Why is it OK if a trait appears randomly, by accident, but not OK when we do it deliberately?
Because Monsanto owns the patent on these GM crops and prevents farmers from using their own seed-stocks taken from their own land. Once the farmers fields are corrupted by the GM crops, they are then forced to buy seed stock from Monsanto even if they never intended to have the GM stuff at all.

They are occupying DC. Sorry you never heard about it.

http://occupydc.org/

Because I've gone to the official places, and all I'm finding it idiocy.

Notice in the URL you provided the word "forum". The word forum indicates a place where anyone can go and post whatever BS they feel like posting. Forums work pretty much exactly the same way Slashdot comments work except the AC's get to post the top stories.

In this case the this is "bchang1987"s opinion of what the demands should be and the comment even carries the disclaimer at the top "This content is user submitted and not an official statement". Those demands are, in fact, pretty stupid and would be blocked in a second if they ever would come before the GA.

So no, this is not the official demands. FYI, the General Assembly has yet to reach consensus on the formal demands, that's why you can't find any.

People fault the movement for not having demands. To that I say: "Just because we don't have all the answers, doesn't mean that we can't ask the questions."

Feel free to laugh at those. Really. They are laughable.

But get your facts straight:

They are not really the demands. Those demands were never adopted by the General Assembly. At best they were a proposal, worst they were just a brainstorming session that made it on a website. Without consensus being reached in the GA, that list is not the demands of the body known as Occupy Wall Street.

Those "demands" made the rounds on conservative media and were soundly laughed at, but the joke was that those were never the official demands.

To date, there are still no formal demands made by the General Assembly.

That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose. That's why (in terms of Establishment priorities) it's okay to give them so much media attention. It's little more than a way to get the "troublemakers" to identify themselves and be arrested or otherwised put through the system.

It is and this is typically why a lot of populist citizen movements fail. Once they identify themselves to an agenda, the establishment can label them as one side or the other and split them apart on wedge issues. It's critical for this movement to not pick stands on issues if it wants to prevent it's ideal from being wedged.

The one thing they want, and 99% of us should be able to agree on is equal access to democracy without being marginalized by the people with money. My one vote counts the same as a 1%er's.

Being upset is not enough to effect change.

Sure it is. If there are enough of you.

See my other comment on the topic: Slashdot Comment

And one more thing: It's not the liberal version of the Tea Party. Both sides would **LOVE** for that to be the big soundbyte for precisely the same reason: Divide and conquer. The right will discredit it to their base as more liberal whack jobs and the left will attempt to co-opt whoever remains with the movement. It's important to reject that notion outright. The movement has NO POLITICAL STAND. The only way to win the game is not to play.

I've been around here long enough to know that top posting unrelated to the prior comment is bad etiquette, but again, I've been around here long enough to know when it is appropriate. I also know the magic formula for getting modded up is to say "I'll probably get modded down for this but.."

I'll probably get modded down for this but it is important enough to risk it.

The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have any leaders or stated goals or structure on purpose. This is an action deliberately taken in order to have broad populist appeal. The same instant they take a side on any issue, the established political system will immediately use that as a wedge issue to label, then divide and conquer the scraps of popular sentiment and kill any interest. Once a leader is selected, they will find one thing that guy/gal has said publicly, label him as a partisan for it and kill the movement. The parties have been doing this for years and have more experience, skill and money to deflate populist action than can be competed against. The only way to win that game is not to play.

The movement does have a goal and that is to take back our democracy. Get people talking about the issues again without having predetermined party lines or agendas. Once those lines are drawn, almost everyone stops listening or thinking and just go like lemmings how they have always done. The only thing this movement wants is an equal shake at a fair government. They want their representatives to actually represent them instead of representing the highest bidder: usually the rich and the corporations.

The purpose here is not to take any specific issue to congress, it's to overturn congress with people who actually listen to their electorate. If that means voting incumbents out, great, or at least put the fear of the people back into them, good too.

What is their stand on abortion? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.

What is their stand on gay rights? The environment? Housing? Taxation? Big Government? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.

What is their stand on any issue? TBD but we'll talk about it democratically once we have fair representation.

You don't have to agree with this movement on any specific issue and you don't have to hold off on support because they don't have talking points or take stands on your personal hot-button issue. For now it's enough to say that all the issues are TBD until such time as we have fair representation and can figure it all out democratically.

There is a sentiment of discontent in everyone I talk to. Everyone knows the system is broken but nobody has the power to change that. Voting is supposed to solve these problems but voting either way is a vote for the same thing.

Slashdot is typically an open minded place, I think this movement should speak to each of you. The only thing they want is more democracy. I don't blame anyone for thinking there is a hidden agenda, because there almost always is. But this movement has reached enough of a mass with the cause of having no purpose that it would be hard to argue that there is one. When the only underlying cause visible in their message is "More democracy!", I don't see how anyone can be against that. Want to change something about that platform, get out there and discuss it democratically instead of sniping at it from the comfort of slashdot.

This is a movement that is outside of and has rejected the established political system. And it's the only one I've seen in my lifetime that has rejected playing the two-party game. I am very excited that it has even gained some traction and has people talking!!! To me it is a moral imperative that we support this. Even if all it means is getting some people you know to talk out the issue.... even that alone is progress.

The muddle of people griping over their pet causes is what democracy looks like. That is precisely why this movement can't pick a side on any cause. It might come off as a bunch of long haired hippies, but hopefully it causes enough people to question what they think about the system to do something about it. If you feel strongly about it, get out there and make it about what you represent! That's the beauty of democracy.

Really the only thing all of them can agree on, and I would think most of us Americans, and slashdotters think is this: The system is broken. Our representatives don't represent us. Voting one side or the other makes no difference. I can vote for the ones who openly represent only the rich, or I can vote for the ones who secretly represent the rich.

The movement is about taking back our democracy, getting people to actually discuss the issues without preset party lines clouding things and letting all the people who are not ensconced in the parties know that there are plenty of others (probably the vast majority) who are fed up with the way things are and will vote against the corrupt system.

The lack of goals is a feature, not a bug. Once they announce an agenda or a âoesideâ they lose the 50% of people who self-identify themselves as the âoeother sideâ. This movement strives to be a populist movement that represents 99% of the country. Stating ANYTHING except a general pissed-off feeling will alienate the people who disagree with the thing (whatever it is) you have just stated.

The movement has reached the mass that it has precisely because they have not stated a purpose. And this is something that should be continued.

In my opinion, the endgame to this is simple. Continue to be non-partisan and work hard to gain a mass of people who are sufficiently fed-up with the moneyed interests dominating the government. With enough voting power, vote out all the corrupt scum-bags (both left and right) and replace them with representatives who answer to the people, not to corrupt interests.

Demand is a function of price and quantity. As prices rise when supply becomes scarce, demand has no choice but to decline. There will be a lot fewer people willing to drive anywhere when gas is $1000/gallon.