This has to be for self-consumption, as I can't imagine they would believe people would take their statements at face value. Example:

>The encampments that characterized the movement during Fall 2011 enabled formerly disparate and disconnected groups of people to build vast in-person and online networks.

What I saw in SF, from the visits was a kind of alien landscape -a kind of flavela. To me it looked worse than a refugee camp. It was more like a political re-enactment of Woodstock. There appeared to be little care (garbage, refuse, mud, signs, etc.) which revealed what appeared to be carelessness. In Japan, for example, there are homeless, but their spaces are as clean as can be, given the circumstances. Is that dignity? In any event, it was not welcoming to me.

>Protesters have succeeded in implanting “We are the 99 percent,”

Thanks for coopting me. While statistically true, in a fiscal sense, I share little with the "movement" beyond that coincidence (and a few other intersections).

>In response to the failure of mainstream media to cover the movement, protesters have created various independent media sources including newspapers, radio programs, and websites.

What planet are they on that's half year behind the news. For weeks, if not months, all you could see on TV and online was OWS coverage --mostly from a naive, non-judgmental pov.

>Thousands of protesters have been educated on the consensus model of decision-making, a form of direct democracy pioneered by anarchists. Yes, anarchists.

Except, that model of decision-making is suboptimal. Wherever I've been exposed to this model, it's tedious and virtually fruitless.

>Protesters have shined a grim spotlight on the militarization of local police forces.

Has it really become militarized? What does that even mean, beside trying to hook on to a loaded word. If anything, it seems to me police are far less ruthless and more accountable than they were back in the 1900-1960s.

>Encampments across the country have fed and clothed local homeless populations despite scant resources.

Good. Not sure that's what they set out to do, but, sure. On the other hand, their destructive tendencies (sticking it to the man, I guess) caused local govs to spend money they didn't have, possibly making it worse for the homeless, in a medium term.

>The Occupy movement has brought attention to rapidly ballooning student debt, expected to reach $1 trillion during Spring 2012.

Anyone who has been and is a student is "aware" of this, as well as parents of students. It is a big problem (in my opinion) and needs addressing.

If the movement, is going to achieve anything meaningful I think they need to lock onto something meaningful which will bring about significant change. Something like ending the enormous influence of PACs, or reining back the personification of the corporation. Do something that's impactful but perhaps not as glamorous or as "revolutionary" as pretending they're at war with the establishment. I mean, it sounds funny to me how they talk about militarization and so on meanwhile their speech is very much in tune with that of revolutionaries and dictatorships --you know, people who bear arms and kill each other.