Olbermann Destroy's Breitbart's Smears On The Occupy Movement (VIDEO)

So, as I'm sure you've seen by now, there was a video posted over the weekend of Breitbart completely losing it at the CPAC convention after consuming some amount of red wine greater than or equal to one glass:


In response to people commenting on how unhinged Breitbart was, his employees started trying to defend him by saying his "Stop Raping People!" screams were justified by a serious problem at Occupy Camps. His sites published a list of 17 incidents of "rape or various sexual assaults" they claimed occurred at Occupy.

But Keith Olbermann decided to actually read the news stories associated with Breitbart's claims, and he found that in almost every single case the Breitbart crew was twisting reality. Here's the devastating segment from his show:


I should say that there have been some crimes, including sexual assaults, at Occupy encampments around the country. This is not surprising, since we live in a culture with a serious problem of violence against women, and it's not going to be any less of a problem in communities that provide food and lodging for those who need it and are extremely open and accepting almost anyone who wants to participate. From what I've seen, the Occupy groups have been very proactive in working to make their areas safe and welcoming for women. This is not to excuse any of the assaults, but rather to point out that they are not reflective of the occupy movement or most of the people involved. And I take the point that sexual assaults should not be used as a weapon for "the Right" or for "the Left."

But what I think is so valuable about Olbermann's research is that it shows, quite dramatically, just how morally bankrupt the Breitbartian version of "journalism" really is. In basically every case, Breitbart bloggers twisted reality to fit their narrative. A real journalist would wait for conclusive evidence before declaring that some person or movement was responsible for rapes or sexual assaults; at Breitbart's sites, they throw out the charges almost daily based on their own interpretations of limited and ambiguous information. It's very much like the Kenneth Gladney case; the video was anything but conclusive; all it showed was Perry Molens pulling Gladney away from McCowan at the end of a fight. Yet Breitbart's gang of hacks declared that the video provided conclusive proof that McCowan and Molens had severely beaten Gladney, and they steadfastly refused to engage in an honest assessment of the evidence.

The "point-by-point response" at Breitbart's sites to Olbermann's segment only helps to reinforce this point. In almost no case do they provide conclusive evidence that an Occupier was responsible for the crimes they are alleging. Rather, they rely on thoughts like, "well, why would someone be at the park at that time," to suggest that one possible interpretation of the limited information is that a person might have been involved. The fact that they're willing to take such limited information and use it to make hyper-dramatic proclamations about entire groups of people shows just how depraved the Breitbart model of "journalism" really is. A real journalist wouldn't make an accusation about a single person without conclusive evidence; Olbermann showed that the Breitbart gang made these unsupported accusations in at least 15 different cases. That's just embarrassingly bad, and should be fifteen times more information needed for credible news groups to realize that they shouldn't give Breitbart's gang the time of day.

Unprofessional: CNN's Dana Loesch Leaves CPAC To Yell At Occupy Protesters

Earlier this week, CNN suspended Roland Martin, telling Politico's Dylan Byers in a statement:

"CNN executives want to raise the bar on the level of professionalism off air by contributors in general, and that too is under discussion," the executive wrote.

So here's a question. How "professional" is it for a CNN "political analyst" to chase down a crowd of Occupy D.C. protesters, yell at them about rape, and accuse them of shooting at the White House? Because that's what Dana Loesch and her husband, Chris (also a former member of the St. Louis Tea Party), did earlier today. Here's a screen shot of the two of them:

And here's the video from Timcast, where you can hear Dana Loesch yell, among other things, "What about the people who shot at the White House from your camp? What about the people who threw smoke bombs from your camp?"


Update: Some of the people paid by Breitbart to be devoted fans are claiming that Loesch was "held hostage" by Occupiers. This is clearly false. There are hours of video footage showing CPACers engaging in civil conversations with the Occupiers and moving freely in and out of the hotel. Only people like Loesch and Breitbart, who were obviously looking for confrontations, engaged in useless shouting matches. Furthermore, the police had asked CPACers to back away from Occupiers earlier in the evening.

Washington University Warned International Students Not To Participate in Occupy

A friend sent me this link of a message sent to international students at Washington Unviersity about the Occupy movement:

The Occupy Protests and Illegal Activities: Implications for International Students

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in September have since spread throughout the United States and around the world. St. Louis even has a small Occupy movement centered around Kiener Plaza, with support coming from students from local campuses, including Washington University. The Occupy protests, both here in St. Louis and elsewhere, have mostly complied with local laws and ordinances. However, the number of arrests for Occupy-related crimes has increased in recent weeks as local governments and police agencies seek to enforce laws and, in many cases, quell the protests.

The Occupy protests may appeal to students for several reasons. It may be that the goals of the movement resonate with students. On the other hand, students may view the movement with curiosity. Students may even see the protests as a way to experience the American political process firsthand. In our view, however, the decision to participate in the Occupy Protests must not be taken lightly.

In order to participate, one must accept the possibility of arrest. Even in St. Louis, Occupy Protest-related arrests have been made. Arrests can have severe consequences for American students. However, international students face an even greater level of risk. International students who are arrested may face long term immigration consequences, including the loss of immigration status and even deportation, depending on the circumstances.

And, with news coverage of the Occupy Protests being broadcast around the world in a 24-7 newscycle and on the internet, an international student may face problems back home. Governments, and even perspective employers, may access information from online sources regarding activites that would viewed negatively in the home country. For example, background checks increasingly rely on information from online sources.

For more information on visa regulations and the consequences of an arrest, please consult an advisor in the OISS.

Now, the letter makes some valid points and I don't think this message was intended to be threatening for the sake of shutting down political opinions, but it does seem to me to strongly discourage international students from participating and to do so in a way that doesn't really make clear what things would and would not be problematic. Obviously, getting arrested is a problem for people here on a visa. However, there could be ways of participating that don't, as the letter claims, carry, "the possibility of arrest."

I've noticed first-hand that a lot of international students were pretty disturbed by this letter, and have been especially afraid of getting involved in any sort of political activity (specifically citing the letter as a reason). This seems like a real shame for academia, a place that is supposed to encourage free thinking.

Mayor's Staff Plots How to "Disarm" OccupySTL Members

More fun with Sunshine Law requests! Mary Ellen Ponder, a staffer for Mayor Slay, sent Jeff Rainford (Slay's Chief of Staff) an email suggesting a strategy for "disarming" the Occupy St. Louis members:



The text:

Jeff,

I would like to recommend that you start the meeting by asking them what they want from the City. I suggest this because I think it will disarm the occupiers. I also think it will make the meeting less hostile. If at all possible, I would like to know who Jeff plans to bring to the meeting.

When you ask the occupiers what they want from the City, they will say they want to continue their freedom to assemble in public spaces: they believe it is their individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom, and a civil liberty. They will say they believe this freedom, documented in the 1st amendment, trumps all other laws.

Also, i do not think we should move to remove them until after November 17th. On November 17th, the AFL-CIO and Jobs with Justice plan to rally and march with the occupiers. If we remove them before November 17th, November 17th will turn into a rally and march against the Mayor instead of a rally and march about joblessness.

I don't think it's a bunch of anarchist kids anymore. I think there is a decent number of labor peeps and veterans that support this movement.

Sincerely,
Mary Ellen

Being but a humble distributor of the facts, I will refrain from comment.

Did the City Decieve Occupy St. Louis About Helping the Homeless?

Last weekend, shortly after the city decided to kick Occupy St. Louis out of Kiener Plaza, I saw the following post on facebook:

I generally like Eddie (who used to work for the Post-Dispatch and now works for Slay), so I decided to investigate what this claim was about. According to the occupiers, Roth and city officials had promised that when they evicted the Occupy St. Louis group from Kiener, they would make sure to find housing for the homeless who had flocked to the Occupy demonstration because it provided a safer and friendlier environment than living on the street (and because housing was not available through the city). Yet, when last Friday rolled around and the police arrested anyone staying in Kiener past curfew, the only thing the homeless received was a slip of paper with the same old phone numbers to call. When they called, they were told there was no new space available.

The claim that Roth promised to provide an alternative came from a general assembly on Wednesday of last week where Roth and fellow Slay representative (and former union supporter) Mary Ellen Ponder were there to present their non-negotiable proposal. As can be seen from this video, there was already tension regarding the city's proposals about the homeless at Kiener, with one of the occupiers asking Roth why the homeless were being used as a bargaining chip by the city:


The comment in question from Roth, however, came earlier in the meeting in response to a different question from one of the group's longtime members, Cheryl, who also happens to be homeless. Roth says in the following video, "I'll be happy to come down with some people tomorrow to make sure to check with you and others."


This, as noted above, apparently did not happen. However, in my Sunshine Law request, I did see an email from Roth to Bill Siedhoff (who coordinates the city's response to homelessness) where Roth specifically mentioned a commitment to two men from the Occupy St. Louis group.

Here's the relevant text:

Hi Bill,

Mary Ellen and I were at Kiener Plaza last night for a second consecutive
night. We presented a proposal we hoped they might agree could serve as an
alternative to the encampment. One element is your stepped up effort,
already underway, to connect the homeless men and women who are participating in
the Occupy St. Louis demonstration with housing and other services.

Durin the back and forth with the demonstrators some, who said they were
homeless, disputed what you had said at Tuesday's meeting and claimed that the
City and other service providers have not been a presence at Kiener Plaza in
behalf of the homeless. I said that I believed the city could find through
its network of providers temporary shelter to all who wanted it.

Two men came up to me at the end of the evening and said they wanted to be
connected to housing and services. I said I would help them. One is going
to call me at 10 a.m. - and said he does not have a phone but will find one to
call me then.

Bill, could you please help me with these two guys--and use them to show the
group what we are capable of doing?

Please give me specific advice on how to simplify the path for these two men
that I can use for one of them when he calls at 10 a.m.

Many thanks,

Eddie

I checked with several members of the group and as far as they knew none of the homeless people at Occupy St. Louis had been helped out. It's still possible that Roth dropped the ball in following up with Siedhoff, but it certainly looks like he made an effort to help. Nevertheless, as far as the people I spoke with have heard, there has been no actual help. Whatever the exact story is, it seems clear to me that the Occupy encampment, just like Hopeville, is exposing some very serious problems in the City's ability and/or willingness to provide the homeless with adequate resources.

Did St. Louis City Cave to Downtown Partnership Requests? New Evidence Suggests Yes

Occupy St. Louis has previously alleged that St. Louis City's decision to evict them from Kiener Plaza was prompted by a meeting with the Downtown Partnership, a St. Louis business partnership whose board includes representatives from Bank of America, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Peabody Coal, and many others. Reporter David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch followed up on this suggestion by asking Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford about the allegations, but the city apparently would not answer his question:

Jeff Rainford, Slay's chief of staff, refused to say if the city met with the Downtown Partnership last week, but insisted that the complaints are coming from many, not only the Partnership.

"There are lots of people complaining. I'm not going to point at one versus the other," he said. "I'm not going to get into it. What I would prefer not to happen is to have this personalized."

The city, he said, would not meet with occupiers today, nor would it discuss the issue in the press.

In documents obtained from a Missouri Sunshine Law request, I have found conclusive evidence that officials from the Mayor's office did meet with the Downtown Partnership to discuss OccupySTL. In fact, an email sent from Maggie Campbell, the President and CEO of the Downtown Partnership, suggests that the St. Louis group had been communicating with "counterpart organizations" around the country with the express goal of "unoccupying public parks." Campbell is forwarding an email from Jane Jenkins of Downtown Oklahoma City, Inc. about a man found dead in a tent at Occupy Oklahoma City. Here's the exact quote from Campbell's Oct. 31st email to Jeff Rainford (Chief of Staff for the Mayor) and Sam Dotson (Director of Operations for the City of St. Louis):

Fyi - newsflash from Oklahoma City - we are talking weekly with counterpart organizations in dozens of American cities, learning that more of them are moving forward with local plans to unoccupy local parks and return them to a condition that everyone can use them, while still allowing for the right to assemble and protest without taking possession of public space. We look forward to our meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue further, and we appreciate your support and thoughtful guidance.

I've uploaded the document to DocStoc, blocking out emails and phone numbers for the people involved. I can make the original, unaltered version available for any press who are interested in following up. Here's the document:

DowntownPartnrship


If it is true that the meeting with the Downtown Partnership is what promted the City to evict Occupy St. Louis from Kiener Plaza, this seems like an important example of exactly what the movement is complaining about: city policy being determined by business elites. Why should the city of St. Louis bow to pressure from groups like Bank of America who have a vested interest in shutting down protests that remind the public of their unethical and likely illegal behavior?

I think this also suggests that people in other large cities should also start investigating the communication between their city governments and the local downtown association. It sounds like St. Louis was just one of any number of city's where local business groups pressured the city's to crack down on protesters.

1,000 People March For Jobs With Occupy St. Louis and Labor Groups

1,000 people marched today with OccupySTL and various labor groups for the November 17th Day of Action, marking the two month anniversary since Occupy Wall Street began. The protesters in St. Louis, as well as many other cities, marched to a local bridge to remind our legislators that we could put a lot of people to work by fixing our crumbling infrastructure.

The Fox 2 helicopter had some cool footage (make sure you see then end where it pans out on the whole crowd; sorry the resolution is so bad... oh, and the sound is strange too):



Fired Up has more on the declared economic emergency for the 99%.

Slay Obeyed: Mayor Slay Messaged Dana Loesch to Tell Her He Was Arresting Protesters

Yesterday, I pointed out that Mayor Slay's office said one of the reasons they decided to arrest protesters was because of feedback from "talk radio." Apparently, they think it's good city policy to try to appease the furthest right-wing fringe that carries coffins to local congressperson's yards, calls USDA officials "racist" based on doctored videos, and regularly attacks St. Louis institutions like UMSL and SEIU.

And thanks to a helpful tip from a commenter, it sounds like Mayor Slay was so eager to appease the right-wing fringe in St. Louis, he sent Loesch a personal message on Friday to let her know that he was going to be arresting protesters. She couldn't just wait to read about it on the news like all of the other rubes; nope, she's gets a special message so that she could cheer about those darn hippies getting their due.

Here's the clip of Loesch telling her rabid audience that Slay sent her a personal message on Friday:


Throughout the occupy protests, protesters have often chanted the following to the police: "Who do you protect? Who do you serve?" I think it might be more appropriate to ask the Mayor these questions.

Slay's Representative Cites "Talk Radio Complaints" And "Newspaper Comments" As Reason For Evicting OccupySTL

Prior to last Friday's mass arrests by the city of St. Louis of people engaging in political activism in Kiener Plaza, Mayor Slay's representatives Eddie Roth and Mary Ellen Ponder went to the Occupy encampment to make a non-negotiable proposal. While they were there, they were asked why, after nearly a month, they all of a sudden decided to kick the occupiers out of Kiener Plaza.

Here's Cathy asking the question:

And here's Eddie Roth's response:

He went on to note that in his impression it wasn't a decision made by "the plutocrats."

Roth worked for the Post-Dispatch editorial team. He knows better than to take those comments seriously.

And, in what can only be described as a remarkable coincidence, Jeff Rainford was on Dana Loesch's show today to receive her congratulations for kicking the violent dirty hippies out of Kiener Plaza (more on this later). It was the third time in less than a week that a representative from Slay's office was on her show.

Legal Analysis of Mayor Slay's Decision to Remove OccupySTL

Fox 2 News had lawyer Chet Pleban on yesterday to analyze the legality of Mayor Slay removing the occupiers from Kiener Plaza. For some reason I can't embed the video, but you can watch it here. It's pretty clear both people on the program have a lot of biases about the occupiers. The clip starts with them linking the Anonymous hacking to the St. Louis group, despite the fact that the Mayor's spokesperson Richard Callow said he didn't think the hacker was part of OccupySTL. They also call the part of the legal interpretation that says Slay is justified in kicking the occupiers out "the good news," later suggest that they're worried about riots from the group, and lament that horrible time in U.S. history known as the 60s. So yeah, it's pretty clear who they're rooting for.

However, what I thought was interesting is that Pleban suggested that while St. Louis City would normally be justified in removing they occupiers (a claim I'm sure Occupy STL disagrees with), the city is now in a pickle because they waited a full month to take any action. So it sounds like he thinks they need to provide some legal justification for why they made the change. I find this interesting because it seems to track the trajectory of my own thoughts.

I previously stated that I could understand why the city felt like it had to enforce the codes on the books. However, I objected when Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford suddently tried to suggest (on Dana Loesch's radio show) that something had changed and that the occupiers were no longer "not harming anyone." It seems to me that he has not provided sufficient justification for that claim, and if the decision really was the result only of complaints from groups like Bank of America, then it does seem like a change in policy based on a decision to prevent the occupiers from speaking out (quite effectively) against corporatism run amok. Thus, following policy consistently from the beginning might not have been a violation of First Amendment. But changing how they enforce the policy based on the fact that the message was offending local businesses seems like it would be a restriction of free speech.

This is why last night I filled a Sunshine law request with the Mayor's office to try to ascertain what the actual complaints were, and to compare them to statements in support of the occupation. I'll let you know what I find out.

Former St. Louis Police Officer To Make Statement In Support of OccupySTL

Press advisory:

Occupy Police Stands in Solidarity With Occupy St. Louis

Former St. Louis County Police Officer to Make

Public Statement of Support While Denouncing Brutality

What: A Public Speech delivered by a former St. Louis Officer, directed to both officers and citizens of St. Louis. Topics covered in short will be: The officers history with St Louis Police, brutal tactics used against protesters by some departments, and what can result from it, including the officers own firsthand experience with police brutality. Oakland PD's open letter to the citizens of Oakland where they openly state "We are part of the 99%" Bad department leadership in a time when true leaders are needed, and finally Occupy Police's mission and position in the Occupy movement, which in less than 10 words is that "Police are part of the 99% too" and communities across the nation are needing them to stand openly with the rest of the 99, now more than ever -

Goal: To call out Mayor Slay and put an end to the planned raid @3 - To let it be widely known that officers are part of the 99% and that they don not have to obey commands put forth by unstable leaders who represent the interests of the 1% and not that of the common man or woman. Lastly to let it be widely known that Occupy Police supports officers and entire departments who protect their communities without the use of brute force or violence.

When: Today, Friday November 11th at 2pm sharp - Before the impending raid @ 3pm

Where: The corner of Market and 7th on the stage at Kiener Plaza in St. Louis

-Occupy Police Team & Officers of the 99

KMOX reported on this development earlier today.

Statement From OccupySTL On Their "Eviction Notice"

Press release:

Hey Hey, Ho, Ho: The Occupiers Will Not Go!

On November 10, 2011 Occupy St Louis received notification from the city of St Louis that we have 24 hours to remove all structures and obey the city curfew laws before they would forcibly remove our non-violent occupation from Freedom Square (formerly known as Kiener Plaza). Since October 1st, we have maintained a peaceful occupation in this public space, founded on the principle that large corporations have too much influence in the actions of our government. Mayor Slay and his Senior Staff have once again validated this by bowing to pressure from the Downtown Partnership of St Louis to restrict our First Amendment Rights to peaceably assemble.

Since its inception, Occupy St Louis has been a model of cooperation and non violence, and has made Freedom Square a safer, cleaner place. The city claims that in addition to violation of curfew that the tents and supplies we have in Freedom Square are a direct violation of city ordinance and provides a safety concern. We strongly disagree and believe that our encampment is a valid form of political speech justified by the First Amendment. Additionally this precedent has been set in other occupied cities across the nation.

On November 10, 2011 Mayor Slay stated in his personal blog that the city would be creating a space for a 24/7 public demonstration. On November 9th, senior members of the Mayor’s staff attended our General Assembly to propose this space to us as a possible alternative to Freedom Square. This was not a proposal, but rather an ultimatum to Occupy St Louis. The City had already made up its mind on the course of action that it would be taking. This new space would not allow for tents or occupation, which we feel are a valid forms of political speech. This proposal was blocked by a consensus of our General Assembly. The General Assembly uses consensus as our decision making process. It allows for all participants to have an equal voice. Occupy St Louis maintains that just because one states they are using the consensus process, does not mean that they are actually using it.

Occupy St Louis hopes that Mayor Slay realizes that our freedom to assemble is not limited to one space, but guaranteed to all people, in any public space, at any time. We believe that we are engaged in a vital attempt to restore the cornerstone of American ideals: equality, unity, and social mobility. St Louis City must recognize that Occupy St Louis is not mutually exclusive with public safety and the common good, but an ally in promoting social justice and in preserving order downtown. The medium is the message and our medium is occupation.

Macy's, Salvation Army Say OccupySTL Is Not In Their Way

From David Hunn at the Post-Dispatch:

Those involved in the upcoming holiday celebrations at Kiener said the occupiers were not in their way now.

A Macy's spokesman said the company had no plans to abandon its Nov. 18 celebration and parade, which leads from Kiener Plaza to its downtown store.

And a Salvation Army spokesman said the frame for the annual Kiener Christmas tree —actually a stack of 300 five-foot trees, said local Communications Director Will Becker —has already been erected without incident. The trees, he said, will be going up Wednesday.

"We have not had any problems with the Occupy St. Louis folks," Becker said. "They're protesting their own thing, and we're working around that the best we can."

Occupy STL Responds to Mayor Slay: Will The St. Louis Media Cover the Response?

Update: Looks like David Hunn wrote a story about the response for the Post-Dispatch. Glad to see it. Chad Garrison at the Riverfront Times also had an interesting take on the developments. Jo Mannies at the Beacon also covered the response.

The media in St. Louis reported excitedly last week on Mayor Slay's blog post indicating that the city was planning on kicking the Occupy St. Louis group out of Kiener Plaza (at least for overnight stays). Part of the Mayor's PR campaign included releasing a list of alleged violations by the occupiers (without any evidence to support the claims). Now Occupy St. Louis has responded with their own list of "violations" by the Slay administration, and I'll be curious to see if our enthusiastic media provides equal coverage for these grievances. I don't necessarily agree with every point on the list, but surely many of them would be part of the discussion in a healthy democracy, no? And it seems like it should be the media's job to provide equal coverage to both sides of the issue.

Here's the first part of the Occupy St. Louis response:

Occupy St. Louis is one of many cities that exist as a solidarity movement with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which formed to publicly attest to the fact that corporations control far too much of our economy and political life. This movement has received vast support across the country. How ironic, then, that Mayor Slay has decided to stop listening to the complaints of the people and instead heed the complaints of the corporate groups who control the city. This week, Downtown Partnership met with the mayor’s office and told him to shut us down. He responded to their call. No more fitting example could illustrate who is pulling the strings. (For a list of who voiced the words behind the Mayor’s blog: http://www.downtownstl.org/AboutUs/PartnershipforDowntownStLouis/PartnershipBoard.aspx)

The Occupy St. Louis movement is further disappointed that the mayor has chosen to hide behind false accusations to sway public opinion and to indicate that he has spoken to Occupy St. Louis. There has been no conversation from the Mayor’s office to Occupy St. Louis, only blog posts that have not been sent to Occupy St. Louis. The mayor’s chief of staff is quoted as saying that Kiener Plaza “reeks of urine.” Anyone is welcome to come to the site to see that this is not true. The occupiers have done a remarkable job of maintaining a clean and orderly space. The other allegations issued by the Parks Department are equally untrue in blaming the occupiers for a host of grievances, ranging from the ridiculous, (glass bottles) to the obscene, (public urination). Occupy St. Louis has always adhered to the idea that public spaces are public spaces and we have no grounds to tell people to leave, other than to encourage everyone to adhere to our safe space policy. The Mayor blames Occupy St. Louis, (which is not an organization but a group of autonomous individuals coming together to make decisions collectively) for behaviors that are almost universally the actions of individuals not participating in Occupy activities and would most likely have occurred regardless of our presence. The mayor’s other concern, that the occupiers must give way to allow for other events, is equally unfair. We have shared the Plaza with other groups on several occasions so far; it is everyone’s space and everyone is welcome. On the other hand, a Macy’s display with the occupiers evicted might just be enough to convince many in the area to Occupy the Holidays by shopping only at smaller local businesses.

And here's a general description of their criticisms of the city:

To put these accusations in perspective, we are issuing today our own list of violations committed by the city, of which Mayor Slay has been the chief executive for eleven years. Some of the violations cited illustrate the inconsistent application of laws that the mayor now wants to use against Occupy St. Louis. These are cases of hypocrisy and raise serious questions about unequal protection under the law. Other violations show the city’s cooperation with Big Business and demonstrate complicity in the economic oppression being raised by Occupy St. Louis. And of course, the violations include the incredible disparity and racial injustice that this City has long been guilty of towards African Americans. In total, these violations make the trivial and untrue accusations raised against us pale in comparison.

To read the full list of "Violations" by the city, see the Occupy STL post. I should note that I can't verify that the Downtown Partnership has anything to do with Slay's decision, and my guess would be they'd deny the claim.

Update: It looks like Mayor Slay has also updated his blog, with what sounds like a pretty reasonable response to me:

I expect the loudest critics of this measured approach to be those whose political agendas are most opposed to the Occupy protestors and who would love a provoke a confrontation to “prove” some prejudice about the groups that make up the Occupy coalition. That’s not my plan.

It's hard to evaluate for me, because some times the Mayor's office says reasonable things like this, and other times they engage in clear provocation and demonization.

Excellent OccupySTL Video Introductions

For anyone wondering more about the people camping out in Kiener Plaza to stand in solidarity against corporate greed, a couple of excellent videos were produced recently.

First, Renaissance Man Erich Vieth at Dangerous Intersections shot this great film about the rally on Friday:



And the Show Me Shows shot some high quality video of some of the participants and did a nice job explaining the movement:

Occupy St. Louis 10/14/11 from Jarred Gastreich on Vimeo.

Video: 1,000 People March With OccupySTL (UPDATED With Additional Coverage)

I finally got to visit OccupySTL in Kiener Plaza today and they really have something special going on. Today a crowd of 1,000 people marched to Bank of America to protest their unethical foreclosure practices. It was great seeing union folks gathered and on the march with the dedicated occupiers who have been standing up against corporate greed the past two weeks.

Here's my video wandering through the crowd of 1,000 chanting across the street from Bank of America:


Update: Here's some coverage from other St. Louis area bloggers:
Fired Up Missouri:Pics From Rally and March with Occupy St. Louis
Riverfront Times: Union Workers to Join Occupy St. Louis for Major Demonstration Today
Show Me Progress: OccupySTL is a Rorschach test for politicians and media
Occasional Planet: This is What Democracy Looks Like
Dangerous Intersections:Meet the protesters of Occupy St. Louis – October 14, 2011
Great photo collection from Chuck Ramsay.

Update On Occupy St. Louis's Social Media Situation

I was a little confused about Occupy St. Louis's Twitter and Facebook accounts, but I've spoken to some friends and think it has now been sorted out, so I thought I'd post this in case anyone else was in the same boat I was. Basically, one of the admins for the old Facebook page changed the password to lock out the other admins and then completely deleted the page. The person claimed she was doing this because of threats she received, but no one was able to verify as she cut off communication. You can find the new Facebook page here, which is under the collective control of people on the ground at OccupySTL and is a result of their group decision making process.

Something similar appears to have happened with Twitter. The previous @occupystl account is not available to the people who are involved in the occupation and group decision-making process. The person running that account declared that OccupySTLers are "attention whores" who should "go to hell." People who are involved in the actual organizing set up a new Twitter account at @stloccupy.

So if you're interested in the efforts, please like the Occupy St. Louis facebook page and follow @stloccupy on Twitter.