Women’s Intuition

When you examine the litany of geniuses who wrought havoc in the markets in their profligate quest for unmitigated deregulation, you’re hard-pressed to find the fairer sex among them.

On the 18thday of the Occupy encampment at Zuccotti Park, I paused to photograph a curious scene. An older man with a tight gray beard was leading an unlikely group in an acoustic rendition of Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind.” People of every age and background, from a family with young children to a construction worker, had gathered on the steps leading to the area of the park known as “The People’s Library” to join in song. The only giveaway that I hadn’t accidentally stumbled through a wrinkle in time and landed sometime in the 1960s was that nearly everyone was recording the moment with a camera phone.Midway through the song, our musical guide abruptly stopped the music to address the ragtag bunch before him. “Why are there no women in this song?” he pondered aloud, with his guitar dangling from its strap and his arms spread wide. “Because men are responsible for screwing it up.” Before continuing with the song he proclaimed, “Let’s hope there are more women in power so we can have more humane decisions.”This scene was only one of several captivating pockets of Zuccotti Park, and my attention was soon drawn elsewhere. Weeks later when reading a piece about celebrity influence in the Occupy movement, I noticed a picture similar to the one I had captured on the steps that day. As it turns out, the gentleman serenading the group was Peter Yarrow of Peter Paul and Mary fame. Two things immediately occurred to me. The first was that Yarrow questioning Bob Dylan was beyond rhetorical, as he probably could have asked him directly.  (Dylan wrote “Blowin’ in the Wind,” but it was Peter Paul and Mary who first recorded it.)

The second thing that came to mind was that my friend and former editor-in-chief of the Press, Robbie Woliver, would be gravely disappointed in me for not recognizing Peter Yarrow and grasping the significance of the moment; a realization that was made clearer to me in researching the origins of the song. As it turns out, the first public performance of “Blowin’ in the Wind”—it would become one of the seminal anthems of the ’60s protest movement—was at Gerde’s Folk City in 1962. Robbie and his wife, Marilyn Lash, co-owned Folk City for several years in the 1980s.

Yarrow’s timely reappearance at Occupy Wall Street underscores the similarity between the anti-establishment, anti-corruption sentiment of the 1960s and today. Further, his comments regarding the negative male influence in world affairs are perfectly in context with the situation on Wall Street. When you examine the litany of geniuses who wrought havoc in the markets in their profligate quest for unmitigated deregulation, you’re hard-pressed to find the fairer sex among them. Sure, there are stand-outs such as Wendy Gramm, but even in her case it can be argued that her depravity pales next to that of her husband. As the saying goes: Behind every terrible woman is an asshole. (Or something to that effect.)

History is replete with examples of men behaving badly to the detriment of civilization. Citing women as the reason for some of our bigger peccadilloes—Helen of Troy causing the Trojan War, Eve getting us all kicked out of the Garden, yada yada—is a favorite device of the male historian. Leading up to and during the financial meltdown, omniscient wizards such as Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin eschewed the warnings of women like Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1996 to 1999, and continued their blitzkrieg of destruction. These guys keep breeding more insufferable free market ideologues like Tim Geithner, who fought Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from 2006 to 2011, who railed against the concept of “Too Big to Fail.” To the free market jerkoffs like Greenspan and Geithner, Born and Bair were considered “difficult.” That’s man-speak for “tough.” Creative wordplay like this is how we men diminish effective women; better to be a bastard than a bitch in the worlds of high finance and government.

The most notable among all of these “difficult bitches” today is the earnest and brilliant Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Ted Kennedy’s old senate seat in Massachusetts against fluke incumbent Scott Brown. The funny thing about that race is that for Warren, this seat is actually a consolation prize from President Barack Obama. After leading the fight to create and organize the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren was the presumptive nominee to head the agency upon its formation. Shockingly, however, the POTUS buckled under pressure from Senate Republicans, who threatened to block a Warren appointment, and instead he installed the even more hardcore and controversial Richard Cordray to the position under a recess appointment.

While I might not be able to spot one of the world’s most famous folk singers even when he’s performing one of his biggest hits in front of a crowd at a demonstration (it’s even worse when put that way, isn’t it?) I do have a keen sense of irony and a dark sense of humor. It’s why I can appreciate that while my gender has driven the world’s economy in the ground, they did so in pursuit of an ideology set forth by a woman. Somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is doubled over with laughter watching obsequious and dim-witted men like Alan Greenspan trip over themselves in an attempt to become the Howard Roark of finance or John Galt incarnate. Ayn Rand is the Helen of Troy of the economy, the Eve of financial catastrophe, the…

(Did ya see what I did there?)

Suffolk County: Come Clean on the Coup

This is just one small example of the indignities we suffer at the hands of our elected officials whose spiteful disregard of transparency and democratic principles has reached an insufferable zenith.

This week I find myself freed from the self-imposed undertaking of reporting weekly on the Occupy Wall Street protest that has blossomed into a global fascination, spawning chapters around the globe and gracing the pages and screens of nearly every news media outlet. Since the beginning of the occupation in New York, I have been committed to covering what I believe to be one of the single most important political developments in my lifetime. Yet because our cover story this week dives deep into the machinations of the movement and our staff is fully engaged, I am able to return to a Long Island story of great political importance.

This story, however, is not entirely unrelated to the discussions in Zuccotti Park. In fact, it has much in common with the reasons behind the growing unrest among Americans. It is a story of hubris and duplicity right here on Long Island that is symptomatic of a political system completely out of touch with the needs and rights of those it is designed to represent.

On Sept. 22, the Long Island Press published a cover story titled “Suffolk County’s Bloodless Coup,” which recalled Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy’s shocking announcement that he would step down at the end of his term. This decision came as the result of an arrangement between Levy and District Attorney Tom Spota, who was investigating irregularities in Levy’s campaign fundraising. In a backroom deal, which has not been made public, Levy agreed to hand over his campaign funds to Spota and forgo running for re-election. In return, it seems Levy has been allowed to simply go quietly into the night.

This agreement, which made an end-run around the electorate, has the tacit approval of party leaders Rich Schaffer and John J. LaValle, the county’s Democratic and Republican chairmen, respectively, who both claim to have been caught totally by surprise. Suffolk legislators shrugged off the news of Levy’s unceremonious demise as if to say “good riddance to bad rubbish.” The incredible indifference on display from people who often found themselves on the receiving end of a Steve Levy tirade only furthers speculation that something is rotten in Hauppauge.

One persistent theory is that Levy’s quiet removal paves the way for several pieces to come together on Suffolk’s political chessboard. (Warning: Serious “inside-baseball” alert.) Let’s start with the obvious. With the pugnacious Levy out of the picture and politically castrated upon the liquidation of his war chest, a significant obstacle has been removed from Babylon Town Supervisor Steve Bellone’s quest to become the next Suffolk County executive. Suffolk GOP infighting over the choice of County Treasurer Angie Carpenter to run on the Republican ticket may have further cleared the way for a Bellone victory, although no one apparently told Carpenter, who is running full bore against her opponent despite being out-financed rather handily. Quite a remarkable turn of events for a GOP committee that at the beginning of the year thought they would have a popular candidate with more than $4 million in the bank at the top of their ticket.

As far as the GOP is concerned, neither the Carpenter nor LaValle camp has erased the animus between them. At times it seems as though they’re running completely separate campaigns. For his part, Suffolk County Democratic leader Rich Schaffer has vowed not to repeat the mistakes of former Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, who sat on his war chest, and as result was banished to the private sector after failing to fully grasp the discontent of the electorate.

Enter the crux of Suffolk’s political conspiracy theory; it’s a doozy. (Takes a deep breath, and…)

A newly minted County Executive Bellone taps Spota to replace Suffolk Police Commissioner Richard Dormer. After all, with a serial killer on the loose, who better to replace the unpopular commissioner than Suffolk’s superstar top cop, Tom Spota? Given his resume, the public would probably favor this move and, quite frankly, Spota would likely do a terrific job. Next to Dormer, of course, this is like saying you’re the smartest kid in the remedial class; but it would be well received, regardless.

A vacancy in the district attorney’s office would give Gov. Andrew Cuomo the ability to appoint Brookhaven Town Supervisor Mark Lesko, former federal prosecutor and bright light in the Democratic Party, to the position. Lesko, who many say is frustrated by the cronyism and the acrimony in Brookhaven politics, would likely welcome the chance to shine as district attorney. Naturally, this transfer would give John Jay LaValle and his mentor John Powell a chance to reclaim the supervisor’s office, a position both men covet.

Undoubtedly, the people mentioned above will publicly deny this scenario and dismiss it as unfounded sedition. Or perhaps they will all remain as taciturn, and therefore complicit, with respect to this scheme as they were during Steve Levy’s fall from grace. Either way, should all or part of it come to pass, perhaps then Suffolk County residents will finally wake up and realize that they were robbed of their right to know the circumstances behind Levy’s demise.

Irrespective of whether this theory holds any water, our public officials— and the leaders they answer to—fail to understand that it is this impertinent attitude toward constitutionality and disdain of our citizenry that has people around the globe filling parks, flooding streets and occupying public squares. This is just one small example of the indignities we suffer at the hands of our elected officials whose spiteful disregard of transparency and democratic principles has reached an insufferable zenith.

If the Suffolk County district attorney can unilaterally decide the fate of a sitting county executive and administer a political punishment without fear of reprisal from citizens, his example illustrates on the smallest level why the upper political echelon of the republic have likewise engaged in even more dangerous, egregious and undemocratic behavior. Therefore, for the very same reasons the public has a right to know why more than 1,000 people have been locked up for protesting corporate greed while those responsible for corrupt banking practices that are bringing our economic system to its knees aren’t also subject to the same treatment, so too is it our right to know the real story behind the bloodless coup in Suffolk County. The latter may pale in scope and degree, but the seed of this argument bears the same fruit.

This is just one small example of the indignities we suffer at the hands of our elected officials whose spiteful disregard of transparency and democratic principles has reached an insufferable zenith.

#OWS WK4: Kaptur and Gramm and Schumer, Oh My.

Tying the tubes of banks that have been, ahem, fornicating with the global economy and impregnating speculative bubbles only to watch them burst, will only hasten the inevitable seismic crash that looms around the corner. Breaking up the banks will happen one way or another…either by the law of the land or the law of nature.

The only phrase in connection with Occupy Wall Street repeated more often than “We are the 99%” is “What do they want?” The former is, of course, the rallying cry inviting citizens to join the movement against plutocracy in America—a show of strength against corporate greed and government corruption. The latter is the response to the growing number of dissenters in the “American Autumn”—criticism for their lacking a coherent list of specific demands. Personally, the only thing I find lacking is the imagination embodied by this mindless question.

The communal process of exploration and debate taking place in Zuccotti Park is like nothing I’ve ever seen. There are plenty of cogent, specific demands to be heard, but only by those who are willing to listen. A good deal of patience and a pinch of intellect are helpful because this isn’t a bumper-sticker movement and the occupiers don’t suffer fools (Geraldo) gladly.

There is no substitute for visiting the park and absorbing democracy, grassroots style. This past weekend my wife and I brought our two children with us to witness history unfolding in Manhattan, as it will someday grace the pages of a textbook, or a tablet, during their college years. With that said, allow me to indulge the frothing masses with a chunk of raw meat by examining one of the cornerstone issues behind OWS: Glass-Steagall.

Breaking the Bank: A Brief History of Glass-Steagall

In short, this was the name of the Act that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment-banking activities, among other things. It was established in 1933 to tame the harmful speculative behavior of an industry run amok in the early part of the 20th century; behavior largely credited for the market crash that precipitated the Great Depression. Fast forward to the waning days of the Clinton administration when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the meat of Glass-Steagall and cleared the way for the greatest, most rapid consolidation of banking interests and wealth in recorded history.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall is, of course, easier said than done. Technically, the mechanics of doing it are fairly simple from a structural perspective, though it would cause massive upheaval in the banking world for several years to come. What is almost beyond comprehension are the circumstances that allow banks to continue gambling promiscuously in the world markets, which is a direct result of complementary deregulatory measures, globalization and an extraordinarily loose monetary policy.

These three factors have allowed banks to engage in worldwide investment schemes using cheap, borrowed money in a manner that is both irresponsible and opaque. In other words, be careful what you wish for. Tying the tubes of banks that have been, ahem, fornicating with the global economy and impregnating speculative bubbles only to watch them burst, will only hasten the inevitable seismic crash that looms around the corner. Breaking up the banks will happen one way or another…either by the law of the land or the law of nature.

Protestors from Zuccotti Park to San Francisco are keenly aware of this reality. They have an extremely sophisticated view of the world that goes beyond what we have seen in other movements both here and abroad. It’s their appreciation for complexity and nuance that makes it impossible to translate demands into bite-sized morsels for the media to gobble up and regurgitate into the mouths of shrieking birds in the nest that many television viewers have become.

To make matters worse, our elected federal representatives have no idea how to respond appropriately to a leaderless, populist movement. Apart from some platitudinous, mealy-mouthed responses from ranking Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi or truculent, dismissive statements from the likes of Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), the upper echelon of American politics is collectively clicking its heels and hoping to wake up on the farm after the storm.

But there is hope for us yet–from someplace you might not expect.

A Buckeye Bulls Eye

Ohio’s 9th Congressional District cradles the southernmost tier of Lake Erie and has been steadfastly represented by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) for the three decades. Despite the presence of rollicking Toledo in the westernmost part of her district, things have been pretty quiet in the ninth. Until now.

Ohio’s much ballyhooed loss of two Congressional seats due to redistricting has resulted in a mash up of Kaptur’s 9th district and the neighboring 10th represented by fellow Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich, who has long-represented the most progressive wing of the Democratic caucus, ran back-to-back failed campaigns for the presidential nomination, but he gained more notoriety when he famously called for the impeachment of co-Presidents George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for manufacturing evidence that pushed us into war with Iraq at a cost of nearly $2 trillion, thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of  civilians. Somehow, this effort lacked the same traction and enthusiasm as the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton for, well, you know.

The combination of the 9th and 10th districts has given new life to Kucinich, who might otherwise have been homeless after Ohio’s redistricting plan, as he is planning to primary Kaptur for the seat. Not to be outdone, the GOP has recruited newcomer Samuel Wurzelbacher to run on the Republican ticket. This development would be of little moment, however, if Wurzelbacher wasn’t none other than “Joe The Plumber,” who made headlines during the McCain-Obama race. Although it was later revealed that he was neither “Joe” nor a licensed plumber, Wurzelbacher became an oft-abused example of the disenfranchised workingman in America. Not content to be a footnote in American political history, Wurzelbacher now seeks to extend his 15 minutes of fame by attempting to join the ranks of hundreds of other talentless slobs who also have no business running the country.

This entire hubbub overshadows one of the most interesting things to come out of this part of Ohio. Earlier this year Kaptur revived a failed effort during the previous Congress to reinstate regulations repealed under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Kaptur’s bill, H.R. 1489, is appropriately titled “Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011,” and it has the support of 45 sponsors, one of whom is Dennis Kucinich.

The men behind the original bill in question—Gramm, Leach and Bliley—are an interesting lot; notable because not one of them remains in government today though their impact is felt every day. Phil Gramm, one of the most loathsome scoundrels ever to hold office, is the reprobate who brought us the Enron Loophole, disastrous tax cuts that destabilized the first part of the Reagan era, and this horrendous bill that bears his name. His darling wife, Wendy, was at the helm of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission when her husband was shepherding through the bill that would castrate the agency and lead to the collapse of Enron and the birth of energy speculation. She went on to head the conservative think-tank, Mercatus Center, which is funded by the Koch brothers.

Thomas J. Bliley, former representative from Virginia, was himself a serial deregulator. Before handing America this pile of legislative crap, he authored the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which paved the way for massive consolidation in the media industry and gave us Orwellian juggernauts like News Corp. that control the airwaves today.  Jim Leach, also no longer in office, is more of a curiosity. Brilliant, progressive and, at times, defiant, Leach of Iowa often stood in opposition to the increasingly conservative members of his party and was eventually ousted by a Democrat write-in candidate. Although Leach was a noted fiscal conservative, his true expertise was in foreign affairs. By attaching his name to one of the most destructive economic bills ever written, an otherwise brilliant career has been sullied in a way only Bill Buckner could understand.

Going Forward

So, Marcy Kaptur “gets it.” The protestors on Wall Street also “get it.” And believe it or not, many of us in the media also “get it.” If the banking system is going to collapse under its own weight and hubris because of the sheer volume of horrible investments still filtering through the economy with zero oversight, what’s the next logical play?

Apart from the obvious, which is to enact H.R. 1489, I think it’s time to grant subpoena authority to the protestors on Wall Street so they can hold those responsible for the economic crisis accountable at a people’s tribunal. Since our judicial system has failed to do that, perhaps it should be left to the people in Zuccotti Park. And just to bring things full circle to New York politics, the first star witness to be called should be Sen. Charles Schumer, poster boy for Wall Street and the senior Democratic elected representative of our state.

Time’s up, Chuck. Your silence on the Occupy Wall Street movement is deafening and incriminating.

Occupy Wall Street: “You Should Have Expected Us”

By not asking for anything in particular, they are inclusive of every person and every idea in general. In modern-day parlance, this movement is “open source.” Anyone can add to it, alter and improve it.

San Francisco has it. So does Boston. It’s heading to Phoenix, Chicago and even making its way across the border to Toronto. “It” is the movement the media only acknowledge when it shuts down a bridge or broadcasts police brutality. “It” is the movement that Glenn Beck claims will lead to “gas chambers, guillotines” and “millions dead.”

The Occupy Wall Street protest is now in its third week. It’s stubborn, plucky, organized and here to stay—weather and cops be damned. For the third week in a row I am dedicating this space to an undertaking so captivating it has garnered grassroots support throughout the country despite obvious and ignominious attempts to stamp it out. Forgive me as I provide some context to my preoccupation by regurgitating a segment of this column written only days before the occupation began:

Those in my generation lost the chance to capture the spirit of revolution by looking the other way for a decade. We bought homes, started families and tried to return to ordinary lives during otherwise extraordinary times. We slept. Younger generations have substituted Haight-Ashbury with Facebook and protests with Twitter. In their frenetically hyper-connected lives they are ironically disconnected digital beings living a purgatorial existence that knows neither revolution nor responsibility. In fairness, how exactly would one protest genetically modified foods, the derivatives market or the carried interest tax loophole?

As it turns out, America’s youth is keenly in touch with its rebellious nature and wholly capable of harnessing it through social media and on the ground. Moreover, it seems, they know exactly how to protest derivatives and tax loopholes. Occupy Wall Street is not an exercise; nor is it a group of out-of-work malcontents and spoiled brats as some pundits and commentators would have you all believe. But given the disgraceful job my colleagues in the “traditional” media have done covering the last three weeks, it’s little wonder there is such a misconception about the protest or the character of the protestors themselves.

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and other hack, ratings-hungry news operations have done their level-best to seek out the most outrageous or ill-informed members of the movement in an effort to discredit the entire affair. This has served only to embolden the members of the occupation and play directly into the hands of the organizers who are able to maintain their underground “street-cred” while pointing a finger at corporate media with righteous indignation. It’s one of several ingenious ploys (or anti-ploys depending upon which side of the barricade you reside) being exploited by Anonymous, the group at the heart of the protest.

Most of the news reports and the people I speak with about Occupy Wall Street have the same question: “What do they want?” It’s little wonder why the reporting has been so poor because the question itself fails to grasp the meaning of the gathering. Asking “What do they want?” is placing the cart before the horse. It’s not that it’s a bad question; it’s simply impossible to answer. The purpose of Occupy Wall Street is to begin a dialogue among disconnected citizens and encourage a process of self-discovery. Although they have posted a declaration of principles that lists pernicious policies and highlights social and economic inequities, it only serves to provide the framework for the discussion.

But behind this grassroots and organic process is an organizational brilliance in the restraint shown by Anonymous and the surreptitious group in charge of the demonstration on the ground. By not asking for anything in particular, they are inclusive of every person and every idea in general. In modern-day parlance, this movement is “open source.” Anyone can add to it, alter and improve it. It’s why dimwitted reporters have a hard time grasping it and why renowned authors such as Chris Hedges and Jeff Sharlet have been here to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with young people in Ron Paul tee shirts, Vietnam Veterans, union construction workers, lawyers and even some Tea Party activists. They have managed to truly make this the “people’s movement.” Or, as they say: “We are the 99%… and so are you.”

Life In The Park

As for life in Zuccotti Park, the scene is rather surreal. Between the time I first visited the encampment on Day 4 and Day 18 on Tuesday of this week, a mini-city had emerged. Rules of conduct are posted along the walls of the park. There is a media center, a volunteer booth, food line, barrels of drinking water, a compost pile, rows of books and a tobacco-rolling station. They even have their own newspaper, the Occupied Wall Street Journal. Every evening at 7 p.m. there is a General Assembly meeting where the faithful gather to air their grievances, plan for the days ahead, and coalesce some of the more substantive ideas that have percolated throughout the long days of demonstration, learning and discovery.

In the morning I caught up with Julian, who had casually greeted me on Day 4 with a warm and comfortable smile. Upon hearing of the protest, Julian had purchased a one-way ticket from Oregon to attend the occupation. He couldn’t say how long he would be there, only that he planned to stick it out as long as possible. This time around, Julian had the look of someone who had spent the better part of two and a half weeks battling sleeplessness and, at times, punishing weather. He was grittier and weary, though he claimed to have finally snagged a decent night’s rest.

“I would say this has far exceeded my expectations” he said, a hand-rolled cigarette tucked behind one ear and a scraggly beard adorning his tired face. “The growth of the movement speaks to the level of despair in this country and desire for change,” he said, as he greeted another volunteer who clapped him on the back and hung close for our conversation. When I asked whether he had booked that return ticket yet, his warm smile returned as he said, “I decided to keep the next six months to a year totally clear.” Politely, he then excused himself and settled in behind the volunteer table. Julian was all in.

I spent the next couple of hours weaving my way between citizen journalists, musicians, poets, activists, union workers and teachers. Another familiar face from the first week was Gio Andollo, an artist and musician from Harlem who has spent “some part of the day, every day and usually nights” at the protest since it began. He too is committed to occupying Wall Street for “as long as it takes,” and thinks the protestors have “done a really good job of diffusing potentially violent situations.” Gio, like so many of those involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest, is disappointed with the media coverage but shrugs it off. “What we’re trying to accomplish here doesn’t lend itself to media-friendly sound bites,” he says. But unlike others who cry foul at the blatantly misdirected coverage of the protest, Gio is somewhat sanguine. “It’s just a matter of time before even politicians start paying attention.”

Ironically, across the plaza a group began to gather around two men who clearly stood out from the crowd. Lo and behold, politicians had finally found their way to Zuccotti Park to engage the activists in person. City Council Members Daniel Halloran (R-Queens) and Ydanis Rodriguez (D-Manhattan) took center stage for a while to participate in the ongoing dialogue with Wall Street occupiers. Halloran, a self-proclaimed Libertarian Republican, told those around him that he supported their “constitutional right” to gather in protest, but the only way out of America’s economic mess was to “elect better people” to office and “get out and fucking vote.” He touched on hot button issues like diminishing the influence of the Federal Reserve and putting “teeth back into anti-trust regulations,” while Rodriguez, no stranger to controversy and an early supporter of Occupy Wall Street, said, “Wall Street should contribute more,” instead of the city having to “cut agencies and education.”

Despite advocating for things over which neither councilman has control, they caused a stir by at least engaging in the conversation. But their presence only highlights the lack of support and involvement from the elected federal representatives who have stayed as far from the protest as humanly possible. But then again, as Gio pointed out, it’s just a matter of time.

The “Occupy” demonstrations sprouting up around the nation illustrate the strange and uneasy predicament we face. On one side, we see a group of disenfranchised Americans taking to the streets to raise awareness of an increasingly inequitable economic system by exercising their First Amendment right to gather peaceably and protest their grievances. On the other side of the spectrum are charlatans like Glenn Beck, who is warning his ever-dwindling flock of minions to stock up on food and guns because young people have decided to mobilize against the government—pretty fucking hilarious coming from a false-wannabe-prophet who organized his own march in D.C. against the very same government.

Here’s the funny thing. The smallest step back from the fray only serves to highlight our similarities rather than our differences. Like diminutive points on an impressionist painting, there is room in America for every color, from the muted tones of conservatism to the most colorful hue of progressivism. Independent of one another they inevitably clash, but when blended together on the artist’s canvas the true portrait of America is revealed—but only from a distance. In Zuccotti Park, Anonymous may have just emerged as one of the great impressionist masters of our time, portraying America at its finest and capturing the single greatest expression of democracy to occur in my lifetime.

Occupy Wall Street

While American news organizations and traditional media outlets provided wall-to-wall coverage of the uprisings from Tunisia to Libya, they have been remarkably, if not scarily silent about the unrest occurring right here at home.

“Eyes on!” shouted a young man being dragged away, his hands cuffed behind his back. “We’re watching,” yelled several others as the moment quickly dissolved into chaos. It was hard to know where to look. In the center of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan a sea of blue descended upon another man, guilty of refusing to stand up when ordered. He too emerged in handcuffs, as did the screaming, crying woman who tried futilely to pry the gloved hands of the NYPD officers from the man now barely visible under the blue pile. As several protestors in handcuffs were lined up on the curb next to the NYPD command center vehicle, the crowd erupted in chants of “Shame!” and “The whole world is watching!”

Only it isn’t.

This was the scene around 10 o’clock in the morning, day four of the leaderless protest known as “Occupy Wall Street.” The protest is a loosely defined coalition of mostly young people raging against the death of American democracy and consolidation of wealth into the hands of the top 1 percent. In fact, many simply refer to themselves as “the 99 percent.” And while they may indeed represent ninety-nine percent of America in financial standing, the more concrete parallel might be that ninety-nine percent of America has no idea this is even happening.

“If this was a Tea Party rally, Fox News would be here with us day and night,” says Julian (pictured below), a student and seasonal worker who flew in from Oregon after learning about the protest on Twitter. Like the others, Julian has no intention of leaving Wall Street any time soon. So serious is he about this commitment that he purchased a one-way ticket. Julian was compelled to join the rally because of what he calls a “crisis of democracy” and says he is “worried about the direction of the country.”

I had only heard rumblings of a gathering down on Wall Street this past weekend when the protest was already underway. Though officially organized by no one single group or person, Canadian magazine Adbusters—whose stated mission is to “coax people from spectator to participant” in the quest for a “world in which the economy and ecology resonate in balance”—is credited as the wind in the sails of the Occupy Wall Street protest. What is clear is that Occupy Wall Street is designed to harness the grassroots and spiritual zeitgeist of the Arab Spring, which has spread like wildfire throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East.

Yet while American news organizations and traditional media outlets provided wall-to-wall coverage of the uprisings from Tunisia to Libya, they have been remarkably, if not scarily silent about the unrest occurring right here at home. I personally began following what was happening on Wall Street on Facebook beginning Sunday evening and was as captivated by the event as I was by the lack of coverage surrounding it. On Tuesday morning I set out to Manhattan to begin my day with the protestors.

It didn’t take long to hear the steady, rhythmic drumbeats and chanting as I passed through the turnstile and ascended the stairs of the Wall Street station. Slowly making their way through a gauntlet of bike racks and officers were scores of young people shouting “We are the ninety-nine percent” with “and so are you” being offered in a call-and-response echo. Though already into the fourth day of protest, the crowd was ebullient, even smiling and polite to the officers and those passing by.  This morning they were dispatched from their base camp in Zuccotti Park to continue raising awareness and remind the scurrying Wall Street crowd of their presence during the morning rush.

As the crowd snaked around the bike racks on Broad Street and picked its way back toward Broadway, every moment was being streamed live by two men in thin, red parkas—one carrying a camera, the other monitoring the feed on a laptop. As they paced backwards and looked warily about, I noticed a member of the NYPD on the other side of the barricade also filming every moment of the protest. I started toward the man holding the laptop but he averted his eyes and motioned slightly to the cameraman in front of him who was quite clearly the spokesperson for the pair.

When asked what this gathering was about, the cameraman said these were just “people with a common set of principles” seeking to highlight “fundamental, systemic issues.” He had a slight accent and spoke in a measured and purposeful way about the similarities between Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring and the uprising in Spain, which he also attended. But, he noted, this protest was “becoming a first amendment issue about the right to assemble.”

With this he was referencing attempts by the police to scuttle the demonstration by blowing the dust off an antiquated law that prohibits the wearing of masks by two or more people during a demonstration and confiscating supplies such as tents and gasoline for generators used to power cameras, laptops and phones. A handful of protestors had already been arrested for resisting these attempts and the cameraman was clearly concerned about each subtle turn of event.

At this point I decided to loop down around Broadway instead of hobbling along with the slow-moving group to capture the scene of their return to Zuccotti Park, now dubbed “Liberty Plaza” by the organizers. As most of the thru streets were barricaded off, I inquired of an officer as to the fastest way to beat the crowd to the park. As I approached him I couldn’t help but overhear him comment to the uniformed officer next to him, “This is some killer overtime.”

The sight of bearded young men with instruments and tattooed young women clad in tie-dyed shirts and plastic parkas was casually anachronistic and out of step with the modern, business-like efficiency of lower-Manhattan. Blue tarps covered cardboard signs and coolers. Some milled about with trays of sandwiches and fruit, eager to feed their cohorts. As the rest of their group crossed the street into the park, they were greeted with applause and the square again began to swell with their ranks. The happy homecoming was to be short-lived.

As the protestors reunited I was speaking with a man from Queens named Akio who said he was there “to offer smiles, hugs and morale” when the police suddenly converged in the square. Addressing the group with a bullhorn (an action that resulted in the arrest of a protestor leading a prayer the day before) an officer told the crowd to move so the police could confiscate the tarps. Apparently tents are illegal as well though these could hardly be considered such; another thinly veiled attempt to break the spirit of the protest as by now it was raining steadily in New York. One of the protestors who sat silently on top of one of the tarps wasn’t budging. Unfortunately, the NYPD weren’t either.

Within moments the scene turned hostile as officers peeled him from his perch, which was met with a mixed reaction from the crowd. Cries of “Obey!” and “Don’t give them a reason!” were mixed with “fucking pigs!” and “courtesy, professionalism and respect!”—a dig at the NYPD slogan. After a handful of arrests and angry exchanges the morning molestation of the movement appeared to come to an end.

Then, in the center of the Zuccotti Park, a man stood atop one of the planters and addressed the crowd; several were still angry, some were in tears and others just milled about in disbelief. Gradually the attention shifted to the speaker, although it was difficult to hear him as his back was turned to me at first. But I managed to hear enough to know that he was imploring the group to stay strong and stay focused.

I raised my camera to capture a glimpse of him as perhaps there was a nucleus to this thing after all and got off a decent shot only then recognizing him as the cameraman I had spoken to earlier. Confident he had control of the situation once more, the cameraman stepped down and resumed his role of real-time, anonymous documentarian—true to the moment and true to the movement.

As the crowd exhaled I stepped back to pack up my own camera, but not before deleting his picture—true to the moment and true to the movement.