Much of the media coverage has talked about the income inequalities, but those who stormed congressional offices and powerful K Street offices had a more specific message: the inequalities that matter are in power and opportunity.
This week Take Back the Capitol brought unemployed people and others to Washington to confront their members of Congress and the lobbyists on "K Street" that they work for, to demand a change. Today they marched on K Street, the center of lobbying activity.
In South Gate, CA, twenty minutes south of Los Angeles, dozens of supporters rallied around the home of Ana Casas Wilson, with several pledging to camp out in her front yard while she defies eviction, and face arrest if necessary.
Progressives had some fun last week with Frank Luntz, who told the Republican Governors' Association that he was scared to death of the Occupy movement and recommended language to combat what the movement had achieved. Be wary though. It's a trap.
OWS is about financial malfeasance and income inequity, to be sure, but it is also about the lack of equity in the marketplace of ideas. It is about taking back our voices from the media-cracy that has silenced and marginalized the 99 percent.
Equalization is about equalizing the power of any individual voter so that it will be greater than that of a corporation and equal to that of a voter who is a billionaire. This is what the Occupy movement should push for.
That the Occupiers lack leaders, legislation, and political candidates is irrelevant. What they have on their side is truth and a sense of justice. A society that cannot pay attention to those things is by definition an unjust society.
I would encourage the Occupy movement to adopt a new plank in the platform -- a new bank. De-bank and re-bank! Let's find the "radical" economists and entrepreneurs who can help make the success story of the state bank available to us all.
Across the world, and in the Occupy Wall Street movement, the shouts of protest are getting louder. But will protest alone be enough? Experience suggests otherwise. Instead, we need to consider new methods of political change.