over and over and over.

    • Sean Su says:

      “Lose”, not “Loose”. The votes are not physically precarious from falling apart, instead they are in danger of being lost.

  6. nikkos says:

    Can someone explain what the purpose of this library is and how it fits into the overall OWS goals? I will be blunt that it comes off to me as kind of cutesy in that it seems disconnected from the goal of addressing wealth inequality in the U.S.

    • Neal Starkey says:

      I would just assume that a lot of the books are about that very subject and could be used by the protesters to refine their message, objectives, etc. Does not seem that odd or cutesy to me, but hey, I am a librarian. See also http://radicalreference.info/ who have quite a bit of history with protest movements in general.

    • Douglass says:

      I think that making OWS a more tolerable experience would help convince people to stay, so although it wasn’t directly relevant in terms of the mechanics of keeping it going it was certainly valuable.

      • Guest says:

        How about Wall Street business practices? How about we all agree to put our personal comfort aside and work on that instead?

    • pleasenocalls says:

      It’s about helping people educate themselves, it provides a space for occupiers and passerbys (sp?) to learn about the history of America, capitalism, social movements, and everything else.  It also can simply provide a little entertainment for people who stay in the park full time and could use a little distraction every now and then which is a vital function as far as I”m concerned for maintaing the movement.  And FWIW it allows ppl w/o NYC/NYS residency access to a library.

      I think these types of thinks go beyond being cutesy and help maintain social movement cohesion and through the work of proactive and competent librarians help with consciousness raising generally.

    • muffler says:

      Are you really serious?  So people don’t need books to help pass the time or use as reference.  One might be more outraged at the idea that you government can come in and confiscate books, tents and generators without a care to personal property or 1st amendment rights.  Not only are they confiscating, but they are destroying the tools of the protest – illegally – in order to hamper it.  That is what you might wish to reflect over.

    • Daniel says:

      Libraries = free education for anyone.  D’uh.

    • Tape Operator says:

      It’s something for people who are Occupying the area to do. Some people have been living for weeks on end in the park and spending some of their time actively protesting or sharing information, the rest of the time is theirs, some do things with it like getting books and reading them.

    • [/cheese] says:

      Because most of these people are probably poorly read when it comes to protests and their basic rights as people. It’s not often in America that a large group that normally wouldn’t toe the line of their Civil Liberties goes this far. That’s my guess. Judging by the little news coverage I’ve seen, it looks like reporters interview the people with the least amount of brain cells to teeth ratio to make the whole movement look stupid.

    • J.D says:

      Perhaps the reason OWS has books is the exact opposite of why the Nazis burned books.   An educated populace is a threat.  BTW, my kid works in the area and sometimes stops by and exchanges books at this place.   Well, used to anyway.   I don’t see how having a communal book area is any sort of threat.  I am actually quite outraged at this.  If nothing else, these books could have been donated.  Destroying books is always a sign of a totalitarian government.

    • Guest says:

      Well, they might have books about wealth inequality in the US? And the minutes from the GA, too, That would be a start, wouldn’t it? Oh, that’s what WAS there? Yeah.

    • Gillian Doan says:

      Public libraries are one of the great equality makers.  They offer the world of knowledge, literacy, the arts, history, etc… to all.  Access to public libraries is known to increase literacy, decrease crime, increase health, increase community involvement – there are a slew of statistics – Google “public library benefits”.  Unfortunately, public libraries are on the decrease worldwide.  Even more unfortunately, they are becoming a resource that is limited to the “haves” – with “have-nots” increasingly finding access to these resources difficult, if not impossible to obtain (proof of fixed address often being a requirement for borrowing privileges).  
      This library was anything but cutesy, it was truly fundamental not only to the OWS goals, but the occupancy itself, just as public libraries are generally fundamental to a functioning democracy and community.

    • Clara says:

      Are you kidding?  The brain works in a different way in the act of reading printed material versus watching media on TV or reading media embedded with hyperlinks.  My parents often have no clue of what is happening in the world because their local TV news outfit covers only sensationalist local crime, oversimplified and brief statements on national events, and then 15 minutes of sports, weather, and something cute the local kindergartners did that day. 
      Most forms of media keep us uneducated, unfocused and just looking for the next hit/click/channel. It encourages us to not spend too much time thinking about one thing, and if we can’t focus, we can’t solve issues. Like I said, my parents are often grossly underinformed about the world around them, and left feeling powerless and afraid due to the things the news does cover. Books are the first step to the gaining knowledge and skills needed to think critically enough to be able to change the world. 

    • wrecksdart says:

      Good question, nikkos.  Here’s my attempt at an answer:  The purpose of the public library is an answer to Thomas Jefferson’s thought that America needs to, “…educate and inform the whole mass of the people…They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty…”  What better way to address the inequality of wealth than by a judicious selection of reading material that will lay bare the facts at hand without posturing or censorship?  Or, to turn the thing on its head, what better way to control the populace than by controlling the sources of information that are publicly available?  Libraries need to be where the people are so that the information they procure can be freely and readily accessible by those same people.  The internet is wonderful, yes, but it’s not available to everyone, nor does it make all information sources freely available.  You may find this library to be cutesy, but most librarians take their jobs very seriously, and I think this library is just another way to connect and inform the populace at large.

  7. peter says:

    Not all is as it seems.  From the press conference:

    “…tents, sleeping bags and other things in the park have been removed by Brookfield and the Sanitation Department to storage facility on 57th and the West Side Highway. They say that if you go and describe what you are missing, with ID, they will sort through it (assuming people don’t all claim the same things) let you take them back in the next few days.”
    - http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/bloomberg_ows_eviction_decision_was.php

    These books may be saved yet.

  8. MrJM says:

    “Books cannot be killed by fire. People die, but books never die. No man and no force can put thought in a concentration camp forever. No man and no force can take from the world the books that embody man’s eternal fight against tyranny.  In this war, we know, books are weapons.”
    – Franklin D. Roosevelt, http://ow.ly/i/lkxT

  9. JoelEdwards says:

    Oh noooeeesss!! They deleted all my ePubs! Those bastards! You can have my iPhone, but will never take my iCloud!!

  10. OWS says:

    So the police doesn’t respect property anymore?

    • As much as the protesters respect the property-rights of the park owner I guess. :-)

      When you just “hang out” in a park, that’s one thing. When you convert it to a residence, you’re completely disrespecting the property rights of the park owner AND other members of the public who might also like to enjoy the park.

      • G. Danken says:

        I don’t know. Pretty much every tree and piece of soil seems to be private property nowadays. Especially in cities. What exactly belongs to the public still? Where exactly are they supposed to stay and to voice their opinion?
        Also, it’s not like they tried to keep others away from the park . As far as I can judge, they only added value for other people who wish to spend time in that park. I don’t  think that’s disrespectful.

      • Daniel says:

        On the other hand, how does camping in the park pick Brookfield’s pocket in the least?  It’s a park, Brookfield isn’t trying to get tenants for the property or anything (actually, they’re trying to find tenants for their buildings, I suspect they’re in a little bit of trouble financially these days).  It’s a real estate company so it doesn’t need its own place to picnic or relax.  They’re not allowed to develop the property.  So what’s really the problem?  How is Brookfield Properties, LLC put out in the least by the protest?

        • They, like anyone have the right to go out and enjoy the park. They can’t enjoy it if you’ve turned it into your home, complete with library, kitchen, and auditorium.

          • Daniel says:

            Weren’t you the one just pointing out the huge amount of public park space in NYC? 

            And why can’t they enjoy it with people camping there? I would think it would be even more enjoyable with a library, a kitchen, and an auditorium.  In fact, now I kind of want to go see what kind of amenities are available at Occupy Boston.

            Also, who exactly is “they” in your response? Brookfield Properties, LLC? Once again, that is a real estate company, not a human being. It does not take picnics or walks in the park.

          • G. Danken says:

            I’m beginning to think that my idea of “enjoyment” differs greatly from yours.

          • Guest says:

            incorrect. You may access that park too, at any time, and you will be welcomed. 

        • johnson_lee says:

          POPS – privately owned PUBLIC SPACE

      • muffler says:

        For people who do not live in NYC you might want to think the developer “owns” the park, but they really don’t.  In NYC there are zoning and building rules which cover height, use etc. on specific plot sizes.  The rules are designed to keep the city livable and accessible.  Sun light, sizing and design are part of the formula which makes NY …well NY.  It is common for developers to negotiate with the City (The People) to exceed certain rules in exchange for providing public spaces.  It’s a business deal which allows the developer to maximize the value of the property through an exchange with the people who live here.  In many cases the developer wishes to go higher (air rights).  More floors… more space to rent or sell.  So the developers made a deal to provide the public space… they do not really own it… they have offered it in a deal.   It is Public space – period!

        • “It is Public space – period!”

          I love how “you saying so” must “make it so”. It is not ‘public space. period,’ it is private space with public access rights. Tomorrow, the company that owns the space could tear down their building back to within the normal zoning rules, and pave over that park and there wouldn’t be much you or I could do about it. The private owner still maintains it, landscapes it, keeps it clean, and is responsible (probably via insurance) for the goings-on in that park.

          It’s still “private property”, but there’s been concessions made to allow public access on that private property.

          • muffler says:

            Derek… 1) I am so glad that you know all the particulars of the agreement between the City of NY and the developer.  Just because you say that the space reverts to the developer after the tear down their building doesn’t “make it so”.  2) Going along with your contractual clairvoyance I venture to offer the developer the option to tear down his property today and arrest the OWS as trespassers or alternatively  just live with the agreement and stop pretending to be put out by the protest. 

          • You’ll note that I said “theoretically”. We do know why it’s a park (when U.S. Steel wanted a height restriction removed from their new construction). It doesn’t “revert to the developer”. It still is the developer’s property. Nobody seems to be disputing that except the Boing Boing crowd.  They are required to maintain it, they are required to allow public access on it, and (I speculate) they are probably legally responsible for carrying liability insurance on it, since it’s NOT publicly owned park-space.

            The developer doesn’t have to be “put out” directly. The people of the City of New York are “put out” by the OWS folks claiming exclusivity over portions of the park without the legal right to do so. You have the right to be there, but there’s no legal right to erect shelters, structures, etc., on even PUBLIC land, let alone private. And the developer can easily make the case (and they are) that the OWS folks are interfering with the developer’s legal responsibility to allow ALL folks to have access to the park. If any one group of people could just build structures and claim exclusive rights, US Steel would have been able to do that back in 1968 and just said “oh, yeah, we’re using it right now, go find some other park.”

          • muffler says:

            Derek – you do use quite a few words of assumption in your arguments.  I used to work in OLP (as the building was known) for Merill Lynch back in the 80′s and I know all about One Liberty Plaza.   Now on to the general points.  I do believe that the people of Selma were “put out” during the civil rights movement too.  Liberty and freedom is not clean like an ABC Family Thanksgiving special.  The idea that the OWS is “interfering” with the developers responsibility would hold some water if the city of new york was fining them for breach… not happening is it?  No what you don’t like is a protest you do not agree with…  I would wager that if they were on “actual” public property (central park) you would have some other objection unrelated to actually debating the meaning cause of the protest. 

            I know plenty of people in there early 60s who bore the brunt of the economic failure through devastation on their 401K and stock holding s after a career working for Merrill Lynch and other firms like Lehman. All due to deregulation, irresponsibilty and unaccountable profiteering created in the last 15 years by Congress.   

          • Guest says:

             They have been concessions made in BOTH DIRECTIONS, but why does it not surprise me to hear you saying we still owe them one?

          • johnson_lee says:

            Hahahahahaha, yeah, they will tear down part of their money making business to pave the park. Good one. Public access is in the Constitution?

        • johnson_lee says:

          Fucking finally someone spells it out. copy and paste please.

      • [/cheese] says:

        The park owner that received $700,000 USD in taxpayer/ Gov’t handout money over the past few years? No, I can’t say that ANYONE with OWS cares about them.

      • Guest says:

        As much as the protesters respect the property-rights of the park owner I guess.

        Oh, do you mean the property rights by which they give access to the city and residents in exchange for tax breaks on the property?

      • johnson_lee says:

        POPS-Privately Owned Public Space has it’s own set of rules. Do you know those rules? And, yeah, the casual visiter is more important and noticed by The Constitution than Peaceful Protesters. Sarcasm.

  11. lknope says:

    “Will they burn them?” is a rhetorical question amounting to “they may as well burn them as a symbolic statement because throwing them in a dumpster is just as bad.”

    Taking the question literally doesn’t make the people asking it stupid.

  12. Eric says:

    Why weren’t the books temporarily removed? It seems the librarians were trying to make a point by sacrificing the books. Makes me question how sincere their outrage truly is.

    • greebo says:

      @boingboing-49856ed476ad01fcff881d57e161d73f:disqus : For that matter why didn’t they just temporarily remove all the tents, and protest signs, and everything, and then put it all back after the police have cleared the park. Of course, then it wouldn’t be an occupation, would it? Sheesh! So many useful suggestions from the peanut gallery today.

      • Eric says:

        Why do they need tents and tarps to occupy the space?

        • [/cheese] says:

          Really? If you’re going to be staying outdoors in NYC from Sept- whenever, you’re probably going to need some sort of shelter. If you don’t and you go home every night, it’s not called occupying.

          Let them continue tormenting the protestors. The fire is fueled by these officials attempting to maintain order. The whole point is their “order” caused this in the first place.

          • Most municipalities recognize that setting up shelter on public property is, essentially, converting that public property to private by creating a zone of exclusivity carved out of a public resource. I have to imagine New York City has similar laws on the books.

          • [/cheese] says:

            I’m sure you’re right, the point is that it’s not like a huge group of homeless people just moved in. It’s a protest and I think certain laws should be lax when a peaceful protest is taking place, IMO.

        • Guest says:

          for burying the bodies of the babies they’ve eaten, clearly. Duh Eric. 

    • ChurchTucker says:

       It seems the librarians were trying to make a point by sacrificing the books.

      Blame the victims much?

    • [/cheese] says:

      The protestors (most) didn’t get to sleep for the past day of what I understand. 5,000 books is more than just “hey, can you give me a hand while I try to move 5,000 books in Manhattan on foot?”

    • Guest says:

       Uh, because the librarians were evicted and their stuff taken from them in a public park. Normally this is called a mugging. 

    • Sean Su says:

      And the NYPD bit the bait. Sure it’s political game play, but they were dumb enough to fall for it. The police are supposed to restore order. Books have only been dangerous to those in power.

  13. Ceronomus says:

    There is a special place in hell for people who destroy books.

    • DMStone says:

      “There is a special place in hell for people who destroy books.”

      Well, that is going to be a lot of people… Everyone who works with books professionally (publishers, booksellers, librarians, and so forth) “destroy” books on a regular basis and are well aware that there is a significant difference between last-years bestselling thriller and something like the Codex Leicester, even though they both are “books.”

  14. Crashproof says:

    OWS was an important thing to do.  It actually brought people together, online and offline, and got attention like a thousand Krugman editorials and infographics passed around Facebook did not.

    The question is, is there a next step or is attempted continued occupation the way to go?  It still doesn’t seem to have the impact of, say, Tahrir Square.  Maybe because the Egyptian people had “get Mubarak out” as their goal, while OWS — not to play into the whole media/conservative line that they have no message — has a “fuck this shit, we want change” message.  Maybe if the message turns into a specific set of reforms that the people demand — like Ratigan’s Get Money Out campaign for instance — it can have a better chance of success.

    • johnson_lee says:

      Occupy Boston with russell Simmons today unleashed an Amendment that we should all back concerning elections funded publicly. An awesome first step and the real goal of the winter: Amendments/Bills, legal cases against cops/precincts, recalling elected officials and BOYCOTTS!!!

  15. Phoc Yu says:

    Is that a Torah in the middle of the table, holding up the tent?

  16. DMStone says:

    I would like to listen in on the proposed telephone conversation:

    (Ring Ring)

    MB: “Mayor’s office, Bloomberg speaking…”

    #OWS: “Why are you throwing the 5,554 books from our library into a dumpster.”

    MB: “They were left under a tarp in a public park overnight.”

    #OWS: “…”

  17. Perizade says:

    As far as “other people enjoying the park” let me tell you this: Rosa Parks made people late for work. The resulting bus boycott resulted in layoffs of poorly paid staff members. Must have sucked big time but it was worth it for peaceful change. If that means some folks can’t enjoy the foliage, that’s a small price to pay.

  18. Finnagain says:

    Boy, a lot of “concern” here this morning. Well here’s hoping they come back, immediately.

  19. Perizade says:

    As for this being a “cutesy” gimmick, I am a school library media specialist, and thus the queen of cutesy gimmicks. I can see how people might think that. I still say it’s an awesome gesture. I wish this volunteer had had some sort of book mobile to safely transport the books. To be fair to the cops and sanitation workers, though: what are they supposed to do in their given time frame? I would like it if they donated the books or returned them to brick and mortar libraries, but it’s vital they clean the park quickly so OWS can return. I don’t think the park should be cleaned at all, but since they have to, I want them to do it fast.

  20. querent says:

    OWS is inspiring.  I almost can’t believe I’m seeing that the American people do, in fact, have a limit.  May you live in interesting times.

    I got a paycheck coming up.  How can I help out?

  21. Finnagain says:

    We are a nation of laws, right?

    At 6:30AM this morning, following a midnight police raid evicting protesters from Zuccotti Park, Justice Lucy Billings issued an order requiring the protesters to be readmitted to Zuccotti Park with their tents. ThinkProgress just spoke to one of the plantiff’s attorney’s, Gideon Orion Oliver, who confirmed that the order was served on Mayor Bloomberg and the other defendants via fax at 7:50AM. During his 8AM press conference, Mayor Bloomberg seemed to acknowledge he was familar with the temporary restraining order, but claimed that he had not been served and was keeping the park closed. As of this writing, Zuccotti Park remains closed to protesters in direct contradiction of Justice Billing’s order.

    • Lorili says:

      We are not a nation of laws anymore.  The president can order people murdered without any due process, start and wage illegal wars,  the government violates Americans Constitutional rights everyday, huge amounts of money are transferred from the taxpayers to unknown wealthy elites without any oversight, and it goes on and on.

      Welcome to the rule of men just like in the old days when the king and the king’s men could do whatever they pleased.

  22. D S says:

    Regardless of where you stand on the decision to confiscate the books, the action and image of police taking and destroying books is damning.

  23. thebelgianpanda says:

    I don’t know how I feel about the actual ‘implementation’ of OWS, but doesn’t a protest by definition *have* to be inconvenient?  I really don’t think this has anything to do with ‘enjoying the park’.

  24. tylerkaraszewski says:

    I’m trying to place this article in context of a protest that actually worked — for instance, the recent one in Egypt. It seems like something that would have been left unreported because of its insignificance. If this is the biggest thing going on at OWS, then it seems unlikely the protest is going to accomplish anything.

  25. Curtrude says:

    Here is a snippet from the actual notice.  It sounds as though this story is more for the sensationalism than actual mishandling of property.  You want the books, go pick them up.

    ‘If you fail to immediately remove your property, we will do so and transport it to the Department of Sanitation parking garage at 650 West 57th street, where you will be able to recover it as of noon today, with proper identification.’

  26. sue lawson says:

    You can see the library’s collection on LibraryThing http://www.librarything.com/catalog/OWSLibrary/yourlibrary

  27. Daniel says:

    I love how “you saying so” must “make it so”. It is not ‘public space. period,’ it is private space with public access rights. Tomorrow, the company that owns the space could tear down their building back to within the normal zoning rules, and pave over that park and there wouldn’t be much you or I could do about it. The private owner still maintains it, landscapes it, keeps it clean, and is responsible (probably via insurance) for the goings-on in that park.

    No, Brookfield does not have legal rights to pave over it.  Otherwise they most likely would have since parking lots in city downtowns are cash cows and public parks are not.  As you say, they maintain it, landscape it, and keep it clean.  I suspect that Brookfield isn’t liable for most actions that happen in the park, if two guys have a fistfight in the park the loser can’t sue Brookfield just because they didn’t have a security guard present.

    Because they shouldn’t have to go up to Central Park just because you’ve (the royal you, not necessarily you specifically) decided you want to plop down a couple hundred tents and “reserve” space for yourself outside of the space you actually physically occupy with your person.

    This is silly.  There’s plenty of park space in NYC — as you argued yourself.  Furthermore, who are you even talking about when you say “they” (as I already asked you)?  I get the impression that most of the people in NYC support occupy.  Who is it you’re trying to “protect” exactly?

    • Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I said that they could do that theoretically IF they undid the things which required the concession to allow public access in the first place (bringing their main building back into compliance with non-varianced zoning rules for instance).

      I’ve seen articles specifically referring to Brookfield having liability concerns about the encampment, so my guess is that it’s not quite as clear-cut as you would like it to be on that front.

      You get the impression that most of the people in NYC support occupy?! holy crap, man. Can you like, cite a source for that nonsense? Lots of New Yorkers work in that area and are furious about it.

      And, *even if* the majority supported it, you still have to protect the minority who don’t. People, residents of New York City, THEY have the right to use that park, and not to be told “no, man, that’s where my tent is, you can’t go there,” or “stay out of our kitchen”. “Go use that other park over there” wasn’t a valid defense when segregationists used it, and it isn’t valid for the OWS folks.

      • Daniel says:

        Again, who is it you’re trying to protect exactly?  Why is it so important to you to make sure this park space is clear of protesters when there is, as you yourself noted, a surfeit of park space in NYC?  Is it REALLY the park you’re worried about?  I’m getting the sense that you just hate the protest and you’re looking very any possible excuse to denigrate it.

        Please don’t bash my reading comprehension if you can’t even answer simple questions.

        You get the impression that most of the people in NYC support occupy?! holy crap, man. Can you like, cite a source for that nonsense? Lots of New Yorkers work in that area and are furious about it.

        Note the phrasing.  “I get the impression.”  I don’t need to source my own impressions.  In fact, such a thing would be impossible because I am the only one who can read my mind.  If you have a citation to disabuse me of this impression go ahead and cite it.  “Lots of New Yorkers work in that area and are furious about it,” on the other hand, is (unlike my statement) one of fact.  You should have provided a citation for THAT, right?

        “Go use that other park over there” wasn’t a valid defense when segregationists used it, and it isn’t valid for the OWS folks.

        This comparison is utterly silly.  How are the OWS protesters the least bit like good-old-boy segregationists?  They certainly don’t seem to be in cahoots with the police force.  They’re not making the 1% use separate bathrooms and water fountains.  They’re obviously more comparable to civil rights protesters who also violated property rights. 

      • johnson_lee says:

        So if I’m at a park – imagining I’m in a tent, but not protesting – and someone wants to use the space I’m using, do I have to get up and give that space to them? or should they mind their business and find their own space?

    • johnson_lee says:

      Smart

  28. Daniel says:

    I’ve been answering your questions, you just don’t like the answers.

    How I feel about your answers is irrelevant to the fact that you’ve ignored more than one of my questions entirely.  Get off yr high horse please.

    What is so important to you about this park that people can’t use it for a protest?  People use other public spaces for protests and it sometimes inconveniences me.  Would you suggest somewhere else for them to meet or is it that you just don’t like the protesters and want them to go away?  Just be honest.

    As to the segregationist point, YOUR argument was “go use those other parks”, implying somehow that the OWS had some right to claim exclusive use of portions of Zuccotti, even though non-OWS folks have equal rights to use Zuccotti. When you tell someone who has the right that they can’t exercise their right HERE, but to go use that other separate and equal park over there, the parallel is fairly easy to see if you’re not blinded by idealizing the occupiers.

    The protesters aren’t saying that though.  I’m saying that because that’s what YOU said (Why can’t the protesters go use that park over there, i.e. central park.  Of course, then you’d be complaining about the protesters in central park.)  I suspect OWS is perfectly willing to let anyone who wants to come hang out in the park come hang out.  That’s kind of the idea.  I understand the comparison you’re trying to make but it’s still silly.

    What is so freaking important about Zucotti park that you can’t even compromise with the thousands of people taking part in OWS and supporting it? Why is it absolutely vital that anyone who wants to use the park in the middle of frickin’ November shouldn’t have to deal with a slight inconvenience? I get a strong feeling you’re being more than a bit disingenuous about your motives.

    • What is so important to you about this park that people can’t use it for a protest?

      You can use it for a protest. You can’t use it as a residence by living there. I have absolutely no problem with people “petitioning their government for change”. But you’re not petitioning anyone while you’re sleeping. 

      I suspect OWS is perfectly willing to let anyone who wants to come hang out in the park come hang out.  That’s kind of the idea.  I understand the comparison you’re trying to make but it’s still silly.

      I’m not sure you actually understand what I’m saying. But I’d be curious to see how the OWS folks would respond to some scenarios…

      - You’ve set up a small pup-tent to live in. I crawl into your pup-tent next to you (NOT touching you in any way) while you’re trying to sleep and start listening to Glenn Beck [ObDisclaimer: I'd never listen to Beck, I just know an OWSer would not appreciate it] on my radio. 
      - Even more intrusive, I choose to visit that couple of square feet next to you in the tent while you’re changing. Or where a member of the opposite sex is changing. 
      - A bunch of wall-street suits show up and all all just collectively gather in the kitchen in a bunch around the stoves, not allowing anyone to get to them. Not pushing anyone out of the way, just standing in a space where nobody was standing, and making sure that OWSers couldn’t get to this other ‘space’ they’ve claimed as their own outside of the space they personally occupy.

      I’m speculating, but I have to imagine those wouldn’t go over so well. They’re creating zones of exclusivity where they will want to claim exclusive rights (I’d imagine they’d try to tell me I can’t go in their tent for instance, and I’m certain I’d get attacked if I went in there while someone was changing), but you can’t do that, outside of your own personally occupied space, in a public area outside of some rules explicitly permitting it (rules regarding camping being allowed for instance).

      • Daniel says:

        1. Residence is part of the protest.  It’s not legal, but neither were lunch counter sit ins or civil rights marches.
        2. How are the scenarios you laid out any different from me:
        -going to a public park and standing directly between two people playing frisbee
        -going to a public park, sitting on someone else’s picnic blanket, and eating some of their food
        Note that the frisbee players and picnicers are taking up much more of the park than their physical bodies need to for a longer amount of time than is totally necessary.  Maybe I’m frustrated by how long the game of frisbee is going on.  And it’s certainly not illegal for me to go stand between the players.  But I’d still be an asshole, right?

        You’re free to think the protesters are assholes for making the part inconvenient to use in mid-November.  I’m a little curious how many people you think they’re inconveniencing doing so and by how much.  Is the park usually swarming with people having picnics and playing on the grass in mid-November?  Are you REALLY just looking out for all the people clamoring to use the park?  That’s why I’m having trouble understanding your perspective, because this doesn’t really seem to be a big inconvenience.  At least, I certainly don’t see how it is.  This makes me feel you’re being less than honest about why you object so strongly.

        • But I’d still be an asshole, right?

          I think there’d be equal shares of asshole to go around there. If you’re “consuming” huge tracts of land in a park with frisbee tossing, that’s kind of rude and dickish. It’s equally rude and dickish to intentionally go stand in the way of the frisbee and knock it down though.

          The taking of someone else’s food would, obviously, be petty theft, a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.

          That’s why I’m having trouble understanding your perspective, because this doesn’t really seem to be a big inconvenience.  At least, I certainly don’t see how it is.  This makes me feel you’re being less than honest about why you object so strongly.

          For me, it’s very much about setting bad precedent. If you can build a tent on Zuccotti park for nebulous reasons, and that’s legal, why can’t everyone build themselves some residences on public property all over the country, and simply claim some “protest” is going on? Stop paying rent or mortgages, just go plop a tent in the middle of your local park, and claim you’re protesting something.

          Precedent lives on long after the situation at hand has been forgotten about.

          Look, I’m not going to pretend that I agree with the OWS folks’ message. I don’t. But I’ll fight for their right to actually legitimately petition their government until the cows come home. I just don’t see how erecting structures on public property is “petitioning”. 

          If there were just protesters cycling through that site all day long, heck, even if they were just laying down and sleeping where they were, I’d back it 100% (from a legal perspective). I’ve fallen asleep on a sunny day in a public park, who am I to judge when someone wants to do it at night? *grin*    

          BUT, when you build structures that create zones of exclusivity, to me, you cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

          • muffler says:

            Derek… Please tell us what constitutes “legitimate petitioning” in your definition?  I don’t seem to remember there being a process or defined form eluded to by the founders. 

          • Daniel says:

            Look, I’m not going to pretend that I agree with the OWS folks’ message. I don’t. But I’ll fight for their right to actually legitimately petition their government until the cows come home. I just don’t see how erecting structures on public property is “petitioning”.

            FINALLY, a little honesty.  (Maybe the emphasis should be on “little.”)

            I think there’d be equal shares of asshole to go around there. If you’re “consuming” huge tracts of land in a park with frisbee tossing, that’s kind of rude and dickish. It’s equally rude and dickish to intentionally go stand in the way of the frisbee and knock it down though.

            Excellent.  Let’s unpack this a little.  If we can agree that no one is trying to legitimately use the park at night, then we can agree that the tents aren’t interfering with anyone’s ability to use the park at night.  So we only have to worry about the tents during the day.  Now the question is: how is having a tent significantly more disruptive to the community than leaving a picnic blanket of the same size in the same place for 16 hours?  Or playing a marathon game of frisbee?  In other words, putting aside for a moment the notion that they’re somehow inconveniencing Brookfield (again, Brookfield is not making any money from that property and as a corporation there’s nothing else they can really get out of it besides public good will), how are the protesters in the park inconveniencing anyone beyond, say, the Tea Party making my evening commute more difficult or people getting to the park before me and taking all the good spots?

            BUT, when you build structures that create zones of exclusivity, to me, you cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

            Is putting up a tent “building a structure”?  Semantic quibble, maybe, but it strikes me as a slight exaggeration.  And I somehow doubt the OWS folks would deny you the privilege of setting up your own tent.  So much for exclusivity.

      • Daniel says:

        But you’re not petitioning anyone while you’re sleeping.

        How many people you think are trying to use Zucotti park during the middle of the night when OWS folks are sleeping?

  29. [/cheese] says:

    I believe the park was chosen because the owner received $700,000 US tax payer dollars from gov’t coffers. If it wasn’t chosen for that reason, it seems a great coincidence.

  30. [/cheese] says:

    That’s Civil Disobedience, not protesting. So far the OWS people have tried to follow the law. We can all sit and speculate about New York City and state law, but unless one of us is a practicing lawyer in NY, all we can do is speculate.

  31. Just wanted you to know: I just called the NYC line listed in the above post. I called long-distance from Dallas, TX and registered my complaint with the mayor’s office.

    When the city of Alexandria, Egypt was sacked, the vandals burned the Great Library, one of the greatest depositories of ancient wisdom ever created. As a result, much of human history was lost as an empire fell. Could this be a similar sign that the American Empire is on the verge of falling?

  32. WorldStove says:

    Throwing out books is only one small step away from burning them.  This is a wake up call people!

    “Then there are those who have burned books to silence opposing views. Catholics torched the writings of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. The Nazis lit a towering bonfire of books by Jewish and leftist writers such as Franz Kafka, Sigmund Freud and Upton Sinclair. And many 1950s Americans, spurred by Senator Joseph McCarthy, hunted for procommunism books to burn. Speaking out against the red scare in a 1953 commencement address, President Dwight Eisenhower offered a powerful reminder. “[We must] not try to conceal the thinking of our own people,” he said. “They are part of America.””
    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017204,00.html#ixzz1dnq1OStZ

  33. Mandy Poirier-Kratz says:

    “If you’re told by a property owner “get off my property”, you get off the property.”

    but in the case of public property, it would be our collective property, there is a large problem in north america where there is not enough area set out for people to collectively gather and protest and fight for their rights… this worries me

  34. dilinger says:

    I do hope those books ended up in a dumpster rather than a compacter; at least then people could make a diving effort to get them back.

  35. csforstall says:

    Go to a GA and make a suggestion

    This is repeated over and over, and despite all the technology used in the movement OWS still hasn’t found a way to use that technology as a way to connect to people who either cannot or will not protest. Rather OWS uses technology in the old fashion way as a means of simple broadcast. Am I the only one who finds this odd? Its as if we are being told, use the new technology, just don’t use it to suggest anything to OWS, for that you have to actually go to a GA… Seems like OWS’s political theories still haven’t caught up with technology either, otherwise they would integrate Open Source Technology in a way that avoids this repeated mantra, Go to the GA, Go to the GA…

  36. Daniel says:

    It’s the precedent, the principle of the matter, if you will. Would you argue that just because nobody’s currently trying to put up a tent in my small local park and make it their residence, that I should be able to do so? Just drop off the grid, through up a tent, and claim the public space for myself?

    I would have no problem with you putting a tent up on any of the the parks 100 yards from my house and staying there as long as you want.  Honestly.  I don’t care.  It doesn’t bother me in the least.  You wouldn’t even need to be part of a protest.  It really just doesn’t bother me.

    I’ve been honest this whole thread, and I am a bit insulted that you besmirch my name by implying otherwise.

    Sorry, dude, I’m still having a lot of trouble believing you’re getting this bent out of shape only because people are camping in a public park.

  37. akansan says:

    While I agree with many of the things OWS is trying to do I disagree with how they are doing it. OWS needs to find a way to protest that does not cost the city of NY over 3 million dollars. Why does anyone think it is their right to “cost” anyone anything. Someone has to pay that bill. If OWS finds a way that is not damaging to other citizens of our country I will join them.  

    • muffler says:

      I suppose the King of England could have used the same argument. Apparently unless you are rich enough to fund your protest and the costs to the public you shouldn’t be allowed. Did anyone wonder if so much police presence is really warranted in the first place?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      OWS needs to find a way to protest that does not cost the city of NY over 3 million dollars. Why does anyone think it is their right to “cost” anyone anything.

      That’s the Abusive Boyfriend Argument: Why did you make me do that to you?

    • travtastic says:

      If OWS finds a way that is not damaging to other citizens of our country I will join them.

      Yeah, no. You will absolutely will not.

  38. Daniel says:

    Ouch.  Derek, I did see your last post.  Fair enough.  I’m not worried about that sort of legal precedent, but I don’t see any particular reason why you shouldn’t be. 

    PS Don’t taunt the mods.

  39. Stefan Jones says:

    Bloomberg’s office is claiming that the library (and other property)  is in storage:

    http://yfrog.com/nzdr7ndj

  40. Ever wondered why US police wear SS black?

  41. Xtreme M says:

    why would OWS care about property?

  42. Roman Berry says:

    Orwell knew what dumping the library was about. Getting rid of the documents and the books and the art is just a step in the process of shoving the entire movement down the memory hole.

  43. ann langone says:

    That could never happen here…..aaaah…a teachable moment. Add to your OWS lesson plans:
     The Librarian of Basra: a true story from Iraq/Jeanette Winter  or Alia’s Mission: Saving the Books of Iraq/Mark Alan Stamatsky

  44. mattlove1 says:

    NPR made a terrible mistake on the Diane Rehm show today – instead of talking about OWS, they actually allowed a couple of people from the movement to go on the show and talk. Wow, what a breath of fresh air, their idealism, their ideas (the trouble is when you actually let people speak, you can’t lie and say they have nothing to say) – it was quite wonderful. They had the usual talkabouters to – one guy sniffed that they’ll never get anywhere if they aren’t willing to vote for a Republican once in a while. What a silly loser, he sounded like he had a stick up his ass.  This isn’t a movement that’s failed, its a movement thats just getting started.  Here’s a nice rebuttal to the idea that dumping books is no big deal:  http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/16/the-book-dumpers/

  45. royspeed says:

    Can anyone say Fahrenheit 451?

  46. BrandiThorfinn says:

    The law doth punish man or woman
    That steals the goose from off the common,
    But lets the greater felon loose
    That steals the common from the goose.

  47. muffler says:

    The lawyers have already cleared this hurdle… next!

  48. muffler says:

    You keep going off on this trend regardless of other information against your position… It is private property which the owner has relinquished certain rights to the public.  It is not private in “every sense of the word” and this is where keep doubling down. 

Leave a Reply