A sea of negative slogans, what did they expect to result? There was never going to be a political revolution here. Corporations owe me, rich people owe me. News: nobody owes you anything in life except your parents. What others have or do not have is honestly none of your business. People who work full time and pay Federal taxes every year do not welcome political advice from the non-working. Anyone who does not pay Federal taxes is not getting exploited by anyone because nothing is contributed to exploit.

Cory,

I disagree. Parents don't even owe us anything. They raised us, put food on the table, and got us an education. They owe us nothing.

Is it over? The news folks are just broadcasting another "mission accomplished" banner--remember that? Same thing.

What do people owe other people? Common decency springs to mind. While there is a chance that persons can respond with common decency, corporations are mandated to turn a profit with no such considerations.

What are we, as Americans, entitled to? Refer to the full constitution for details, but equal protection under the law seems obvious. And it is obvious that the law that sends people to jail for, say stealing money, perpetrating fraud, is not being applied to the folks that made outrageous profits from destroying the economy. Astonishingly, quite the opposite. We won't hold our breath hoping to see financial institutions extend the same kind of leniency to which they claim entitlement. What a shameless arrogant disgrace they are.

Beyond that, the Occupyers envision a better more humane world. The conversation has begun and these voices will not be quiet even though the tv news folks may try reporting that the Occupy Movement is over ("Mission Accomplished"-yeah), it is NOT over. It is just beginning. A hopeful beginning.

gwills,

"Beyond that, the Occupyers envision a better more humane world. "

Those are code words for unjust redistribution of wealth from the productive to the nonproductive. There is no need to "Occupy Wall Street" - Wall Street is just a symptom. What they really need to occupy is Congress and local govts and the universities. Congress is allowed to do insider trading and both the Dems and GOP have too cozy a relationship with business and special interests. Why did our govt allow in over 30 million immigrants, legal and illegal, over the past couple of decades and yet we have 22 million Americans who can't find full time work? Why is our govt still allowing in over a million legal immigrants a year? And universities think nothing of rewarding deans, provosts, and professors with lavish perks and salaries thereby drastically increasing tuition costs yet they hypocritically state they are for the middle class all while picking their pockets. Ask why did Harvard prevent their yard from being occupied? They certainly deserve being protested.

My understanding is that many reporters were corralled away from the scene. A Boston Phoenix reporter said he was threatened with arrest.

The police were smart to do what they did. You're just looking for a reason to bad mouth the men and women who are out there EVERY DAY, rain or shine, hot or frigid, working to keep you safe while you do nothing but point fingers at them. The occupy squatters DESTROYED that part of the Greenway. The police did what they had to do. This is a nation with many freedoms, but it is not a free-for-all.

Why is it smart to bar reporters?

Chris,

That's a very touchy issue, and I see where you're coming from. I'll be totally honest and say that, from an objective reporting standpoint, the Phoenix is nothing even close to what should be considered reliable news reporting. I believe that their objective at the eviction of Occupy Boston would be to paint the police in a bad light. So, I'm not too banged up if they weren't allowed a from row seat. Now, I guess that begs the question of what, given our Constitutional freedoms, should be considered "the press". I read a story yesterday about a blogger who was sued for libel for $2 million. The defendent claimed that she should be granted the same consideration as mainstream journalists. She lost. So, who should be consideredlegit and who shouldn't?

Hey Owen. It wasn't just the Phoenix reporters; they made everyone leave about 50 feet away (to be clear, I wasn't there for the final raid, but this is what I read). Either way, I don't think the fact a journalist has run critical stories about the department is a reason to abrogate their First Amendment rights. That is a very slippery slope. I understand cops have a hard job, but so do reporters, and it's not necessarily to just be cheerleaders for the department.

As for the blogger issue, I read about that too. I am pretty into the First Amendment and think it should be extended to include citizen journalists like bloggers as well.

Chris,

50 feet? That's really not all that far, and at the risk of sounding like an apologist for the BPD, perhaps their decision to keep the press at what amonts to "arms length" from the operation was part of their preplanning risk assesment. Maybe they thought that keeping the press away from the operation, while sure to be viewed as restricting first amendment rights, was a better option than having them in the mix and running the risk of being accused of arresting journalists, which potentially opens up a huge PR nightmare.

As for citizen journalists and bloggers, it's another touchy issue. As far as bloggers go, too many people think that just because they rant everyday on a free blog hosting website, they're legit reporters. I believe that the first amendment is sacred, but a prefessional journalist has years of training and experience, while all Jane and Joey Whose-a-what have is unrestricted access to information overload, a laptop, and bottomless coffee. That can do a lot of damage to peoples' lives in the wrong hands.

My understanding was that their coverage was obstructed, but I wasn't there so I don't know. The police also made an activist livestreaming the raid from the same press area leave the scene. The point of that, to me, seems to be overt censorship of the raid.

I think the police handled the situation pretty well, don't get me wrong. I just have a problem with that, for obvious reasons.

Another thought: Say a police special ops unit is using darkness to mask movements while they go after a dangerous criminal, and they're doing for their own safety and the safety of bystanders who, if the op was conducted in daylight, would be out and about in the streets? Would that be wrong for the police to do? Remember, you said, "ALWAYS something wrong with ANYTHING done under cover of darkness."

Lita:
So attacking corporations, rich people, and banks is supposed to produce jobs?
Local unemployment is 8%. It has been 8% at seveal other points during my life. This doesn't equate to a crisis. There seems a sky-is-falling deathwish for the US economy promoted by the Occupy crowd. I work across from the now-cleared Occupy camp. Same folks were there 24/7. Few, if any, work. Those few protesters I engaged in conversation seemed paranoid, irrational, and quite probably mentally ill.

Cory--so protecting corporation, rich people and the banks is supposed to produce jobs? Because from what we've seen recently, that's not working either. "what's good for General Motors is good for America" no longer holds true. I'm not down with every sign I've seen at Occupy, but I agree with the basic premise that something has gone very, very wrong in this country and things are wildly out of balance.

The "extensive repairs" have been done in a weekend! At what cost to the taxpayers? Well, if they used a private "buddy" company it will be a lot more expensive than if the Park Department took care of it. What baffles me is that they laid sod on the Square in December! It is almost certain to die off in the cold which will require re-sodding or re-seeding in the spring!

Jan,

You contradicted your post under another article. You stated that repairs can't begin until Spring. Which is it?

"If you don't think there are issues in this country that have to change, then you're not paying attention"

Who are you to make such a statement? Perhaps many people simply don't agree with the "Occupy" mentality. And yes, many are there looking for a handout. When the dealine passed on Friday morning, I saw a sign that read, "You want your park back. I need a home." Are you telling us that only one person in the "movement" thinks that way? The truth is that while there are differing objectives among the members of "Occupy", there is a large number of people who think that they can take what they want and no one can challenge them. It's typical extremist behavior. Are you familiar with Ted Rall? I recommend you head on over to his site and read some of the insane posts from him and his followers. He openly calls for destroying America, and many people post on his site that bankers and wealthy individuals need to be dragged out and killed. I am convinced that many in the "Occupy" movement feel the same way.

It's easy to see the level of extremism deep within the Occupy movement. One only needs to pay cursory attention to the news. You accused someone of "not paying attention" because they happen to not agree with you.

Not exactly.

Em,

Ok, "not exactly". Then what, "exactly", did you mean?

Em,

Re: global following

There are parasites in every country.

Andrea, of course corporate greed is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy is the socialist utopia that many (a majority?) of those in the OWS movement are peddling.

These populist uprisings ALWAYS occur in times of economic distress. This is nothing new and it will happen again. Of course, when the evil corporations get back to hiring people, all this will go away and the current OWS brood will become the next generation of yuppies that the next protest will be about.

The problem with OWS is that there is a complete lack of understanding about what and who actually create jobs. As Cory alluded to above, wealth redistribution from the rich is not going to create jobs, it will take them away. Trying to eliminate corporations from the equation is not going to provide jobs to anyone either.

The fact that you have all of the socialist groups vehemently supporting this movement, coupled with perhaps the most out of touch people in the country (unions) piling on sends a clear message.

There are problems in the US, but compared to the rest of the world, our standard of living under this horrible capitalistic system of ours is still fantastic. Suggesting that capitalism has failed this country is preposterous.

Bob- What examples of utopia are being peddled and which socialist groups are supporting this movement?

LOL--so because Group A or B is supporting Cause X, then everyone who supports Cause X must also support Group A and B? Honestly--this doesn't even make sense, but any conservative making this argument may want to check out the wide range of nutty, racist, conspiracy-theory-holding, separatist freaks that seem to make up a good slice of the GOP these days. Sorry, but I'll take the lefty wackos over the righty wackos any day.

Owen: You really harp on this theme, dont you? These people were all involved in the Civil Right movement, too, along with Dr. King's people and thousands of JIm Crow blacks down South. I guess you would say that the Civil Rights Movement was wrong because of fringe groups who happened to agree with the basic premise? I see no problem with fringe groups that believe corporate greed is pulling down the majority of ordinary citizens in America. Furthermore, I see no violence erupted from the alleged participation of these groups in the Occupation (if, in fact, they were there). I never met any of them - or saw any posters that indicated they were there.

Also add the American Nazi Party. I'm pretty sure that weren't involved with the Civil Rights Movement in a positive sense. If these groups were associated with the Tea Party, the left would be foaming at the mouth mouth than they already do.

“I see that Dewey Square is almost completely restored to its pre-protest condition (not at all "destroyed").” You’re correct, only 95% of it was destroyed. What you saw today, as I did at this morning before work and again at 1:00pm for my daily walk, were contractors used by the Trustees of the Greenway (private resources/funds) working to remove everything that was ruined and had to be replaced. Not City of Boston employees. They had to re-grade the parcel and start anew – that’s why it looks so good!! Stop being foolish and please stop putting your inaccurate spin on what you’re seeing and start accepting and reporting facts. You bash FOXNews for lying and slanting the news, yet with posts like yours, you are doing the same thing!!

Curious to know what happened to all your pictures that you were going to take showing The Patch readers that Dewey Square wasn’t as damaged as the media claimed? Instead of posting those pictures, which would have shown exactly all the damage these squatters caused, you make this post…deflecting blame and spreading misinformation as usual.

You are quite naive if you think Fox news is the problem in this country. It's the lamestream media of the likes of the NY TImes, Washington Post, LA TImes, Boston Globe who are peddling propaganda and agenda driven journalism. Totalitarianism is coming to the US, not from the right but from the left. Why don't you educate yourself.

Can you give us any examples of the "agenda driven journalism" that you're talking about?

"Lamestream." I like that.

had_enuf,

"Lamestream media"... Did you just learn that at Conservapedia?

Just a heads up, Patch is owned by AOL-Time Warner, who also own CNN and Time Magazine. Is it really fair to call us lame if you're using our tools to express your opinion?

And while I may agree with some (but not all) of Olbermann's view, you're right--most people would consider 15 minutes on a comb-over (or 2 minutes) a good reason to change the channel, I think.

The rules are different on every Patch site, and since this is cross-posted there may be folks coming in from Patch sites where people are less strict about using correct names.

While we're not going to block anyone for leaving a comment without a name in this article, you're absolutely right that at Patch we much, much prefer when people use their real names (at least real first names) and on some Patch sites we don't allow commenting without it. And, across the board, we're quicker to block commenters who say inflammatory things without a name attached than we are to block someone who stands behind their words publicly, even if it's controversial. So there are advantages to using your name, even if others aren't using theirs.

Hey Rich, Kasey is right about this being cross-posted at other Patches, where the site editors don't all have the "real names" rule we have on JP Patch.

*rich looks puzzled* I thought it was Patch policy - I thought you had forwarded to all of us the Patch policy a few months ago and required us to conform to Patch policy? If my recollection is correct, then why would the Patch leadership not enforce it's own policies uniformly across all locales? *Rich is super puzzled*

Hi Rich, yes the exact letter of the policy is the same Patch-wide. But there's a lot of discretion left to local editors, because we know our communities best.

*still puzzled* why would one location enforce the policy and another not?

Local editors have discretion over commenting policy. The "real name" policy is recommended by corporate, but it can be difficult to enforce. I try to strike a nice balance, and if I see someone *repeatedly* posting with a false name (and/or trolling), I reach out to them.

Thanks for the clarification Chris! [ i guess it would be nice to see other editors share your view of interpreting the policy so that when people from different locations comment on articles, we all feel a sense of fairness and consistency in the Patch system]

Rich P - "gwills25" could easily be the person's first initial and last name, followed by his/her age. It's a screen name. Who's to say the Rich P isn't an alias? Or that Kasey Hariman is really Kasey Hariman?? Think about it. Are we to believe someone more because they put a first and last name? Your compliant puzzles me.

And with regards to news sources out there and those that say the media does not lean towards the "left," look at all the examples given. Only one, repeat, only one has been associated with being "right" and that is FoxNews. If you don't gather information from all resources available, it's impossible for anyone to claim they know what they're talking about. Bashing one side while refusing to even educate yourself with another point of view (whether you agree or not) makes it extremely difficult for anyone to take you seriously.

Joseph - huh???

No problem Rich. I think Joseph kind of nails it on the head - how do I know that your name is really Rich, for example? (or his Joseph?). If it's not outwardly suspicious, I probably won't have a reason to look into it. So, it's kind of hard to enforce with real consistency - that's why I really only enforce it if I feel my good graces are being taken advantage of. I hope that makes sense.

Complaint, not compliant. My apologizes. Hopefully Chris was able to clarify what I was saying. Whether my screen name is Mary Jones or John D Rockefeller or BHCC Grad, does it matter? Pros and cons of the internet message boards. If someone is rude and disrespectful, that’s when The Patch steps in and bans them.