That is in fact a falsehood.
Marisol Bello (USA Today) explains, "Two months after the Occupy Wall Street movement spread to dozens of cities and colleges, six in 10 Americans still don't know enough about its goals to decide if they are for or against it." And Gallup's analysis of the poll states that's been consistent throughout OWS -- that six in 10 have been saying they don't know enough. Of those who do have an opinion? That's only been 43% of the population. More of them support than oppose OWS. 19% opposed it back in October, 19% oppose it now. The change on support? 26% supported in October, 24% support now.
Going back to that quote, "Two months after the Occupy Wall Street movement spread to dozens of cities and colleges, six in 10 Americans still don't know enough about its goals to decide if they are for or against it."
"TV: Scandals and bumper stickers" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
What did OWS teach? It offered a fact about the 99%. But like Barack's 2008 campaign, it attempted to be intentionally vauge. While that might work for a personality, it apparently doesn't for a movement.
Tuesday, in DC, we were asked to explain what OWS wanted? And that's been the continued problem with the movement or 'movement.' Pitching a tent with no demands is camping out, it's not really protesting. If we're protesting, we have to be clear on what we're protesting and what we want to see happen.
Not only did OWS not have a clear list of demands or even a clear message, they were repeatedly stroked when they should have been facing tough questions. Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) are attorneys and smart people. So it was sad to hear them in an exchange with a modern-day Eddie Haskell on Law and Disorder Radio where they and the Eddie Haskell acted as if these OWS movements or 'movements' were on the level of the 'sixties' (they meant early 70s) activisim and as if nothing came between. Really? Way to spit on the college students and others of the 80s who demanded the US stop supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa. And that's just one example. OWS maybe took place in 50 cities. If you want to be very generous, each city had about 1,000 participants. That would mean OWS was a 50,000 person movement or 'movement.' As a be-in, those aren't Woodstock numbers; as a political event, that's not even a minor third party's run for president.
OWS may limp along a bit more. It may even spring back to life. But what last week demonstrated was that the public knows the real deal and Natalie Wood was it while, thus far, OWS wasn't.
You want to tell me Ava and C.I. didn't call it correctly? They nailed it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):