Overheard on CNN.com: OWS is already a success
Occupy Wall Street protesters hold signs showing their frustrations with the economy.
November 2nd, 2011
04:53 PM ET

Overheard on CNN.com: OWS is already a success

Comment of the day:

“The movement is stimulating national discussion on important issues. It is a success … ” – evensteven

Open Story: Occupy Wall Street protests

Without clear leadership and a specific set of demands, it may be difficult to deem the Occupy Wall Street movement a success. Jeffrey D. Sachs, an expert in economics, visited the Occupy Wall Street crowd in New York's Zuccotti Park early in October and says the key to long-lasting change will include electing officials representative of the 99%.

But many CNN.com readers said the movement is already a success, while others gave the specifics for what an OWS victory might look like. Other readers said OWS is already on the losing end.

PersonOfPallor said, “Since they have no tangible objectives, they will fail by definition.”

GeorgeBos95 responded, “Will fail? This is an ongoing failure.”

Steve said, “Actually the objectives are extremely clear to anyone who can read.”

U.S. Citizen said, “There are some specific preliminary objectives and grievances but it is still a work in progress. They weren't organized by corporate reps with money and specific objectives in mind like the Tea Party. Anyone who has half a brain and knows what's going on in this nation knows that their basic purpose is to protest corporate greed and control of our government (both parties).”

Steve said, “The dialogue about who pays what and whether or not it's a fair share is all over the news. That in itself is success, and just the beginning.”

GeorgeBos95 responded, “Yes, you're right. We have to get the word out that 47 percent of the people currently PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ... that the top 1 percent pay 40 percent of the tax and the top 10 percent pay 75 percent.
I think the top 10 percent are paying way too much and it's about time the 47 percent got off their butts and started producing like the rest of us. I'm not going to keep pulling the weight for the 47 percent. I'm sick of their whining.”

Bill responded, “George. Why don't you factor in state, local, sales and property tax? Those bottom 47 percent pay plenty.”

Marty said, “Who says they have no tangible objectives. Of course they do. Their objective is to eradicate inequality and inequity in this country. When 99 percent of the country is doing poorly and 1 percent is doing great, you don't need a very big megaphone to get your message out. What is the message of the 1 percent? That the country can go to hell in a hand basket, as long as the 1 percent is doing well? I would say the 1 percent have a very tangible message.

Crimsonsamurai said, “Success only needs to come in the minimalist form of finally declaring corporations for what they are, as a collection of individuals with common interests not as a separate but superior person, and not empowering them with the ability to further corrupt and degrade the political, financial, and cultural infrastructure of our nation.”

Middledocmom said, “There is already some success. The brave folks have given a voice to the silent majority who feel there is something seriously wrong with Congress. The movement provides hope. I sure hope that all that energy can be channeled into the traditional system where there is someone new to vote for.”

Brie responded, said, “That is the key, voting the old aristocracy out and the new in. That will not be easy especially if all we have are people sleeping in tents in parks. There has to be a better response and organized effort than that.”

Erik said, “An end to money buying elections (campaign finance reform); an end to lobbyists manipulating votes; an end to corporate greed taking precedence over the well-being of the 99%; an end to income inequality; a rise in upward social mobility; government-funded necessary social services, such as medical care, education, etc.”

Sleepwalker said, “I'd like to consider that it's already a success, because if nothing else, it has spurred ME to investigate deeper into what changes they are looking for, and decided for myself if those are in line with what I want for my future. They have challenged me to do more than simply say that 'it doesn't involve me' or 'it's not my problem.' Maybe I'm the only person who was motivated this way, but I'd like to think not.”

Mike said, “End Crony Capitalism. Make it illegal. Period.”

Angel said, “There will have to be people willing to run for the seats of senate and congress in line with OWS.”

RillyKewl said, “How do you spell success? CNN's headline (right above this one on front): Two more banks retreat on debit fees.”

Jonathan in Seattle said, “Success essentially is covered by FDR's un-ratified bill of rights addendum and more: 1) Employment for all; 2) Increased workers rights and quality of life – not against business interest, but to make better employees; 3) Food, housing, and healthcare guaranteed for all by employers and/or the government – paid for by business profits and taxes; 4) Free university-level education – paid for by business investment and taxes; 5) A shift of governmental priorities from corporate well-being to public well-being – businesses can fend for themselves in the free market, the government is meant to serve the people. That would be success for OWS in my mind."

Too young for Facebook?

Findings of a recent study appearing this week in First Monday, a peer-reviewed online journal, demonstrate that most underage kids on Facebook received help from their parents in creating an account.

So what do CNN.com readers think about the study? Some people defended the parents, saying it’s their right to choose for their children. Others said it’s wrong for parents to help their child break rules — especially if they are set up for the child’s protection.

Ethictetus said, “It's up to the parents to decide what’s best for their kids at least in situations like these. What on Facebook, or online games, is inappropriate for people under 13? Who is it up to, to decide what is inappropriate?”

ttony21 responded, “Well you're right to a degree, but technically it's not up to the parents if the site has a minimum age requirements as part of its terms of service. That's just the rules of the site itself.”

HJCihak responded, “More to the point, are these parents nuts? When someone tells me they're putting something on Facebook I ask them, ‘Would you put that information on highway billboard?’ Because you'd have a lot more privacy if it were only on a highway billboard!”

TGD783 said, “Parents don't always know what's best for their kids. Some parents film their kids fighting and put it on YouTube, some parents make their kids smoke weed, some parents have their eight-year-old kid drive them to the store.”

Sci1 said, “Yet, who do we blame when a child is bullied on facebook?”

vonspoo said, “My kid doesn't have a Facebook account. Why? Lots of reasons. Kids don't need one more dumb thing to distract them from homework. Kids don't need cyber bullying. Kids don't need to deal with the onslaught of creepy weirdos from the net. They aren't mature enough to handle it and even the most ‘mature’ ones are still as gullible as baby lambs. i see stuff on Facebook all the time that I wouldn't want my kid seeing and after seeing some of the garbage her same aged cousins post, no way.”

realist88 said, “I'm a teacher and am constantly overhearing Facebook conversations/dramas in the classroom. Bullying is amplified behind a computer screen, homework is neglected, girls are meeting older guys, drama goes to the big screen where everyone knows the dirt, and the parents? Non-existent; don't tell me they're monitoring this!”

JaxGrim said, “I really don't see the big deal if parent's are being responsible about it. My kids have Facebook accounts. The only friends on their accounts are family members. I have their privacy settings maxed out. They only used it to play Farmville or a couple of other games on occasion or send messages/pictures to grandparents and family. It is not like they are on it hours upon hours either. They used to get on maybe 15 minutes a day. However, they grew tired of it and have stopped using it. Again, its really not an issue if you are a responsible parent. If the parent is not responsible, then Facebook accounts are probably the least of their issues.”

Tr1Xen said, “My 8-year-old cousin is on Facebook because her parents lied and said she was 13. As long as the parents know about it, I don't really see what the big deal is.”

masquedx said, “As long as parents are aware of the account, have the password, keep an eye on friends and postings ... I don't really care if their 10-year-old is on.”

hesaidwhat2 said, “When the rules are arbitrary and outdated then you are simply teaching that you should always follow rules for the sake of following rules, regardless of fairness or logic. My 14 year old has a Facebook account that I closely monitor. My almost 13 year old does not, by her own choice. Frankly, it is better for a child to have a known monitored Facebook account than to have a hidden account you do not have access to.”

onlyonetime said, “I don't agree that the parents are being irresponsible. The parents have the final say, not Facebook. I let my son have one at 12 years old with several restrictions, knowing passwords, setting up their privacy settings, etc. That's my decision for my son. If Facebook changed their minimum age or allowed parents to have a say on whether or not children can set up a page, then this wouldn't be an issue.”

pugpugs said, “I helped my 11 year old create a Facebook page with severely strict conditions. I have all the passwords and only I know the password for the email associated with it. The privacy is set up so only her friends can see it and only her friends can find her. I check on it at least a few times a day. There's no way she can delete a Facebook conversation without me knowing, or do really anything without me knowing on the site. It's all about being a responsible parent.”

Open Thread: Talk about the news

Do you feel your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below, or sound off on video

Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

soundoff (64 Responses)
  1. raven

    hi chrissy !Goin back ta bed now Ill be back later.

    November 3, 2011 at 7:17 am | Report abuse |
  2. banasy©

    I find it amusing that whenever I point out something that is happening to a person, place, or thing, I'm gulping strained camel gnats, or some such nonsense, but if Macro does it, it...what?
    Oh yeah.
    The same thing.

    Still dislike hypocrites.

    November 3, 2011 at 7:37 am | Report abuse |
  3. banasy©

    Philip wrote:
    "But everyone thinks I’m cRaZY. (shrug) You’ll see soon enough."

    Then you can say "I told you so".

    November 3, 2011 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
  4. banasy©

    Yeah...your little "rain" machine?
    In common terminology, "making it rain" is to take a big ole stack of money and showering a person with the bills.
    Make mine Benjy's, will ya?

    Must be manic time again.

    November 3, 2011 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
  5. CrAzY Phelp McDougal

    @Raven...of course I believe what's already been proven, silly. You just don't know about these things, and suffer from contempt prior to investigation. It took me many years to figure these things out and find the actual physical proof. Only a very small mind would think that these years of investigation could be revealed by chatting about it. Research keywords found in my texts from time-to-time. The evidence of these things is overwhelming but takes a great deal of time to piece together. You could do it with some of the time you spend here, Raven. Don't be afraid, and don't just laugh it off. What if I'm right?

    November 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
  6. CrAzY Phelp McDougal

    Banasy© ? "Bring the rain" is what ground personel under attack call out to B-52 bombers, silly. Money? Have you been hanging around with Joey again?

    November 3, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
  7. TheStatusQuidProQuo

    Well GeorgeBos95, there's a very good reason for the top 1% paying all those taxes... they control ALL the money. you cant get taxed on monies you don't have can you? Why don't you get the word out about that. Time for some common sense.

    November 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
  8. banasy©

    There is more than one meaning.
    If I had been hanging around with Joey, I'd be in very good company.
    Contempt prior to investigation, indeed.

    November 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
  9. saywhat

    @ Macroblogger
    thanks for that scary reminder of Iraq war atrocities while we prepare for yet another war.But they just feed the lust for more , don't you think so? Or this nation would have by now renounced blood shed, death & destruction.
    @ Philip
    lluminati, the checkered floors, the Basel bastion. Is this what JFK was referiing to in his last speech – the secret societies?
    As for those Nazi scientists we got as booty, we do owe our weaponry to those minds.

    November 3, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Phelp McDougal

    @saywhat...thank you for understanding these simple things that others choose to ignore. And thanks for replying to my posts rather than trying to make me look like an old ignorant woman. 🙂 Those flying saucers being manufactured inside of Cheyenne Mtn where NORAD used to be are real. I've personlly seen 6 of them flying at night while camped near there over the past few decades. 10's of thousands in the US and russia have reported seeing them, and have photographed them. Goto UFO chat.com and talk to hundreds of people who have even been drugged and taken for rides then released to tell their stories of 'alien' abductions. Those weren't aliens. They are genetically engineered small humans. What else besides an alien attack could scare people into not even wanting to live in a free country any longer?

    November 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Marie

    @saywhat: your encouraging him! He IS an old woman! His name is Sheila and she lives in Phoenix! Stop feeding her ego!

    November 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm | Report abuse |
  12. DeeBklynGal

    The Democratic Party should endorse the “Occupy” movements around the US. This has not happened so far because the party is afraid of losing seats during the upcoming election. However, it is quite clear that many seats will be lost mainly because no one has taken a stand to support changes that are vital to end economic inequality in this country. President Delano Roosevelt sided with the people during the Great Depression. He and his wife endorsed workers’ movements and were in favor of popular uprising in order to bring about change. We need to get rid of politicians who do not clearly make a stand within the Democratic Party to support the middle class and poor. We need a Democratic Party that is cohesive in its goals – that is not so centrist in a time when there is class warfare. Mr. Obama has not been able to control his own party and this means that his people are not doing what they were elected to do. The Wall Street bailout did not have the right safety guards in place to protect the most vulnerable – the people. Still today we are facing foreclosures in the housing market beyond belief when the banks should have been in a position to help homeowners. Instead they held on to the money that was supposed to fund the refinancing of homes. Why doesn’t the U.S. have a national bank to safeguard Americans from the turmoil they are experiencing? Mr. Obama should stop playing it safe and start hitting below the belt because the Republicans will not hold back. If Mr. Obama believes that by playing it safe he will be re-elected, he will most likely lose. So on a final thought, I believe he should be supportive of the movements and upon his re-election continue to implement the programs he had proposed during his campaign.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
  13. raven

    Contempt ? Where did you see contempt ? By your logic,we should be skeptical, so long as it benefits YOUR argument. The only one showing contempt is you by calling women ignorant. I did listen to you. And Im not scared.

    November 3, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
  14. raven

    And fyi , I happen to believe there are beings other than us. Im just not so sure I buy the whole abducted children-are -really-aliens-engineered-to-take-over-the-planet theory. I dont think THAT makes me ignorant, I think its healthy skepticism. And whats wrong with that ?

    November 3, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Report abuse |
  15. raven

    And whose birthday party is this? YOU changed the topic to what YOU wanted to discuss. And we ARE having a debate. So you should be happy,right ? But I bet youll find fault in SOMETHING..

    November 3, 2011 at 9:19 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5