Scott, isn't the point of a sit-in to "wear out your welcome"?

The right to free speech is a cornerstone to our democracy. When it was incorporated into our constitution it didn't come with a time limit or an expiration date. As long as everyone keeps a cool head and nobody is getting hurt, they should be allowed to stay.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's from the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It refers to "congress", but it is fully applicable to the States as well. Freedom of speech. Freedom of peaceable assembly. These are among our most precious rights.

It doesn't matter whether you like their message or not, the Occupy movement has a constitutional right to their actions.

I want an occupation in every city and town across the country.

I still don't know what Occupy Prov. stands for. RI is the poster child for everything the larger Occupy movement wants. RI has taxed the wealthy out of town. RI has so much regulation and taxation that "evil" corporations have left or are leaving. RI has some of the highest entitlements around, taking from those that do earn and produce and giving to those that don't earn and don't produce (aka, social justice). I say, let them sit. Through hard work and dedication, I earn an income so they don't have to.

Oh no, we are not going to go down this road again are we bill ? The poor, the homeless, those living 100 to 200 % above the poverty level (indentured slaves) are responsible for this state's demise ? baloney ! In Rhode Island last year, 26,000 more Rhode Islanders fell into poverty. The total number of people living in poverty in Rhode Island in 2010 was 142,000. 61,000 of of them are living in “deep poverty,” defined by having income of less than half of the federal poverty level (e.g., $9,150 for a family of three) in addition to the 142,000 living in poverty, another 172,000 have income between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level. I imagine that the number of people that fell into poverty across the United States last year is staggering. As a society we continue to spiral as a result of sheer greed. Society creates many programs to address the facets of poverty, only to have the programs cut in a never ending ineffective cycle. It is time to address poverty for what it is ( man made ) It is also time that we recognize that it is a violation of human rights, and therefore must be made illegal. There's your social justice !

I have not been impressed with this movement. They don't seem to have a clue about the real problems in America. The biggest problem is people stopped buying American. When we bought each others goods we supported the American economy. Congress changed all that with global trade agreements. We went for the cheep goods, and screwed our selves. The message should be buy American when possible. Or at least buy from countries that practice fair trade with us.

I hereby invite Occupy Prov to Occupy East Prov!

@Mr B. don't you see that we have this poverty because we have driven the jobs out of the state. High regulation along with high union demands = RI's present condition. The wealth has left, or will soon. Ask the college graduates with HUGE college debt how their job search is going. My son graduated with a mechanical engineering degree last spring. He got a job outside of RI.

@Portsmouth Citizen. They certainly do have a right to protest and speak. Do they have a right to squat? The homeless didn't. They were thrown out. I get it. We are all frustrated with the economy, I just wish I knew what their solution is. Because we need a solution!

I think the point has been made and now it's time for OWS to take it to the next level and become a full-fledged and legitimate Political Action Committee (PAC).

Some would describe my politics as "far right, or wrong". I don't think the OWS people "have a clue". I find many of their poorly stated goals difficult to fathom. I think it disheartening that the media abjures, even ridicules, the Tea Party. Still, the right of the people to "peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances" is not a right to be taken lightly. So long as they "peacefully assemble", they should be left alone.

I think the Occupy Providence movement is noble and I am in favor of allowing it to continue. I've seen it in Kennedy Plaza - it's great seeing people organize and show support for their political cause. It's nice to see the Left have a voice to counter the Right's Tea Party movement.

The only major difference between the two groups is that a tea party rally only lasts part of a day because those folks have to go back to work, pay taxes and be responsible citizens.

Hipsters get your signs and stand up!

They are breaking the law! You can't legally stay overnight period~
Read the laws people, educate yourselves. Why haven't the officials stepped in and started enforcing the law???

We the people want the country back. The revolution is on because the people have educated themselves. Many will be jailed as big brother tries to quell the protesters. If you are a real fan of the Patriots you would be backing up the occupiers. If you don't use your free speech once in a while, what good is it? They are staying in the park for our own good. Don't be a wimp and support them.

Let them stay. The protest will eventually fizzle out and the group will disperse because the message of the group is very unfocused and because cold weather will make tent living unpalatable. Forcing out the group will bring attention to them and raise passions -- ignoring them will sap their enthusiasm quite quickly.

I understand and sympathize with much of the outrage of the group, but the group needs to have a specific issue it wants to change -- simply protesting about corporate greed and income inequality won't do much. The issue is simply too unwieldy and ill-defined to be changed by a few protesters.

I wish the protesters would think through their outrage about big corporations more clearly. Most big corporations are really mundane, non-threatening organizations that serve our society pretty well and do not make obscene profits. The most profitable big companies by far are the ones most of the protesters admire -- Apple, Google, Face Book etc.

10:16am on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
@paul. Huh? Who is "big brother"? Who do they want the country back from? What do they propose? I think everyone agree this economy is a mess. Is this just a pity party? Their protest thus far is not helping anyone. Educate me! Because I am all about hope and change. So far the change has been for the worse, and I don't see this helping. Yes! They point out there is a problem. Duh!? We all knew that! Use the times and media to offer solutions

it would seem that many do not know or understand who these people are... as is wittnessed by comments that indicate these folks do not have jobs or are somehow less than T-Party types... in fact, most are employed and go to work and come back after or before, or after or before school, etc.

Also, I would say they want their country back from Corporations and Fascist style government systems that favor corporations over citizens...

As far as helping anyone, I would have to say that the act of protest is a good deal of help all by itself... and is, as Thomas Jefferson once indicated, needed in any good Democracy every now and then, when the government forgets who it is supposed to represent... this has happened, and thus we have protests...

These folks should be allowed to stay, and should in fact be supported by any people that believe in Democracy, where the PEOPLE rule the country...

Do you think corporations should be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns?Do you think that the taxpayers should continue paying for mistakes of banks? Do you think our education system is working? How do you like the income disparity between the average RI citizen and the wealthiest? Do you think you have enough quality jobs in RI? And do you think the companies here are paying the taxes they should to support infrastructure maintenance and other services they use?

Breaking the law? Patsfan: Do you know what is civil disobedience is??

Over the past few decades, the US government has gradually removed itself from listening to the public.Today, we have two major political parties that share identical goals. The people now occupying US cities are bringing up subjects that the government will not address, such as corporate shenanigans, militarism, unemployment and underemployment, xeonophobia and others.Their diversity is their strength despite their naysayers maintaining that they should have only one unified message. Every city in the US should be occupied until the politicos finally realize that they must listen to citizens addressing many issues that they won't touch. Perhaps a general strike in the US would be an astute complement to the occupying movements. This would surely wake up those who hold political offices.

I am all for the various Occupy protests, but i feel that the Providence chapter is off point from the main Wall St movement. RI's problems don't stem from corporate greed, if anything they extend from government greed and poor planning. We have a ludicrously high corporate tax rate which likely makes companies travel the 10 miles to build across state lines. More companies means more jobs and RI would benefit to spend more dollars in the corporate sector.

However, if Occupy Providence is just there to show support for the OWS movement, then POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

"speak good english" is example enough for me... the word English should be capitalized... and the phrase should be, to be correct English, "Speak English Well...

I get your point...

malcom: My understanding is many of these protesters are college educated. After four or more years and tens of thousands of dollars, I hope they at least have a command of the English language. That and a a dollar can get you a cup of coffee at Mcdonalds:)

I love how the haters have their usual sweeping generalizations bashing protesters (which of course, are entirely false - but hey, it's true if you say it enough, right?), and over-simplistic solutions to our country's problems. So cliché, it gives me a good chuckle. Thank you.

My bad. You don't need a command of the English language to get a cup of coffee. Just the dollar;)

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always,[1][2] defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance. In one view (in India, known as ahimsa or satyagraha) it could be said that it is compassion in the form of respectful disagreement.

These people are not squatters... they are protesters acting in civil disobedience... if they have not come to a focus good enough for you, that is more your problem than theirs... They have the right to protest peacefully... which is what they are doing, following a well developed and evolved history of protest...

That said, if you have been to their gatherings, you would know that they function as a pure democracy, with consensus as the basis for their actions... I am sure that you can imagine the difficulty of building a consensus around key issues when using pure democracy to achieve it... a great deal of discussion, education, and salesmanship are needed to convince people... this of course has no bearing on their right to protest, and that right is offered up to them in the Constitution of this great Country... they have as much right to do so as anyone else... and they need not satisfy anyone else's litmus tests to be "qualified" -- that is, unless our Constitution and society have moved away from Democracy and Our hard won Constitution toward Fascism...

So let me ask then: How does an unemployed person with household bills to pay go to school on minimum wage????

I suppose for a society as wealthy as ours, and yes, we are still among the wealthiest countries on the planet, maybe we should now provide the level of education needed in an information or knowledge based economy as we did elementary school when that was all that was needed, and has we did when the industrial revolution came about, and we started providing a high school education to all who wanted it... perhaps that will help... and end up providing quality citizens to our jobs market without burdening every kid with more tens of thousands in debt before they ever get to work...

Occupying the public place is exactly where these people should be...

Paul: I agree. But i think we can accomplish what you suggest in 12 years.....
.K-12.

The news last night from Oakland California reminded me of Tiananmen Square. Shame on any American that doesn't back up free speech. Our troops overseas are fighting for free speech in other countries. If you think a student speaking up because the deficit is too high you don't deserve your free speech. Some of these parks get cleaned once a year on Earth Day, now all of a sudden the government wants to clean parks? Wake up America you are being controlled.

Bill: My nephew is active in these protests and he is fully employed, working at WalMart from 5am to 2pm 5 days a week... I know of a number of his friends that work similar hours and manage to be at the protests every day...

And college students do have the right to complain that when they graduate they find no meaningful work... there simply are not enough jobs for the population seeking them...so arguments that say go out and get a low paying job make little sense and also provide little opportunity... if that is where we have employment we are in sad shape,

Paul Silver: We are in sad shape. And it is becoming increasingly evident that our education system continues to fail our kids. It is built only to sustain itself with little thought to the future generations. The education elites need our money, whether it comes from tuition,taxpayers, corporate donors etc. There was a time higher learning could raise people up. Not anymore. Wouldn't be surprised if the fed's impose an individual mandate on the masses requiring a four year degree in something.

Unemployment for college grads 24 and younger is 9.6% announced this morning... average debt, which they have to start paying on graduation, $25,000...

To be helpful, there is:

1) http://www.PwCMoneyTree.com -read.
2) http://www.BarometerSurveys.com -read.
3) GYB- Growing Your Business newsletters -also put out by http://www.PwC.com-read.
4) http://www.Inc.com - read: "The Fastest Growing Private Companies in America List" -when at that website, click on the far-right-hand-tab that states: "Inc.500/5000 List" - it will scroll pgs. 1-50, of The Top 500 Fastest Growing Private Companies in America, with direct-links to their websites -and job application-work may begin, immediately.

The economy, at times...reminds me of a baseball player. A baseball player who took off running from 1st-base, realized part way to 2nd-base that the catcher had a very good arm, and therefore the baseball player slid into 2nd-base. Not the best slide I've ever seen into 2nd-base, either...but it was an attempt. So, dust yourself off at 2nd-base....terrible-slide, we'll all give you that.....but you're only part way to home-plate. Finish the job, and get to home-plate. Your parents will cheer for you, you made it safely to home-plate...and you got a job!

Moral of the story: Read above, and start your job-application process...in a career you find interesting.

Unless you are illegal, then the taxpayers help you out and you pay less or zero.

I would argue for not a mandate, but just as what is done with secondary education... it is available to all, at no additional cost, but is not mandated... only up to age 16 is mandated... I see no issue with that...

I would argue for a restructuring of the entire system before I would agree we should commit any more resources. That is not going to happen because we have become a nation of sheeple.

Deb what would you do? How would you restructure the system?

Bill: I guess we should be asking why we are winning or losing kids in eighth grade. Because that statement certainly resonates with me. I have my theories. How about you?

I agree with all your other points. I would also add that someone who is on a career path to becoming a CPA, or other business or financial field need not earn college credits in English, foreign language, life sciences, art etc. But since the powers that be have been exploiting youth to grow an industry for decades, what chance is this philosophy going to change in our lifetime?

For me, I would rather than dismantle the Federal Department of Education, I would do as most of Europe and the developed world has done, and create national standards and funding for all public schools... as it is today we have school boards pushing for revisions in history texts that are nonsensical, pushing for the inclusion of Creationism in Science classes, and the like... locally this is a problem for me... better to have a national system, as is done on the more literate societies of the world...

I am not in favor of same sex classes at all... we are a pluralistic society, and students should learn to deal with pluralism right from the beginning, including sex, race, culture, language, etc.

As for focusing on secondary education, I would agree with Bill... if we have done done a good job early on, the later years are wasted... we need to do it at all levels...

I do not see why we need to serve only one meal type per day... or only one meal per day... my school as a kid served both breakfast and lunch, and offered up a few dishes for each... I dont think the cost of this is significant enough to make a difference, and I can see that in some cases, perhaps many cases, that offering up some meals is part of what makes education possible... many families in public schools do not have the resources or knowledge to provide nutritional meals, and a hungry kid learns little...

Education is the single most important investment we can make in our nation's future

I have an opinion on teaching kids career skills at an early age while bypassing liberal arts skills such as language, English Lit, History, etc. for Democracy to work, we need well rounded Citizens who have a sense of civic responsibility, knowledge of our History, of our language and culture, etc.

Education is not only about getting a job... unfortunately, that is what many parents think, and in my view, is part of why we have such an uneducated citizenry who can be so easily manipulated by slogans and propaganda... critical thinking comes a broad perspective and knowledge base... when I graduated college, we had the then President of MIT give the commencement speech... he said that while MIT trained engineers to solve virtually any problem they were given, they had a hard time figuring out which problems to solve... his opinion was that this is what the liberal education provides... and he was instituting a more rigorous liberal arts education for all students at MIT... a very good thing in my view...

Paul: I disagree with just about everything you wrote. Just because one is no longer enrolled in a degree program, he or she does not need to stop learning. That is why we must continue public libraries and grow continuing ed programs locally. One of my theories as to why we are losing kids by the time they are in eighth grade is that there is too much emphasis on complicated concepts and not enough focus on the arts, history, health/phys ed and civics. I think in the very early years, say up to seven or eight, less is more when it comes to institutional education. The pressure is enormous for families to give into this system, which I also think contributes to the breakdown of the family.

Duncan readily admits that if he had his way, he would like to see schools open 12 hours or more per day, six days a week and kids would begin indoctrination,.....I mean learning;) at a much younger age.
This, IMO, is unacceptable. It is growing an industry with little thought to the child, the family or society.

Not sure what you disagree with, but from my perspective, there is no need at this stage in our economic development to have shorter days of schooling or summer vacations, etc. Most of the developed world has given up most of that, going to the standard one month vacation that parents also get... these are artifacts from our agrarian past... no longer applicable or needed in my view. And given the amount of knowledge that ought to be imparted, as well as learning skills, more time is needed, plain and simple...

Also, as far as the break up of the family as an institution, I would argue that this has far more to do with the fact that incomes have stagnated over the last 30 yrs, or more, and so now both parents work full time (if they can find jobs) and do not spend the quality of time with their kids that once was the way...

For the most educated countries in the world, students learn by age 16 (graduation from what we would call high school) are far better at math, history, language skills, and cultural subjects (arts, sociology, anthropology, literature, etc.) than our students...

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that our students are getting too much complexity too early, but in my experience, that is unfounded... our students today have far less subject matter than when my folks went to school, and it shows in our reduced literacy, lack of geographic knowledge, and our cultural provincialism...

We created adolescence as a service to the Industrial Revolution, but prior to that, it did not exist as we know it... and I do not think at this stage in our cultural evolution that we any longer require babying of our youth... on a purely psychological level, the children are readily able to learn advanced concepts by the 4th or 5th grade, despite our system...

And of course I am not sure what you (and others) are referring to when you say "indoctrination" -- unless of course you mean valid sociological analysis, history, etc.

Paul: We seem to have a failure to communicate. I don't think we should "baby our youth" nor do I think we should exploit them to grow one industry. But...whatever.

I am unclear on how improving our educational system can be compared to "growing an industry by exploiting our youth, but perhaps that is just me... -)

Back to the subject at hand, the Occupy movement is about anger and jealously and just plain old protesting for the sake of protesting. People are mad at the government for bailing out banks. But I would bet many those same people were people who overextended themselves buying too much house. People are mad that they don't get a living wage. How many of them live a bare bones life without cable TV, game systems, cigarettes, etc? Consequences are something that should play a big part in any decision making process. Getting a degree from a private university at $30K per year so that you can get a job making $32K per year just doesn't make sense. The only people who can afford to institutionally learn for learning's sake, are people with the money to pay for it. The rest of us (the real 99%) have to get a job, work 5-7 days per week, and save all we can so that we can scrape by and maybe take a class in basket weaving 101 every few years.

I have to come back to this point: If you have skills, you can get a job. If you have no skills, get some. If you don't want to acquire skills, you need to work harder, longer or both. If you truly can't acquire skills due to real physical or mental impairment, that is the purpose of social programs. Although, social programs should be managed at a local level by churches, non-profits, etc., not local or state and especially not federal government.

Some people don't agree with the protesters, some don't understand them. But if you don't support their freedom of speech, your voice may be the next one silenced.

Bill: you are not entirely correct... I know a number of people with good skills who lost their jobs and who have3 not been able to replace them, who used to earn over $100K per year, but today are working for minimum wage at WalMart... have lost their houses, etc.

I know these people because a number of them rent houses or apartments from me...

So it is simply not true that if you have skills you can get a job... just aint so...

And again, Bill, I have to disagree with you about why we lose kids in school... finding wise, we do not focus on the top 1%, but rather on the learning disabled at the expense of the top 1%... many schools have entirely cut out honors programs, but have well funded and active programs for the learning disabled, with people with "HDAD or ADD" or the like, "diseases" that did not exist until the last couple of decades...

We most assuredly do not focus on the top 1% of learners, but just the opposite. follow the money...