View Full Version : Occupy Wall Street
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 22:55
Occupy Wall Street (http://occupywallst.org/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWBlLvYCx3U
So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be, but it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.
The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?
Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?
Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?
Rhyfelwyr
10-05-2011, 23:25
At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be
I don't like those types either but you have to admit they have some good points.
Nothing motivates people to get up and take action bettern than fear. And there is a lof of that. I don't even think it is just because of the recession or the hatred of the bankers etc. These are more like blips compared to bigger changes. Like the fact that a lot of people just can't pursue a career like they used to. There's less employment stability, less social stability with families etc. And those two are linked a lot.
The problem is IMO the dismantling of the welfare state from the 80's, with Reagan for you guys and Thatcher over here. It's become the norm, there's no serious alternative, there's negligible difference between Labour/Tories or (mainstream) Republicans/Democracts. Hence the disillusionment.
I'm also not surprised that Tea Party types might associate with these protestors because their free market idealism couldn't be much further away from the current system which seems almost like some sort of corporatism.
Not that I identify with the left. I think they are inconsistent in that while they claim to make a fairer society, they cripple the worst off (working-class) by supporting immigration and the like, so I would never vote Labour. If only we had the old style (pre-Thatcherite) Tories! If I was having one of my moments right now I might shout my support for the National Front (not BNP) and national socialism, but I'm feeling too level headed right now. Boring!
Anyway, I don't really mind Michael Moore because he's just an eccentric guy that's wrapped up in his own little world and he's just living it.
Hello Panzer! I hope you don't mind your resident "Lefty~" butting in.
So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be
I resent that statement a little, you imply that the 'Right' is completely blameless. Whilst the Union Representative might decide to take up the cause for the 'Left', you have that Church Preacher taking up their arms for the 'Right'. The only real difference ultimately (as they are both striving for their cause) is that the Union Rep might finish it off with a packet of Fish'n'Chips and the Church Preacher ends it with Sandwich and a reading from Luke.
Sort of "The pot calling the kettle black", if you forgive the idiom.
The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?
I think Disenfranchisement is a big issue facing the West. The problem stems that from parties and people feeling unrepresented or looking out for their interests. To make it even more difficult, we all have different interests and views!
For pure example: I argue that the corruption in governments and powerstructures is preventing a democratic and function European Federal State which would greater serve the interests of the population. On the otherhand, Furunculus feels that on the larger scale, his view might be severely more diminished and the current corrupt system is simply "Just going to get worst" so wants to scrap the whole European idea.
In many ways, both Furunculus and me are right. If it is going to get worse in my opinion, I would support simply pulling out as well. I am also sure there are situations or examples where Furunculus himself might change to my view if certain conditions or situations were met. But this leaves a very sporadic and completely misguided middle ground which causes this bastardised power systems and 'Compromises' (Which are not really a real compromise.)
I think America is a very polarised and great example of this. Due to the politics involved and different interest groups, it has resulted in a rather bizarre system where no one is really "Right" or "Left" and simply "Corrupt Corporate". The reason they are "Corrupt Corporate" is that unlike the real people on the ground, the grander interests of constructed corporates have a far more powerful sway and they are less sporadic than public opinion, which advertises to the politicians as being the "people" to support.
Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?
It hasn't really picked up yet, it has hit "Noticed". If we are still talking about this in a few months, then we will see if there is any real credibility.
Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?
Given your political opinions, not really, but it is a shame it is a rather one-sided Zeal and not including you wading into "Anti-homosexual"/"Anti-Abortion"/"No to Affordable Healthcare" protester groups of the American Right. But if you include them, I will concede and admit I feel tempted.
If they had watched Inside Job I'm surprised they didn't just want to nuke it from orbit instead of occupying it...
Strike For The South
10-06-2011, 05:16
Good.
Faux News sends troll reporter down to Wall Street.....protester makes him look like an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrT-0Xbrn4
a completely inoffensive name
10-06-2011, 08:24
So what's the story here? At first, it seemed like these protests were made up of the same 'professional' protestors that will show up for whatever the current leftist cause de jour happens to be, but it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.
I don't know what professional protesters you are talking about. First images of the wall street sit in were college kids looking like hippies or hipsters. But, I guess this isn't really important to dwell on.
The unions, liberal commentators, and other MSNBC types are wrapping their arms around the movement as an anti-Tea Party Tea Party of the Left, but I've also read of Tea Party types joining the cause. Should it be viewed in terms of the unique American left/right paradigm - or maybe as a more traditional disenfranchised populist movement made up of multiple and not always aligned interest groups?
Covering the story isn't wrapping their arms around it. When Fox news started giving meeting times, asking people to call in for info on where the closest tea party rally to them was, telling people to get out and join on such and such date...that is closer to putting your arms around it. Having Rachael Maddow saying, "These people are right." Isn't exactly MSNBC wrapping arms around it.
But yes, it is populist because everyone, both left and right have been screwed over. Progressives want wall street tamed, libertarians want wall street to fend for itself without government bailouts or teats to suck on. They want different results but both are unhappy with the treatment of wall street.
Will the movement gain steam? Can it find a broader base of support among the American people, or will the media's short attention span and an expected harsh winter put an end to it?
Depends on how the media wants to portray it. Manufactured irrelevance is still going strong in America.
Also, is it weird that after watching interviews like this, I feel a strong desire to wade into the crowd on camelback with a beatin' stick in a fit of counter-revolutionary zeal?
Knowing you, not really. I kind of guessed that citizens expressing discontent and petitioning their democratic government would be the kind of thing that gets under your skin.
CountArach
10-06-2011, 09:00
it seems to have grown into a somewhat greater populist movement trying to emulate the Arab Spring protests.
Bingo, that's the movement in a nutshell.
I read this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2011/oct/04/occupy-wall-street-protesters) that touches on something I hadn't really considered about the movement:
Those hallmarks are dubious successes, at any rate. A movement propelled by money – as the Tea Party is, gifted with millions from conservative influencers – dies without it. OWS has something more important than money: a marketing plan. Adbusters, who put out the initial call for the occupation, has always been savvy about mixing a healthy amount of "ad" in with its "busting", borrowing the techniques and strategies of Madison Avenue even as it preaches abstinence from capitalism.
With franchises rolling out in LA, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, and a growing list of celebrity endorsements, OWS has an advantage that even the most successful political campaigns lack: it isn't even trying to get someone elected. Like Nike, like Coke, like America itself, OWS has the potential to become the most powerful thing an idea can be: background noise.
Even if the movement doesn't achieve anything (which is likely, even almost certain) then the manner in which it implants itself on the civic discourse of America could have more potentially far-reaching consequences. If only by further enforcing the Us vs Them dichotomy that has boiled under the surface for so long, this movement has the power to cause a notable change in the political sphere.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-06-2011, 09:01
Protesters are weird people, who knows why they do what they do.
this movement has the power to cause a notable change in the political sphere.
By making people grimace when they read descriptions of how savvy it's celebrity endorsements are?
CountArach
10-06-2011, 09:14
By making people grimace when they read descriptions of how savvy it's celebrity endorsements are?
It is the same as raising awareness of an issue - once the idea is out there, it is a part of the civic discourse and thus enters the public consciousness. Whether anything is done in a strictly beaurocratic sense is another question, but it will certainly change society in the sense of changing the way that people think about the world and issues. That, in turn, is what drives the more significant social changes in the long term. Celebrity endorsements of things are stupid and no one really goes along with them, but if you look at Lady Gaga, for instance, who focussed the public consciousness towards issues of gay rights (for whatever reason), that does have an effect on discourse.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-07-2011, 06:41
It is the same as raising awareness of an issue - once the idea is out there, it is a part of the civic discourse and thus enters the public consciousness.
So people are talking about it and it's in the news? But what have I been made conscious of exactly?
Whether anything is done in a strictly beaurocratic sense is another question, but it will certainly change society in the sense of changing the way that people think about the world and issues. That, in turn, is what drives the more significant social changes in the long term. Celebrity endorsements of things are stupid and no one really goes along with them, but if you look at Lady Gaga, for instance, who focussed the public consciousness towards issues of gay rights (for whatever reason), that does have an effect on discourse.
Has it made the discourse more chantable? What long term social change does that bring? Perhaps the effort to fit political thoughts onto cardboard signs will have an effect on the discourse.
Major Robert Dump
10-07-2011, 07:40
Protests don't accomplish anything unless they hit people's pocketbooks, and unless you do that legally you will get in hot water.
Boycotts are more effective than protests.
Remember a couple years ago when all of the Latinos decided they were going to protest US immigration law enforcement, and they all decided to protest and skip work so they could cripple the economy? Nothing was crippled. No one blinked. But a lot of Latinos did get fired.
Listening to a bunch of unemployed halfwits prattle on about economic issues they barely understand, conveniently disguising their own selfish agenda with the selfish agenda of the big evil man they are fighting....we have bettet things to do
Papewaio
10-07-2011, 08:45
Golden Rule:
Who has the Gold makes the Rules.
Fractionated boycotting:
List the companies then boycott the worst 20% in each industry.
Eh, on one hand I'm not a big fan of protesters as you usually see them either, on the other hand I do wonder why that is and think it is proof that we live in a democracy and a good thing that they are allowed to voice their concerns in such a manner. And I fully agree that it is a shame when peaceful protesters are being arrested while people who caused billions in damages walk free.
As I said at the time, the higher your paygrade, the more responsibility, responsibility means you have to own up to your mistakes, not get a bailout. :creep:
Listening to a bunch of unemployed halfwits prattle on about economic issues they barely understand, conveniently disguising their own selfish agenda with the selfish agenda of the big evil man they are fighting....we have bettet things to do
Having worked on Wall Street for eight years, for a minute there I thought you were talking about investment bankers or stock brokers.
I have no formed opinion about Occupy Wall Street; I suspect they are indulging in ineffective protest, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
True story: My neighbor the cop was talking about how dumb all of the crooks are. "Where are the smart criminals?" she lamented. "Wall Street," says the lemur.
Also, note that at least one study shows that convicted psychopaths are less impulsive and reckless than the average stock broker (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,788462,00.html). Based on my personal experience, I would agree 100%.
So ... I don't think what the protesters are doing is effective. But I truly believe that the financial infrastructure built up to support investment bankers and stock brokers is over-built by a factor of at least thousand, and I believe that high-level finance people add far less value to the economy than they think they do. In fact, I think the average investment banker is much more parasitic to our economy than, say, a welfare mother.
Major Robert Dump
10-07-2011, 16:01
I'm not defending Wall Street by any means. It's just that these protests aren't going to accomplish anything. The Wall Street crew are laughing at them. Anything they "do" to reform at the bequest of the protestors will be crap. The only way to breach these criminals is to enforce the law and hit their pocketbooks.
Stop buying corporate. There's an idea. Invest in something other than stocks and bonds. Pass laws that reign in on the fact that people in government are not subject to insider trading laws, and they get a free pass on obvious conflicts-of-interest by saying their protfolio is managed by a third party, as if they never meet with these third parties and say "Pssst, Solandra is about to get a half a billion, be subtle...."
Samurai Waki
10-07-2011, 16:34
In order for it to be effective it has to become something political, and in order to do that it has to learn how to find a voice through politicians who want the kind of change America needs. I look to Ron Paul... I honestly believe he is the only GOP member that has a shot against Obama.
TheLastDays
10-07-2011, 17:38
"Yes, we can", anyone?
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2011, 04:01
After seeing that it's mostly the same ole socialist protesters, and that many whiny college students* identify with them, I've changed my opinion to one of indifferent contempt (I hate police brutality, but sometimes I just want to see a socialist scumbag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Y9CARUwio&feature=player_embedded) get hit).
The real key isn't Wall Street getting special treatment because they make loads of many - it's the political class and those they favor vs the rest of us. Wall Street doesn't have the power - our huge government, which creeps into more and more facets of our lives every year, has the power. The power to destroy your life for violating one of thousands and thousands of federal crime (criminal intent no longer required for many new crimes!), to pick winners and losers (see the loans to that solar panel company, and the bailed out banks) in our economy, and the power to run our lives by controlling what we eat, drink, what we can own, etc.
EDIT: Check out this bizarre and hilarious video of Atlanta "occupiers" deciding whether or not to let civil rights veteran and Democratic congressman J
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI&feature=player_embedded
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2011, 04:54
"We have someone here..."
"We have someone here..."
"Who would like to address the assembly."
"Who would like to address the assembly."
What is this, Kindergaten?????? :dizzy2::dizzy2::dizzy2:
I literally can't watch the rest of that video.
Centurion1
10-11-2011, 05:03
WHAT THE **** WAS THAT
a completely inoffensive name
10-11-2011, 05:07
I watched 3 minutes of that video, does that **** really go on for 10 minutes? Oh my god, if I found myself participating in that, I would shoot myself for early dementia.
It is a faux-communist totalitarian indoctrination. You are the state, you speak with the voice of the state....!
Crazed Rabbit, clap your hands!
*The ORG* Rabbit clap your hands!
I said, Crazed Rabbit, clap your hands!
*The ORG* Rabbit clap your hands!
PanzerJaeger
10-11-2011, 05:55
If you watch to the end, he doesn't even get to speak! :laugh4:
Reminds me of the Spanish People's Councils during the early days of the civil war.
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2011, 07:27
I watched 3 minutes of that video, does that **** really go on for 10 f'n minutes? Oh my god, if I found myself participating in that, I would shoot myself for early dementia.
Yes it does. Would have been quicker to just let him speak. It seems most people wanted him to, but not the guy with the mic, who managed to keep asking until he was able to say they should proceed with the agenda.
At about 8:40 it's clear John Lewis isn't going to speak, so he starts heading out. One guy standing near him starts speaking loudly to apologize. Then the guy with the mic starts loudly saying "Mic check! Mic check!" and the crowd echoes him, to drown out the non-conformist trying to apologize.
Watch for yourself, and be glad those folks are really like 0.9%
CR
Just for something more politically balanced, here is a interview with Noam Chomsky on this matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtHTh6NZXc
After seeing that it's mostly the same ole socialist protesters, and that many whiny college students* identify with them, I've changed my opinion to one of indifferent contempt (I hate police brutality, but sometimes I just want to see a socialist scumbag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Y9CARUwio&feature=player_embedded) get hit).
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/political-pictures-read-a-book.jpg
sorry couldn´t resist....it's a common pet peeve I have with Americans.
Major Robert Dump
10-11-2011, 12:23
Apparently these protests are the place to be were one wishing to get laid, get drugs and/or poop in an alley
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2011, 15:31
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/political-pictures-read-a-book.jpg
sorry couldn´t resist....it's a common pet peeve I have with Americans.
Did you watch the video? I believe the guy is of the "nationalize industry" variety of socialism, not just a democratic party member. Just because we don't have socialist politicians doesn't mean we don't have a few socialist people, especially in a country of 300 million+ people.
CR
An interesting comment (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/why-occupy-wall-street-is-here-to-stay-ctd.html), with which I largely agree, about conservatism and the OWS movement:
I was interested, and glad, to see this sentence in Gregory Djerejian analysis (http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2011/10/occupy_wall_street.html) of the Occupy movement: "They are acting to secure conservative aims of re-balancing a society that is becoming dangerously unmoored and increasingly bent asunder." Why? Because it reasonably identifies a truth about today's Conservative/Liberal political environment - that many on the Liberal side of the political equation are often quite philosophically conservative. And that today's "conservatives" are anything but.
As a long time resident of that liberal political hotbed Madison, Wisconsin, I've often said that it is in fact one of the more conservative places you'll find.
Why? Because even most of the more radical lefties living here (and there are far fewer than some would like others to believe) are living essentially conservative lives; they want a safe place to raise their kids, value their monogamous relationships (gay or straight), support law and order, have decent middle-class jobs, and want their world to be primarily stable and fairly predictable. They surround themselves with generally like-minded neighbors, talk to them over their fences (or across their hoes at the community gardens), and politely wait for their children in the pick up zone of their schools.
Do they vote Democrat or even Green? Sure. But at their core, they want what traditional philosophical conservatives seem to want: community, neighborliness, predictability. When hundreds of thousands of them marched daily around our Capitol last spring in response to the new "conservative" governor's radical policy changes, it was because they felt the changes were moving too fast and the rules weren't being respected. The foundations of their lives - built generally on following the rules, respecting their contracts and following what seemed to be reasonable and stable career paths - were being shaken too vigorously and unfairly. You don't have to agree with their take on the situation to agree that the core of their complaint was about as traditionally conservative as you can get.
Just because we don't have socialist politicians doesn't mean we don't have a few socialist people, especially in a country of 300 million+ people.
Bernie Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) is a Socialist Politician.
I am just being nit-picky, but I think he is simply a "scumbag". He just happens not to be the typical-"Hi, I am on Fox!" variety such as Glenn Beck.
Sorry, I know this is spammy, but I couldn't resist...
https://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4778/32024810150350597609189.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/occupysesamestreet.jpg
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/skipclass.jpg
Strike For The South
10-12-2011, 17:58
The problem is the left in America has no voice.
You are forced to choose between a hollowed out Trotskyist like Chomsky or some underemployed fool who parrots Chomsky but can't even begin to comprehend the subject he's talking about.
The left in America is infatuated with the abstract, not the tangiable. Everything has to be some giant black & white struggle. So kudos for excersising your rights as citizens but [...] shave the beard, put on a suit and speak coherntly you hippie :daisy:. Clamoring on with no clear agenda other than "hurr derr kill the bankers" is asinine.
Everything has to be some giant black & white struggle.
Look, I don't much sympathize with hippie drum circles, but they're reacting to a real problem. The financial sector is overpaid, overgrown and out of control. They privatize profits and socialize losses, as the bailout showed. It's almost a textbook-perfect example of a rigged game. The rest of us work hard and play by the rules; not so the securities folks (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/bankers-salaries-vs-everyone-elses/).
Again, I hypothesize that the average investment banker or stock broker is more parasitic and destroys more wealth than a welfare mother. (Some numbers: Annual cost of all means-tested entitlements (Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions) is around $354.3 billion (http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/08/1212663-how-much-does-welfare-cost); estimates for true cost of financial bailout vary, but $4.6 trillion (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8987) seems to be a not-unrealistic number.)
Not to mention this absurd and counter-factual meme that the financial crisis was created in Washington rather than Wall Street. Read up (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html).
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/economix-11securities-custom1.jpg
Vladimir
10-12-2011, 19:59
So you're saying that if securities industry counts on government bailouts? What do you do when your children steal cookies? Do you give them more or cut their hand off?
Well, neither, I hope, but it looks like you're saying the (federal) government is the problem but it's Wall Street's fault. Is Wall Street a branch of the government?
It also seems like you agree with me that too big to fail is an oxymoron. Time for a little AT&T action!
So you're saying that if securities industry counts on government bailouts?
I don't see how that is arguable. See moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard).
t looks like you're saying the (federal) government is the problem but it's Wall Street's fault. Is Wall Street a branch of the government?!
If a rhetorical question falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a noise?
I do not believe "government is the problem," and did not make that argument. The really crazy sub-prime lending mostly happened in a three-year period and was the majority preserve of private banks and investment firms. They did this for the same reason a dog licks its privates; because they could. And after they cashed in and took their bonuses, they demanded that the public bail them out. If that doesn't make you angry you're not breathing.
Vladimir
10-12-2011, 20:05
I don't see how that is arguable. See moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard).
It's not, but you're blaming someone for subsidized bad behavior. Admit that the government is the problem and end the hypocrisy.
Are you overpaid? Who makes that determination?
It's not, but you're blaming someone for subsidized bad behavior.
It's the golden rule: him with the gold makes the rules. A politician usually does what s/he's paid to do. I think it's more accurate and useful to examine the role of the paymaster than the employee.
Are you overpaid? Who makes that determination?
Very possibly. But I haven't endangered the entire economy of the world and demanded trillions in guarantees, so that's really between me any my employer, now isn't it?
Vladimir
10-12-2011, 21:02
Very possibly. But I haven't endangered the entire economy of the world and demanded trillions in guarantees, so that's really between me any my employer, now isn't it?
Well I am. Time to go foreclose on some endangered species. :stare:
Well, if you're going to wander off spouting nonsense, my only answer would be this (http://www.theonion.com/video/presidents-approval-rating-soars-after-punching-wa,26349/).
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 00:23
But what's the point of protesting at the bankers? So that they can enjoy the show from their penthouses? To say "I hate people getting away with crimes and that's why I'm pinning large numbers of police at a protest?"
Well, if you're going to wander off spouting nonsense, my only answer would be this (http://www.theonion.com/video/presidents-approval-rating-soars-after-punching-wa,26349/).
Very nice article. :2thumbsup:
But what's the point of protesting at the bankers? So that they can enjoy the show from their penthouses? To say "I hate people getting away with crimes and that's why I'm pinning large numbers of police at a protest?"
They are trying to draw attention to the issue. Is it the most appropriate and best way? Perhaps not, but it a loud and vocal way to do it, to make sure that opinion is heard at least.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 03:08
Very nice article. :2thumbsup:
They are trying to draw attention to the issue. Is it the most appropriate and best way? Perhaps not, but it a loud and vocal way to do it, to make sure that opinion is heard at least.
:laugh4:
Draw attention to it? It's not like people didn't watch the news.
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2011, 03:13
:laugh4:
Draw attention to it? It's not like people didn't watch the news.
Usually people are too lazy to do anything unless they see others doing it as well. So maybe seeing people actually protest will motivate others as well.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 03:20
Usually people are too lazy to do anything unless they see others doing it as well. So maybe seeing people actually protest will motivate others as well.
Motivate to what?
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2011, 03:22
Motivate to what?
Idk, write a congressman. Run for local election. Change from a bank to a credit union. Doesn't really matter. As long people take their own individual steps against wall street, then the protest was success.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2011, 03:46
Idk, write a congressman. Run for local election. Change from a bank to a credit union. Doesn't really matter. As long people take their own individual steps against wall street, then the protest was success.
Basically, as long as they go through the motions enough to make the protesters feel good about themselves.
Is there a way to prevent financial criseses? You can regulate against some things but the financial system is always changing. You could fix it in place but change is a good thing on the whole. People's attitudes towards risk and uncertainty and their grasp of what is going on in the economy is not going to change much.
What's needed is exactly the opposite of a vague protest. It's not enough to pass a law with more "restrictions" or "oversight", attempts at those laws can easily fail. The larger the issue and the more difficult legislating a solution, the more need for care instead of kindergarten chanting...and if legislating isn't the solution, then what should be done has to be figured out and related in a clear way (and, I might add, in a way that doesn't politicize the solution--if you want the attitude of the country to change don't do hippie protest things).
If anything gets done it will be people writing articles:
The Great Bank Robbery
NEW YORK – For the American economy – and for many other developed economies – the elephant in the room is the amount of money paid to bankers over the last five years. For banks that have filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the sum stands at an astounding $2.2 trillion. Extrapolating over the coming decade, the numbers would approach $5 trillion, an amount vastly larger than what both President Barack Obama’s administration and his Republican opponents seem willing to cut from further government deficits.
That $5 trillion dollars is not money invested in building roads, schools, and other long-term projects, but is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees. Such transfers represent as cunning a tax on everyone else as one can imagine. It feels quite iniquitous that bankers, having helped cause today’s financial and economic troubles, are the only class that is not suffering from them – and in many cases are actually benefiting.
Mainstream megabanks are puzzling in many respects. It is (now) no secret that they have operated so far as large sophisticated compensation schemes, masking probabilities of low-risk, high-impact “Black Swan” events and benefiting from the free backstop of implicit public guarantees. Excessive leverage, rather than skills, can be seen as the source of their resulting profits, which then flow disproportionately to employees, and of their sometimes-massive losses, which are borne by shareholders and taxpayers.
In other words, banks take risks, get paid for the upside, and then transfer the downside to shareholders, taxpayers, and even retirees. In order to rescue the banking system, the Federal Reserve, for example, put interest rates at artificially low levels; as was disclosed recently, it also has provided secret loans of $1.2 trillion to banks. The main effect so far has been to help bankers generate bonuses (rather than attract borrowers) by hiding exposures.
Taxpayers end up paying for these exposures, as do retirees and others who rely on returns from their savings. Moreover, low-interest-rate policies transfer inflation risk to all savers – and to future generations. Perhaps the greatest insult to taxpayers, then, is that bankers’ compensation last year was back at its pre-crisis level.
Of course, before being bailed out by governments, banks had never made any return in their history, assuming that their assets are properly marked to market. Nor should they produce any return in the long run, as their business model remains identical to what it was before, with only cosmetic modifications concerning trading risks.
So the facts are clear. But, as individual taxpayers, we are helpless, because we do not control outcomes, owing to the concerted efforts of lobbyists, or, worse, economic policymakers. Our subsidizing of bank managers and executives is completely involuntary.
But the puzzle represents an even bigger elephant. Why does any investment manager buy the stocks of banks that pay out very large portions of their earnings to their employees?
The promise of replicating past returns cannot be the reason, given the inadequacy of those returns. In fact, filtering out stocks in accordance with payouts would have lowered the draw-downs on investment in the financial sector by well over half over the past 20 years, with no loss in returns.
Why do portfolio and pension-fund managers hope to receive impunity from their investors? Isn’t it obvious to investors that they are voluntarily transferring their clients’ funds to the pockets of bankers? Aren’t fund managers violating both fiduciary responsibilities and moral rules? Are they missing the only opportunity we have to discipline the banks and force them to compete for responsible risk-taking?
It is hard to understand why the market mechanism does not eliminate such questions. A well-functioning market would produce outcomes that favor banks with the right exposures, the right compensation schemes, the right risk-sharing, and therefore the right corporate governance.
One may wonder: If investment managers and their clients don’t receive high returns on bank stocks, as they would if they were profiting from bankers’ externalization of risk onto taxpayers, why do they hold them at all? The answer is the so-called “beta”: banks represent a large share of the S&P 500, and managers need to be invested in them.
We don’t believe that regulation is a panacea for this state of affairs. The largest, most sophisticated banks have become expert at remaining one step ahead of regulators – constantly creating complex financial products and derivatives that skirt the letter of the rules. In these circumstances, more complicated regulations merely mean more billable hours for lawyers, more income for regulators switching sides, and more profits for derivatives traders.
Investment managers have a moral and professional responsibility to play their role in bringing some discipline into the banking system. Their first step should be to separate banks according to their compensation criteria.
Investors have used ethical grounds in the past – excluding, say, tobacco companies or corporations abetting apartheid in South Africa – and have been successful in generating pressure on the underlying stocks. Investing in banks constitutes a double breach – ethical and professional. Investors, and the rest of us, would be much better off if these funds flowed to more productive companies, perhaps with an amount equivalent to what would be transferred to bankers’ bonuses redirected to well-managed charities.
and other people critiquing them, and coming to understand and spread actual knowledge, not from the mystical power of twitter and facebook:
Not every one needs to have a leader with clear demands. That’s the old way of launching revolutions. This revolution is run by the Internet generation, with egalitarian ways of looking at things, and an inclusive process of getting everyone involved. That’s the magic of it."
gaelic cowboy
10-13-2011, 12:45
They should pick one goal and just parrot it all day long till the quality has to do something to shut them up.
Major Robert Dump
10-13-2011, 15:36
The best way to protest wall street it to put paper currency in your butt, then deposit it into the banks.
Papewaio
10-13-2011, 21:22
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/economix-11securities-custom1.jpg
Look I think finance is overpaid, but there is actually a very strong contributor to this increase.
Cities speed up as population increases in a non-linear manner, crime, patents, talk, walk all increase faster as the population increases.
Some in a non-linear manner for instance you get along the lines of double the amount of people and you get 15% more crime per capita.
So do pay rates... increase the number of people and so does the income... just compare country towns to small cities to large ones.
One of the confounding things is finance sectors attract the best/worst and concentrate them in one city generally per country (London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney). Essentially that group of workers has a population based on the country's total population not just the local city... and at a non-linear increase rate too.
So you need to compare this to the general population increase of the US and apply a non-linear pay increase.
Centurion1
10-14-2011, 06:14
Look, I don't much sympathize with hippie drum circles, but they're reacting to a real problem. The financial sector is overpaid, overgrown and out of control. They privatize profits and socialize losses, as the bailout showed. It's almost a textbook-perfect example of a rigged game. The rest of us work hard and play by the rules; not so the securities folks (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/bankers-salaries-vs-everyone-elses/).
Again, I hypothesize that the average investment banker or stock broker is more parasitic and destroys more wealth than a welfare mother. (Some numbers: Annual cost of all means-tested entitlements (Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions) is around $354.3 billion (http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/08/1212663-how-much-does-welfare-cost); estimates for true cost of financial bailout vary, but $4.6 trillion (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8987) seems to be a not-unrealistic number.)
Not to mention this absurd and counter-factual meme that the financial crisis was created in Washington rather than Wall Street. Read up (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html).
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/economix-11securities-custom1.jpg
that graph is literally the most worthless piece of drivel ive ever seen
also these people are protesting the evil 1% and how they have all the wealth. They just look like ignorant buffons.
also i live in the city and some of the kids at my school are there (shocker). The ultimate irony is their parents are likely part of that evil 1%
Vladimir
10-14-2011, 12:54
Well it's not *that* bad but teasing out a single occupation and comparing it to a group of occupations is an attempt at manipulation.
Another shock value graph. :shrug:
Major Robert Dump
10-14-2011, 13:49
Kanye showed up in all his bling, the credibility of the protestors has just skyrocketed. I expect Paris Hilton next.
also these people are protesting the evil 1% and how they have all the wealth.
Doubtless some of them are exactly that stupid. However, I don't think their little movement would gain any traction at all if it were merely "eat the rich." See earlier in the thread, comments by me about "legitimate complaints" and a very well-written article reposted (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?138425-Occupy-Wall-Street&p=2053386413&viewfull=1#post2053386413) by Sasaki Kojiro. As unlikeable as the protesters may be, they're not reacting to a vacuum.
-edit-
A more broad-reaching series of charts can be found here (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1).
Also, further smackdown of the idea that the Federales were the primary movers/causal agents of the mortgage meltdown can be found here (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/oct/27/did-fannie-cause-disaster/?pagination=false) and (in less detailed form) here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opinion/rabbit-hole-economics.html?_r=1).
The GSEs did generate large losses, but their bad investments in housing loans followed rather than led the crisis; most of those investments involved purchases or guarantees made well after the subprime and housing bubbles had been expanded by private loans and were almost about to burst.
Even then, the GSEs’ overall purchases and guarantees were much less risky than Wall Street’s: their default rates were one fourth to one fifth those of Wall Street and other private financial firms, a fact not made clear by the authors. A further review of other literature shows that Clinton’s goals to increase “affordable lending” had little to do with the risks the GSEs took. The FCIC, for example, argued that in several years these goals were largely met by the GSEs’ standard loans with traditional down payments. [...]
As noted, the GSEs bought very few subprimes in the 1990s. But it might especially surprise the inexpert reader to know that the GSEs did not own almost half of the “toxic mortgages” written by private companies, a remarkable exaggeration on the part of the authors. As usual, no source for the estimate is given, but it is likely based on the analysis of Pinto, who was a former Fannie official and is a colleague of Wallison’s at the American Enterprise Institute. To make the claim, Pinto radically redefined what qualified a mortgage to be subprime or an Alt-A, for which mortgage-holders were often not required to document their income, rejecting the conventional and widely accepted definitions. In his analysis, almost any mortgage held by Fannie and Freddie with modest above-average risk was categorized, to use Morgenson and Rosner’s term, as “toxic.”
If so, one would presume the delinquency rates suffered by the GSEs during the crisis would have been very high. But David Min, an analyst with the Center for American Progress, shows that the after-crisis delinquency rates on the large additional portion of GSE mortgages that Pinto claimed were high risk, and that was termed “toxic” by Morgenson and Rosner, was roughly 10 percent, far lower than the 25 to 30 percent default rate of true subprimes. In fact, the rate of delinquencies for all GSE securities in 2004 was 4.3 percent, compared to a delinquency rate in private industry of 15.1 percent of mortgages. In 2005, the GSE rate was 7.8 percent compared to 28.7 percent, and in 2006 and 2007, the rates reached 13.2 and 14.9 percent in the GSEs and 45.1 and 42.3 percent in the private market.
Vladimir
10-14-2011, 15:06
Just for humor: First you say it's not about "eat the rich" then you link to an article showing exactly that.
The start of the article isn't very promising. Being "unable to focus their complaints" reminds me of when Democrats talk about focusing, or effectively communicating their "message." As if they somehow worded their thoughts better people would agree with them. DC buzzwords.
Those are nice, and exhaustive graphs, but all their only purpose is to point fingers at corporations when the real problems consist of things like uncertainty and poor political leadership. "The new normal" isn't. This is more like "what's old is new again."
Does the article even take Europe's problems into account? Not Europe as a whole but the ongoing financial instability caused by certain countries.
So, to sum up: There are a lot of factors influencing our current problems. What you are seeing, and what people are reacting to, are the symptoms, which are easy to see and point a finger at. They're missing the point and that's why I don't respect them.
[W]hat people are reacting to, are the symptoms, which are easy to see and point a finger at. They're missing the point and that's why I don't respect them.
In other words:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/occupysesamestreet-1.jpg
Vladimir
10-14-2011, 16:27
You know what REALLY makes me mad?
This:
https://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6152/cookiemonsterwtf1.png
THAT'S what we should protest!
It's the golden rule: him with the gold makes the rules. A politician usually does what s/he's paid to do. I think it's more accurate and useful to examine the role of the paymaster than the employee.So instead of reforming the government that paid bailouts, you think it'd be easier to reform.... human nature?
Edit: Also, don't kid yourself. Fannie and Freddie were very much in the thick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html) of the mortgage crisis.
The GSEs did generate large losses, but their bad investments in housing loans followed rather than led the crisis; most of those investments involved purchases or guarantees made well after the subprime and housing bubbles had been expanded by private loans and were almost about to burst.Their buying mortgage backed securities funneled more money back to the investment banks which allowed them to make even more loans.
So instead of reforming the government that paid bailouts, you think it'd be easier to reform.... human nature?
Why yes, that's exactly what I wrote, both in sense and literal meaning. From the beginning of this thread I've been arguing that we should all have our brains replaced with either robot or baboon brains. You, on the other hand, have clearly been in favor of trying to turn the human race into dolphins. Sure I read that somewhere.
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2011, 07:14
I still don't see why people are just crapping all over the protesters. Ok yeah, I get it, they are ******* morons. Awesome. They don't have clear message, cool beans. They annoy me, yeah, same with a lot of others.
Nevertheless the spoiled teenage children of the 1% still has us talking about this stuff in the first place which is better than not talking about it. Sasaki wants to dismiss the motivational aspect of it as people doing the bare minimum to feel good without actually doing anything and claims that what is needed is more articles. Yet, I am pretty sure the media attention of OWS has generated more than a fair portion of the good articles about the 1% over the past 4 weeks now. I'm sorry, but attention to the subject, is attention to the subject no matter how idiotic they go about it. If they all painted themselves blue and acted as if this was Avatar and Wall Street were the loggers, still wouldn't matter if the attention generated articles pertaining to the subject at hand: the 1%.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-15-2011, 07:27
What if MLK had delivered a really dumb speech, people would probably have talked about it more than if he'd done nothing.
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2011, 07:42
What if MLK had delivered a really dumb speech, people would probably have talked about it more than if he'd done nothing.
Umm what are you referring to as "it", the speech or the message?
What if MLK had delivered a really dumb speech, people would probably have talked about it more than if he'd done nothing.Yeah, we'd be talking about how dumb he sounded. Like we're talking about how dumb, unruly, messy, and just plain embarrassing this lot is.
Why yes, that's exactly what I wrote, both in sense and literal meaning. From the beginning of this thread I've been arguing that we should all have our brains replaced with either robot or baboon brains. You, on the other hand, have clearly been in favor of trying to turn the human race into dolphins. Sure I read that somewhere. It seems alot of people are misunderstanding your viewpoint. Maybe you should take that as an invitation to clearly restate your position on this topic. :idea2:
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2011, 07:56
Yeah, we'd be talking about how dumb he sounded. Like we're talking about how dumb, unruly, messy, and just plain embarrassing this lot is.
Everyone here is talking about how embarrassing they are because everyone here is a bit of a cynic. While you guys are talking about how many iPhones they have, there are hundreds of thousands of others who are actually talking about the message. I really don't think any consensus made in the backroom is at all representative of the American population.
It seems alot of people are misunderstanding your viewpoint.
Dunno, Vladimir and I were doing just fine; we may disagree but we are able to communicate.
Nothing I have written in this thread is esoteric, poetic, allegorical or hard to comprehend. That said, your attempt to summarize my take on OWS was comedy gold, for which I thank you.
I think there should not and cannot be a "too big to fail", neither banks nor Greece or anyone and by intervening our governments are messing up the free market that should regulate itself, using money of people who aren't really involved, much less responsible for the problems. I don't care whether the economy would fail otherwise, in that case the free market and economy are simply a failure and shouldn't be artificially sustained, period.
The people who protest out there may be what they are, but to an extent their message and concerns are perfectly valid. The economy is going to fail anyway, the question is just whether we try to delay it by taking the last money away from the poor, thus risking uprisings, or whether we accept that now and let the markets fail. People who think that anyone richer than the poorest Africans has no reason to complain have a rather low view of our "superior" western economic system, I mean who'd think that Africa is our new standard? Is that where we are now? "At least we're a little better off than Africans"? Really?
Now you can blame this all on politics and say Wall Street is innocent, but it doesn't really matter where people protest the bailouts, where they were given or where they were received, both parties are part of the bailouts. This all just distracts from the real issue, which is whether the government should step in everytime it thinks the economy made a mistake?
I agree that this may be a dumb, messy lot but that's what you get when you don't act responsible and don't own up to your mistakes so no sympathies from me. :shrug:
I think there should not and cannot be a "too big to fail", neither banks nor Greece or anyone and by intervening our governments are messing up the free market that should regulate itself, using money of people who aren't really involved, much less responsible for the problems. I don't care whether the economy would fail otherwise, in that case the free market and economy are simply a failure and shouldn't be artificially sustained, period.
While I agree with you that "too big to fail" cannot be allowed, it always has to be a preemptive action. You must regulate the market so that there are zero "too big to fail" institutions. If you get in the position where they are "too big to fail", well, the expression means exactly what it says really, the effects are too disastrous and simply thinking you can bite on the bullet and survive the rough-patch won't do, that option has already been eliminated when you put the TBTF label.
You get back on your feet, then knock them down to size. That it didn't happen is a separate issue of the US (and now EU) political system.
I know it's not what one wants to hear, but it is also the inescapable truth. Twenty Lehman's at once would lead to more than blood in the streets eventually and while you may think that necessary, it never is an option for the ones who won't make it until the end. So these arguments at this point in time are superfluous.
Twenty Lehman's at once would lead to more than blood in the streets eventually
Why exactly? What will happen once Germany and the US can't pay back all their debts either? Will the banks bail them out? What if all the bailouts fail and the banks fail AND the governments go bankrupt as well, AFTER all those bailouts?
Our governemnt had really nice plans to pay off all the debts because it was REALLY URGENT and all they have done since then was take up even more urgent so by now all that urgency is long overdue. Now even if we could potentially pay off all that debt in 20 years (we won't do that anyway), that's just wishful thinking because I'm sure there will be plenty more bailouts in the next 20 years, so when is this ever going to end?
Montmorency
10-15-2011, 23:23
So the house is moldy and drafty and the roof leaks when it rains. Tornados and sinkholes are constantly taking chunks out of it. The utilities are old-fashioned, non-functional and expensive. The kids keep breaking the windows, and the teenager upstairs has entered his rebellious phase.
So we should just demolish it and have a new house built? But where will we stay? How will we pay? Is there no other way?
The neighbors live in a storage shed, and I don't think there's enough room for us...
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 03:27
I still don't see why people are just crapping all over the protesters.
My main issue is the ignorance of it all. They don't seem to understand why TARP was implemented or acknowledge that Wall Street has paid back the majority of its debts to the government and is on track to continue with the rest. They don't seem to recognize or acknowledge just how much money has been spent on their behalf. The 800$ Stimulus, the auto bailout, the years of unemployment benefit extensions, the Federal Home Buyer Credit, the Loan Modification Program, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, the Credit CARD Act, the student loan caps, and a dozen other programs - trillions on behalf of the underprivileged.
What these people are essentially protesting against is the age old maxim that wealthy people ride out recessions better than poorer people. The government - and by extension, society - has indebted itself greatly to help poor Americans during the recession, but the government cannot force businesses to hire people with outdated or worthless skills. The government can do little to affect wealth disparity, which is a result of globalization and the high cost of American unskilled labor. And the worst thing the government could do is tax the rich and distribute it to the poor banana republic style. That would take our entitled and uncompetitive work force beyond the point of repair and ultimately destroy the country.
In my opinion, the reason these people do not have specific demands is that, deep down, they, or at least their leaders, know that they are fighting against the inevitability of global trade, and even burning down Wall Street will not bring back the glory days of post-war America where entitlements only got bigger.
Cecil XIX
10-16-2011, 05:38
Both the American Nazi Party and the Communisty Party USA have endorsed the OSW protests. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/)
https://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy308/CecilXIX/cpusa-ows.jpg
https://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy308/CecilXIX/nazi-party.png
I'm not surprised, everything I've seen about the protests seems to be compatible with their kind of ideology. Hopefully it will fizzle out before real harm is done.
Samurai Waki
10-16-2011, 06:49
Lol. Anything that seems to be against the "Status quo" will be endorsed by every low-life out there... endorsements do not generally represent reality.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-16-2011, 06:58
I still don't see why people are just crapping all over the protesters. Ok yeah, I get it, they are ******* morons. Awesome. They don't have clear message, cool beans. They annoy me, yeah, same with a lot of others.
Nevertheless the spoiled teenage children of the 1% still has us talking about this stuff in the first place which is better than not talking about it. Sasaki wants to dismiss the motivational aspect of it as people doing the bare minimum to feel good without actually doing anything and claims that what is needed is more articles. Yet, I am pretty sure the media attention of OWS has generated more than a fair portion of the good articles about the 1% over the past 4 weeks now. I'm sorry, but attention to the subject, is attention to the subject no matter how idiotic they go about it. If they all painted themselves blue and acted as if this was Avatar and Wall Street were the loggers, still wouldn't matter if the attention generated articles pertaining to the subject at hand: the 1%.
So what is likely to be done now? The idea behind spreading awareness is that the only reason people weren't doing X is that they weren't aware of Y. For example, you spread awareness that asbestos causes health problems, and when people become aware of it they stop using it. But what does spreading awareness that there was a way to exploit gaps in the regulations of the financial industry that got exploited by people who could get away with it and caused a recession do? Besides the fact that everyone was already aware of it, it's also pointless. Solutions are what's needed.
It's like having a protest where you say "our kids need to be better educated" over and over again. HOW?
It's a very bad idea for a democratic society that people can pat themselves on the back just for voting, or making a sign, or protesting, or "having a conversation" and "drawing attention" to things.
Major Robert Dump
10-16-2011, 07:46
Yes. I am very much more aware of the corruption and greed present in the financial sector now. I hear next they are going to protest cancer.
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 08:05
My main issue is the ignorance of it all. They don't seem to understand why TARP was implemented or acknowledge that Wall Street has paid back the majority of its debts to the government and is on track to continue with the rest. They don't seem to recognize or acknowledge just how much money has been spent on their behalf. The 800$ Stimulus, the auto bailout, the years of unemployment benefit extensions, the Federal Home Buyer Credit, the Loan Modification Program, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, the Credit CARD Act, the student loan caps, and a dozen other programs - trillions on behalf of the underprivileged.
What these people are essentially protesting against is the age old maxim that wealthy people ride out recessions better than poorer people. The government - and by extension, society - has indebted itself greatly to help poor Americans during the recession, but the government cannot force businesses to hire people with outdated or worthless skills. The government can do little to affect wealth disparity, which is a result of globalization and the high cost of American unskilled labor. And the worst thing the government could do is tax the rich and distribute it to the poor banana republic style. That would take our entitled and uncompetitive work force beyond the point of repair and ultimately destroy the country.
In my opinion, the reason these people do not have specific demands is that, deep down, they, or at least their leaders, know that they are fighting against the inevitability of global trade, and even burning down Wall Street will not bring back the glory days of post-war America where entitlements only got bigger.
Sounds just like the Tea Party.
So what is likely to be done now? The idea behind spreading awareness is that the only reason people weren't doing X is that they weren't aware of Y. For example, you spread awareness that asbestos causes health problems, and when people become aware of it they stop using it. But what does spreading awareness that there was a way to exploit gaps in the regulations of the financial industry that got exploited by people who could get away with it and caused a recession do? Besides the fact that everyone was already aware of it, it's also pointless. Solutions are what's needed.
It's like having a protest where you say "our kids need to be better educated" over and over again. HOW?
It's a very bad idea for a democratic society that people can pat themselves on the back just for voting, or making a sign, or protesting, or "having a conversation" and "drawing attention" to things.
It's a bit silly to be dismissing the public for being angry at the financial system because they are not generating solutions to a problem that has the entire worlds economists between a rock and hard place. I really dislike this idea that if you are not saying, "this is what we should do." then your voice is meaningless. The public wants to show they are angry in hopes that people with the means to create solutions do so, instead of sitting on their hands continuing to do what is best for Wall Street and not necessarily for everyone. To ask them to be solving the problem themselves is like telling the average citizen to go fix the power lines outside their house that fell after the hurricane hit. They don't have the know how, the people in Wall Street and government do.
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 08:21
Sounds just like the Tea Party.
Indeed, populism, whether from the Left or the Right, is usually based in ignorance.
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 08:22
Indeed, populism, whether from the Left or the Right, is usually based in ignorance.
Is this one of those times? Or is this truly a time when the public has been screwed over?
“I am very much more aware of the corruption and greed present in the financial sector now. I hear next they are going to protest cancer.” The difference is you had research to cure cancer. We are still waiting for the fight against the others…
I think it’s time to do a Revolution, I am not sure that “the truth behind 9/11” banners will help, and I am sure that medias and opponents will exploit this as much they can to discredit the genuine movement. But I do think that the banksters should have been put in jail for fraud and illegal activities. I do think that greed kill people, and now, the race for money has nothing to do with competence and hard work.
The man in charge of the notation agency that helps the Conservative Greek Government to cheat and to cover-up the deficit is (or will be soon) head of the ECB… The same ECB that demand to the Greeks to make sacrifice for a debt that can’t be reimburse due to the interest rate impose by the Agencies, agencies that work (and represent) the banks. We are far of the Government of the People for the People. We are in a Pre-French Revolution situation. Tools of democracy are taken from ours hands one by one. Private Companies will soon impose their rules above the rules of the Law. Their lackeys are working on it, imposing regulations avoiding debates in Parliaments, imposing a economic model that actually is leading the world to the wall.
The crisis is worsening, people lose their job by hundreds of thousands, houses are repossessed, and firemen, police-officers, nurses and soldiers are fired. Everywhere, in every country, the old receipts don’t work, but the Righties (Conservative) still demand their application… Like the doctors of Moliere, they bleed to death the patients. We will die in good health…
I hope a big wave, a tsunami, of hungry/angry population all around the world will raise and wash away the banksters and affiliates. It could be a citizen Revolution that hopefully will avoid a real and bloody Revolution. A Revolution the poorest would probably loose anyway.:creep:
It's like having a protest where you say "our kids need to be better educated" over and over again. HOW?
It's a very bad idea for a democratic society that people can pat themselves on the back just for voting, or making a sign, or protesting, or "having a conversation" and "drawing attention" to things.
Apologies for focusing only on your reply, yet you sum up the point of view of several posters with this.
That aside, I would've thought it is clear that "the people" (limiting myself to protests in the US) are largely protesting against the blockage financial reform ran into?
We're mainly talking about the way Dodd-Frank is slowly defanged in Congress, the actions taken to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and so on and so forth. Wish I'd have bookmarked the most salient reports written about these processes I read in the past two years, but a quick search gave me at least okish articles on the subject:
One year after Dodd-Frank (http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/07/20/one-year-later-after-dodd-frank) - acceptable summary
Lobbying Dodd-Frank (http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-11-12/lobbyists-dodd-frank)
House GOP tries to slow down Dodd-Frank express (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-financial-regulation-idUSTRE7437HJ20110505)
Dodd-Frank financial reform law hasn't curtailed banks (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/20/business/la-fi-banks-dodd-frank-20110720)
Consumer Agency stymied by the GOP (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576305553238068870.html)
However, it bears repeating that these links are very far from completely illuminating the plethora of maneuvers employed by the financial lobby to block minimal reform in the regulation of all economic sectors. You must've kept a close eye on the US press, so you probably know what I'm referring to though.
The six largest banks spent $29.4 million on lobbying last year, according to firm disclosures — record spending for the group. They spent an additional $8 million in the first quarter this year, which puts them on track to break last year's record
Even before the bill was passed, bank lobbying helped defang some of the strictest proposed regulations, including rules that would have prevented banks from managing hedge funds and fees that would have been levied on the industry to pay for future bailouts.
The regulations have also been scaled back since President Obama signed the law last July 21 as attention shifted to regulators who have been writing the language of some 300 rules.
Banks have pressed regulators in countless meetings to lighten the rules, and they have found a natural ally in congressional Republicans, who have long been suspicious of government regulation.
"The industry has really thrown a lot of wrenches into the rule-making process, thanks to very aggressive lobbying," said James Cox, a professor of securities law at Duke University.
Quick-read of the the Reuters report:
(Reuters) - Two congressional committees led by Republicans approved measures on Wednesday to delay and weaken key provisions of last year's Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, but they were expected to fizzle in the Senate.
With Democrats in control of the upper chamber of Congress and President Barack Obama able to defend Dodd-Frank with his veto pen, efforts by Republicans to water down and postpone the reforms seemed unlikely to succeed, analysts said.
That is not stopping Republicans from pressing their rollback agenda, however, especially in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"Dodd-Frank is not in any way, shape or form in danger of being repealed," said Ed Mills, a financial policy analyst with brokerage FBR Capital Markets. "But they're building the groundwork over time to strip away elements that the business community feels are the most onerous."
As a global regulatory (http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals/regulatory) crackdown moved ahead fitfully in the United States and Europe after the 2007-2009 financial crisis, a House subcommittee voted in favor of weakening the powers of the new U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.
Set up by Dodd-Frank to protect consumers from abusive and misleading credit cards and mortgages, the CFPB will open its doors in July. Like the rest of Dodd-Frank, it has been hotly opposed by Republicans and Wall Street since it was proposed.
The legislation approved by the subcommittee would have the bureau run by a five-member board rather than a single director, and make it easier for the new Financial Stability Oversight Council to overturn bureau regulations.
Another Republican-led committee voted on Wednesday for an 18-month delay of post-crisis regulations intended to reduce risk in the over-the-counter derivatives market. The rules are being implemented by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.
The legislation would keep in place the timeline for issuing final rules for definitions such as swaps and swap dealers, and for rules requiring record retention and regulatory reporting.
"The speed at which these rules are coming out is unprecedented, and these are important rules and thus a delay of 18 months is reasonable," said Greg Mocek, a former enforcement chief at the CFTC and now a partner at law firm Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft.
Like the CFPB measure, the derivatives delay bill may win approval in the full House, but it has little chance of becoming law. There is no similar Senate bill and futures (http://www.reuters.com/finance/futures) regulators have said that they do not need additional time.
OTC DERIVATIVES TARGETED
The Dodd-Frank law, enacted last July, extended full federal regulation (http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals/regulatory) to the $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market for the first time. It requires derivatives to go through clearinghouses and trade on exchanges as much as possible, with more disclosure and reporting also required.
"It's highly politically risky to move back the date of implementation" for the derivatives rules, said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and the CFTC's former director of trading and markets (http://www.reuters.com/finance/markets).
"The Republican drive for this does not take into account that the CFTC is contemplating a phase-in process," he said. "It is allowing people to prepare themselves for the new regulatory situation."
To implement the derivatives rules, and many others mandated by Dodd-Frank, regulators asked Congress for more money. At a Senate committee hearing, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and CFTC asked for funding increases.
Republicans seeking to weaken Dodd-Frank and restrain federal spending are trying to block big funding increases for the two agencies. (they did) The SEC wants a $222 million increase for its fiscal 2012 budget, beginning October 1, which would bring the total to $1.4 billion. The CFTC wants an increase of $106 million, bringing its budget to $308 million.
Separately, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told reporters on Wednesday that there is no guaranteed way to prevent a repetition of the May 6, 2010 "flash crash," but that measures being implemented should help head off volatile price swings.
Last year's unprecedented drop sent the Dow (http://www.reuters.com/finance/markets/index?symbol=us!dji) Jones industrial average down some 700 points in minutes before it sharply rebounded -- a rapid breakdown that exposed deep flaws in the mostly electronic U.S. marketplace.
Schapiro said the agency has moved fast on circuit breakers to dampen volatility, along with new rules for breaking clearly erroneous trades, rules banning "naked access" to the market, and a prohibition on stub quotes, those offers to buy or sell stock at prices not in line with the prevailing market.
"Can I guarantee we will never have another flash crash? No," Schapiro said. "But I think these are really important steps to take that I think go a really long way toward fortifying our market structure."
Sasaki Kojiro
10-16-2011, 15:40
Sounds just like the Tea Party.
It's a bit silly to be dismissing the public for being angry at the financial system because they are not generating solutions to a problem that has the entire worlds economists between a rock and hard place. I really dislike this idea that if you are not saying, "this is what we should do." then your voice is meaningless. The public wants to show they are angry in hopes that people with the means to create solutions do so, instead of sitting on their hands continuing to do what is best for Wall Street and not necessarily for everyone. To ask them to be solving the problem themselves is like telling the average citizen to go fix the power lines outside their house that fell after the hurricane hit. They don't have the know how, the people in Wall Street and government do.
Aha, so then the government can just come out and say "this fixes it" and they don't need to know whether it does or not? You are holding them to the standards of children.
Apologies for focusing only on your reply, yet you sum up the point of view of several posters with this.
That aside, I would've thought it is clear that "the people" (limiting myself to protests in the US) are largely protesting against the blockage financial reform ran into?
Doubtful, but let's imagine.
We're mainly talking about the way Dodd-Frank is slowly defanged in Congress, the actions taken to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and so on and so forth. Wish I'd have bookmarked the most salient reports written about these processes I read in the past two years, but a quick search gave me at least okish articles on the subject:
One year after Dodd-Frank (http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/07/20/one-year-later-after-dodd-frank) - acceptable summary
Lobbying Dodd-Frank (http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-11-12/lobbyists-dodd-frank)
House GOP tries to slow down Dodd-Frank express (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-financial-regulation-idUSTRE7437HJ20110505)
Dodd-Frank financial reform law hasn't curtailed banks (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/20/business/la-fi-banks-dodd-frank-20110720)
Consumer Agency stymied by the GOP (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576305553238068870.html)
However, it bears repeating that these links are very far from completely illuminating the plethora of maneuvers employed by the financial lobby to block minimal reform in the regulation of all economic sectors. You must've kept a close eye on the US press, so you probably know what I'm referring to though.
In a massive reform bill I expect some measures that aren't a good idea. If I see that the banks lobbyied congress and got a measure removed I don't assume that they "bought" congress. Why are you repeating the line that it was "defanged"? If you defang a snake it is completely harmless. Does the bill do absolutely nothing now? Do you have a strong opinion on whether the bureau is run by a 5 member board rather than a single director, like the republican subcommittee suggested? Why is the fact that the banks made a profit treated like a smoking gun? A summary of those articles would be that the bill is here to stay but that details of it are being quibbled over by some republicans, who don't control the senate and can't override the presidents veto anyway.
Don't you see the tremendous disconnect from a detailed argument about the dodd-frank bill and this:
https://i52.tinypic.com/6fppi1.jpg
??
picture spoiled because I don't want to look at it
Hmm, I believe you are succeeding the performance of writing both that they’re asking too much and that they resume themselves too to little simultaneously.
So lets clarify the phenomenon: first of all, we are dealing with a mob here. It’s roots are springing out of progressive networks and democratic-leaning organizations, with lots of disenfranchised lay-abouts joining in. Why are they gathering? Lots of punctual reasons can be found and I am sure given by any of their spokespersons with a bit of eloquence, yet at the end of the day, it is a general anxiety over the economic situation which they perceive to have been brought about by the destabilization of the financial sector; that was caused by Wall Street and deregulations, deregulations which were also the product of the financial lobby by and large. Now, there were two initiatives taken for reform and those were, in fact, Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And yes, I stumbled upon the word defanged when perusing the sources above and found it poignant, because the bill is totally inefficient at this point in time. And while I am an educated person in macroeconomics, I do not have the expertise to vet each proposal, my ultimate formal training is in political marketing and Law.
But I have made a mistake, because in wishing to show you why the protests would target the banks, I appeared as if I wished to demonize those when I linked only articles condemning them. It was not my intention and when I repeated that the bill was defanged, I actually had in mind its initiators as well, which totally overbloated it, regardless of consequences, in a bid to appear decisive.
It’s the old political syllogism:
We must do something
This is something
Therefore we must do it.
Here you have a cogent article I had actually bookmarked a while ago on why Dodd-Frank is a "defanged" bill, article which lays the blame at the feet of its proponents. I agree with it as much as I agree with the articles I hastily searched for and mentioned above, and the issues the reform encounters would only become clear if we’d very selectively and expertly synthesize all this feedback: Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill turns one. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/dodd-frank-financial-regulation-bill-turns-one-not-nearly-potty-trained/242294)
Still, nevermind the blame game, these are street protests. You are very much mistaken if you think the reason behind such actions needs to be punctual. They simply have to express their desire for changes to be made in the sector they’re interested in, in the hope that enough political will shall coagulate to champion their cause in a cogent manner. This is not about their childish behaviour or not, expectations are misplaced in mob behaviour. This is about creating the premise for a political movement capable of channelling social anxiety, and to obtain that, these protesters are doing exactly what they need to do. Yeah, they cannot ask for guarantees from the persons they will end up backing in the end, but that’s a problem contained in the entire system and which 100% percent of the population accepts in the case of the electoral system anyway – they elect a part which claims to “fix it”. These people are not there to change that catch-22 of the democratic system, they are there because they are under the impression no one even bothers to wave that claim anymore.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-16-2011, 17:51
I don't disagree about the dodd-frank bill (my assumption about such bills is that it will be hard to implement) except that defanged means deliberately crippled and I think it's more inherent to the attempt.
But that article itself is a great argument about protesting, as they say:
Still, according to a recent poll conducted by the Center for Responsible Lending, 71% of likely voters support the Dodd-Frank bill. You have to wonder though: do they really know what's in it? Do Americans working outside the financial industry understand the difficulty that regulators are having making so many of its provisions workable? Do they understand the reported or even potential harms that overly aggressive regulation can cause?
If the answer to all three of these questions is "yes," then that 71% is a meaningful and important statistic. Unfortunately, the answer to all three of those questions are more likely "no."
If I was a politician and saw these protests that's what I would be thinking. "Since these people don't actually know about it, all I have to do is give the appearance of being on their side".
Creating a premise for a movement is no substitute for starting a movement, and hoping and expressing a desire aren't a substitute for anything either. A protest is entirely inappropriate. Protesting works best to prevent something or to undo something. It doesn't work for fixing a difficult problem.
We’d be mistaken to think the protesters are blissfully unaware of their low chances of success.
Or unaware that the politicians declaring for them are most-likely populists. But again, you are speaking from a very righteous pulpit, as if this was not already common practice throughout the whole democratic process, and it’s only these chaps who naively deliver themselves in the hands of politics. It's an accepted risk already, no point going on about it :bow:
As to the protest being inappropriate, I do not see how it obstructs the on-going process of reform or what do they have to lose. Can it have consequences which would ultimately hurt the economy should they succeed in imposing a regulatory agenda? Yes. It is totally plausible. In the absence of their protests, could certain financial interest groups succeed in imposing their particular agenda which would hurt the economy? Yes. 2008 actually happened. Since they are equally uninformed and incapable of foreseeing which would lead to success, they might as well go for it and see what happens as long as they remain peaceful.
Of course it doesn't matter how educated and informed the protesters are since those traits will not enable them to action any change whatsoever because what they lack is power.
Protest is the only form of power and leverage that they have.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-17-2011, 04:49
We’d be mistaken to think the protesters are blissfully unaware of their low chances of success.
Or unaware that the politicians declaring for them are most-likely populists. But again, you are speaking from a very righteous pulpit, as if this was not already common practice throughout the whole democratic process, and it’s only these chaps who naively deliver themselves in the hands of politics. It's an accepted risk already, no point going on about it :bow:
As to the protest being inappropriate, I do not see how it obstructs the on-going process of reform or what do they have to lose. Can it have consequences which would ultimately hurt the economy should they succeed in imposing a regulatory agenda? Yes. It is totally plausible. In the absence of their protests, could certain financial interest groups succeed in imposing their particular agenda which would hurt the economy? Yes. 2008 actually happened. Since they are equally uninformed and incapable of foreseeing which would lead to success, they might as well go for it and see what happens as long as they remain peaceful.
I don't see what your saying. How many police have been pulled from other duties to watch over this (two for the wall street bull, 12 for a building front in the pictures I saw) how much taxpayer money has been spent on that, how much on processing all the people arrested for blocking traffic on the brooklyn bridge? Are their crimes being gotten away with because of lack of police in other areas? Even if you don't agree that people making a public spectacle of themselves is a bad thing, or that promoting an extremely superficial idea of what it is to be a citizen in a voting country is a bad thing, you have to agree that the sheer waste is bad. So why "they might as well go for it and see what happens"?
Oh, we'll just have to agree to disagree after all Sasaki :bow:
Even if you don't agree that people making a public spectacle of themselves is a bad thing, or that promoting an extremely superficial idea of what it is to be a citizen in a voting country is a bad thing, you have to agree that the sheer waste is bad.
For one, the waste in terms of wearing out the public space is absolutely negligent and it won't leave significant traces. Suggesting protests in favour of economic reform should be re-thought on the consideration that they overload police duties is simply hypocritical. The jobless who feel abandoned and forgotten turn to crime a lot faster, think of how much violence these protests prevented by engaging potential perpetrators and allowing these mobs to let go of social tension.
As to making themselves into a public spectacle, that's a narrow view, for one, no one is laughing or looking down on them around the world. Secondly, try to look at this anthropologically, anxiety is always defused through gregarious manifestations. It's how human beings solve their issues, you don't want them to look for other options, believe you me. If you think you're living in a society where the walls of civilisation cannot come crashing down, you are misunderstanding the bottom line of the people around you. These type of politically orchestrated protests (as they are politically orchestrated by elements of the left) are the best outcome you can hope for.
Vladimir
10-17-2011, 13:24
Dunno, Vladimir and I were doing just fine; we may disagree but we are able to communicate.
:sweetheart:
This photo made me laugh. Does a decent job of showing how imbalanced both movements are.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/OWSvsTea.jpg
I love the picture :2thumbsup: As in, I literally laughed. However, I was under the impression OWS was a protest against financial corporations, not any corporate trust in general (genuine question)? Sure, you may get a few yells against anything during a demonstration, but to distort the message just to fit a joke in is intellectually lazy.
a completely inoffensive name
10-17-2011, 19:11
I love when a movement that is dissatisfied with the society it lives in, are ridiculed for "using" that society while they protest. "I dont like how 99% of corn is genetically modified." "LOL, BUT YOU STILL HAD CORN FLOUR IN THAT MUFFIN YOU HAD FOR BREAKFAST, WHAT A HYPOCRITE!"
Samurai Waki
10-17-2011, 19:29
I fail to see how living like a neanderthal would resolve anything. I never got the impression it was anti-corporate, just anti-monopoly-- controlling the resources, factories, and supply lines that fill your stores with goods; kills competition, and thereby innovation. There is such a symbiotic relationship between large corporations and large financial institutions it hardly makes a difference whether you protest in front of the national reserve, or Wall Street... except everyone knows Wall Street, but not a lot know about the Federal Reserve Bank.
Vladimir
10-17-2011, 20:17
I love when a movement that is dissatisfied with the society it lives in, are ridiculed for "using" that society while they protest. "I dont like how 99% of corn is genetically modified." "LOL, BUT YOU STILL HAD CORN FLOUR IN THAT MUFFIN YOU HAD FOR BREAKFAST, WHAT A HYPOCRITE!"
I see them as Al-Qaeda: They're using the tools of the system they hate to bring the system down.
When has this been anti-monopole? It's been anti-corporate from the start.
Samurai Waki
10-17-2011, 20:21
When has this been anti-monopole? It's been anti-corporate from the start. The two are practically synonymous these days.
Vladimir
10-17-2011, 20:47
The two are practically synonymous these days.
Yea, I don't get that. If you mean the federal government having a monopoly then I can see that.
You may have to draw a picture for me.
Papewaio
10-17-2011, 22:18
If the movement lasts its demands will firm up and the range of ideas will either group together into ration sets or be trimmed down. Any new environmental niche has an explosion of options until it settles into an equilibrium.
Maybe the most powerful thing that could come out of this is a centre moderate party for the people. It could even incorporate the moderates from the tea party.
So I'm going to call this proto party the Tea & Scone Party.
Because some people really do want their cake and eat it ok.
PanzerJaeger
10-18-2011, 04:06
Here are the results of an interesting new poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-17/poll-wall-street-protests/50804978/1).
Poll: Washington to blame more than Wall Street for economy
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
Most Americans blame Wall Street for the nation's economic predicament — but they blame Washington more.
And in the democracy that fancies itself the capital of capitalism, more than four in 10 people describe the U.S. economic system as personally unfair to them. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken last weekend, as the Occupy Wall Street protest movement completed its first month, found that:
•Only 54% say the economic system is personally fair to them; 44% say it is not.
•78% say Wall Street bears a great deal or a fair amount of blame for the economy; 87% say the same about Washington.
Also, the president seems to be trying his hardest to co-opt the movement, even comparing it to the Civil Rights movement today at the MLK memorial (:rolleyes:). Good move, or is he playing with fire? And will the movement welcome his endorsement?
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2011, 04:17
Yea, I don't get that. If you mean the federal government having a monopoly then I can see that.
You may have to draw a picture for me.
Almost every major sector is dominated by 5 or less corporations, just like in the guilded age, the government has promoted or let big business get too big across the entire economy and to protest against a monopoly or trust might as well be protesting against all big business nowadays.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-18-2011, 04:51
More photos:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_global_prot.html
Another problem with this inane (even for protesting) style that tries to be all inclusive or whatever, is that you attract all the crazies. Notice the "Occupy ground zero--9/11truth" sign.
Also see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IMjm4LxFa1c
And this political add cherry picks a few more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NIlRQCPJcew
The Rome version of the protest led to violence:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097038,00.html
Instead, the protest quickly fell apart. The march hadn't traveled far when groups of young men began pulling up sampietrini (the black cobblestones so characteristic of the Italian capital) and hurling them at shop windows. Others broke into parked cars and set them alight with Molotov cocktails, pulled down signposts to smash ATMs and crashed through the glass doors of a supermarket. Soon large parts of the demonstration had given way to skirmishes as men with masks over their face engaged the police with rocks and bottles.
By late afternoon, the protest route had devolved into a full-scale battle, with police vans engaging in charges against hundreds of rock-throwing protesters. Teargas floated like mist through the streets. Demonstrators barricaded the roads with metal barriers and dumpsters, and at least two members of the Italian paramilitary police escaped an armored van seconds before protesters set it on fire. A warehouse belonging to the Ministry of Defense was set ablaze, and a statue of the Virgin Mary was pulled from a church and shattered on the street. Seventy people were injured, three seriously. While the vast majority of those who turned up that day remained peaceful — indeed, hostile to those battling the police — only the most violent reached the march's planned destination. They seem to have dashed there to pre-empt the rest of the march, engaging the police in about two hours of fighting in front of the basilica. The rest, blocked by the fighting, quickly dissipated, their banners crestfallen; many detoured to the enormous field that marks the remains of the ancient Circus Maximus.
Suv graffitied with occupy wall street slogan and set on fire:
http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/27021462-46/police-anarchy-burning-eugene-guard.html.csp
Also:
http://i56.tinypic.com/euojsn.jpg
Sasaki Kojiro
10-18-2011, 05:35
Anyway, the above is just in response to the "they might as well go for it" idea.
This post does a good job expressing some of the things I was trying to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-the-occupy-protests-tell-us-about-the-limits-of-democracy/2011/10/17/gIQAay5YsL_story.html
What the Occupy protests tell us about the limits of democracy
Text Size PrintE-mailReprints
By Anne Applebaum, Published: October 17
On paper, it isn’t easy to reproduce the oddity of the Occupy the London Stock Exchange rally that took place on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral last weekend. It’s all very British — people are cooking pots of porridge on the sidewalk — yet reverent homage is being paid to the original Occupy Wall Street protests, too. The London demonstrators have even adopted the “human mic” used in New York’s Zuccotti Park — the crowd in front repeats whatever the speaker says, so that the crowd in back can hear — despite the fact that megaphones and microphones have not been banned in London. The effect, as can be heard on a Guardian online video, was something like this:
“We need to have a process.” (We need to have a process!)
407
Comments
Weigh InCorrections?
inShare
Anne Applebaum
Applebaum writes a weekly foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.
Archive
@anneapplebaumFacebookRSS
Video
New Gingrich, Herman Cain and Eric Cantor on Occupy Wall Street.
You may also like...
David Ignatius
Rage against the elites
Fareed Zakaria
Europe needs a growth agenda
“This meeting was called for a reason!” (This meeting was called for a reason!)
“We know that you are there!” (We know that you are there!)
“And we have solidarity with you.” (We have solidarity with you!)
Unintentionally, it sounds a lot like a scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian,” the one in which Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts out at the crowd, “You are all individuals!” The crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”
To my American ear, the resemblance is reinforced by the fact that the speakers are British and thus sound as if they belong in a Monty Python movie anyway. But this isn’t unusual: Inevitably, the Occupy movements — also known in Europe as the indignados, after Spanish protests that started last spring — have taken on different national flavors in different places. The Occupy Tokyo marchers shouted slogans about nuclear power. The Occupy Sydney protests fizzled out because, as a spokesman regretfully admitted, “we don’t have the depth of crisis here in Australia.” In Rome, where radical politics has historically had a violent fringe, marches have already turned into riots and caused millions of euros worth of damage.
Of course these international protests do have a few things in common, both with one another and with the anti-globalization movement that preceded them. They are similar in their lack of focus, in their inchoate nature, and above all in their refusal to engage with existing democratic institutions. In New York, marchers chanted, “This is what democracy looks like,” but actually, this isn’t what democracy looks like. This is what freedom of speech looks like. Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities, none of which are nearly as much fun as camping out in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral or chanting slogans on the Rue Saint-Martin in Paris.
Yet in one sense, the international Occupy movement’s failure to produce sound legislative proposals is understandable: Both the sources of the global economic crisis and the solutions to it lie, by definition, outside the competence of local and national politicians. As I wrote at the time of the first Greek riots a few years ago, nobody much admires powerless leaders. Nobody much sees the point in voting for people who can’t stop another wave of economic pain rolling in from Beijing, Brussels or New York. If you’re upset about the austerity program being imposed on your country by indebted banks on the other side of the world, it doesn’t seem logical to complain to the mayor of Seville.
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
Unlike the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to whom the London and New York protesters openly (and ridiculously) compare themselves, we have democratic institutions in the Western world. They are designed to reflect, at least crudely, the desire for political change within a given nation. But they cannot cope with the desire for global political change, nor can they control things that happen outside their borders. Although I still believe in globalization’s economic and spiritual benefits — along with open borders, freedom of movement and free trade — globalization has clearly begun to undermine the legitimacy of Western democracies.
“Global” activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout,“We need to have a process!” Well, they already have a process: It’s called the British political system. And if they don’t figure out how to use it, they’ll simply weaken it further.
Major Robert Dump
10-18-2011, 11:52
I wish for once someone would have a protest with, like, an invitation list and doormen to keep out the scuzzies. This is one of the problems I have with Democrats and Liberals in general: while at the core I believe in the same social and economic causes, the fact that they get behind any fringe lunatic is a huge turn off. I mean, Al Sharpton has a prime time show FFS.
Hey Kojiro :bow:
I do not see us agreeing, as I remarked before, as long we approach the phenomenon from opposite vantage points.
You continue to view these protesters through the lens of a citizen judging a political party.
I advocate their right to express dissatisfaction towards financial policy in their quality of citizens.
The purpose of their action is the protest itself in my view, the need to communicate the size of the community for which the status quo is unbearable, while in yours the protest is misguided for lacking a purpose easily contained in a manifesto.
And while I fully understand the reasoning behind the article you quote (which was well written by the by) I believe it also legitimizes the protests when it writes (and I do not believe it is taken out of context :book2:):
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
The problem of a society feeling the rule of law is not protecting it becomes an issue of sovereignty and it requires in-depth modifications of the system.
In this case, a public gathering is deeply rooted within the genes of a gregarious species and it should be properly channelled, not discouraged, in my view, as doing so implies an idealistic attempt to negate society’s limits. And what’s more, this public gathering is not actually attempting to impose the above mentioned radical systemic modifications, it is still waving and waiting for legislative proposals, this is no nascent revolutionary movement.
I would also think it sensible to split the OWS from ulterior protests world-wide, the later are unleashing social tension which preceded OWS and which has nothing to do with the American demonstrations more often than not. You cannot make your people responsible for it. And the amount of disorderly conduct and damage to public property are still in their ideal limits considering the size of the protests, you clearly have not seen what militant mobs can amount to in far fewer numbers by simply not policing their own actions, nevermind when they put their mind to it. These people have for the most part actively wished to demonstrate restraint.
I was just perusing a few online articles and I found, as you did above, a neutral voice (to our debate) that adds a handful extra valences to the argument I developed in my above post. Sorry for the double post, but perhaps it will further our discussion and I did not want to squeeze it into an edit.
The boldfaced and underlined parts are my own doing:
The lead headline on the front page of Saturday's "Business Day" section of the New York Times: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html)
Is it possible to imagine a more obnoxious response to the Occupy Wall Street movement? "Sophistication" is of course a word defined by these bankers as seeing things precisely their way, as buying into the whole rigged system that the movement exists to protest. They clearly believe that, without an MBA, people lack standing to critique the very entities that are screwing them.
We've seen this sort of thing before, of course: Henry Kissinger regarded the anti-nuclear movement as naive. Opponents of the Vietnam War were initially dismissed as ignorant dupes with no grasp of geopolitics. Civil rights activists were shrugged off as utopian idealists lacking any sense of the country's history and traditions and the realities of federalism. And all were labeled, at one time or another, Communists. People with a stake in the status quo usually choose to see their position as natural and unalterable, and regard those in dissent as dunces or villains.
Which is not to say the movement isn't incoherent, inconsistent, and lacking a clear program. I recently heard Michael Moore give his version of the movement's demands, and it amounted, unsurprisingly, to a groaning buffet table of the progressive causes with which he's been associated, many of them unachievable from a practical point of view, and some of them far removed from the grievances that have actually driven people into the street. He seemed to be trying to take ownership of the protest, and in his zeal missed some of the point. And I recently heard Republican Nicolle Wallace assail Occupy Wall Street for its lack of any credible spokesperson who could speak responsibly for the movement as a whole. She too was missing the point, looking for a lobbying operation while watching a street demonstration.
Popular protest isn't about a neat, discrete set of demands, even when it pretends to be. Maybe the Boston (as distinct from the contemporary) Tea Party was an exception, although even there, I suspect the tea tax was in fact but one grievance among many. But with every protest movement I've witnessed personally, a poll of the participants would have revealed a cacophony of conflicting intent. When the issue was Vietnam, I marched with people who wanted to see Ho Chi Minh victorious, and people who merely wanted a finite pause in Johnson's bombing campaign, and those who wanted the troops brought home immediately, without negotiations and without regard to consequences. Anyone who took part in any civil rights demonstrations knows the spectrum of demands being advocated, from an end to segregation to financial reparations for slavery to some intimidating, unelaborated version of black power. When I went to march against the Iraq War in London in 2003, there were at least as many anti-Zionist placards on display as those specifically related to the war policies of Bush and Cheney. And as for today's Tea Party ... well, don't get me started.
No, public protest isn't about anything as mundane as ten-point programs and lists of demands. It has its purpose, and its justification, in manifesting public discontent with things the participants regard as profoundly wrong, profoundly in need of repair. It's far too messy a medium of expression to allow for a practical strategy of redress. In today's situation, after an almost inexplicable period of quiescence, a large number of people are finally willing to say, That's enough. Wealth disparity in this country is obscene. The absence of regulation of financial institutions has proved catastrophic. The decisive influence of money in our politics has distorted the process beyond anything the Founders could have imagined, let alone foreseen. These things are threatening democracy. They've already gone a considerable distance toward subverting it.
Every protester may have his or her own proposed solution. That simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that popular refusal to tolerate the current state of affairs appears to be reaching a tipping point. The prosaic, technical work of finding some ameliorating, and no doubt less than thorough, way of making things somewhat better is a matter for elected officials and those who beaver away in government agencies, and won't look exciting and won't provide much in the way of emotional release, and may well feel like a serious anticlimax after all the hoopla, all the tumult and the shouting. But it's the way politics works. It's the way things change. It's the way the unromantic, prosaic, desk-bound people who make our laws and administer our country get things done. I don't have a problem with that. It's every bit as essential as storming the barricades.
If enough law-makers come to understand that the situation is intolerable, and much more important, that it no longer will be tolerated, then it may just change. The Glass-Steagall Act wasn't, after all, The Marseillaises. It didn't have to be.
Source: The Atlantic Monthly The Occupation (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-occupation/246755)
Sasaki Kojiro
10-18-2011, 21:26
Hey Kojiro :bow:
I do not see us agreeing, as I remarked before, as long we approach the phenomenon from opposite vantage points.
You continue to view these protesters through the lens of a citizen judging a political party.
I advocate their right to express dissatisfaction towards financial policy in their quality of citizens.
Of course the have the right to...we aren't talking about their right to. We're talking about whether it's dumb or not, or a bad idea or not, etc.
And while I fully understand the reasoning behind the article you quote (which was well written by the by) I believe it also legitimizes the protests when it writes (and I do not believe it is taken out of context :book2:):
The problem of a society feeling the rule of law is not protecting it becomes an issue of sovereignty and it requires in-depth modifications of the system.
In this case, a public gathering is deeply rooted within the genes of a gregarious species and it should be properly channelled, not discouraged, in my view, as doing so implies an idealistic attempt to negate society’s limits. And what’s more, this public gathering is not actually attempting to impose the above mentioned radical systemic modifications, it is still waving and waiting for legislative proposals, this is no nascent revolutionary movement.
I didn't really see what she was saying with the stuff about the global community and democracy. Sure, there can be a recession through no action of our country that our representatives could not have permitted. Don't see how that's a failure of democracy rather than a limitation of government.
I would also think it sensible to split the OWS from ulterior protests world-wide, the later are unleashing social tension which preceded OWS and which has nothing to do with the American demonstrations more often than not. You cannot make your people responsible for it. And the amount of disorderly conduct and damage to public property are still in their ideal limits considering the size of the protests, you clearly have not seen what militant mobs can amount to in far fewer numbers by simply not policing their own actions, nevermind when they put their mind to it. These people have for the most part actively wished to demonstrate restraint.
They should learn a little history, or have some common sense. You don't help create a volatile situation and then say "Oh but I would never have smashed any windows".
The purpose of their action is the protest itself in my view, the need to communicate the size of the community for which the status quo is unbearable, while in yours the protest is misguided for lacking a purpose easily contained in a manifesto.
I'm not really saying that "they don't have a focus, so the protest is dumb". The issue is the lack of possible focus. If you have a women's rights movement with a whole bundle of issues that aren't clearly laid out, and there is a law that bans women from X, then it doesn't matter that you don't have clarity because there is something definite to be done. But the complicated arguments about the dodd-frank bill don't fit that criteria.
I was just perusing a few online articles and I found, as you did above, a neutral voice (to our debate) that adds a handful extra valences to the argument I developed in my above post. Sorry for the double post, but perhaps it will further our discussion and I did not want to squeeze it into an edit.
The boldfaced and underlined parts are my own doing:
The lead headline on the front page of Saturday's "Business Day" section of the New York Times: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html)
Is it possible to imagine a more obnoxious response to the Occupy Wall Street movement? "Sophistication" is of course a word defined by these bankers as seeing things precisely their way, as buying into the whole rigged system that the movement exists to protest. They clearly believe that, without an MBA, people lack standing to critique the very entities that are screwing them.
We've seen this sort of thing before, of course: Henry Kissinger regarded the anti-nuclear movement as naive. Opponents of the Vietnam War were initially dismissed as ignorant dupes with no grasp of geopolitics. Civil rights activists were shrugged off as utopian idealists lacking any sense of the country's history and traditions and the realities of federalism. And all were labeled, at one time or another, Communists. People with a stake in the status quo usually choose to see their position as natural and unalterable, and regard those in dissent as dunces or villains.
Which is not to say the movement isn't incoherent, inconsistent, and lacking a clear program. I recently heard Michael Moore give his version of the movement's demands, and it amounted, unsurprisingly, to a groaning buffet table of the progressive causes with which he's been associated, many of them unachievable from a practical point of view, and some of them far removed from the grievances that have actually driven people into the street. He seemed to be trying to take ownership of the protest, and in his zeal missed some of the point. And I recently heard Republican Nicolle Wallace assail Occupy Wall Street for its lack of any credible spokesperson who could speak responsibly for the movement as a whole. She too was missing the point, looking for a lobbying operation while watching a street demonstration.
Popular protest isn't about a neat, discrete set of demands, even when it pretends to be. Maybe the Boston (as distinct from the contemporary) Tea Party was an exception, although even there, I suspect the tea tax was in fact but one grievance among many. But with every protest movement I've witnessed personally, a poll of the participants would have revealed a cacophony of conflicting intent. When the issue was Vietnam, I marched with people who wanted to see Ho Chi Minh victorious, and people who merely wanted a finite pause in Johnson's bombing campaign, and those who wanted the troops brought home immediately, without negotiations and without regard to consequences. Anyone who took part in any civil rights demonstrations knows the spectrum of demands being advocated, from an end to segregation to financial reparations for slavery to some intimidating, unelaborated version of black power. When I went to march against the Iraq War in London in 2003, there were at least as many anti-Zionist placards on display as those specifically related to the war policies of Bush and Cheney. And as for today's Tea Party ... well, don't get me started.
No, public protest isn't about anything as mundane as ten-point programs and lists of demands. It has its purpose, and its justification, in manifesting public discontent with things the participants regard as profoundly wrong, profoundly in need of repair. It's far too messy a medium of expression to allow for a practical strategy of redress. In today's situation, after an almost inexplicable period of quiescence, a large number of people are finally willing to say, That's enough. Wealth disparity in this country is obscene. The absence of regulation of financial institutions has proved catastrophic. The decisive influence of money in our politics has distorted the process beyond anything the Founders could have imagined, let alone foreseen. These things are threatening democracy. They've already gone a considerable distance toward subverting it.
Every protester may have his or her own proposed solution. That simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that popular refusal to tolerate the current state of affairs appears to be reaching a tipping point. The prosaic, technical work of finding some ameliorating, and no doubt less than thorough, way of making things somewhat better is a matter for elected officials and those who beaver away in government agencies, and won't look exciting and won't provide much in the way of emotional release, and may well feel like a serious anticlimax after all the hoopla, all the tumult and the shouting. But it's the way politics works. It's the way things change. It's the way the unromantic, prosaic, desk-bound people who make our laws and administer our country get things done. I don't have a problem with that. It's every bit as essential as storming the barricades.
If enough law-makers come to understand that the situation is intolerable, and much more important, that it no longer will be tolerated, then it may just change. The Glass-Steagall Act wasn't, after all, The Marseillaises. It didn't have to be.
Source: The Atlantic Monthly The Occupation (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-occupation/246755)
That article tremendously exaggerates the value of "people expressing their discontent" through protesting. Why would I take it as a positive that this crowd might have some influence on politicians? Will it have a good influence? Why on earth would I want politicians convinced that people are angry enough about stupid slogan level ideas like "the wealth disparity in this country is obscene" to do something about it? Where does this crazy idea that the people are pure and good and the when things go wrong it's because the government screwed it up come from? "If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" Ridiculous idea.
Tellos Athenaios
10-19-2011, 00:44
So I'm going to call this proto party the Tea & Scone Party.
Main party point: where's the clotted cream gone too?
"If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" Ridiculous idea." Yeap. It is called Democracy...
Morning Kojiro :2thumbsup:
Thought we would be debating current events and discussing the social commentary we find in articles and what not, but the disconnect between our world-views goes so much deeper. It seems so odd for an American citizen to ignore such connections which to me, an east-European, seem fundamental; yet best to explain myself while replying to your latest comments.
I didn't really see what she was saying with the stuff about the global community and democracy. Sure, there can be a recession through no action of our country that our representatives could not have permitted. Don't see how that's a failure of democracy rather than a limitation of government.
I initially understood you agreed with her, it was your quote. Her point is obvious enough though, surely there’s a straight line to be drawn between the global community and a sovereign democracy; but -- “Sure, there can be a recession through no action of our country that our representatives could not have permitted “ -- is not at all the connection you should’ve made. No, what she was writing was, and I will re-quote for the rest of the readers:
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
Democracy is a system that prioritizes quantity. No matter the drawbacks we both see in it, it is an inviolable principle of what we stand for. Citizens have the right (though I hate the word; I would use privilege any day over it) to decide the actions of the state-entity they are part of based on an electoral quantitative system. The whole point of it, as one would say. Billion-dollar global hedge funds as the one she mentions are actors with world-wide interests which draw their human resources from said nation and use their large financial power and leverage to influence elected officials into furthering their economic plans. That’s not a limit of government Kojiro, that is a breach of democracy. A non-state actor with global economic interests wields more power over large portions of the elected officials than the voting citizens. While that is an ill which existed to a limited degree since modern democracies began to evolve in the XIXth century, never before has the fate of these financial corporations been more independent and divorced from the fortunes of their nations of origin while exercising such a vast power to bend the resolve of the citizens’ democratic representatives to their will. More to the point, they even hold an overblwon sway over which persons are ultimately elected to public office.
They should learn a little history, or have some common sense. You don't help create a volatile situation and then say "Oh but I would never have smashed any windows".
That’s total nonsense, we were talking about the separation of OWS from world-wide offspring movements. You won’t abstain to demonstrate against your government in the United States because of the possibility you might inspire an anti-nuclear demonstration in Japan, as it now happened. That’s too ludicrous to even consider taking responsibility for :happy:
That article tremendously exaggerates the value of "people expressing their discontent" through protesting. Why would I take it as a positive that this crowd might have some influence on politicians? Will it have a good influence? Why on earth would I want politicians convinced that people are angry enough about stupid slogan level ideas like "the wealth disparity in this country is obscene" to do something about it? Where does this crazy idea that the people are pure and good and the when things go wrong it's because the government screwed it up come from? "If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" Ridiculous idea.
In my opinion, you not only misinterpret (“people are pure and good”? It must require tremendous effort to extract that from the article), but also misunderstand the author and thus the way you synthesize between quotation marks the main ideas expressed becomes a tad disingenuous. First of all, it was not stated within that a people’s protest is a positive development; it merely states that such a movement doesn’t need to legitimize its actions by issuing a political program. "If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" is not even hinted at anywhere, you are presuming and drawing conclusions out of the blue Kojiro, sorry to remark upon it so bluntly, I do not wish to antagonise you :bow:
If at all it is implied a people’s protest is beneficial, it is because their homologous adversary pressure group is constituted by financial corporations with private interests colliding with their own, not government technocrats assiduously toiling away for the betterment of society. It thus seeks to provide a balance to the corruption of the democratic system through legitimate electoral pressure.
Why on earth would I want politicians convinced that people are angry enough about stupid slogan level ideas like "the wealth disparity in this country is obscene" to do something about it?
You don’t even understand where that is coming from, do you mister?
All right, a 101 on what taxation stands for.
Taxes pay for civilisation. Citizens pay them to ensure the existence of a police force, of a judicial system, of a transport infrastructure, of an educational system and so on and so forth. Among these citizens will appear those who ask for an expansion of these services, the entrepreneurs. Yep, despite all the libertarian crap so many fall for, it is this category of citizens which needs these to be expanded beyond their original purpose.
Take an example: you’re a manufacturer. You need a judicial system to be able to create and enforce contracts, to arbitrate complex economic matters and ensure the viability of your eventual partners; the common citizen will use the judiciary infinitely less and wouldn’t ever need the refined and very expensive arbitration process you cannot live without. You need a well-developed transport infrastructure to move about your goods and you make use of it every day of the year, using a lot of vehicles; compare that to the use a highway experiences from a normal family. You require a police force with a very long reach to secure your business nation-wide and even beyond boundaries. You have to have an educational system from which to draw your human resources – albeit it is the only one which you could consider to have a perfectly fair exchange with even in the absence of taxes, by ensuring employment. There are a lot more examples which can be added here, communication networks, patent authorities etc. For all these facilities, the group of citizens exploiting them the most must pay more in taxes than the common citizen.
The idea that "the wealth disparity in this country is obscene" is not at all a slogan. The fact of the matter is, this disparity in the US did not come about naturally, but through the waving off of a large percent of the financial duties the upper class was obliged to. Half a century ago, this category was taxed appropriately and those taxes allowed for the building of a social and industrial infrastructure which allowed for business growth and, inevitably, for the rise and consolidation of a prosperous middle class. Since, due to financial lobby pressure, taxes were progressively cut under the premise that the wealthy entrepreneurs would then use the capital to outset the financial losses this incurred onto the rest of the citizens by spurring unprecedented economic growth. The idea proved to be a failure and everyone but the upper class suffered. Its financial power growing exponentially through the use of said social and industrial infrastructure while its duties towards reinvestment in it were waved off, this category of citizens distanced themselves to a large degree from the rest of society. Now, with this infrastructure weakened by lack of support, the upper class seeks to entrench into their untenable position by obtaining further economic privileges and, in the process, corrupting the democratic process. Some call that obscene.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2011, 16:57
I initially understood you agreed with her, it was your quote. Her point is obvious enough though, surely there’s a straight line to be drawn between the global community and a sovereign democracy; but -- “Sure, there can be a recession through no action of our country that our representatives could not have permitted “ -- is not at all the connection you should’ve made. No, what she was writing was, and I will re-quote for the rest of the readers:
Ah, but that was the connection she made in the previous paragraphs. "Nobody much sees the point in voting for people who can’t stop another wave of economic pain rolling in from Beijing, Brussels or New York. If you’re upset about the austerity program being imposed on your country by indebted banks on the other side of the world, it doesn’t seem logical to complain to the mayor of Seville."
The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.
Democracy is a system that prioritizes quantity. No matter the drawbacks we both see in it, it is an inviolable principle of what we stand for. Citizens have the right (though I hate the word; I would use privilege any day over it) to decide the actions of the state-entity they are part of based on an electoral quantitative system. The whole point of it, as one would say. Billion-dollar global hedge funds as the one she mentions are actors with world-wide interests which draw their human resources from said nation and use their large financial power and leverage to influence elected officials into furthering their economic plans. That’s not a limit of government Kojiro, that is a breach of democracy. A non-state actor with global economic interests wields more power over large portions of the elected officials than the voting citizens. While that is an ill which existed to a limited degree since modern democracies began to evolve in the XIXth century, never before has the fate of these financial corporations been more independent and divorced from the fortunes of their nations of origin while exercising such a vast power to bend the resolve of the citizens’ democratic representatives to their will. More to the point, they even hold an overblwon sway over which persons are ultimately elected to public office.
Other countries have always influenced large portions of the elected officials, and national businesses have too. Now international businesses are, since there are more of them. I can see where there are problems with that, but not where it makes sense to protest rather than taking democratic measures to change things, which is the issue.
That’s total nonsense, we were talking about the separation of OWS from world-wide offspring movements.
I don't think we were. We were talking about how protests very often turn violent, even if it is only minor violence, due to their nature and the fact that the attract such people no matter how nice the people who care about the politics are. Anyone protesting should weigh that possibility when deciding to protest. Those protesters in Rome should have thought about it.
In my opinion, you not only misinterpret (“people are pure and good”? It must require tremendous effort to extract that from the article), but also misunderstand the author and thus the way you synthesize between quotation marks the main ideas expressed becomes a tad disingenuous. First of all, it was not stated within that a people’s protest is a positive development; it merely states that such a movement doesn’t need to legitimize its actions by issuing a political program. "If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" is not even hinted at anywhere, you are presuming and drawing conclusions out of the blue Kojiro, sorry to remark upon it so bluntly, I do not wish to antagonise you
If at all it is implied a people’s protest is beneficial, it is because their homologous adversary pressure group is constituted by financial corporations with private interests colliding with their own, not government technocrats assiduously toiling away for the betterment of society. It thus seeks to provide a balance to the corruption of the democratic system through legitimate electoral pressure.
Nah, the article doesn't "merely state" anything:
Is it possible to imagine a more obnoxious response to the Occupy Wall Street movement? "Sophistication" is of course a word defined by these bankers as seeing things precisely their way, as buying into the whole rigged system that the movement exists to protest. They clearly believe that, without an MBA, people lack standing to critique the very entities that are screwing them.
We've seen this sort of thing before, of course: Henry Kissinger regarded the anti-nuclear movement as naive. Opponents of the Vietnam War were initially dismissed as ignorant dupes with no grasp of geopolitics. Civil rights activists were shrugged off as utopian idealists lacking any sense of the country's history and traditions and the realities of federalism. And all were labeled, at one time or another, Communists. People with a stake in the status quo usually choose to see their position as natural and unalterable, and regard those in dissent as dunces or villains.
The message is clear. People are dismissing these people just like they dismissed civil rights activists. They don't have an education and people think they are ignorant, but that's just how it was in those other movements. But that's a pathetic argument.
There is a common bias in favor of the people and it seems clear that the author shares it.
You don’t even understand where that is coming from, do you mister?
All right, a 101 on what taxation stands for.
Taxes pay for civilisation. Citizens pay them to ensure the existence of a police force, of a judicial system, of a transport infrastructure, of an educational system and so on and so forth. Among these citizens will appear those who ask for an expansion of these services, the entrepreneurs. Yep, despite all the libertarian crap so many fall for, it is this category of citizens which needs these to be expanded beyond their original purpose.
Take an example: you’re a manufacturer. You need a judicial system to be able to create and enforce contracts, to arbitrate complex economic matters and ensure the viability of your eventual partners; the common citizen will use the judiciary infinitely less and wouldn’t ever need the refined and very expensive arbitration process you cannot live without. You need a well-developed transport infrastructure to move about your goods and you make use of it every day of the year, using a lot of vehicles; compare that to the use a highway experiences from a normal family. You require a police force with a very long reach to secure your business nation-wide and even beyond boundaries. You have to have an educational system from which to draw your human resources – albeit it is the only one which you could consider to have a perfectly fair exchange with even in the absence of taxes, by ensuring employment. There are a lot more examples which can be added here, communication networks, patent authorities etc. For all these facilities, the group of citizens exploiting them the most must pay more in taxes than the common citizen.
The idea that "the wealth disparity in this country is obscene" is not at all a slogan. The fact of the matter is, this disparity in the US did not come about naturally, but through the waving off of a large percent of the financial duties the upper class was obliged to. Half a century ago, this category was taxed appropriately and those taxes allowed for the building of a social and industrial infrastructure which allowed for business growth and, inevitably, for the rise and consolidation of a prosperous middle class. Since, due to financial lobby pressure, taxes were progressively cut under the premise that the wealthy entrepreneurs would then use the capital to outset the financial losses this incurred onto the rest of the citizens by spurring unprecedented economic growth. The idea proved to be a failure and everyone but the upper class suffered. Its financial power growing exponentially through the use of said social and industrial infrastructure while its duties towards reinvestment in it were waved off, this category of citizens distanced themselves to a large degree from the rest of society. Now, with this infrastructure weakened by lack of support, the upper class seeks to entrench into their untenable position by obtaining further economic privileges and, in the process, corrupting the democratic process. Some call that obscene.
But it isn't obscene. That's not what obscene means.
"We should reform the tax code in such and such a way" is not a slogan, it's a legitimate suggestion that can be talked about and debated in a democratic way. A sign saying that the wealth disparity is obscene is the opposite of that.
By definition the upper class is a small minority. When laws are passed cutting taxes for the rich it isn't because they control the government, it's because a large portion of the people support such laws. If they are wrong they need to be convinced of it--that's democratic.
Trying to fix problems by protesting rather than talking about them in an intelligent way and voting and campaigning is the opposite of what our system of government is about. It's the equivalent of a politician coming out and giving an empty feel good speech. That's really what we're talking about--not the banking system but the worth of protests and the situations where they are good.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2011, 17:14
"If only the people had more say, we'd be better off?" Ridiculous idea." Yeap. It is called Democracy...
And that's why we aren't one.
Everyone I've met personally (maybe 30 or so people) and most everyone online who likes protesting has that same dumb idea. Mostly people are acting out a cultural drama rather than truly working for change. Scratch that, they are working for change all right, but in a feel good way not an intellectual way.
When democratic style governments work it is because the people are smart enough and educated enough to support the right things and elect the right people. The attitude people have towards protesting trashes that. It's people yelling simplistic ideas surrounded by a crowd that gives them assurance that their beliefs are good.
Centurion1
10-19-2011, 21:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oSo-MEiMbac
Hello again :2thumbsup:
After your last post, all I can write is that I believe I’ve more than made my point. In fact, you’ll forgive me for being a bit partial, but the situation reminds me of that anecdote involving Sun Tzu and the emperor’s concubines placed in the beginning of each edition of his strategy-for-dummies manual – “when everything has been explained... etc.”
That aside, I am not saying you are obtuse, I rather liked the couple of discussions I read in which you had been involved before. It’s just the state of the arguments ceased to provide me with any food for thought for now. Perhaps anyone else following the back-and-forth would find me to be mistaken.
Trying to fix problems by protesting rather than talking about them in an intelligent way
Kojiro, it’s 2011, three whole years after the events that sparked the current affair. If we’d see it as an experiment for “talking”, it would’ve approached the end of its trial period a while ago considering the situation has worsened due to clear inaction and corruption.
Night night, I believe it should be around midnight at this point no matter what coast you’re closer to there :bow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oSo-MEiMbac (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oSo-MEiMbac)
For one, they're "trolling".
Secondly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yrT-0Xbrn4
Sasaki Kojiro
10-20-2011, 06:32
Yes, I think I stopped having anything new to say either, was nice talking to you though :bow:
classical_hero
10-20-2011, 14:06
I like this comment from the latest article Sasaki Kojiro.
The Occupy Sydney protests fizzled out because, as a spokesman regretfully admitted, “we don’t have the depth of crisis here in Australia.”
That is why it is good living here, since we have had so far responsible governance that has helped us to get out of the mess that much of the Western world has faced.
Another graphic that gave me a laugh:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/OWSTP.jpg
Source (http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2011/10/tea-party-vs-ows.html).
Alec Baldwin comes off as shockingly level-headed and rational when interviewed / harangued (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEnc7iak6ms) by Ron Paulites at OWS.
Color me surprised.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-21-2011, 00:47
Alec Baldwin comes off as shockingly level-headed and rational when interviewed / harangued (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEnc7iak6ms) by Ron Paulites at OWS.
Color me surprised.
"Alec Baldwin works for NBC ! Guess who owns NBC? GE , that's who . So do you really believe Baldwin would bite the hand that feeds him and support Ron Paul who stands as advisary to the crony capitalism that GE is currently engaged in? Nope . Don't expect Baldwin to have any scruples whatsoever . He's a paid off crony."--SputnikMedia
:laugh4:
A very good question from Forbes: Why is OWS receiving so much more police love (http://www.forbes.com/sites/daveserchuk/2011/10/20/the-tea-party-never-got-pepper-sprayed/) that the Tea Partiers?
Have the protests gotten a little unruly? Possibly, but if you watch this video you will see a good deal of NYC police swinging billy clubs, and OWS folks not fighting back. Most, it seems, crowded the police not to hurt them, but to get a better line of sight for them to document the melee, including one guy with an iPad. (Darn you OWS, with your hypocritical fixation on modern conveniences!)
One can’t help but get the feeling that OWS just doesn’t get it. If they had only yelled down an opposing congressperson, or stomped on a woman’s head, all would have been forgiven.
Now, I scratch my head as to why this double standard has proven true. One answer could be that Tea Party demonstrators are way better armed.
This would highlight the fact that law enforcement is demonstrably good at bullying peaceful protestors, but not so hot when facing anything like equal force. [Crazed Rabbit bait, sez the lemur.]
I would hate to think this is the case.
What are some other reasons? I am getting in the realm of speculation, but here we go.
Maybe the police feel more sympathetic toward the Tea Partiers, than toward the Occupiers. I don’t know why this would be so, seeing as how the Tea Partiers are totally against public sector employees, such as cops. (Although Tea Partiers become apoplectic when threatened with the removal of their publicly funded Medicare.)
Another possibility and what strikes me as more likely, is that OWS is doing something actually revolutionary, and this scares those in power that tell the police what to do.
This would only make sense as the Tea Party, for all its alleged anti-government language, is basically financed by people commonly referred to as pillars of society. Now these pillars may resent having to pay into the public kitty, despite reaping outsized gains from the benefits of our society, but they are still extremely powerful. The Koch brothers, for example, control one of largest privately owned firms in the U.S.
And the average Tea Partier tends to be older, wealthy, and white.
Vladimir
10-21-2011, 16:16
Is this tongue in cheek or serious? Did you see the picture of the Jesus attacking the cop? I can't find it now but it was pretty funny.
The parallels this guy is drawing make me think he's not serious.
Is this tongue in cheek or serious? Did you see the picture of the Jesus attacking the cop? I can't find it now but it was pretty funny.
The parallels this guy is drawing make me think he's not serious.
what picture are you talking about?
and btw.....Nobody ***** with the Jesus!
PanzerJaeger
10-23-2011, 04:28
It appears that the movement is wearing out its welcome (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66534.html).
Dowtown New Yorkers furious with the continued presence of the Occupy Wall Street protesters vented angrily at a community board meeting Thursday, according to reports.
The desire to complain about the demonstrators was so widespread that the line to speak at the meeting wound its way outside the board’s office and into the street, the New York Post said. At least several hundred people showed up to the board meeting.
The major complaints from residents in the area around the Occupy Wall Street protests in Lower Manhattan were issues of hygiene, garbage, noise and respectfulness.
“They are defecating on our doorsteps,” said Catherine Hughes, who lives one block from Zuccotti Park, according to the New York Post. “A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids.”
Particularly annoying, suggested several community members at the meeting, was the repetitive drumming late into the night.
“The occupiers are not our neighbors, our neighbors do not beat on drums when they’re sleeping, our neighbors do not verbally attack on the way to work… Our neighbors do not break into buildings or defecate on our street,” another speaker said, according to FOX 5 news.
These people are increasingly looking like the same nasty hippies that show up to every leftist protest as a lifestyle rather than a group of concerned 'average Americans' taking action. Some kind of central authority needs to be established to reign these people in and handle PR and messaging if they hope to effect real change. Of course that's quite a quandary when you've got a group of people who are seriously dedicated too 'an open, horizontal, prefigurative democratic space (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_hand_gestur.html)'.
Crazed Rabbit
10-23-2011, 18:14
Hee hee hee; (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/they_want_lice_of_the_occu_pie_9xKCxcI4aectFYkafMb8UJ)
Even in Zuccotti Park, greed is good.
Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protestErs is fraying tempers.
Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off.
“F--k Finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going,” said a frustrated Bryan Smith, 45, who joined OWS in Lower Manhattan nearly three weeks ago from Los Angeles, where he works in TV production.
Smith is a member of the Comfort Working Group -- one of about 30 small collectives that have sprung up within OWS. The Comfort group is charged with finding out what basic necessities campers need, like thermal underwear, and then raising money by soliciting donations on the street.
“The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” Smith fumed, even as he cajoled the passing crowd for more cash.
Lemur - your OWS - Tea Party comparison sheet has a bias in "slogans" and "sings" By taking some of the worst possible choices from the tea party and some of the best choices for the OWS. Still amusing, though not as much as the pictorial comparison (though they should point out that a big military is big government to the tea partiers).
Have the protests gotten a little unruly? Possibly, but if you watch this video you will see a good deal of NYC police swinging billy clubs, and OWS folks not fighting back. Most, it seems, crowded the police not to hurt them, but to get a better line of sight for them to document the melee, including one guy with an iPad. (Darn you OWS, with your hypocritical fixation on modern conveniences!)
The OWS folks are actually marching in a big city, whereas the tea partiers don't. That's the essential difference.
This would highlight the fact that law enforcement is demonstrably good at bullying peaceful protestors, but not so hot when facing anything like equal force.
I would hate to think this is the case.
I would love if that were the case (that cops aren't so hot facing equal force). OWS needs to start open carrying, though in the constitutional wasteland that is NYC it isn't possible. We need more equal force.
CR
Cecil XIX
10-24-2011, 00:47
Did you see the picture of the Jesus attacking the cop? I can't find it now but it was pretty funny.
Here you go. https://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy308/CecilXIX/OWS.gif
CountArach
10-24-2011, 00:51
Meanwhile, in the Occupy Sydney shoot-off (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/occupy-sydney-protesters-vow-to-continue-20111023-1me51.html):
Defiant Occupy Sydney activists say their movement will only get stronger after a dawn police raid ended their week-long protest in Sydney's CBD.
Police were accused of using excessive force in the 5am (AEDT) raid on Sunday in which police, including officers from the riot squad, cleared Martin Place of more than 100 protesters.
Forty people were arrested, with activists claiming they were manhandled off the site with little warning from police.
The group had been at Martin Place for over eight days as part of a global campaign against corporate greed.
"At 5am ... Sydney police joined Melbourne police in stamping out protests that are peacefully occurring in 1600 cities around the world," Occupy Sydney spokesman Tim Davis Frank told reporters in Sydney.
"This movement will only get stronger because of these illegitimate actions attempting to silence us."
Another Occupy Sydney spokesman, Mark Goudkamp, said he saw police throwing punches and protesters held on the ground with bloody noses, while his own wrist was held painfully behind his back.
And here are scenes of police using excessive force in Melbourne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRZBVqioeU
Sasaki Kojiro
10-24-2011, 04:41
There's no excessive force in that video. And LOL at the guy who says they "held his wrist painfully behind his back" :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
10-24-2011, 05:48
There's no excessive force in that video. And LOL at the guy who says they "held his wrist painfully behind his back" :laugh4:
Have you ever had your wrist held behind your back in a martial arts (or what have you) grip? It's not just having a wrist held behind your back like a handcuff, it's forcing a person's body to comply through pain.
You notice how often, whenever US police are arresting someone, even non-resisting, they'll get them on the ground and put their knee on their neck? You don't think that, which is a pretty standard tactic, isn't painful?
The NYPD managed to arrest people a lot more peacefully off that bridge.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
10-24-2011, 06:18
Yes, you force them to hold their hand behind their back by making it painful for them to pull it away...it seems like the standard method that they are trained to do right? Because you can't tell how the person is going to react.
And no, the brooklyn bridge stuff is about the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=o_1bYVMwg8k#t=146s
Basically, these people nigh on deliberately get arrested and struggle for all their worth and act it up because in their little world being arrested by the police is proof that they are right.
Tellos Athenaios
10-24-2011, 16:10
@Sasaki: The implied threat is a bit more severe than “I'm going to hold you in a rather uncomfortable position for as long as you don't cooperate”.
When democratic style governments work it is because the people are smart enough and educated enough to support the right things and elect the right people. The attitude people have towards protesting trashes that. It's people yelling simplistic ideas surrounded by a crowd that gives them assurance that their beliefs are good.
You could read that argument to mean that all protests are farcical and counter-productive. I get that you disapprove of the OWS crowd (and with their hippie ways, that's an easy thing to do). I would be curious to hear what sorts of protests would meet with your approval. Certainly, the civil rights marches of the 1960s were almost as confused and multi-pronged as the Tea Party and OWS protests have been. People forget, since we canonized MLK Jr., that those protests were met with the same sort of dismissal and disbelief that today's protests receive.
(And no, I'm not saying that the Tea Party or OWS are in any moral sense the equivalent of the Civil Rights movement. Just saying that the arguments against them are rather similar in tone and content.)
Maybe the answer is that protestors who achieve results are exempt in hindsight? Like the old rhyme goes, "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
In other words, you're only a fractured, silly group of commie losers if you fail to achieve results. Or something like that.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-24-2011, 17:07
You could read that argument to mean that all protests are farcical and counter-productive. I get that you disapprove of the OWS crowd (and with their hippie ways, that's an easy thing to do). I would be curious to hear what sorts of protests would meet with your approval. Certainly, the civil rights marches of the 1960s were almost as confused and multi-pronged as the Tea Party and OWS protests have been. People forget, since we canonized MLK Jr., that those protests were met with the same sort of dismissal and disbelief that today's protests receive.
(And no, I'm not saying that the Tea Party or OWS are in any moral sense the equivalent of the Civil Rights movement. Just saying that the arguments against them are rather similar in tone and content.)
Maybe the answer is that protestors who achieve results are exempt in hindsight? Like the old rhyme goes, "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
In other words, you're only a fractured, silly group of commie losers if you fail to achieve results. Or something like that.
Where is this movements MLK?
I would bet that the civil rights movement did a lot of dumb things (I remember some hazy details about it). But I don't know the history of it. So I can't say what the arguments against it were. Racist, I imagine. I agree that there's no moral equivalence and there's bunches of differences, so :shrug:
I suppose someone could approve of a protest on utilitarian grounds while still thinking poorly of the participants. But that's kind of cold.
I think I had some ramblings about the proper use of protesting earlier.
Vladimir
10-24-2011, 21:00
what picture are you talking about?
and btw.....Nobody ***** with the Jesus!
I really wish I could. I tried to upload it to FB from my phone but wasn't successful. It's this long haired hippy-guy with a beard attempting to get a piggy-back ride from a short, pudgy cop while another short pudgy cop freaks out.
Oops.
Have you ever had your wrist held behind your back in a martial arts (or what have you) grip? It's not just having a wrist held behind your back like a handcuff, it's forcing a person's body to comply through pain.
You notice how often, whenever US police are arresting someone, even non-resisting, they'll get them on the ground and put their knee on their neck? You don't think that, which is a pretty standard tactic, isn't painful?
The NYPD managed to arrest people a lot more peacefully off that bridge.
CR
Rabbit: Pain compliance is how policing has worked for a while. Get a grip man.
Crazed Rabbit
10-25-2011, 06:42
Yes, you force them to hold their hand behind their back by making it painful for them to pull it away...it seems like the standard method that they are trained to do right? Because you can't tell how the person is going to react.
They make it painful to be in that position, not to pull away.
Rabbit: Pain compliance is how policing has worked for a while. Get a grip man.
:inquisitive:
I don't think it's necessary against people who aren't resisting.
Edit: Police in New York state defy mayor and governor pressure to make arrests; http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Under-pressure-to-make-arrests-police-and-2232934.php#ixzz1biu6XD00
CR
classical_hero
10-26-2011, 10:19
Have you ever had your wrist held behind your back in a martial arts (or what have you) grip? It's not just having a wrist held behind your back like a handcuff, it's forcing a person's body to comply through pain.
You notice how often, whenever US police are arresting someone, even non-resisting, they'll get them on the ground and put their knee on their neck? You don't think that, which is a pretty standard tactic, isn't painful?
The NYPD managed to arrest people a lot more peacefully off that bridge.
CRThe police are corrupt bastards, aren't they?
Centurion1
10-26-2011, 21:01
damn those police and restraining individuals with arm holds. evil sons of guns they are.
Crazed Rabbit
10-28-2011, 02:39
Ken Jennings, one of the 99%;
(linked due to huge resolution)
https://i.imgur.com/iRgy2.jpg
Also, I found this highly amusing (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL) - the OWS folks are having to deal with homeless folks and they don't want to;
The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.
They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.
To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.
As the kitchen workers met with the “General Assembly’’ last night, about 300 demonstrators stormed from the park to Reade Street and Broadway, where they violently clashed with cops.
...
Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.
Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.
“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.
A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”
Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.
Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.
Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.
Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.
So they go to wall street and protest for even more government handouts (among other things), but they don't like giving handouts themselves.
:dizzy2:
CR
a completely inoffensive name
10-28-2011, 07:37
So they go to wall street and protest for even more government handouts (among other things), but they don't like giving handouts themselves.
CR
Because it's not the whole point of OWS is that the citizens were milked for all their money and they don't want to have the tab put on them. A problem they view as the result of an economic collapse due ot greedy bankers should be on their backs or they are hypocrites? rollie eyes indeed.
Centurion1
10-29-2011, 22:49
the snow is bad up here i hope they freeze while the 1% has a nice brandy by their fireplace.
Major Robert Dump
10-30-2011, 08:49
I like how Micheal Fat POS Moore shows up haha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbHCfJ-L8WQ
Menial tasks would become automated so that work would now be a choice and people could spend their days day dreaming? I think these idiots have spent waaay too much time day dreaming! What sort of fantasy are they living in?
So I guess this truly is all about a bunch of worthless, lazy liberals who don't want to pull their own weight. Surprise, surprise. (meanwhile they turn homeless people away from their kitchens)
Meanwhile, in the Occupy Sydney shoot-off (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/occupy-sydney-protesters-vow-to-continue-20111023-1me51.html):
And here are scenes of police using excessive force in Melbourne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrRZBVqioeU
Excessive force? They are trying to arrest them and they are resisting. Resisting arrest is a crime you know. You have no choice in that situation but to use force to arrest them. Those police were very professional about everything. Those protesters were just making the biggest scene they could so people around the world who did not know better would see it and think "Oh noes! Tos evil polize!"
Did you see the woman acting like she was being raped? All they are doing is trying to make the police look bad.
Have you ever had your wrist held behind your back in a martial arts (or what have you) grip? It's not just having a wrist held behind your back like a handcuff, it's forcing a person's body to comply through pain.
You notice how often, whenever US police are arresting someone, even non-resisting, they'll get them on the ground and put their knee on their neck? You don't think that, which is a pretty standard tactic, isn't painful?
The NYPD managed to arrest people a lot more peacefully off that bridge.
CR
lmao Crazed Rabbit, I have seen bouncers use compliance techniques gently on people and then have the person spin around and knock them in the face. These are people who are already physically resisting. Free speech is within the law, these people are committing a crime by trashing private property after they have been continuously told to leave. They are physically resisting officers! You think an officer should risk his safety to make their arrest more comfortable? Yes, a compliance technique involves pain, but it is not for the purpose of inflicting pain, it is for the purpose of the officer's safety. If you don't like it, don't be a scumbag and resist arrest.
@Sasaki: The implied threat is a bit more severe than “I'm going to hold you in a rather uncomfortable position for as long as you don't cooperate”.
What then is the purpose Tellos? Pray tell.
They make it painful to be in that position, not to pull away.
:inquisitive:
I don't think it's necessary against people who aren't resisting.
Edit: Police in New York state defy mayor and governor pressure to make arrests; http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Under-pressure-to-make-arrests-police-and-2232934.php#ixzz1biu6XD00
CR
They are resisting. That is why they were being arrested. They were being dragged away kicking and screaming! And even if someone seems calm, you cannot tell what they will do when you go to put the cuffs on. Better safe than sorry. I am sure a few seconds of avoidable (as in, hey, simply not breaking the law) discomfort is worth it to potentially save someone's life.
Crazed Rabbit
10-31-2011, 04:07
The problem with your whole argument Vuk is that the government should not be able to use force based on the reasoning that someone may resist and present a danger in the future.
these people are committing a crime by trashing private property after they have been continuously told to leave.
You don't know what you're talking about.
They are resisting. That is why they were being arrested.
So...why were they being arrested in the first place?
Because it's not the whole point of OWS is that the citizens were milked for all their money and they don't want to have the tab put on them. A problem they view as the result of an economic collapse due ot greedy bankers should be on their backs or they are hypocrites? rollie eyes indeed.
I got the impression many of them wanted more government handouts for the poor/middle class/students/whichever demographic they belonged to. I guess that's part of the whole movement's problems; what the heck are they protesting for?
In more serious news, I've been poking fun at the NYC OWS folks, but this seems seriously wrong (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_perv_Qd8v3hCAnspzJ7VGC9nJZP);
Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park battened down the hatches yesterday as the early October snow turned their tents into igloos, but the close quarters also made easy pickings for one predator.
A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.
“Pervert! Pervert! Get the :daisy: out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.
“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.
She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.
“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”
If you're not going to call the cops at least give him a thrashing he won't forget.
Also, Arizona Neo-Nazis (google "JT Ready") at the Phoenix OWS with AR-15s to support ... the right to free speech, they say, of the OWS folks;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkM7cdMgcEc&feature=player_embedded
CR
Major Robert Dump
10-31-2011, 07:54
"They are resisitng. That's why they are being arrested" may be one of the funniest things I've read all week
"They are resisitng. That's why they are being arrested" may be one of the funniest things I've read all week
Come on Dump, I am all loaded up on meds. You know what I mean was they were resisting the order to peacefully vacate, and that is why they were being arrested.
The problem with your whole argument Vuk is that the government should not be able to use force based on the reasoning that someone may resist and present a danger in the future.
Really? So when SWAT comes into a house where they suspect there may be armed hostiles, they cannot break in the door and deploy a flash grenade in case there is resistance? Instead they should be made to risk their lives without taking any precautions?
You don't know what you're talking about.
So when they camp out on someone else's property and leave it a mess (as that video showed), that is not trashing someone's property?
So...why were they being arrested in the first place?
Explained in previous post.
As far as the OWS rapist, they certainly should be calling the police and protect those women instead of keeping it quiet to protect their message at the expense of those individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84L-Xsrxmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUKObvjIFs
a completely inoffensive name
10-31-2011, 22:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84L-Xsrxmg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUKObvjIFs
That guy is the king of strawmen and stretching the truth. Not surprised you listen to him Vuk.
That guy is the king of strawmen and stretching the truth. Not surprised you listen to him Vuk.
lol, Crowder da man!
When I first saw his videos I could not believe that I found someone who thinks like me and has beliefs like me actually on TV! I don't agree with him on everything, and you need to keep in mind that he is an entertainer, but overall he is awesome. I am not surprised that you don't like him acin. ~;)
Major Robert Dump
11-04-2011, 06:38
And so it turns out ACORN is behind a lot of this, under a clever new name. And paying "protesters" to be community organizers and grassroots protest leaders. Funny all these other blokes are missing work or not looking for work, making a sacrifice, yet the protest "leaders" are getting paid
Crazed Rabbit
11-04-2011, 06:45
“They reminded us that we can get fired, sued, arrested for talking to the press,” the source [within the renamed ACORN group] said. “Then they went through the article point-by-point and said that the allegation that we pay people to protest isn’t true.”
“‘That’s the story that we’re sticking to,’” Westin said, according to the source.
The source said staffers at the meeting contested Westin’s denial:
“It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they don’t pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting who work there objected and said, ‘Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day?’ Then Jonathan said ‘No, but that’s your job,’ and staffers were like, ‘Yeah, our job is to protest,’ and Westin said, ‘No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.’
“Staff said, ‘Yes, you pay us to carry signs.’ Then Jonathan says, ‘That’s your job.’ It went on like that back and forth for a while.”
...
“And all the supplies—everything around the office that said ‘ACORN’ -- is now all in storage until this blows over,” the source said. “People literally have to cover up the cameras on the back of their cellphones in the office.”
“Now there’s no texting in the office, no phone calls in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where there’s an intercom, and then they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations. They’re installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/#ixzz1ciE91ssr
:laugh4:
Really? So when SWAT comes into a house where they suspect there may be armed hostiles, they cannot break in the door and deploy a flash grenade in case there is resistance? Instead they should be made to risk their lives without taking any precautions?
That's what's wrong with a lot of policing nowadays - officers go to extreme measures to protect their own safety. Breaking down doors and THROWING GRENADES INTO HOMES that the police have no real clue where people are located inside, where kids are sleeping, or what's going on IS WRONG. Yeah, it can be a dangerous job, but that doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean, at least) that cops can violate people's rights to make it easier for themselves.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-05-2011, 01:03
This guy has an interesting comment:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/10/rich-getting-poorer.html
The Rich Get Poorer
Here is a fact that you might not have heard from the Occupy Wall Street crowd: The incomes at the top of the income distribution have fallen substantially over the past few years.
According to the most recent IRS data, between 2007 and 2009, the 99th percentile income (AGI, not inflation-adjusted) fell from $410,096 to $343,927. The 99.9th percentile income fell from $2,155,365 to $1,432,890. During the same period, median income fell from $32,879 to $32,396.
These recent numbers illustrate the broader phenomenon, discussed in this paper, that high-income households have riskier-than-average incomes.
And some students are walking out on his class to show solidarity with the occupy people:
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-students-plan-walk-out-of-greg-mankiws-class-to-show-solidarity-with-occupy-movement-2011-11
:laugh4:
Also, it seems like the protests in oakland turned violent, predictably. Of course these idiot reporters stumble over themselves to say that "the occupy protests don't support the actions of this fringe group". Of course they support it. They don't agree with it but the literally support it by providing a cover, nothing could be more obvious.
Crazed Rabbit
11-05-2011, 02:09
I love how some folks will boycott people who state facts not to their liking.
Also -
Income inequality between people in the US is shrinking: (http://blog.american.com/2011/11/the-one-chart-that-explodes-the-myth-of-us-income-inequality/)
https://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7472/1112011b1.jpg
EDIT - I almost forgot - The Nation documents the plight of the moronic (http://www.thenation.com/article/164348/audacity-occupy-wall-street?page=full):
A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find.”
Like a lot of the young protesters who have flocked to Occupy Wall Street, Joe had thought that hard work and education would bring, if not class mobility, at least a measure of security (indeed, a master’s degree can boost a New York City teacher’s salary by $10,000 or more).
Well guess what, Joe, you moron, maybe you shouldn't get $35k in loans for a degree in freaking puppetry. Maybe just getting education and a degree isn't enough, if neither has value in the real world because no one cares to pay that much for puppetry. Maybe you should have thought about that before spending all that money and time. You moron.
CR
Ironside
11-05-2011, 10:48
I love how some folks will boycott people who state facts not to their liking.
Also -
Income inequality between people in the US is shrinking: (http://blog.american.com/2011/11/the-one-chart-that-explodes-the-myth-of-us-income-inequality/)
Have you been looking on US gini index compared to other countries? Also, increasing gini for households are indicating higher social segregation (less social mobility), this might possibly be a side effect of higher women salary though. To be speciffic, the US gini index is high enough that people will react on existing differences when they get it problematic for themselves.
Only dropping in to point towards one of the better articles I’ve read on the subject lately, especially considering the sources it uses to further its arguments (you’ve links throughout the article).
Will Willkinson is a libertarian by the by, I’ve started to follow him about seven years ago when he was writing on the impact of economics of happiness. There’s no serious disclosure to be made about him except that he is a Cato Institute chap.
One of the most robust finding in political psychology is that liberals tend to explain both poverty and wealth in terms of luck and the influence of social forces while conservatives tend to explain poverty and wealth in terms of effort and individual initiative. Here's a useful summary (http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=ccisymposium&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dattribution%2Bof%2Bpoverty%26btnG% 3DSearch%26as_sdt%3D0%252C16%26as_ylo%3D2001#search=%22attribution%20poverty%22) of the sort of thing I have in mind:
Harmon (2010a) built on these works by testing their conclusions against six U.S. public opinion polls. Secondary analysis found consistent and strong relationships. Conservatives and Republicans overwhelmingly attributed poverty to the personal failings of the poor themselves (lazy, drunk, etc.) while Democrats and liberals consistently offered social explanations like poor schools and lousy jobs for poverty. Later he looked at the inverse question, the reasons respondents give for others obtaining wealth (2010b). Generally he found that Democrats and liberals attributed wealth to connections or being born into a wealthy family, while Republicans and conservatives declared wealth comes from hard work.
What about libertarians? According to Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1665934), their patterns of moral sentiment and judgment make libertarians look a lot like liberals who care a great deal about liberty and not very much for suffering. Like liberals, libertarians don't put very much emphasis on what Haidt calls the "binding foundations" of the moral sense--obedience to authority, in-group loyalty, and a sensitivity to moralized purity and disgust--which play a large role in conservative moral sentiment and judgment. This makes libertarians look like a lot like especially freedom-loving liberals with slightly hard hearts.
But, having lived most of my adult life among them, experience tells me that when it comes to the explanation of poverty and wealth libertarians are close cousins to conservatives. It's my view that this shared sense of robust agency and individual responsibility for success and failure is the psychological linchpin of "fusionism"--that this commonality in disposition has made the long-time alliance between conservatives and libertarians possible, despite the fact that libertarians are almost identical to liberals in their unconcern for the conservative binding foundations. That's why controversial "social issues" like abortion and gay marriage are generally pushed to the side when libertarians and conservatives get together. As long as they stick to complaining about handouts for poor people sitting on their asses and praising rich people working hard to make civilization possible, libertarians and conservatives get along fine.
The critical response of Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch (http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/01/the-only-thing-missing-from-th) to Salon's "New Declaration of Independence (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/a_new_declaration_of_independence/singleton/)" is nicely illustrative of the libertarian's conservative-like attachment to individual responsibility. And this, I think, helps explain why self-described libertarians are more likely to identify with the Tea Party movement, which was launched by Rick Santelli's indignant rant about subsidizing "losers'" mortgages, than with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is founded on something like the assumption that individuals are caught in a web of socio-economic forces upon which only the collective action of organized class interests have any influence.
So, Salon's staff has cobbled together a statement they're calling "The New Declaration of Independence," but which is, to no one's surprise, a sort of progressive wish-list. I strongly agree with about half of it, and strongly disagree with about half. It says stuff like this, by way of arguing for broad debt relief:
It is not in the national interest to force the impoverished to become wage slaves to pay off insurmountable debts owned to payday lenders and hugely profitable bankers.
Which really hacks off Welch:
One of the best perks about being a grown-up is that you get to make your own choices, and to own the results, good and ill.
Which is why phrases like "wage slaves," "inescapable debt," and "force" "force" "force" leave me feeling like a brother from another planet. Adult human beings have agency, the ability (even responsibility!) to run their own cost/benefit analyses and choose accordingly. You could go to a state school (or community college) instead of an over-inflated prestige mill. You could pay for a 10-year-old car in cash, instead of a new one on installments. You could try to make it in Minneapolis before living the dream in Williamsburg (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jd-samson/i-love-my-job-but-it-made_b_987680.html?&ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false). You could stare into the face of a no-money-down, adjustable rate 30-year mortgage at the tail end of a housing-price run-up and conclude "Maybe that one's not for me." You could even choose to turn down a bad if high-paying job when you're living below the poverty line (http://mattwelch.com/OJRsave/OJRsave/DEN.htm). If we indeed live in a "candid world," let us state bluntly that offloading 100% of the blame for your own mountain of debt on a group of Greedy McBanksters who "forced" you to "play by the rules" is more than a little pathetic.
Welch's kicker:
f you have any intention of building up a political case for bailing out your bad decisions, you might start with taking even one percent responsibility for them.
I find all of this especially interesting because my own drift from right-leaning libertarian to libertarian-leaning liberal has a lot to do with issues around the conditions for robust agency and the role of broad socio-economic forces in establishing those conditions, or not. I've come to accept, for example, that diffuse cultural forces, such as racism or sexism or nationalism or intergenerational poverty, can deprive an individual of her rightful liberty without any single person doing anything to violate her basic rights. This takes me a long way toward standard liberalism. But I find that my gut nevertheless leans right on issues of personal responsibility.
I agree that many people are in dire straits and suffering for absolutely no fault of their own, and that policies ought to be in place to provide meaningful material assistance. Still, I find I want an[I]ethos of effort and individual responsibility to prevail, and I continue to think people who chose their way into trouble need to be told exactly what Welch seems to be telling the OWS folk: we're not going to feel too sorry for you if you made some bad decisions about taking out mortgages and/or student loans, even if everybody you knew was making them too.
In plenty of circumstances in which people are suffering due to no fault of their own, I think they need both material assistance and the conviction that they can improve their lives if they really try. And this is why I have a hard time seeing eye to eye with some progressives. Progressives are sincerely inclined to impersonal, socio-cultural explanations of success and failure, but I think they're also generally of the opinion that an ethos of initiative, hard work, and individual responsibility will impede the political will to offer assistance to those who ought to get it. I'm not sure that they're wrong. After all, those who tend to oppose progressive transfers tend to do so partly on the basis of their disbelief in the faultlessness of the needy. In any case, it seems to me progressives' deep-seated opposition to victim-blaming and by-the-bootstraps perorations helps keep a lot of suffering people from getting the other, non-material part of what they really need: encouragement to meet the social expectation that they will continue supplying effort on their own behalf, even if that hasn't worked out well so far.
There is some evidence that deterministic messages make people more willing to cheat (http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf). There's some evidence that not believing in free will makes people more aggressive and less helpful (http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/2/260.short). Andthis is very interesting (http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=418):
The proposition that free will enhances the capacity to override impulses is consistent with the findings observed by Martjin, Tenbult, Merckebach, Dreezens, and de Vries, 2002). These authors showed that individuals can longer squeeze a handgrip successfully for several minutes after they need to inhibit or suppress their emotions. Importantly, however, this problem dissipated if participants were informed that discipline and effort is not limited in capacity. That is, if individuals felt they could access an unlimited supply of energy to undertake demanding tasks, they most likely experience a sense of control or free will. This free will enhanced their capacity to inhibit their inclinations even after devoting this effort to other tasks that demand such energy.
I don't mean to say anything about the existence of free will, as a metaphysical matter. And I don't mean to say that acknowledging the power of impersonal social forces over our fates amounts to a commitment to determinism, or skepticism about the importance of trying hard and taking responsibility for yourself. But I think there is some reason to believe that even if our efforts are in fact largely swamped by impersonal forces much larger than we are, it's better not to believe it in our own case, or to try to make other people believe it.
Who does have robust agency, according to OWS-style progs? Well, the 1% does. Unlike most of us, they've got the means to make the world match their wills. More generally, organized groups can be effective agents of real change. (It takes a village.) And groups are easiest to organize along lines of common material interest. That's why, for example, "right-to-work" laws look to progressives like unilateral disarmament of the working classes, next to which the right of an individual to opt out of collective bargaining seems trivial. What's the value of having the right to individually negotiate your terms of employment when all that gets you is screwed over? A politics of nothing but individual rights in a world dominated by social forces is a recipe for domination by those sufficiently powerful or organized to shape those forces.
I think libertarians and conservatives ought to take this line of thinking more seriously, just as progressives ought to take seriously the possible anti-social, demoralizing effects of a culture too quick to absolve individuals of responsibility for their choices.
Source: Tea Party vs. OWS: The psychology and ideology of responsibility (http://bigthink.com/ideas/40942?page=1)
Major Robert Dump
11-06-2011, 10:13
Fannie Mae asks for another 6 Billions.....
The White House rejects the Solyndra subpeona.....
Remind me why these scabs aren't protesting at the White House
Papewaio
11-06-2011, 21:42
In union terms a 'scab' is someone who breaks ranks with the union and continues working.
Politicians look after each other 99% of the time... When they don't it's normally only done for gain not moral fortitude.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-07-2011, 03:20
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
Interesting video with Abramoff. Offering to hire politicians' chiefs of staff in the future is a pretty ingenious way of influencing things. Wonder what it would take to get a bill passed banning former politicians or their staffs from becoming lobbyists. The occupy people should focus on that.
In other news, the occupy movement in front of the white house is protesting the oil pipeline thing.
Abramoff keeps talking about it since he was released. Am pretty sure he launched the idea in one of his first interviews in the summer of 2010. Probably desperate for even a minor position in an NGO’s policy department if nothing else.
I assumed OWS sought the destruction of legal lobby by default though. Certainly they must’ve enumerated it amongst their demands already?
Anyway, their main issues right now are logistics and public sympathy. I believe they should wake up and adopt a position similar to what we’ve seen on this side of the pond in ’89, the Montagsdemonstrationen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_demonstrations_in_East_Germany). The impact on the communist regime was very powerful despite the “program” imposed, and the numbers attracted were huge. I am sure it would even appeal to citizens who formerly decided not to join OWS demonstrations. It is civilised, very sustainable and it would gain them legitimacy as a citizen protest rather than a mob.
PanzerJaeger
11-07-2011, 23:18
Wow - don't stop your chant for five minutes to see if an old woman who just fell down a flight of stairs in front of you is alright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xgcRlrt2ZL4
a completely inoffensive name
11-08-2011, 03:13
Every angry mob acts this way. I personally don't see how this puts the movement in a bad light.
"The french citizens chopped off the head of their king!?!? How barbaric, their cause must be terrible."
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2011, 03:46
Every angry mob acts this way. I personally don't see how this puts the movement in a bad light.
That doesn't make sense. You call it an angry mod but you don't see the bad light?
"The french citizens chopped off the head of their king!?!? How barbaric, their cause must be terrible."
I mean, what do you think about how the french revolution went?
a completely inoffensive name
11-08-2011, 03:52
That doesn't make sense. You call it an angry mod but you don't see the bad light?
I mean, what do you think about how the french revolution went?
Shh, I am just being cynical right now Sasaki. Mondays, you know?
The clip shows a couple of elderly ladies who fell to the ground who are well attended by four to five persons each at any one time. Any more and the area would have to be cleared around them.
They are constantly receiving help and attention out of sight of the main group of protesters.
If the clip's author wants to try to drown out the message of a small OWS crowd in front of a bank in irrelevant bouts of "outrage", he would do well do be smarter about it :bow:
This also makes him look silly and, of course, completely callous, seeing as he has actually seized upon the plight of the elderly ladies, unlike 90% of the crowd, and he continues to film them instead of putting his camera aside to offer them the help he points out is not being offered.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2011, 05:15
The clip shows a couple of elderly ladies who fell to the ground who are well attended by four to five persons each at any one time. Any more and the area would have to be cleared around them.
They are constantly receiving help and attention out of sight of the main group of protesters.
If the clip's author wants to try to drown out the message of a small OWS crowd in front of a bank in irrelevant bouts of "outrage", he would do well do be smarter about it :bow:
This also makes him look silly and, of course, completely callous, seeing as he has actually seized upon the plight of the elderly ladies, unlike 90% of the crowd, and he continues to film them instead of putting his camera aside to offer them the help he points out is not being offered.
It's the latest propaganda technique, most people are still suckers for it as far as I can tell. You get a whole bunch of people with video cameras or cell phone cameras and try and get something on film that supports your cause. At one moment it looks like he jerks the camera away from some of the protesters coming to check on the woman. That plus selective editing + enough cameras will get you your moments. The protesters themselves throw bottles, stones, glass, paint, urine, what have you, at police officers...spit on them, insult them, antagonize them enough to get tear gassed or arrested, and then put that video up. It's a bizarre charade.
It's sad that people buy it, I don't think they are all that stupid, they just have no character intellectually is the best way I can put it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBT0XmdTtns&feature=youtu.be
What does it look like in the mind of someone who will stand and chant "We are people"? I don't want to know.
Oh but I just have to say. Are you going to refer to "hey hey, ho ho, corporate greed has got to go" as a "message" with a straight face :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No, not even I can spin that one much meh – there would be a “medium is the message” argument making the case for their bitter determination to demonstrate overshadowing the lack of eloquence? Ideas ideas...
But yeah, always had a pet peeve against popular protests (mainly strikes here) going for the chants a la football match.
What’s wrong with the old rhythm-less “Hang them” or “We’ll make skis out of your mother’s grave cross”? A lot more intense. Mobs don't hate like they used to sigh.
I can keep a straight face through a lot worse though! :smiley2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7xObd-Nu2c
Long time, no see, GC! Welcome back. :bow:
Just thought I would drop by and see what ideas the right-leaning members of the Org had digested from their approved news sources, and haven't been dissapointed.
An interesting commentary on how the financial collapse's blame should be measured (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/dish-check-update-who-caused-the-financial-collapse.html). I find myself in agreement:
Even if the bank knows it is selling a pile of **** and separately bets against it, as long as it adequately discloses that it is selling a pile of ****, that is how our market works. As a capitalist, you can't blame the banks. If they fail to disclose that they are peddling a pile of ****, they are liable civilly and criminally. So far, surprisingly, there have only been isolated (though well publicized) cases brought against the banks for misleading investors.
Why did the banks sell piles of ****? Because of the Wall Street compensation system that pays annual bonuses upon closed deal, regardless of whether those deals go bad. They made a lot of money doing so. The bankers who were more responsible and did not peddle piles of **** were fired for not making as much as their competitors. So there was a race to the bottom to sell the most piles of ****. [...]
[T]here are many others to blame:
The investors. These are not your mom and pop investors, but very sophisticated pension funds and others. Astoundingly, I would hear at conferences that they were "chasing yield," which meant that they were seeking higher returns, which meant that they were looking to buy, in my view, risky ****. Which is why the bankers could sell them a pile of ****. Further, many of the investors also suffered from the generational issues. The younger ones did not think that real estate would go down because they never lived through a market crisis and the older ones did not understand the complexity of the new-fangled deals that were being done. So these sophisticated investors, while thinking they were taking on some risk, took on more risk than they thought. In their defense, partially, they were buying rated securities.
The rating agencies, along with the complicit investors, also deserve a lot of the blame. From the early 1990s to the mid 2000s, the deals were getting riskier and more complex, yet the agencies were giving these deals higher ratings. It was the rating agency imprimatur that allowed the banks to turn a pile of **** into golden nuggets. Once again, the blame was due to compensation. The banks would shop around to the various agencies to get the best ratings, creating a race to the bottom. If the ratings were too low, the agencies would not get paid or would not get future deals. The "false" ratings colored the market and left the regulators asleep.
But the blame goes further. The deals could not get done without inflated appraisals on properties. Once again, appraisers felt the need to give inflated appraisals in order to get future business from the mortgage companies, making them co-conspirators. As someone who refinanced his house several times, I always found it interesting that the appraisal always came out to an amount which allowed the bank to lend me the amount requested.
Then there is the public. Although there is some percentage of homeowners who needed the money for medical emergencies or other legitimate reasons, for about a decade, the American public treated their homes as ATMs. Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan. Yes, there were some folks who were duped and took out adjustable rate loans that they did not understand, but who gets the blame for public ignorance? Many of these same people then took some of the proceeds and were further ripped off by unscrupulous auto salesmen or timeshare companies. Are we also blaming them? And the people ripping off the public were not the Wall Street banks necessarily, but rather the local mortgage companies and local banks.
Then there was the government to the degree you noted, but in my view the government was more asleep than complicit.
Then there was the government to the degree you noted, but in my view the government was more asleep than complicit.
The Fed enabled a lot of this by keeping the rates at rock-bottom for so long.
Film somebody falling down the steps then carrying filming right in her face in order to make a point that other people aren't helping? Hilarious!
PanzerJaeger
11-09-2011, 08:11
The clip shows a couple of elderly ladies who fell to the ground who are well attended by four to five persons each at any one time. Any more and the area would have to be cleared around them.
They are constantly receiving help and attention out of sight of the main group of protesters.
That is, perhaps, a bridge too far - and incidentally my main issue with the protestors. Obviously the video is propaganda and the accusations of pushing are not supported by it, but it is also clear that the protestors continued to belligerently scream their chants and crowd the area as the two women lay on the ground. They are certainly not out of sight of the main group as can be seen toward the end of the video. If I were among the protestors, that would be my cue to stop the aggressive chants, calm the situation, and see what could be done to help. Then again, I'm not the kind of person who screams meaningless slogans at old women in my free time. (Couldn't theses wimps find some titan of industry to hassle?) The police have at least recognized the growing violent, confrontational (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/lanier-dc-prostesters-increasingly-confrontational/2011/11/07/gIQAhY9jvM_blog.html) behavior the occupiers have been engaging in, so hopefully they will not be allowed near any more elderly folks (or any normal human beings) in the future. I cannot imagine how my own grandmother would have dealt with that kind of situation. I just want to give that poor woman a hug.
Yes, the whole group should just push past those security guys and see whether they can help the group of people already around the lady and giving aid.
Yes, the whole group should just push past those security guys and see whether they can help the group of people already around the lady and giving aid.
And yet that is what everyone is arguing the cameraman should have done.
If I were among the protestors, that would be my cue to stop the aggressive chants, calm the situation, and see what could be done to help.
An ageing hippie offers helpful advice (http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/occupys--Ahole-problem-flashbacks-old) to address just this sort of problem with the OWS crowd. Doubtless the graybeard's words will be ignored. Abbreviating to section headers; follow link if you want to read the full advice.
I wish I could say that the problems that the Occupy movement is having with infiltrators and agitators are new. But they’re not. In fact, they’re problems that the Old Hippies who survived the 60s and 70s remember acutely, and with considerable pain.
As a veteran of those days — with the scars to prove it — watching the OWS organizers struggle with drummers, druggies, sexual harassers, and racists brings me back to a few lessons we had to learn the hard way back in the day, always after putting up with way too much over-the-top behavior from people we didn’t think we were allowed to say no to. It’s heartening to watch the Occupiers begin to work out solutions to what I can only indelicately call the ******* problem. In the hope of speeding that learning process along, here are a few glimmers from my own personal flashbacks — things that it’s high time somebody said right out loud.
1. Let’s be clear: It is absolutely OK to insist on behavior norms.
2. It is OK to draw boundaries between those who are clearly working toward our goals, and those who are clearly not.
3. The consensus model has a fatal flaw, which is this: It’s very easy for power to devolve to the people who are willing to throw the biggest tantrums.
4. Once you’ve accepted the right of the group to set boundaries around people’s behavior, and exclude those who put their personal rights ahead of the group’s mission and goals, the next question becomes: How do we deal with chronic ********?
5. It is not wrong for you to set boundaries this way.
But the cameraman was already right beside her and wasn't kept away by security. Yet instead of helping he just kept on filming. Clearly the protesters were not alone in believing their agenda to be above humanity. Although on reflection the cameraman was alone in using the incident to further his political agenda.
Crazed Rabbit
11-10-2011, 07:14
Occupy Oaklanders struggle with black bloc anarchist scum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zz22OvY6FTY
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-10-2011, 08:02
Occupy Oaklanders struggle with black bloc anarchist scum:
You call that struggling? :inquisitive:
What a disgusting display.
edit:Is that really the occupy people themselves who released that video???:surprised:
edit:Is that really the occupy people themselves who released that video???:surprised:
Yes, to denounce the acts of violence.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-10-2011, 19:14
Yes, to denounce the acts of violence.
I guess they are even more out of it than I thought. They really don't get how bad that video makes them look? Do you get it?
Who is going to applaud them for standing there shouting "WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS"?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-10-2011, 21:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&has_verified=1
*walks into baton*
"Stop Beating Students!"
*walks into baton*
"Stop Beating Students!
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/11/08/new-video-of-oaklands-occupy-clashes/?plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampDescending
#4 has a police eye view from the little cameras they are apparently wearing. It's crazy the sheer amount of cameras...all the police have them and half the protesters are just filming!
I guess they are even more out of it than I thought. They really don't get how bad that video makes them look? Do you get it?
Who is going to applaud them for standing there shouting "WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS"?
True, but they could simply not do anything at all then it simply get spinned by the 'right' as the entire group getting labelled in such a manner opposed to a minority hijacking it for their own purpose.
I mean, some one falling down the stairs whilst receiving aid by five people whilst others continued was spinned as "Evil OWS failing to help" when it was clear Help was there and others were getting police/ambulance to the scene. The propagandist cameraman zooming the camera up into the poor woman's face in an act of abuse for his own personal agenda.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-11-2011, 07:08
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/occupy-wall-streets-organized-effort-intimidate-police
:blank2:
Cleanse your pallette:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401092/october-31-2011/colbert-super-pac---occupy-wall-street-co-optportunity---stephen-on-location
Frank Miller (http://frankmillerink.com/) has some entertaining comments on the OWS movement. :nice:
Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:
The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.
“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached - is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.
This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.
Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.
Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.
And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently - must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh - out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.
In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.
Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.
They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on.
Schmucks.
FM
a completely inoffensive name
11-14-2011, 05:01
Frank Miller (http://frankmillerink.com/) has some entertaining comments on the OWS movement. :nice:
Why do people get so aroused at blind, ignorant insults about people they disagree with? It just highlights how weak of a person you are, to be admiring the lowest common denominator just because you agree with his/her politics.
Crazed Rabbit
11-14-2011, 05:29
Frank Miller (http://frankmillerink.com/) has some entertaining comments on the OWS movement. :nice:
This reply from his own blog seems appropriate:
Dear Frank,
I used to be your biggest fan.
You're now dead to me.
After reading your blog and suffering through "Holy Terror," I don't ever need to pay money for your entertainment, again.
Holy Terror is a MESS. It's sloppy, pedantic, on the nose, silly and confusing. It doesn't make a clear point, at all, which is odd because it was obviously your purposed to make a point, not to tell a good story.
Remind me again which regiment you served with? Oh, right, you were drawing cartoons at the age of those Occupy folks you suggest should enlist. Because if there's one thing a soldier can look forward to these days, it's trusting that his/her superiors will send them to do the right thing and really get the job done.
Like eliminate Al Quaeda overseas. Good mission. The Marines and Army have done that.
Root out sleeper terrorists on American soil. Good idea. The FBI does that, and they do it, well.
So how should the rest of us fight terror? Oh, right, by not rocking the boat. Never complaining, just stewing in our anger and writing angry screeds online and in comic books. Gettin' the ol' job done, aren't we, Frank? Thank God we've got you on that wall, because we need you on that wall.
Remember the Frank Miller who donated to groups that supported creator-owned companies? The guy who printed "Give 'em an inch, they'll take a Mile" in big bold letters on the back cover of one of his books? He was talking about CORPORATIONS, not big government.
He was protesting corporations that exploit their workers.
Remember the Frank Miller that co-founded his own comic publishing company, Legend, and extolled the accomplishment of the Image comics founders who left the big bad Marvel all at the same time? You know, those guys who staged a...let's see, what's the term for it...oh, yeah, a...walkout. Just walked off their jobs, the lazy :daisy:! Gave the finger to that gracious corporation that so generously employed them and thousands of others, to go..."freelance." Yeccch. Just the word itself makes me feel grimy.
In short, just to be as clear as propaganda: the young Frank Miller would look at what you've aged into and be sick.
On a personal note, I've been trying to decide for months if I should sell my old Frank Miller comics to make some decent cash or save them to give to my nephew when he's old enough to appreciate them. I'd like to think that he would be as inspired by them as I was, that they might even change the course of his creative ambitions as they did for me.
:daisy: it, I'm going to Ebay right now and unloading these tainted piles of crap. And I hope you're currently working on some new lunatic book so I can scoff at it as I buy other books by still relevant artists.
I wonder if John Byrne has become a right-wing psycho nutjob, too? Nah, he's Canadian and wayyy too nice a guy for that. But you never know, these days, you never know.
The idea that people should shut up because we're fighting some pathetic enemy in the far reaches of the world who post no great threat to us is pathetic.
I hate the idea that our rights are luxuries to be thrown away at the first feeling of fear.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
11-14-2011, 08:23
^^Nonsense, that was quite funny
Also:
http://teamcoco.com/video/triumph-occupy-wall-st
Tellos Athenaios
11-14-2011, 10:01
^^Nonsense, that was quite funny
Though I am afraid the sentiment is rather 10 years late, I do think CR is quite right to say:
I hate the idea that our rights are luxuries to be thrown away at the first feeling of fear.
I'll leave it to you whether or not OWS has anything to do with that, though. It all seems rather messy over here.
Mr. Millers rant is just that. I think the only valid points he touches on is the behaviour of the OWS folks w.r.t. sanitation, and the rape case(s). But strangely (or revealing) enough those are just asides that have little if any to do with what must pass for his “reasoning” which consists of a classic “get off my lawn”. Not witty.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2011, 13:15
And now we have "Occupy Exeter", the cathedral green here has been invaded aand unlike London this is unmistakabely Church land, it is also the only green space in the middle of the city (exclusing Rougemont Park, which is on top of the hill, cold and bleak) and it is not a financial district, no the Cathedral precint is home to a hotel, an excelent pub, a few cafe's, a Tea Room and assorted book and nick nack shops, and a small art gallery. The green itself is used for fetes and charitable events, as well as the Rememberence Service and Easter Passion Play, not to mention a place for people to come and relax for half an hour on their lunch break.
Now it has 15 tents on it.
Tomorrow I am going to go down and have a talk with them and see what kind of people they are.
Frank Miller (http://frankmillerink.com/) has some entertaining comments on the OWS movement. :nice:
Entertaining in a schadenfreude kinda way. Like watching a man with no hands trying to iron a shirt.
As little sympathy as I have for the OWS hippies, I have even less for grumpy old ex-rebels screeching about the glorious military in which they somehow never served (cf. David Mamet (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/david-mamets-fatal-conceit-005/)). Like the old saying goes, there's nobody more religious than a reformed whore, and in much the same vein, there's no one more certain of the unalloyed perfection of the US military than someone who's never served. (Cf. Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. ad nauseam.)
I took it as saying "instead of sitting around whining, why not join up for something meaningful?". :shrug:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-14-2011, 23:05
You guys are wrong. Angry old people saying whatever the **** they want is an entire genre of humor. GO PLAY YOUR LORDS OF WARCRAFT
Shaka_Khan
11-15-2011, 02:10
I get the feeling that this will go on and on for a long time unless the economy improves quickly. These young people have no where else to go. Maybe they'll rest during the winter, but I think they'll continue when the weather gets warm. I have seen this happen in other countries before. I watched the recent one in Berkeley. They don't look like they'd give up that easily. I understand how they feel. I saw a few of them say that no one would employ them because there's a lack of jobs available and they're willing to accept only people who have experience.
Crazed Rabbit
11-15-2011, 08:08
Colbert on the cops at UC Berekely:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402024/november-10-2011/occupy-u-c--berkeley
CR
a completely inoffensive name
11-15-2011, 08:52
Colbert on the cops at UC Berekely:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402024/november-10-2011/occupy-u-c--berkeley
CR
Sorry CR, but Sasaki scooped you on that one already.
Oh, that hotbed of robber-baron capitalism!
Why occupy UC Berkeley? :inquisitive: Talk about pointless...
Crazed Rabbit
11-15-2011, 16:29
Sorry CR, but Sasaki scooped you on that one already.
Did you watch our videos? Unless he linked Colbert more than once, his video was about something else.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
11-15-2011, 17:44
Did you watch our videos? Unless he linked Colbert more than once, his video was about something else.CR I did watch the videos, both links took me to the same video...hmmmEDIT: just checked my history, I had had the same video sasaki posted, open from a link I clicked on reddit and thought that was yours. my bad, too many tabs for ACIN
Sasaki Kojiro
11-15-2011, 18:50
Not to mention they couldn't be more different. My video is colbert being funny and the ows people making themselves ridiculous, CR's shows colberts normal state of completely unfunny--I can't imagine the twisted mind of someone who would have any sympathy for the students in that video.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-15-2011, 23:22
Looks like the police have finally cleared out the Manhattan group, we'll see if it sticks or not I guess:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-clear-zuccotti-park-with-show-of-force-bright-lights-and-loudspeakers.html?ref=nyregion
I think the real result of this movement has been to highlight just how professional our police are. Sure they were hamstrung by some blindly sympathetic reporting and had to let the occupation drag out for longer than it should have done. But that's what was needed at this point in time in our country. The let them wear out their welcome and "arrested everyone who wanted to be arrested" as one police chief said. It says a lot about our country that people are so confidant in the goodness of our police that they try to get arrested; that the trade off in propaganda is more than enough for them. Hopefully in the future this kind of nonsense can be shut down earlier, with people saying "oh, I bet it was just more of those OWS types". The "Police Abuses" thread can be closed; its premise has been refuted.
Also, inside the mind of the NYT web commentators, in case you have the same peculiar fascination I do:
I can't sleep I'm so horrified by this violent night raid on sleeping protesters by hundreds of over-weaponized police, and with helicopters shattering the night. What cowardice on the part of Mayor Bloomberg and his fellow politicians.
OWS has contributed more to our politics than anything else in the last 40 years. Thanks to their creativity and courage Americans are becoming aware of just how unequal and undemocratic this country is and for that OWS has to be shut up.
Recommended by 1305 Readers
"Helicopters shattering the night" is very poetic I'll grant you :laugh4:
a completely inoffensive name
11-15-2011, 23:59
Looks like the police have finally cleared out the Manhattan group, we'll see if it sticks or not I guess:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-clear-zuccotti-park-with-show-of-force-bright-lights-and-loudspeakers.html?ref=nyregionI think the real result of this movement has been to highlight just how professional our police are. Sure they were hamstrung by some blindly sympathetic reporting and had to let the occupation drag out for longer than it should have done. But that's what was needed at this point in time in our country. The let them wear out their welcome and "arrested everyone who wanted to be arrested" as one police chief said. It says a lot about our country that people are so confidant in the goodness of our police that they try to get arrested; that the trade off in propaganda is more than enough for them. Hopefully in the future this kind of nonsense can be shut down earlier, with people saying "oh, I bet it was just more of those OWS types". The "Police Abuses" thread can be closed; its premise has been refuted.Jesus Sasaki, I know you don't care for populism but you are taking it off the deep end when you get giddy for police breaking up a protest that has been more or less nonviolent. You are talking as if they are reenacting the london riots, holy hell.
Watchman
11-16-2011, 00:17
Ten bucks says Sasaki has a thing for peaked caps, jackboots and whips. :wink3:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-16-2011, 01:16
Jesus Sasaki, I know you don't care for populism but you are taking it off the deep end when you get giddy for police breaking up a protest that has been more or less nonviolent. You are talking as if they are reenacting the london riots, holy hell.
Why not? It's a victory for democracy* (*in the loose sense of our system of government). I would not be as impressed if they had shut down something like the london riots--that's a minimal expectation for the police. But the strategy for the ows was to get themselves arrested and discredit the police via videos of it, and to camp out long enough that they were a story despite their small numbers/irrelevance. It's a delicate PR game the police have to play. Ideally they would never have let them camp in the first place (has nothing to do with free speech) but they did a great job with the hand they were dealt.
By the way, the disgust I feel for protesters is the same as I feel when I watch the presidential debates and see the inane performances. Anyone who doesn't feel disgust at both is no true lover of democracy*.
Ten bucks says Sasaki has a thing for peaked caps, jackboots and whips.
Nope. Coats with yellow carnations in them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fzBQjBvFQVw#t=138s)
Watchman
11-16-2011, 01:33
Now that's kinky.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-17-2011, 09:02
The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.
Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.
Not so popular I guess.
Anyway, there are some basic things that should be changed. But we have a system that does that.
Shaka_Khan
11-17-2011, 17:16
Are any of you watching CNN right now? I was right that this is far from over. I think we're just seeing the beginning of the big thing.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-17-2011, 19:17
Occupy San Diego has moment of silence for the guy who shot at the white house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL7QRluEeEk&feature=player_embedded
Can this possibly be serious?
Are any of you watching CNN right now? I was right that this is far from over. I think we're just seeing the beginning of the big thing.
Apparently their plot to dress in business suits and infiltrate the stock exchange was foiled by cops checking ID's?
Meneldil
11-17-2011, 20:32
I mean, what do you think about how the french revolution went?
The french revolution was the single most important, world-defining and glorious political event in the past 2000 years. I'd say it went pretty well.
Where's Louis when you need him, this much I wonder...
That being said, the Occupy movement is pretty useless. There's no point protesting now. The people are politically powerless. Mind you, they've always been, but at least in the past, the ruling class at least pretended to care about the average citizen. Thanks to Reagan, Thatcher and all these corporate-supporting conservative types, it's not the case anymore (YOU GOTTA CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY§§). The situation can only be fixed through violence. So either the occupiers burn down wall street and the white house and hang stockmarket readouts to street lights, or they calmly go back home and sit back in their arm chairs quietly. Which is what's happening already anyway.
@Meneldil
Coming from the guy who in years past condemned conservatives for being violent, dangerous people. You know what Meneldil, I find your view of the world very inaccurate and I find that such a view can be very dangerous leading to very concerning consequences.
a completely inoffensive name
11-18-2011, 01:21
@Vuk
Learn to distinguish between causes and mindless violence.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-18-2011, 01:23
@Meneldil
Meh,
Nothing ever changes except the drapes and more much the elite cares about the plebs.
We're at a nadir at the moment, but the pendulem will swing the other way because the narrative the New Rich tell about themselves can't stick.
With all these negatives OWS reports, we need to post some positive ones too.
We are all Occupiers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038)
Note: I highly recommend not to watch the video. It has that baa-ram-ewe repeating thing going on.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-18-2011, 18:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SFL32k5Imk
Even you guys will have to admit this one is funny.
With all these negatives OWS reports, we need to post some positive ones too.
We are all Occupiers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038)
Note: I highly recommend not to watch the video. It has that baa-ram-ewe repeating thing going on.
Sorry can't stand that stuff...but I have two questions.
1) Where does this dreamy use of the word "space" come from?
2) Who started this trend of saying things that are optimistic but blatantly untrue as a rhetorical device? "We don't torture", "We are all occupiers" etc.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2011, 00:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WqhdTbAhZE&feature=player_detailpage#t=33s
Here's one for CR, I would put it in police abuses, but, well...
Protester: I will not sit!
*struggles to stand up while police try to put him into the backseat, his head bumps*
Camera man: They are running his head into the car! Is that your use of force policy?
Protester: I will sit for no man!
:laugh4:
Cecil XIX
11-20-2011, 04:57
I love this Protestor! He's an idiot, but his heart is pure!
Those are the kinds of people who enable the worst sort of tyranny.
Hosakawa Tito
11-20-2011, 15:16
I love this Protestor! He's an idiot, but his heart is pure!
I WILL SIT FOR NO MAN!
Thomas Sowell sums it up nicely.
The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
Brilliant!
Hmm, how come you gang have not already brought up the UC Davis events? By the by, the second article I link below has the video of Katehi's walk of shame embedded; really worth the watch, especially the very end as her companion drives her away, where you can see even the driveway is packed with students in the same cross-legged-on-the-ground position their fellow students were in the day before.
http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/uc-davis-pepperspray.jpg
Police officer pepper-sprays seated, non-violent students at UC Davis (http://boingboing.net/2011/11/18/police-pepper-spraying-arrest.html)
One day after pepper spraying, UC Daivs students silently, peacefully confront Chancellor Katehi (http://boingboing.net/2011/11/19/one-day-after-pepper-spraying.html)
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2011, 23:14
We discussed those mindless twerps in another thread because CR insists on posting that stuff in the "police abuses" thread :rolleyes:
We cannot have these ridiculous camps that have nothing to do with free speech...we have seen exactly how that plays out in the other cities. Where's the "rape free zone" in this picture I wonder?
https://i41.tinypic.com/qrj97o.jpg
The police rightfully tell these people that while they are 100% free to protest, they cannot protest here...this picture shows the officer warning those people...
https://i43.tinypic.com/41e2g.jpg
Did they move because of that? No, they said "**** yeah, this'll look good on youtube". I mean, look at it--everyone around just wants to see the spectacle.
It sickens me that people take this kind of thing at face value. It's not that hard to see. Don't people have any notion of personal responsibility?
It's very simple. Using pepper spray like that on people who are trying to exercise their right to free speech, to make a protest is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. Where people go terribly wrong is thinking that this is what these people were doing. It's disgusting that people don't understand the basics of free speech--and no one who takes the side of these protesters does.
It looks like they are going to spout enough propaganda to get people fired, since people are sucking it up. Good job. You are supporting a dangerous ideology. Can you think what will happen if this propaganda technique is successful?
Protest groups that don't have popular backing try and make up for it. Those phelps people with the military funeral protests for example. If you guys let the things the ows people are doing slide (which you ARE), you have to admit the consequences. It could easily become the default protest tactic. Just forget about about the political message and showing how many people care--work as hard as you can to get a conflict with the police, and blare the news everywhere when you do. If you care at all about the idea of free speech and protesting you should despise these people--not out of any dislike for their looks or even politics, but simply because you understand and like free speech.
That is true, by the way, EVEN IF you despise the police officer, and think he is a "violent torturer" or whatever it is CR thinks.
a completely inoffensive name
11-20-2011, 23:27
I really don't see what the threat is Sasaki. Even if they are trying to provoke the police into attacking them so they look good, why doesn't the police just let them sit where ever they want? Let the protesters look bad by blocking whatever it is they are blocking while no one is touching them. Having the cops stroll by with pepper spray is ******* asking for bad press.
If the police were to hold off until the protests became violent, or until the popular opinion of them had shifted heavily into the red (more dislikes than likes), everything would be fine, it would just take more time.
To me this is a case of free speech and protesting being used in a way I disagree with, but it isn't a threat to free speech. I have never heard the logic that only by restricting further how we can use free speech it becomes saved.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2011, 23:38
Actually I'm being very unfair. I don't despise or even feel negatively towards most of these people who are just teenagers anyway. I despise the people who are old enough to know better, the journalists who report on it, the politicians who try to harness the hate instead of being honest. I was actually most disgusted by a comment from one of the professors at the school.
If there's anything that inclines me towards being conservative it's looking back at the fact that they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. A terrible decision, maybe it seemed good at the time, but now it seems completely impossible to undo.
If the police were to hold off until the protests became violent, or until the popular opinion of them had shifted heavily into the red (more dislikes than likes), everything would be fine, it would just take more time.
No, the police have the right to remove camps and say that certain areas are off limits. For example, the brooklyn bridge, where these jokers also try to protest.
To me this is a case of free speech and protesting being used in a way I disagree with, but it isn't a threat to free speech. I have never heard the logic that only by restricting further how we can use free speech it becomes saved.
It is a threat. Protesting works as free speech by showing just how many people care enough to do it. When the numbers are too small (which it often is for groups with no ideas/bad ideas) they should accept it, and work on convincing people of their ideas in a democratic way. Instead they try and manipulate the news through propaganda--that goes directly against the principle of free speech.
Here's a comparison for you. Politicians often do town hall meetings. This gives regular citizens the chance to ask a question to a possible future president, for example. That's great--they have a chance to either make the politician answer their question, or prevaricate and dodge it which makes him look bad. They could ask, for example, "What about the income inequality in this country?"
But if they weren't satisfied with the effect that would have they might try something else. The "don't tase me bro" guy may have done that, I don't remember the details. They could create some kind of ruckus to the point where they had to be escorted out so that the other people could continue with the town hall meeting. Then they could try and spread the message in the news that they were thrown out because the politician didn't want to talk about their issue. That's a very decent analogy for the OWS protests. They are deliberately stepping out of the normal democratic framework (I'm not sure they would even deny this, perhaps they would say that it's all corrupt or something) and trying to get things done via media story. The elements of the story involve camps to keep it in the news, and trying to catch conflicts with the police on camera to say that the "police state" is cracking down on the protesters.
CountArach
11-21-2011, 09:32
Sasaki, would you say that free speech is locationally-dependent? Free speech in some places, but not free speech in others? That seems to form the crux of your argument and to me is logically indefensible.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2011, 20:37
Sasaki, would you say that free speech is locationally-dependent? Free speech in some places, but not free speech in others? That seems to form the crux of your argument and to me is logically indefensible.
Post some swear words then.
Are you saying you think people can protest wherever they want to? Even they don't think that.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2011, 22:59
More peaceful non-violence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15818724
Legal documents have listed "defecation and drugs" among problems at a protest camp outside St Paul's Cathedral, it has been revealed.
...
Local business takings had fallen by up to 35%, the documents claimed.
The protesters' legal team denied the claims and said many of the accusations were without basis.
Occupy London said civic authorities "have not engaged in a transparent dialogue" with activists.
Within the documents a statement given by John Zuber, a City of London police inspector who visited the camp, said urination and defecation were "major issues".
...
Police received complaints from the cathedral about "members of the camp continually urinating through the fence of the Chapter House and the Cathedral itself", Mr Zuber said.
The protesters say the UBS buildings will be opened for "creativity rather than cash"
On one occasion "a member of the camp had urinated through the window of the Crypt Restaurant".
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2011, 23:30
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=all
http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20111028
Two interesting anthropological studies...
Conradus
11-22-2011, 01:07
Post some swear words then.
Are you saying you think people can protest wherever they want to? Even they don't think that.
In all public places yes.
But you're saying that they don't even have the right to use their freedom of speech because there are too few of them. You're blaming them for all the media attention they get (which is the choice of that media (and of the population as a whole))
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 06:37
But you're saying that they don't even have the right to use their freedom of speech because there are too few of them. You're blaming them for all the media attention they get (which is the choice of that media (and of the population as a whole))
I'm blaming them for the way in which they get media attention, and so should you.
With freedom of speech you have to accept that if there aren't many of you, you won't make an impact.
What these people are really going for is the "Right to be listened to". But there is no such thing.
a completely inoffensive name
11-22-2011, 06:59
With freedom of speech you have to accept that if there aren't many of you, you won't make an impact.
This sounds like the kind of direct democracy, populist crap that I thought you were so vehemently against. The minority should always accept their outnumbered and won't make an impact? What percentage of the population does a group need to achieve before you bestow upon them the term "relevant"?
Why can't a group try to force its message unless it already has a substantial amount of public support?
I still don't understand how OWS is killing America.
What these people are really going for is the "Right to be listened to". But there is no such thing.
This also makes no sense. People listen because they chose to listen. The media does not have to report on them, it chooses to. You act as if people have no ability to stop listening to them. All I did today was simply limit my reddit browsing to r/starcraft and somehow I went the whole day without seeing r/politics reports on OWS: The Freedom Fighters.
They shout and protest and we can ignore and close our ears. Lots of people do it every two years when the other sides politician starts talking in the debate.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 07:09
This sounds like the kind of direct democracy, populist crap that I thought you were so vehemently against. The minority should always accept their outnumbered and won't make an impact? What percentage of the population does a group need to achieve before you bestow upon them the term "relevant"?
Why can't a group try to force its message unless it already has a substantial amount of public support?
No, this is exactly the fault of populism...swaying masses of people through propaganda.
What I said is along the same lines of saying that a politician should directly address the issues in his speech rather than say a bunch of empty feel good rhetoric, or that politicians who find they are running behind shouldn't run a dishonest smear campaign to help out their numbers.
If you have a minority belief, you have to convince other people that you are right. But you DON'T try to convince people you are right by attempting to make it look like the "fascist police are being directed by the government to crack down on the protesters".
I still don't understand how OWS is killing America.
How the heck are they killing America?
This also makes no sense. People listen because they chose to listen. The media does not have to report on them, it chooses to. You act as if people have no ability to stop listening to them. All I did today was simply limit my reddit browsing to r/starcraft and somehow I went the whole day without seeing r/politics reports on OWS: The Freedom Fighters.
They shout and protest and we can ignore and close our ears. Lots of people do it every two years when the other sides politician starts talking in the debate.
Most of their press has been from the camps and the arrests and the rubber bullet stuff.
How do you feel about that phelps guy who protests at funerals?
a completely inoffensive name
11-22-2011, 07:20
No, this is exactly the fault of populism...swaying masses of people through propaganda.
What I said is along the same lines of saying that a politician should directly address the issues in his speech rather than say a bunch of empty feel good rhetoric, or that politicians who find they are running behind shouldn't run a dishonest smear campaign to help out their numbers.
If you have a minority belief, you have to convince other people that you are right. But you DON'T try to convince people you are right by attempting to make it look like the "fascist police are being directed by the government to crack down on the protesters".
Isn't it the duty of individuals to disseminate information for themselves? If the protesters have no substances and are just crying wolf, shouldn't the public recognize it for themselves? Why do we need to have the government act for the public? Why should the government have the power to decide when a group is legitimate and which are wannabe martyrs.
How the heck are they killing America?
Maybe not America, but my impression of what you are saying is that you think they are a threat to free speech and the health of the countries discourse.
Most of their press has been from the camps and the arrests and the rubber bullet stuff.
How do you feel about that phelps guy who protests at funerals?
The Phelps guy can go ahead and get as much press as he wants from conflicts with police. When the public reads about him camping in a park, they should know that he is actually a crazy person with no substance. Same goes for OWS, the public should take individual responsibility for learning about legitimacy of a movement and chose to ignore/participate for themselves. The government should not be tear gassing students, even if they are wannabe martyrs.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 07:39
Isn't it the duty of individuals to disseminate information for themselves? If the protesters have no substances and are just crying wolf, shouldn't the public recognize it for themselves? Why do we need to have the government act for the public? Why should the government have the power to decide when a group is legitimate and which are wannabe martyrs.
The government isn't doing that. It's closing down camps and keeping bridges open and trying to stop vandalism and so on.
Maybe not America, but my impression of what you are saying is that you think they are a threat to free speech and the health of the countries discourse.
Yeah, if people believed in them. It's certainly degrading to both of those things.
The Phelps guy can go ahead and get as much press as he wants from conflicts with police. When the public reads about him camping in a park, they should know that he is actually a crazy person with no substance. Same goes for OWS, the public should take individual responsibility for learning about legitimacy of a movement and chose to ignore/participate for themselves. The government should not be tear gassing students, even if they are wannabe martyrs.
And they wouldn't be, if it weren't for specific actions by the protesters (which have nothing to do with a real protest) that the police SHOULD put a stop too.
Imagine that you were a small business owner by St. Paul's, and worshiped there. How would you feel with the huge hit to your income, the noise, the people harassing you (that might have been a different camp), and the fact that people were pissing on your church's grounds? Why does the government not have any business putting a stop to the camp?
a completely inoffensive name
11-22-2011, 08:01
The government isn't doing that. It's closing down camps and keeping bridges open and trying to stop vandalism and so on.
Students at UC Davis had no camp, the tents were already dismantled. Why the pepper spray?
Yeah, if people believed in them. It's certainly degrading to both of those things.
I personally think freedom of speech is stronger than a bunch of teenagers 'degrading' it.
And they wouldn't be, if it weren't for specific actions by the protesters (which have nothing to do with a real protest) that the police SHOULD put a stop too.
Imagine that you were a small business owner by St. Paul's, and worshiped there. How would you feel with the huge hit to your income, the noise, the people harassing you (that might have been a different camp), and the fact that people were pissing on your church's grounds? Why does the government not have any business putting a stop to the camp?
Government should have came by with inspectors and gave fines and tickets to those living in tents, with piss everywhere. They should have sent an ambassador not in riot geat to tell them that fines will be given for not keeping up a hygienic state and for creating an illegal camp, but that they are still welcome to use the park to protest. Instead the had a media blackout and moved in with riot police and rubber bullets. It really was not the proper way of handling things.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 08:13
Students at UC Davis had no camp, the tents were already dismantled. Why the pepper spray?
That's not true. I can't remember exactly, but I believe they are sitting in a big ring around the tents. That's how it appears in the video.
I personally think freedom of speech is stronger than a bunch of teenagers 'degrading' it.
And it's much much stronger than riot police removing a camp of said teenagers.
Government should have came by with inspectors and gave fines and tickets to those living in tents, with piss everywhere. They should have sent an ambassador not in riot geat to tell them that fines will be given for not keeping up a hygienic state and for creating an illegal camp, but that they are still welcome to use the park to protest. Instead the had a media blackout and moved in with riot police and rubber bullets. It really was not the proper way of handling things.
They did all that. Some people left. Others didn't.
Doesn't it bother you that people's idea of free speech is "the concept I invoke to defend something bad I said/did"?
a completely inoffensive name
11-22-2011, 08:22
That's not true. I can't remember exactly, but I believe they are sitting in a big ring around the tents. That's how it appears in the video.
Take it with a grain of salt but http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/20/ten-things-you-should-know-about-fridays-uc-davis-police-violence/ says that the tents were gone. I don't see any tents in the video.
And it's much much stronger than riot police removing a camp of said teenagers.
Not necessarily since we are now talking about the power of the government here.
They did all that. Some people left. Others didn't.
Doesn't it bother you that people's idea of free speech is "the concept I invoke to defend something bad I said/did"?
So continue to make fines, and reimburse those negatively affected by the protest. If it still is happening, ramp up the fines.
Yes, but it bothers me that people think that they have a right to not be offended and justify policies that prohibit speech that way. It bothers me when people think that it is ok to have "free speech zones" where it is ok to exercise your rights, as long as you stay within the square.
It bothers me more to think of a country ruined by being too cautious with our liberties than a country ruined by being too liberal with them.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 19:18
Take it with a grain of salt but http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/20/ten-things-you-should-know-about-fridays-uc-davis-police-violence/ says that the tents were gone. I don't see any tents in the video.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Not necessarily since we are now talking about the power of the government here.
Why do you think it will have a negative effect on free speech?
So continue to make fines, and reimburse those negatively affected by the protest. If it still is happening, ramp up the fines.
Yes, but it bothers me that people think that they have a right to not be offended and justify policies that prohibit speech that way. It bothers me when people think that it is ok to have "free speech zones" where it is ok to exercise your rights, as long as you stay within the square.
It bothers me more to think of a country ruined by being too cautious with our liberties than a country ruined by being too liberal with them.
But we don't have to think in the abstract. We can decide whether something is too cautious or too liberal.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 19:20
Anyway, check this out from Occupy London:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11648/
"To get a better understanding of the kind of society Occupy would like to see, then, it’s worth analysing their rules of engagement, the living processes they have adopted in their tent city. One of the most striking examples is their 13-point ‘Safer Space’ policy, which they use to regulate debate and discussion in the camp. Here it is in full.
1) Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.
2) Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries; always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.
3) Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.
4) Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.
5) Recognise that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.
6) Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly and clearly and use uncomplicated language.
7) The group endeavours as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.
8) Foster a spirit of mutual respect: listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group.
9) Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation, raise your hand to speak.
10) Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.
11) If someone violates these agreements a discussion or mediation process can happen, depending on the wishes of the person who was violated. If a serious violation happens to the extent that someone feels unsafe, they can be asked to leave the space and/or speak with a person or process nominated by those present.
12) While ground rules are collective responsibility, everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.
13) Occupy London is an alcohol- and drugs-free space."
At least we're getting some quality comedy (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Technology-56895-Stream-Pepper/product-reviews/B0058EOAUE/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending) out of all this ...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2011, 23:57
Anyway, check this out from Occupy London:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11648/
"To get a better understanding of the kind of society Occupy would like to see, then, it’s worth analysing their rules of engagement, the living processes they have adopted in their tent city. One of the most striking examples is their 13-point ‘Safer Space’ policy, which they use to regulate debate and discussion in the camp. Here it is in full.
1) Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.
2) Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries; always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.
3) Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.
4) Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.
5) Recognise that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.
6) Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly and clearly and use uncomplicated language.
7) The group endeavours as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.
8) Foster a spirit of mutual respect: listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group.
9) Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation, raise your hand to speak.
10) Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.
11) If someone violates these agreements a discussion or mediation process can happen, depending on the wishes of the person who was violated. If a serious violation happens to the extent that someone feels unsafe, they can be asked to leave the space and/or speak with a person or process nominated by those present.
12) While ground rules are collective responsibility, everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.
13) Occupy London is an alcohol- and drugs-free space."
Compare:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/21/occupy-london-camp-eviction-bid
P (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/21/occupy-london-camp-eviction-bid)rotest has degenerated to squatting in London.
Furunculus
12-19-2011, 18:18
what is the difference between north and south korea?
Find out a 0:45s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L088WJ9c98&feature=player_embedded
what is the difference between north and south korea?
Find out a 0:45s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L088WJ9c98&feature=player_embedded
Lulz the loony left. But at least the occupy movement doesn't seem to be as prone to using violence as they are here, kinda surprised he can walk of with his camara
Lulz the loony left. But at least the occupy movement doesn't seem to be as prone to using violence as they are here, kinda surprised he can walk of with his camara
lol, too many cameras around, that is the only reason. You should have tried wearing a Bush/Cheney pin during the 2004 elections. I am a pretty big guy, and even I had people at school giving me crap over it and trying to push me around. I know a lot of conservatives (such as my sister) who are too afraid to wear such marks of political support around campus because of the physical consequences; it is usually on the large guys who do, because no one messes with them.
Montmorency
01-07-2012, 00:41
I don't believe I've seen one like this before.
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/MotivationalPoster-3.jpg
CountArach
01-07-2012, 12:49
I don't believe I've seen one like this before.
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/MotivationalPoster-3.jpg
Wow... well played Internet.
Don Corleone
01-07-2012, 14:49
Breaking news!
Priceless!!!
Don Corleone
01-07-2012, 15:35
Did anybody else see Margin Call? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/?licb=0.9248583151493222) If it was even remotely accurate, I may have to do my part to go Occupy something myself.
I've been angry at the MBS swaps and the subsequent bailouts since they were originally proposed. Capitalism means that when you fail, you fail. Game over. No mulligans. I know what people say about global meltdown, I don't care. Hank Paulson & Timothy Geithner robbed the American people (and US creditors) for no other reason than to keep all their buddies swimming in personal cash. The subsequent bonus payouts prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What allowed me to tamp down my rage enough to keep from boiling over was my belief that through it all that the original Lehman & Goldman traders that started the mess were pretty ignorant of what they were doing themselves (or started believing their own hype). Frankly, I naively never even considered that the entire crisis was orchestrated, to help one trading house cover its losses in full knowledge of the ramifications.
HopAlongBunny
01-09-2012, 00:32
Occupy represents something: people do not park in the streets for "comfort". Whether the collective angst ever rises to a defined, organized and effective statement of what that angst is... .
Look at it this way, Leviathan pours a trillion doggie treats down a rat-hole for its favorites while pontificating about "belt-tightening" for the rest; no laws were broken-if you want welfare you'd best be "too big to fail".
That strikes me as a reasonably clear summation of the event and the fall out; it does not evoke a clear path for response though. From one view, what do you do when the institution which is supposed to defend your interests is paralyzed by fear of the bully?
(or bought and paid for, depending on your approach to the issue)
Vladimir
01-09-2012, 14:21
Welcome to the world I live in. It only gets worse, if you want to take a look at recent history through slightly less naive eyes. Just start at the Iran-Contra affair, and the CIA smuggling crack into poor neighborhoods, and keep going from there. If you've been paying very close attention, you should be thoroughly fed up with the government, the super-rich, and all manner of populist idiots (on all sides) by the end of it.
And Roswell. Don't forget Roswell!
Strike For The South
01-09-2012, 19:15
The CIA was giving away crack?
The CIA was giving away crack?
Not even the CIA is that stupid. They were selling it for $10 a vial.
Vladimir
01-09-2012, 23:39
You think I joke?
You don't have to believe me. Take it from the DoJ.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9712/ch01p1.htm
Make up your own mind.
I did. I'm pretty sure it was called "Active Measures" at the time; Right up there with nuclear winter.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.