Feds Helped Coordinate Occupy X Crackdowns

Lawrence_Bird writes "The Feds helped break up the Occupy protests by providing advice and assistance from the FBI and DHS. From the article: 'Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said on Monday that her city and others across the country coordinated their crackdowns of Occupy Wall Street camps. Rick Ellis, a Minneapolis-based journalist for Examiner.com, reports that these cities also had the help of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." In related conspiracy news, apcullen wrote in with a story by Time Magazine guest columnist Naomi Wolf who claims: "Instead of imminent safety issues, the timing of the crackdown was far more likely to do with the fact that the Occupy movement was planning something media-savvy at last: a 'carnival' on Wall Street on Thursday in which protesters would telegenically tell their individual stories of hardship, job loss and disenfranchisement. It is that event that posed a 'safety risk' — to the efforts of Wall Street and the Bloomberg administration to manage the narrative."

Comments

Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

They Occupy protests were broken up for simple obvious reasons

1. They were planning disrupting Wall Street. In other words, they were threatening the economy and even Bloomy can't allow that.

2. The Occupy protests were jumping the shark and losing popular support as crime ramped up and local business suffered. So the mayors got together and did something about it all at once so no one would have to go first and get singled out for counter attack.

3. The Occupy folks themselves kinda wanted to get shut down for the winter and aren't likely to put up more than token resistence. Expect a resurgence in the spring.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[sneakyimp]

Jumping the shark is right. Saw a headline about the "chocolate rain" dude singing for them. GAWD.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[geekoid]

They have disrupted wall street

They are gaining support, and crime ins't 'tamping up'. That's hyperbole generated by the media and repeated by people who take what the media says at face value.
When adjusts for the increase in population, crime is the same or lower.

No, they didn't.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[MrEricSir]

This.

I've never seen so much negative press directed at a group of Americans exercising their first amendment rights. OWS clearly scares a lot of people. Even the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't generate this kind of negative publicity.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[halivar]

They have disrupted wall street

Please explain how.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

They Occupy protests were broken up for simple obvious reasons

1. They were planning disrupting Wall Street. In other words, they were threatening the economy and even Bloomy can't allow that.

2. The Occupy protests were jumping the shark and losing popular support as crime ramped up and local business suffered. So the mayors got together and did something about it all at once so no one would have to go first and get singled out for counter attack.

3. The Occupy folks themselves kinda wanted to get shut down for the winter and aren't likely to put up more than token resistence. Expect a resurgence in the spring.

The thing that annoys me about OWS (aside from their incredulous disbelief that their right to speak does not extend to impeding other people's ability to live their lives) is that they're not even protesting a tangible THING. They're setting up strawmen, knocking them down, and declaring moral victory. They're not arguing against anybody real, but percieved injustices against the abstract. And the bit about that that REALLY pisses me off is that any good points they make are therefor dismissed by 'the other side' as a result, battle lines are drawn, and after that point, and people rarely 'change teams'.

Fucking douchebags, all...

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jasno]

It seems to me they'd have been more effective staging rallies every Saturday where normal people might show up. The whole Phish-concert-meets-homeless-shelter thing they had going only scares people away. But these are the same people who think giant puppets and drum circles are going to bring down the most powerful people in the world, so logic... isn't their strong suit.

There still exists a whole lot of anger at politicians(occupy K street, anyone?) and bankers, and hopefully someone will figure out how to tap into it and create real, lasting change.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[oh_my_080980980]

Now that's no way to talk about Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.....

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are an f'ing idiot.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Wyatt Earp]

Well, the bulk of "Wall Street" firms aren't even down by Wall Street anymore, so this planned disruption wouldn't have disrupted anyone. 90% of the trading is carried out on computers from offices, just like how the FTSE works.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Opportunist]

You hope, I fear. I remember 1789 and 1917, I ain't been there, but I've read my history books.

I'd rather hope for a peaceful settlement and a renegotiation of terms.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works on Wall St (in financial services, but not for a bank/hedgefund/trading desk of any kind), I can tell you definitively that they have not disrupted "Wall St" in any way, other than vaguely disrupting foot traffic on the street that is named Wall. The fundamental thing people seem to not understand is that Wall St is really just a tourist attraction these days. Only a handful of guys still work on the stock exchange floor and almost no trading is done there. And the banks all moved their offices to midtown, Jersey City or Connecticut years ago. If they go through with their Wall St Carnival or whatever the hell they plan, it will accomplish nothing but getting a bunch of people arrested, as they've been told repeatedly that will happen if they do anything on Wall St itself without a proper permit.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[swanzilla]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to live in public or private spaces at the inconvenience of others, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Oh...there it is.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[nickmalthus]

Yes, the malcontents organized and publicly expressed their grievances to the government. They are expected to silently suffer individually, out of sight and out of mind; down the memory hole where not my problem is not my problem until it becomes my problem.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[swb]

The problem with the hippie campouts in urban areas is that they ultimately end up attracting a low level street criminal class who are there to nick electronics, wallets an purses, deal/use drugs, and maybe commit a little sexual assault.

If the hippies would turn away these people and keep the political protest going, they might attract more people.

But, like most socialist endeavors, adherence to party dogma and ideological purity is first, and practical concerns a distant second.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Hatta]

OWS protesters don't scare people. What scares people is what OWS protesters are doing to cities.

What Occupy protesters have done to our cities is insignificant compared to what those on Wall Street have done to our country.

However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.

Because they understand that in capitalism money makes money faster than honest labor. Capitalism will always end up pooling resources in the hands of the few. This will always give them undue influence in the political process. You can't have a government for the people when you have an economy for the few.

We tried democratic capitalism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian socialism, it didn't work. We tried totalitarian capitalism, it didn't work. Isn't it about time we tried democratic socialism?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[poetmatt]

There's an enormous difference from "some protest groups are retarded" and "the entire movement needs to be shut down".

There is also an enormous difference between truly resisting arrest and being cited for disorderly conduct/resisting arrest by a police guy who is just itching for a reason to jail you.

Granted, it's hard to keep up a protest, but I applaud them for doing what is constitutionally protected.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not gaining support. In fact, the opposite is true as is shown by the poll at http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html

Their problem is that their methods have been losing people like myself who are otherwise ideologically aligned with the message. We don't want to be associated with their shenanigans.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[bobcat7677]

Here in the "Occupy Portland" camp, crime and related issues were ramping up significantly. Drug overdoses in the camp went from none, to one per week, to multiple per week. Reports of sexual assaults in the tents and makeshift structures were coming out almost daily. Vandalism to the parks and surrounding businesses went out of control (I haven't gone down there myself, but friends of mine that work for the city tell me the parks will require major repairs and some businesses were closed). There was a heavy police presence, but they couldn't be everywhere and where they weren't stuff happened. The last straw was the elements in the camp seeking confrontation stock piling shields and weapons including molatov cocktails, rocks, sticks and homemade frag grenades made with glass and fireworks. I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks to go down and confront the camps if the police didn't do anything. The police chief expressed much frustration with it being allowed to continue. The mayor was/is sympathetic to the protesters but simply had to go with the national effort to crack down because a mutiny in his own police department and community was brewing.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Baloroth]

The thing that annoys me about OWS (aside from their incredulous disbelief that their right to speak does not extend to impeding other people's ability to live their lives) is that they're not even protesting a tangible THING. They're setting up strawmen, knocking them down, and declaring moral victory. They're not arguing against anybody real, but percieved injustices against the abstract. And the bit about that that REALLY pisses me off is that any good points they make are therefor dismissed by 'the other side' as a result, battle lines are drawn, and after that point, and people rarely 'change teams'. Fucking douchebags, all...

So... pretty much politics as usual, eh?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[malilo]

Why do you have to paint the OWS as a monolithic entitity? I am a protester, a peaceful one, and I certainly was not advocating violence just as 99.9% of the protesters were not. Why can you not get it through your thick skulls that a very tiny minority of troublemakers (some anarchists, some planted sabateurs) do NOT REPRESENT the rest of the group? The cause is a legitimate one, and you are using very stupid reasons to turn your brain off to what the movement is about. Your loss, as I don't see anyone else fighting for what is right in this country.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Desler]

You do realize that the first amendment has no qualifiers such as "as long as you never inconvenience anyone", right.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> I've never seen so much negative press directed at a group of Americans exercising their first amendment rights.

OWS has pretty much zero to do with the 1st Amendment. So there is your first mistake. Nobody denied them the right to protest. Squatting on property that isn't yours isn't a speech issue, it is a trespass or theft issue. As for negative press, see the Tea Party for a real example of negative press. And they did it all within the system. They bought permits, paid for portapotties, etc. Hell, most left the place cleaner than when they arrived. There were no arrests that I'm aware of at any "tea" event nationwide which is pretty remarkable. They had a coherent agenda that a child could understand though you would never know that from most TV accounts.

Compare and contrast to OWS. No permits, even when they camped places the Tea Party had to buy permits to use. Yea the government really oppresses OWS. Instead of showing up, rallying for an afternoon and airing their grievances they camp in their own filth and would have stayed there until they all died of plague or got chased off. Nobody can clearly say what OWS objected to or what they wanted changed except it smelled of cluelessness and marxism. Well there was one theme strong enough to stand out, most seemed to be losers who were stupid enough to rack up insane debt majoring in things with no market value and now want their debt wiped clean. To which most sane people say "screw you."

> OWS clearly scares a lot of people.

Doubtful. Repels perhaps, disgust or ridicule at best. I see em and say "get a job!" Almost all of em have a degree and the unemployment rate for college grads is only 4% so odds are they could be doing SOMETHING productive.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[frank_adrian314159]

Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.

The coverage of the Tea Party (at least for the first six-nine months, before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers) was mainly positive in the mainstream media and followed almost immediately, regardless of what you may have heard from your right-wing blogs.

Now look at the OWS coverage. It was almost completely ignored by the mainstream media for the first week, generally discounted thereafter (They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious!), and then actively denigrated by reprinting local government press releases (Homeless and ex-cons are taking over hippie-land! Something must be done!). Not to mention the fact that mainstream media is still using the Tea Party (and its advocates) as "the" representatives of conservative thought in this country - even though it's popularity even among self-identified conservatives has fallen through the floor.

Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs while lobbing brickbats at liberals. There is no "liberal media". Mainstream media is overwhelmingly in the pocket of conservatives and (more importantly) the corporate masters for whom they are the "useful idiots" (ala Stalin).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

Huh? I didn't see a lot of negative press about the tea party. I've seen a lot of negative news about some of their members, like Illinois' own Joe Walsh, a deadbeat dad who campaigned on "fiscal responsibility", Cain and Perry's tard moments (and Cain's sexual harrassment), stupidities like this. But not about the rallies themselves (well, except the one where they booed the wounded veteran because he wa gay).

Do you have some links to this negative coverage by established news outlets that isn't some blog or left wing rag like Mother Jones?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Desler]

However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.

So what? Care to point to where the first amendment says you can't exercise your rights if you protest capitalism?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[cheekyjohnson]

However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.

And that right there makes them socialist and communist and evil.

Of course, no one knows who 'they' actually refers to. Are they a hive mind?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Bardwick]

Missed a couple. Massive health risks (lice, TB, various lung ailments, rape, assault (sexual and simple), arson threats, throwing rocks/bottles/various debris at police officers.. Let's see, what else... Oh yeah, no permits, occupying PRIVATE PROPERTY. Hell, its against the law to camp at a CAMPGROUND for two weeks, much less someone elses property. Cutting locks off church property and moving your protest there.. Other than that it's almost angelic..

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

However they aren't just protesting Wall Street, they are protesting capitalism.

Citation needed, and Fox doesn't count.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Desler]

you have never read any of the press directed toward pro-life protesters then.

You mean the same people who stalk and harass doctors and their families, blow up health clinics and have a history of intimidation, violence and murder of anyone who dares have a different opinion? When you can show me stories about pro-lifers being murdered and/or having their property blown-up for nothing more than their beliefs you might have.a point.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

> They had a coherent agenda that a child could understand

It's amazing how eloquently that sums up everything that's wrong with the Tea Party.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Americano]

This will always give them undue influence in the political process.

Unless, you know, people actually pay attention to the behavior of their elected representatives, and refuse to vote for people who go to Washington and promptly start sucking at the corporate lobbying teat. We have ways of removing corrupt officials. We have more than 2 parties in the US. If "The 99%" ACTUALLY WANTED to elect somebody other than the same corporate shills and whores that we keep re-electing to office, it would happen. I don't care how rich the Koch brothers are, if 99% of the population voted for something, and 1% of the population votes for the opposite... by my count, that's a historic landslide win for the 99%.

But something like 60% of the voting-age "99%" don't bother to cast a vote. Because it's easier to bitch than it is to be informed, and involved with the political process.

If people exercised the merest shred of rational thought when it comes to politics, and exercised the barest iota of follow-through on holding their candidates accountable for results, then the government simply wouldn't be for sale to the rich, because it wouldn't matter how rich you are if you're always outvoted.

The root of the problem is the climate in Washington that allows corporations to run amok with impunity, and by extension, the problem is the self-satisfied laziness of the vast majority of "The 99%" that keeps electing the same cast of crooks, whores, and shills to run the government with the same results term after term.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> I can tell you definitively that they have not disrupted "Wall St"

Yet. They were planning to disrupt the major businesses on this Thursday to force Wall Street to close. That was when the hammer had to come down. Even if most actual business has moved elsewhere the imagery would have been bad and if the NYSE actually closed it would have been front page news.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Darth Snowshoe]

OWS protesters don't intend to scare people. What should scare people is that the protesters are RIGHT.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

They aren't protesting capitalism - they are protesting the government having been totally corrupted by capitalism, to the point where the entire game is rigged. You can malign the OWS as much as you want, and please, by all means, have fun telling whatever stories you want about them. But if some kind of change doesn't happen, the situation for the 99% is only going to get worse.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

Except the on-going accusations of a bunch of racists, Koch-funding ex-Birchers, "wingnut" birthers, violent milita types, and paid Republican plants?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[halivar]

Why can you not get it through your thick skulls that a very tiny minority of troublemakers (some anarchists, some planted sabateurs) do NOT REPRESENT the rest of the group?

This is part of why you're polling worse than the tea party right now. No one listens to an argument while being insulted, even if the argument is correct. Also, nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

Are you stupid or do you just don't care? I've seen the videos of the "peaceful" OWS protesters shoving police riding motorcycles to the ground and then yelling "Police Brutality" when the cop arrests them.

There is no Constitutionally Protected right to fuck up the environment and crap in the streets, riot and commit vandalism, is there?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[0123456]

How can an communist complain when someone steals 'their' stuff? Hey, there is no such thing as private property, man.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

THe first amendment prohibits congress from regulating or restricting free speech (which one could take issue with free-speech zones over). It DOESNT say you can requisition an entire park for months and set up semi-permenant residences there, especially when the park owner tells you to stop (thats generally called "trespassing", and is NOT protected speech).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

Too bad the 1%ers don't read history or they'd be a hell of a lot more scared than you are. But the fact that they (or rather, the government they bought) repeated the 1920s during the Bush years and almost repeated 1929 shows that they've never cracked open a history book in their lives.

BTW, the link is to a volume that was required reading in an undergrad history class I took in the '70s. It's a very good read. It's also scary how it mirrors the times we live in now.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

I know you are saying you can't help but trash a city in your protests, and you think that is "Constitutionally Protected" .. it isn't.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

As I said before, protest away. Just stop fucking up our cities in the process. Thanks

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

Theyre expected not to take over a privately owned park against its owners wishes. Setting up tents in a public park isnt exactly "protected speech", nor is seeking out conflict with the police.

None of this would be such a big deal if they took it at shifts and didnt camp there, but just gathered; but of course the goal was never peaceable protest, it was conflict with the cops (at least for many of those there; Im sure some there truly did just want to express grievances).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tibman]

He was quoting the parent i think, just didn't italicize or put quotes on it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[dkleinsc]

Squatting on property that isn't yours isn't a speech issue, it is a trespass or theft issue.

That's simply a bogus argument:
1. The reason the protesters were on private property rather than public property is that they'd been barred from using public property.
2. The owners of the private property never objected to the protester's presence there. In order for being on someone else's property to be considered trespassing, the owner has to not want you to be there (e.g. if I walk through a church parking lot and nobody complains, that's not trespassing).
3. The private property in question was actually required, by city ordinance, to be open to the public at all times, so even if they had objected they weren't allowed to do anything about it.

No permits

You don't need a permit to stand on a sidewalk holding a sign, unless you are planning on blocking something. The initial protests were in places the protesters had every right to be without a permit. The police responded with pepper spray.

paid for portapotties, etc.

The Occupy Wall St general meeting which is more-or-less in charge requested permission to have portapotties brought in, paid for by the protesters. The police refused to allow that.

Hell, most left the place cleaner than when they arrived.

When Bloomberg first suggested that people would have to leave the park so it could be cleaned, the protesters responded by cleaning up the park before the deadline.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lashat]

Give this man a Cee-gar! He has pinpointed imho THE biggest problem of every one of the occupy x camps. Hippies and some other demographics (religious charities, homeless volunteers, etc.) have a disproportionate amount of easy marks amoung thier ranks. Most hobos use this to live on while savvy criminals use this knowlege to take advantage of the unsuspecting.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Hatta]

But something like 60% of the voting-age "99%" don't bother to cast a vote. Because it's easier to bitch than it is to be informed, and involved with the political process.

Because there's no one worth voting for. In the last presidential election there was at least a plausible chance of electing someone worthwhile, and voter turnout was correspondingly high.

Of course, what we got is more of the same. But the point stands, give people someone worth voting for and they'll show up.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[thelexx]

"Hell, its against the law to camp at a CAMPGROUND for two weeks."

No, it isn't. And shouldn't be. It may be against a campgrounds rules, but there's nothing in the law preventing it. Why in the hell would you think that there is or should be?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[SniperJoe]

I think that a lot of the opposition of the Occupy movement comes from exactly what you just said. As a movement, "Occupy" says that they represent the "99%" aka everyone who isn't a Wall Street fatcat. But as soon as anyone does something crazy or advocates violence, it's immediately "Oh, they're not part of us!" The movement seems to claim to be inclusive of everyone until someone does something that paints the movement in a bad light, in which case, they're not with you.

The problem with the structure of the movement (ie having no clear leadership as well as so many differing issues of concern) is that a single person's voice carries just as much weight as anyone elses, even the crazies.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Americano]

So you're saying that, in the bottom 99% of the country, not a single electable candidate exists? They have to just vote for the Democrats or Republicans offered to them by the rich?

Because I'm pretty sure that if there's that much outrage in 99% of the people, they could easily defeat ANY major-party candidate they wanted to with ease. THEY HAVE 99% of the vote, and then they bitch that "nobody's worth voting for," when the powers-that-be offer them candidates who will (unsurprisingly) preserve the general status quo.

If the 99% can't field a single candidate, or find a way to support & run a candidate whose beliefs are in line with the desires of The 99%, then why are they bothering to protest? They've already conceded their political impotence.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ShavedOrangutan]

EXACTLY.

How can someone demand that I pay their student loan debt but then get mad when someone else swipes their iPad? Both are just redistributions of wealth, right?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lgw]

I beleive Wall st trading closed briefly when a carraige bomb was set off at the front doors. Since then, I don't think anyhting that's happened physically to the building has mattered, it's all electronic any more (though the 9/11 disaster did cause a great many failovers, the process largely worked).

Only the imagery would be relevent, and it's not the businessmen who would have been lauged at, believe me.

The NY OWSers were rousted because local businesses had had enough. That's how the world works - no vast conspiracy, just local cops knowing who's important when it comes to avoiding a stink.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The coverage of the Tea Party

Exclusively white. Racists. Old. Fat. Fundies. Dangerous.

Those were the memes created by the media about people they labeled 'Tea Party.' I'm not sure which part of that was 'mainly positive.'

Not to mention the fact that mainstream media is still using the Tea Party (and its advocates) as "the" representatives of conservative thought in this country

We conservatives know. Do you think it's lost on us that this is the case? Are you suggesting that but for the 'Tea Party' (whatever that is) conservatives would have a fair hearing in the media?

LOL

The 'Tea Party' is a figment of the imagination of the MSM and the leftist they write for. A pure straw-man upon which essentially anything may be pinned. Yesterday, NPR attributed a success of anti-fluoridation activists in Florida to the 'Tea Party', as if anti-fluoridation kooks haven't been troubling city and county governments for decades. No, somehow it's all the fault of the 'Tea Party' and all the screwballs that exist, or have ever existed, belong to it.

Gutless media dilettantes will never provide a fair hearing of conservative thought. We know that. We don't care.

Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs

You're bullshit isn't even self-consistent. On one hand you seem to grasp that conservatives are being misrepresented by the media, while on the other conservatives are given favorable treatment by the media. What sort of damage must one inflict on one's own mind to get there?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[N0Man74]

Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.

Did you? I recall a lot of positive coverage of the tea party, though most of it was from Fox News. Not only did they give them positive coverage, they intentionally tried to make event turn-out to be more substantial than it really was, provided information on their website in order to help people find rallies, and promoted this information on the air.

There wasn't a universal support from the media of course, but Fox made for quite an effective cheerleader.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Bengie]

" especially when the park owner tells you to stop (thats generally called "trespassing", and is NOT protected speech)."

Private parks? If that's the case, then yes, but if they're public parks, then no.

Side note.. I've never seen a private park before(other than theme/fun parks).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Nadaka]

GAH! You are willfully ignorant if you don't know what their agenda is at this point.

They are NOT! pissed off about people making money. Communists are the extreme minority of the protesters.

They are pissed about corruption in the system that disenfranchises the vast majority of people for the personal gain of a handful of plutocrats.

The vast majority of them don't give a damn about rich people being rich. The problem is that being rich means you can make other people poor.

What do we want done about it? Campaign finance reform for one. Balancing the budget by eliminating tax breaks and raising taxes on those most capable of providing the burden. Cutting graft and corrupt influences from the government.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[identity0]

Not an occupier, but have been down there at Occupy Portland on and off almost since it began.

>Drug overdoses in the camp went from none, to one per week, to multiple per week.
This could be true. It reflects Portland's general drug problems, and is not really high for the number of people there. Trying to pin it on the protest is not really honest.

>Reports of sexual assaults in the tents and makeshift structures were coming out almost daily.
Were these reports from within the camp, or from opponents outside of it? We are talking about regular camping tents set up in a public space, not really the kind of place where sexual assault would go easily unnoticed.

>Vandalism to the parks and surrounding businesses went out of control
I saw one spray paint graffiti on a wall, which is unfortunate but not out of character for the area. The protesters brought plenty of cardboard to make signs with, and almost all the messages and art were done on boards, not surrounding structures.

>I haven't gone down there myself
Well, that explains a lot

>the parks will require major repairs and some businesses were closed
The grass in the park died due to the tents, and I think the restrooms were clogged. However, the occupation did set up a fund to pay for that, I have no idea whether they have paid out of it though. As for businesses, I don't know of any that closed, though the 7-11 reported some shoplifting.

>The last straw was the elements in the camp seeking confrontation stock piling shields and weapons including molatov cocktails, rocks, sticks and homemade frag grenades made with glass and fireworks.
Where did you hear this, on Fox News? I did not see anything of that sort going on. The fuel for the generators was placed in a locked cage at the suggestion of the fire marshal a couple of weeks ago.

>I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks to go down and confront the camps if the police didn't do anything.
Do your friends beat up homeless people for fun?

>The mayor was/is sympathetic to the protesters but simply had to go with the national effort to crack down because a mutiny in his own police department and community was brewing.
The mayor and powers that be are simply trying to sweep problems of the city under the rug, or disperse them where they don't have to see them. The homeless problem, the drug problem, the unemployment problem are all problems of the city as a whole, but they want to be able to ignore that so they don't want a single, highly visible concentration of it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tibman]

Is joining a political movement not something productive?

You obviously don't approve of any of the occupy groups. Your disapproval has prevented you from further understanding that it is not one cohesive organization with a hierarchy and goals. It is an umbrella that many people have come to stand under for all sorts of reasons. Many of the occupy people have jobs and lives too. It's great that so many people are voicing their opinions and turning out for occupy events.. legally or otherwise. I remember so many people (usually older people) bitching about the apathy of this generation. Well, they seem to be waking up and fighting for something. Instead of looking down on them, perhaps you could realize they are pretty new at this.. they probably won't get it right the first time.

I think you have put more effort into demonizing them than analyzing them.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[B1oodAnge1]

You've got it backward though, that is the primary problem.

The government is not corrupted by capitalism, capitalism has been corrupted by the government.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[CanHasDIY]

Who the hell is "Ann" Rand???

Moron.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Nadaka]

Ayn Rand fucktard, not Ann Rand. I've read her shit. And guess what? It is worthless shit.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Talderas]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Peaceable
1 a : disposed to peace : not contentious or quarrelsome
b : quietly behaved
2 : free from strife or disorder

So yes. It does contain a qualifier of "not inconveniencing others".

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lgw]

Communists are the extreme minority of the protesters.

Most of the printed flyers passed out as OWS NY were from gorups that self-identified as communist. What do you expect people to think?

Rich kids with expensive toys complaining about being disenfranchised while complaining about the homeless stealing their stuff: not credible.

These are kids who expected to become part of the 1% thanks to their expensive degrees, are pissed that the world doesn't work that way, and are tying to figure out who to be pissed at (hint: the liars who told you that $100k in college debt and an "X studies" degree would mean you got a good job).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[geminidomino]

Unlike corporate cock, which now comes in a variety of fruity, Skittles-like flavors.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

I thought the Koch funding was pretty much identified. Saying where the money comes from isn't bashing. Racists? Easy to believe, especially since the tea party didn't hapen until we got a black President. Where were they when Bush was running up the record defecit? Why did they wait until Obama was Prez to come out of the woodwork? You don't think the "birthers" are wingnuts? And where did "Republican plants" come from? They ARE Republicans!

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Talderas]

Not likely. That still does nothing for their uncleanliness as demonstrated by the outbreaks of ring worm, scabies, and tuberculosis.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[identity0]

Read his post again,

I haven't gone down there myself, but friends of mine that work for the city tell me

He hasn't been down there, but he seems to have been modded to +5 at this time anyways. Let's see if my reply to him will, given that I HAVE been there.

I suspect that anything that doesnt mesh with people's conception of "rag tag group of oppressed and innocent protesters" will never get modded up
Apparently not. Look at the MS or Apple threads, there are always people who get modded up for having a contrarian view.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[WolfgangPG]

I guess they missed all the news channels called them "teabaggers" and laughing.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Nashville, the police arrested everyone two nights in a row and the judge bitched them out for it both nights. After the arrests, the protestors cleaned up their act. They organized enough to get port-a-poties, align their tents in rows, start a community patrol/watch, and chase off the criminals.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Rockoon]

The thing is that the tea-party protests were planned and permits were acquired. The rally went for the duration of the permit and then the tea-drinkers went home.

As time goes on the remaining "occupiers" will be filtered out leaving mostly people that are there because they have nothing better to do. More and more are going to be trying to make spectacles of themselves (attention whores) while in the shadows there is a growing underbelly of crooks looking to score some of the easies. Add to that the fact that many of these protests are in technical violating the law, and now police are heavily in the mix too.

So we've got police, criminals, and people who shouldn't be there. Its a powder keg.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[poetmatt]

are you a fucking moron? have you seen the videos?

tell me which one of these sounds like violent protest. The one where a cop throws a flashbang at a kid whose skull they fractured, or the one where they arrest a press reporter? Were they riding motorcycles? Did they insult the police? no. Did they crap in the streets and commit vandalism? no.

There is a constitutional right to free speech. Maybe you've never heard of it, or only know how to look at trash and think "by golly, I'm an armchair retard posting on the internet about a video I saw!" Included in that is also yelling whatever they want, at any time. That's called, you know, freedom of speech. Calling a cop a pig, screaming police brutality, given the videos above are you surprised? They're stating facts.

Yes, some have done bad things, yes they've done dirty and/or bad shit. All of them? No, not unless you're straight up ignorant.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> How can someone demand that I pay their student loan debt but then get mad when someone else swipes their iPad?

Want an even funnier one? They have an OWS event ongoing at Harvard... only Harvard students involved. What are the odds of finding ONE student there who isn't a member in good standing of the 1%? To be admitted to Harvard is to automatically be admitted to the ranks of the 1%.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[wierd_w]

It sounds like they need to disrupt wallstreet digitally.

this would actually be something good for anonymous's army of script kiddies to apply themselves to.

Essentially, you flood the automatic trade daemons with false quote data. You don't do this the way your typical con-man does, which is to selectively quote false prices to change the aggregate stock prices in such a way as to sweeten his own investment opportunities; instead, you selectively quote false prices to initiate a bear market, and drive down trading, if not encourage wholesale shorting of major stocks. Banks create money from thin air, this would return that conjured money back to the void whence it came.

Alternatively, if you don't want to have a hand in destroying the world economy on such a drastic scale, you could instead work from the standpoint of simply creating congestion. Remember those stories of new fiber runs being laid for wallstreet traffic, because a few ms of latency can translate to millions of dollars of lost trades? Bingo. Latency would injure wallstreet.

Both approaches lend themselves well to scriptkiddies. Anonymous is missing an epic opportunity.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> No, it isn't.

I think the original poster meant public campground, as in state and federal parks. And he is right, I have seen the signs myself.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Urza9814]

Well, others have already responded to most of your post, but I wanted to respond to the pervasive myth that there's no clear goals. There are. But the media refuses to cover them. Just like you said they did to the Tea Party.

Go down to Wall Street or any of these other occupations and you will figure out the goals pretty quickly. Increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% and on major corporations (or at least close loopholes.) End the wars and bring our troops home. And end unlimited corporate campaign contributions (or possibly private campaign funding entirely.) Those are the goals. And they're extremely obvious if you set foot in any of the Occupy protests I've been to (Pittsburgh and NYC)

But then, I've sat there and watched the mainstream media -- I've watched cameramen literally walk up, ignore the hundred gathered around while someone is speaking about all these national issues, and instead spend ten or twenty minutes taking various shots of the five people playing drums and dancing, intentionally constructing their shots so that the people actually talking about these issues won't even appear in the background.

The movement has a clear message. But of course the media doesn't want you to see it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[misexistentialist]

Attacking the victims of drug overdoses, sexual assaults, and reactionary mobs in order to protect them is just fucked up logic. The protestors could leave if they were worried about safety. What about the rest of us willingly under police protection in this crime-ridden country who have nowhere to go? Maybe every urban center can be cleared by our valiant police with neutron bombs. Better dead than red!

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Bucky24]

Hippies are not the only demographic represented in the OWS protests, and not even the largest.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Immostlyharmless]

Is it really so hard to comprehend that for the last 30 years workers productivity has skyrocketed while real wages have stayed stagnant and benefits have decreased. That's really so fuckin' hard to understand? All these people want is an equivocal piece of the pie Mr. Morris. I hardly think that qualifies as incoherent.
Simply because Faux News refuses to clear the air with all of its bought and paid for mouth pieces standing around going
"I don't know what they want, do you know?",
"Hell no, I don't know, they must be commie hippies." doesn't mean there's not a coherent message in there if you merely take 10 seconds and THINK about it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Attila Dimedici]

Perhaps if the OWS groups would so vehemently refuse to repudiate those who are violent, maybe people would not associate the whole group with the violence. Of course, it might also have something to do with the fact that significant numbers of the OWS protesters have acted in ways that were clearly intended to provoke a violent response from the police. Finally, the fact that the Tea Party protests were able to go on for as long as they did with the only violence being that of those who showed up to oppose them may have caused people to set their expectations high for such an event.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Bucky24]

Most of the printed flyers passed out as OWS NY were from gorups that self-identified as communist.

Generally those are the most vocal of the protesters. And the main socialist groups do claim to have started the movement. I disagree with GP that it's only the minority that are "communist" (they aren't, they're in fact socialists, but since most people seem to confuse the two I'll leave it at that). It's a large majority of them. To them, OWS is just a step in the chain: reform -> revolution. I'm opposed to radical revolution, at least so far, but I'll work with anyone who wants reform. Goodness knows we could use it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

"The owners of the private property never objected to the protester's presence there." This is completely untrue. Brookfield Properties, owner of the property, constantly objected and pled for the city to do something about the squatting. The rest of your post makes good points, but you're not entitled to make up facts.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Riot.ATL]

Nobody can clearly say what OWS objected to or what they wanted changed except it smelled of cluelessness and marxism.

So, in other words, you have no idea what Marxism is?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[amicusNYCL]

The last straw was the elements in the camp seeking confrontation stock piling shields and weapons including molatov cocktails, rocks, sticks and homemade frag grenades made with glass and fireworks. I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks to go down and confront the camps if the police didn't do anything.

Seriously, rocks and sticks? What, did they outlaw knives in Portland? You realize that you can carry guns there, right, even a concealed pistol? But you're going to go with angry mobs assaulting each other with rocks and sticks. Wait, are they the kind of sticks that have a big square with words on it on one end?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[walshy007]

Try camping in a public park where the rules are 'no camping' for two months and see if the law agrees with you. That is what has happened here.

Protected speech does not mean I can set up a camp site any damn place I like in public.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Bucky24]

As far as I can tell, for them reform means less government power... Though I could be wrong. That's certainly what it means for me.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> they probably won't get it right the first time.

The Tea Party was mostly new to politics as well. They managed pretty well. Difference was most of them were older grown ups with a little real world experience instead of college students and hippies. The problem is more in what each group wants. The Tea Party (see all those Gasden Flags?) mostly wants the government to stop screwing things up and return to the jobs it was designed to do. The OWS people want to finish the job and go the rest of the way to a People's Republic.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[eeyoredragon]

Why does everyone expect a bunch of random pissed off people to be able to come up with a real economic strategy when the political candidates from a single party can't even agree on one?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lgw]

Wait, so the OWSers want a government that spends less money, and makes fewer regulations? Wow, they've really done a poor job of getting that message out (well, aside from legalizing weed, which I just assume they're all for).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[DrXym]

Planted saboteurs! That's a tad paranoid to say the least. More likely it is an example of what happens your protest attracts large numbers from the lunatic fringes - socialists, anarchists, etc. Many of these people are probably veteran trouble makers from g8 conferences and OWS makes a great opportunity to cause trouble. OWS should have channeled its support into lobbying politicians and it wouldn't have attracted these people. Now politicians couldn't give a shit what OWS has to say. All they care about is tearing down their hobo camps and dispersing them.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Anonymous Coward]

A small, weak government is much more easily bullied by large, private interests. In the modern era, the alternative to big government is not small government. It's corporate government.

I trust the government a lot more than I trust the corporations. This idea that "government absolutely must be small" has also contributed to failures of governance, because it presumes failure, instead of attempting to design a government that is hardened against incentivization attacks like bribery and regulatory capture.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Attila Dimedici]

The "coverage" of the Tea Party for the first 6-9 months was mostly an attempt to ignore them. Then they tried to portray them as violent.
On the other hand, the press has tried to claim that the OWS protests were entirely peaceful when it was clear that the OWS protesters were trying to provoke a violent reaction from the police.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

yes.. make everyone equally wealthy all at one time...

within 20 minutes, crackheads and junkees would be dead of massive overdoses

rednecks would be broke from buying all the guns

stoners would have all the weed and glassworks

and the rich would be where they are now...counting the money that we just gave them back.....

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Hatta]

So you're saying that, in the bottom 99% of the country, not a single electable candidate exists?

No, what I'm saying is that every electable candidate gets ruined by the political machine. I don't doubt that Obama was a nice guy with good intentions when he arrived in Washington. But he's since turned into a monster. Any candidate fielded by OWS would suffer the same fate.

They've already conceded their political impotence.

They haven't ceded anything. Political potency has been taken from them. That's why they're out on the streets instead of campaigning for politicians. The people have no sway over the political process in America. The sooner we all recognize that the system is broken, the sooner we can work on fixing it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[TapeCutter]

"useful idiots" (ala Stalin).

Kruschev actually, but the comparison is still an informative one. To me the rise of both the TP and OWS says that people are angry at the status quo but have no idea how to articulate their grievances into a coherent message that resonates with the rest of us. It's a lot like an internet argument where one side blames everything on government conspiracies while the other blames corporate conspiracies, and everyone else just ignores them.

If either group were to take one specific issue at a time then society may slowly change the status quo for the better (as it has done so in my 50yr lifetime), but a full blown revolution requires that an existing society must be torn down before it can be replaced.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mirix]

Revolutions aren't without their bumps, but you may note that the people of France and Russia are no longer under the thumb of the king/tsar.
Of course things could have been done better... but it's still superior.

I guess the US should have just sucked it up and pleaded with britain, instead of having their revolution, huh? Everyone should still be under kings?

or am I misunderstanding your statement?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[DarkOx]

I agree with you for the most part but there is more to the advantage of incumbency than just being incumbent. Most states(all?) election law enshrine the two party system. There is not even a clear process for getting on the ballot as third party candidate in many cases. Its not easy to win as write in candidate, for obvious reasons.

What needs to happen is people need to run for state and local office and re-work election law, only then will real change in who gets elected at the federal level happen. Pushing for repeal of the 17th amendment would be a step in right direction as well. The senate would have to respect states rights again or risk not being re-elected.

All that would have been possible, maybe is possible. I helped a friend with his campaign for City government here, and it might be a stepping stone for here to go after the state house. Trouble is many people feel, myself included, that there just is not time for that strategy any more. The public slept to long, and now its going to take uglier measures to save Government for the People, by the People.

One thing is for certain, with a 9% Congressional approval rating, we don't have either!

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Hatta]

because you want something for nothing, all socialists do.

No, that's capitalists. They don't make money by working. They make money by owning.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

From that perspective, showing the video of people naked isnt bashing either. It's reporting a fact. Neither is showing video of drug use, or deficating in public. More importantly it's not bashing when you play video and sound files of speakers at OWS saying that they want to burn NYC to the ground, or drag bankers into the street to be beaten, or bringing back guillotines. Open calls for violence by speakers at these occupations are excused even when the OWS organizers refuse to condemn those statements, while all Tea Partiers are condemned equally for the idiots in the back row with stupid signs that the Tea Partiers themselves quickly and openly condemn.

The Tea Party didnt happen till we got a black president.... And neither did a housing market collapse, honest reporting on the national debt, interest paid to the US debtors, rising unemployment and subsequent home forcelosures, more focused attention on wasteful govt spending, a second and a third massive stimulus spending, a second and a third war, a near-trillion dollar health care plan, an economic EU crisis with bankcruptcy of Greece, teatering finances in Italy, France and more .....

I will readily concede that much of these factors had nothing to do with Barrack Obama (specifically the massive debt, waste, and spending before his Presidency). But the -impact- was felt after he found office, and with that impact many previously sleeping Americans finaly woke up. Myself being one of them. You can blame the Tea Partiers for being asleep and failing in their civic responsibilities of keeping Washington in check for decades. They should have been picketing at least the last two administrations and maybe if they had we'd be in more stable shape today. But you cant say that waking up was a one-to-one correlation with a black man being elected to office. Like most things in this country, people really dont give a shit until the sting of bad choices hurts them personally. A LOT of people are now feeling a sting they've never felt before, and they are going to do what they can to figure out why, and to speak up on what they think will fix it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...

You pretty much cement my point.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[malilo]

I'm unaware of this "attitude problem" that is apparently keeping you from supporting OWS. I see a lot of (civil) disagreements at the protests, and surprising amounts of consensus among people from different backgrounds. Most people are there representing THEIR OWN OPINIONS on what is wrong, and there is very little active discouragement of different opinions. Also, calling yourself a member of the "Adult World" is pretty damned childish. Who talks like that? We're trying to steer the national conversation in this country towards VERY adult topics, but find ourselves fighting against outright lies on the one hand (false attacks on the protesters) and the usual bread and circuses on the other (reality TV, celebrity news, FUD about foreign threats, anything that comes out of Herman Cain's mouth, etc). So you disagree about the camps. Fine. I suppose you would have told Rosa Parks that she was being an arrogant **tch who ought to just sit in the back too, right? You do understand what civil disobedience is?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

than explain why they arent protesting the government, and instead are protesting business???

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[shutdown -p now]

How can an communist complain when someone steals 'their' stuff? Hey, there is no such thing as private property, man.

There is a difference between private property - that which is abstractly recognized as yours by the society to do as you see fit; and personal property - that which physically belongs to you / is used by you. Communism purports to do away with the former, but keeps the latter - the idea is that you shouldn't be able to own, say, a factory single-handedly (because you can't use it alone), but a car is perfectly fine.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

exactly, look at how the tea party was told that they are racists they are gun packing criminals, yet i dont recall any rapes at tea parties, i dont recall any murders at tea parties, i dont recall any lice/ringwork/STDs/and other outbreaks at tea parties.... yet all this is there at OWS in NYC (cant speak for other places as i havent been to other places, i have been at OWS for 30 days in the past month, and i have documented iraq war protests, tea party events and other political events since 2003)

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

i always hear from the pro choice side (which i am on btw) about all these clinique bombings yet i dont recall more than 1 or 2 in my 26 year life.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[hey!]

Most of the printed flyers passed out as OWS NY were from gorups that self-identified as communist. What do you expect people to think?

Now how do you know *most* of the flyers were from self-identified communist groups? Did you do a study, collecting all the flyers you could then doing a statistical analysis? Or did you just hear some guy say it and figure it sounded pretty truthy?

Now I strolled past Occupy Boston and the signs ran from obscure but substantive ("Re-enact Glass-Steagall!"), to the plain obscure ("We are the 99%"). I'm sure there were plenty of socialists down there, but the only references I saw could possibly be ironic ("Support Socialist Programs like Education.").

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[AHuxley]

Wait for the Kent state moment or the next gen "Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer" turning up the Long Range Acoustic Device on a small urban tank.
The press will be kept a block away, but people do have HD cameras and some footage will always get out.
Will the option of life in prison via "local" eavesdropping laws really hold to get all the footage?
Then you have the photogenic, well spoken, upper middle class young person with a few new life long medical issues in open court.... a great legal team and lots of video.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

Where were they when Bush was running up the record defecit? Why did they wait until Obama was Prez to come out of the woodwork?

Interesting view of history you have there. Utterly wrong though. We were pissed off at Bush over the spending like a drunken sailor among other things. The country did the only thing it could, tossed the Republicans out of Congress in '06 then the President in '08. Then the spending went beyond drunken sailor territory into vocabulary failure. THAT was when the Tea Party started, when people figured out neither party was going to be responsible without some grass roots pressure. Any fool should know trying to make Democrats shrink the government is a fools errand so we are trying to work on the Republicans first. But if (cynics say when) that fails a third party will arise because we simply can't keep this spending up much longer and things that can't continue don't.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

I have been there for over 30 days in the past 2 months... there is no clear goal. While they may say things like they want the top to pay ther "fair share" when you point out that the top1% pay the top 40% of the taxes, they dont know what to say. When I talk to people down there, I will get around 15 different responses ranging from the original complaint, that the banks shouldnt have been bailed out (hmm, the tea party agrees with that) but when you get further along you hear from the people who say they want ALL student loans to be taken off the books, you got people who want the right to stay anywhere they can (no joke) there are people who want every american to have the exact same amount of money, we have people who want ALL debt outstanding or not to be forgiven. Some of the ideas are simply crazy by any meteric.

so perhaps you need to spend some more time there, or perhaps take off the rose colored glasses you had on when you were there because I didnt see anything close to what you saw there in NYC, and ive been there for 30 days documenting it

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[gangien]

as opposed to the OWS, which is a message from a child.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

it is private property with public access, meaning the land owner is being nice and allowing people on it, it is fairly normal here in NY for private parks to be ran with public access. just because you havent seen one, doesnt mean they dont exist, they are everywhere

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[desdinova 216]

Hell, its against the law to camp at a CAMPGROUND for two weeks, much less someone elses property.

Citation Needed

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

Actually it's just as applicable in a public park.

When your organization monopolizes a public park for months, damages the property in it, creates unsanitary conditions in it, and makes it an inappropriate place for me to take my kid because of pervasive drug use, nudity, profanity and crime, you have actually violated my protected freedoms. Particularly when my taxes help to fund that park. When law enforcement and emergency services are inequally allocated to that occupation because of the conditions it produces and there's risk that people in need elsewhere will have delayed response times then you needlessly placed others at risk. When you cost the city/state large amounts of money to handle the logistics of your occupation you consume tax payer funds much better spent in other areas, ironically in places like schools or social services that OWS is such a hot proponent of.

How do you reconcile that?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Americano]

What you're saying is that we have created an infernal machine which runs on its own without any input from us, and will destroy anybody seeking to change it, and resist those efforts at change.

The problem is, the system ceases to exist if nobody runs. The people with power have no power if they are not elected. The people who are elected cannot be corrupted by the system if they are elected with the express intention of changing it, and are held to account for their decisions and actions. The system only has whatever power the electorate cedes to it.

Political potency has been taken from them.

No, they have ceded their political potency by overwhelmingly voting for one of the 2 "new boss, same as the old boss" major party candidates, who are by and large bough & sold by the corporations making political donations. I guarantee that if you took a real survey of the real people on the ground at OWS who are protesting, and actually got honest answers out of them, you would find that 50+% of them didn't bother to vote at all, and a large portion of the 50% that did vote went overwhelmingly for Obama or McCain in the last election. Rather than helping to get third party candidates elected, they participate in the machine, and then bitch when the machine behaves in exactly the same way it always has.

The people have no sway over the political process in America. The sooner we all recognize that the system is broken, the sooner we can work on fixing it.

I'm not sure what mechanism you think allows people to go from "people have no sway over political process," to "the sooner we can work on fixing it." If the people have no sway, then the only way to fix it is with a violent revolution: i.e., destroy it, clear away the rubble, and build something new and better in its place. "Protesting" the system you have described makes just about as much sense as the moles and rabbits holding signs and marching in protest against the combines which till up the fields in the spring: they're not driving the combine, and neither the driver nor the machine give a shit what happens to a few moles and rabbits as long as the crops get planted. I think putting the electorate in the role of powerless victims serves the interests of the establishment: "There's nothing I can do to change it, so why even bother going out and voting, and why even bother running? And why even bother trying to do anything?"

I reject the notion that any system is so corrupt that anybody taking part in it will inevitably be corrupted by it - it is a system of people, created by people, and run by people. If 99% of the people want that system to change, it will change.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lehk228]

i agree, the solution to wall street and the big banks grenading the economy like an overrevved engine is clearly more deregulation. if that does not work, use more deregulation, and cut taxes even lower on the highest brackets. it will be wealth trickling down this time, definitely not piss again.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[guises]

I've never seen so much negative press directed at a group of Americans exercising their first amendment rights.

Have a look at the comments in yesterday's story about PETA. Or any story about PETA.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[TapeCutter]

The government is not corrupted by capitalism, capitalism has been corrupted by the government.

From where I stand that ideological divide is the only real difference between the Tea Party and OWS. The Who said "we won't get fooled again", but to me the whole thing is like a 1970's flashback, various groups of myopic radicals who achieve nothing because they're too busy attacking strawmen of each other.

"Politics is the art of compromise", the western world may be far from perfect now but it's a whole lot better than it would be if ANY of these uncompromising ideologies of blame and ignorance somehow managed to seize real power.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lehk228]

which peaceful teabaggers? the ones marching with AR-15's on their backs or the ones with signs saying "we came unarmed this time"

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[gujo-odori]

Since when do you have a First Amendment right to camp in a public park?

I'd love to be able to do that, too. Beats the heck out of the cost, hassle, and driving involved to go to a campground, and if it rains or the kids get scared, I could be home in 5 minutes, but guess what? Camping in city parks is illegal and I'd get ticketed for it, or arrested if I failed to leave.

Those 1% Occupy types (1% because that's about how many Americans are communist like them) can protest as much as they want, and screw over local businesses to the point of bankruptcy (Hi from the SF Bay area!) but they have to go home at night like everybody else.

They might want to consider, I dunno, actually working for a living instead of having "Confiscate the wealth and give it to us!" as a business model.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[gutnor]

So, free speech but in small dose only ? The irony of a country where every citizen has the right to carry a weapon in order to fight the government ...

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Zero__Kelvin]

Talderis is a Slashdot poster.

Poster:
1a. A large, usually printed placard, bill, or announcement, often illustrated, that is posted to advertise or publicize something.
b. An artistic work, often a reproduction of an original painting or photograph, printed on a large sheet of paper.

So there you have it. Talderas is a large placard advertising Slashdot! OK, well maybe not, but he is a peice of work ;-)

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[gujo-odori]

What a load of crap.

The Tea Party (which is nothing you say it is, and I'm calling you out as a liar) has had nothing but crap from the mainstream left-tilted media that stands up and lies through its teeth about being objective.

The Occupy movement - which seems to have no agenda other than "People shouldn't be allowed to be rich, no matter how hard-working, smart, and successful they are" - and is definitely the 1% of extreme leftists and totally out of step with the 99% of normal people - has had mostly favorable coverage from that same media.

The Tea Party is about maximum liberty and minimum government. The Occupy fringe is the exact opposite - they are about maximum government and minimum liberty.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[gutnor]

Too bad the 1%ers don't read history or they'd be a hell of a lot more scared than you are.

They can read history. History tells you that you can oppress people for hundreds of year at a time. And even when the revolution happens, some falls but they still have a good chance of getting away with it.

What matters to the 1% is not that revolution will happen, it is when. Since in this case, we are talking about banker, that is just business as usual: you fold seconds before the bubble burst, not years before, not after.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lehk228]

capitalism is inherently corrupt and needs to be destroyed for anyone to be free.

capitalism is not the same as free enterprise.

capitalism is when the government creates special objects we call corporations which are not subject to the same laws as everyone else.

if a person breaks the law or behaves recklessly and ends up owing money they have to pay it or they have to convince a bankruptcy judge to discharge the debt if they really don't have the money to pay it, if that happens their bankruptcy still follows them personally and they cannot declare bankruptcy again for a certain amount of time, if a corporation ends up owing more than it is worth because it behaved recklessly it can simply fold with the stock holders risking nothing above their investment, the investors can immidiately re-engage in the same risky behavior with a new corporation and, when it goes bad, fold again and repeat.

wall street corporations have been allowed to create various "derivatives" which, when sold to people not engaging in the market these derivatives cover are nothing more than gambling, however they are not looked at as gambling under the law as they should be.

I risk getting arrested if i were to bet $1000 that the superbowl was going to be Ravens vs Giants and the Giants would win by at least 7 points, but it's ok for a day trader or HFT firm to bet a hundred million that oil will get more expensive over the next month, despite that firm not actually engaging in business which is dependant on the price of oil (it would be totally different for, as an example, a plastics manufacturing firm to buy a hundred million in oil futures that they expect to take delivery on, as they are hedging for the sake of their own operations)

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Attila Dimedici]

I'm sorry, I was talking about the Tea Party movement. I am pretty sure that a much larger percentage of the people at the OWS protests teabag each other than at the Tea Party protests.
As to your examples there is nothing violent about carrying a gun, at least not when compared to throwing a molotov cocktail.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[DaleSwanson]

You do realize that the first amendment has no qualifiers such as "as long as you never inconvenience anyone", right.

As with most things, it isn't quite that clear cut.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We'll assume that the 14th amendment makes this apply equally to states/municipalities. Now the question is, does making any law whatsoever regulating assembly abridge the right of people to peaceably assemble? I think it must be clear that some laws are ok. As the extreme example, it would not be ok for people to assemble on private property (and I mean actual legitimate private property, not quasi public property, like the parks in question here). Barring people from trespassing on your land, even if they are doing so to protest is ok. This is because trespassing isn't necessary in order to assemble.

Taking this idea further, as long as people have the ability to assemble then laws regulating that assembly are ok. I could see an issue with forcing people to some distant location, as the distance and remote location could be seen as a barrier to assembly. That doesn't seem to be the case here though. While the cities are trying to force people out of specific parks for a limited time they aren't forcing them to go home, or go to any other specific location.

In the specific case of NYC, the city doesn't seem to be really preventing anyone from assembling. Even with respect to this planned carnival, I see no reason this latest action would interfere with it. People can gather Thursday and do all the videotaping of messages they want. However, blocking streets and camping out for months on end isn't a necessary prerequisite to assembly, and I see no reason it should be allowed.

Arresting people without giving them a fair chance to move away, and using force on people that aren't violent are two things I certainly have an issue with. However, I frankly don't think it is unreasonable to clear people out of a public place at least once a week to clean it up. If they fail to allow anyone back into the park then there could again be an issue if there isn't any other suitable place for them to assemble.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[alexmin]

"you flood the automatic trade daemons with false quote data" - good luck with that.
- First, you have to get connected to marketplaces in a way that makes flood possible. This is not cheap (upward of 30K a month for that.)
- Second, putting in orders with no intention to execute is called "market manipulation" in SEC book and will get you a fine between 100K and few $M depending on severity of the offence.
- Third, people who can deal with as much traffic as you describe already are gainfully employed by US trading houses so the only things you will flood are you 10G uplinks to exchanges.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tibman]

I find it interesting how you say the occupy movement has no goals and then you say they want a people's republic. Picking out a sub-group's goals and expanding them to occlude the rest of the group is greatly oversimplifying.

You are certainly right that from the beginning the tea party was better organized and comprised mostly of older people. But i will argue that comparing occupy to tea party is going off on a tangent. Because group B is better organized than Group A doesn't mean that A doesn't have a point or reason to exist.

I was simply pointing out that you can't lump all of occupy under a hippie, college student, or unemployed banner. They are a very diverse group. Their reasons for being there are also diverse. Occupy appears to be on the opposite end of the spectrum from the tea party. Where tea party people need to be home before 9:30, the occupy people never leave. It is easy to see how a tea party person would call occupy hippies and how occupy calls tea party aged yuppies.

btw, i consider both movements to be a great thing. I just wish there was better mainstream coverage. Youtube seems to be the best place to find video's for them.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[wierd_w]

Wallstreet's exchange services have failover connections, in the event that primary ones go down.

Yes, saturating dedicated fiber is expensive.

A rented backhoe is not.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Paul Fernhout]

Give the money out every month as a "basic income" of $1000 to $2000 a month (Social Security for Medicare for all from birth), and things would settle down soon enough. http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

Much addiction is just a sign of stress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

And can be overcome: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Good communities help with that: http://www.bluezones.com/

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've seen the videos of the "peaceful" OWS protesters shoving police riding motorcycles to the ground and then yelling "Police Brutality" when the cop arrests them.

I sure haven't. How about providing a link or two so I can?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[grim4593]

Hate to break it to you but going in debt for a college degree is almost the exact opposite of becoming part of the 1%. Getting a college degree now days means getting by without struggling too hard.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Paul Fernhout]

Prof. Domhoff say win Democratic primaries with egalitarian ideas:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Want an even funnier one? They have an OWS event ongoing at Harvard... only Harvard students involved. What are the odds of finding ONE student there who isn't a member in good standing of the 1%? To be admitted to Harvard is to automatically be admitted to the ranks of the 1%.

I'm a member of the 1% and I damn well support the OWS movement because this country needs fixing for all 100% of us and they are the only people even trying to talk about it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[wierd_w]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but:

The idea is to kill the main dedicated lines using "accidents", (script kiddies are also in meatspace.) Forcing the exchange infrastructure into attackable channels.

So far, the risk of jailtime has not been a sufficient deturrent to anons.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lgw]

The agency that regulates Goldman Sachs is mostly made of people who worked at Goldman Sachs. This sort of thing always happens. The only way to prevent the sort of bullshit that the banks got us into is to stop fucking bailing them outdesire to spread the pork, as that's been basically every government in the history of mankind, then the only solution is to give them as little money as possible.

Remember, the CME (which is "the free market" presonified) went to the government to ask that a real market for these stupid CDOs and BS mortgage securities be created (and thereby regulated by all the existing laws) and was told no - presumably since it would have hurt Goldman Sachs at the time.

Since regualtory capture is a real and pernicious problem, (though at least government mandated monopolies have declined in the past few centruies, so maybe it's getting slighly better), what can we do beyond stopping at the most important and obvious few hundred pages of regulations for any given industry: stopping before the industry starts writing all the new regs?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lgw]

grr, slashdot HTML: that's: ... stop fucking bailing them out. Given the government will always desire to spread the pork, ...

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tftp]

Hippies are not the only demographic represented in the OWS protests, and not even the largest.

But they might be the most lovable part of the OWS movement, compared to others.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tftp]

Seriously, rocks and sticks? What, did they outlaw knives in Portland?

Rocks and sticks are better weapons in a melee than knives. A knife extends your arm by 2-3". A rock extends your arm by 30'.

You realize that you can carry guns there, right, even a concealed pistol?

a) Felons can't own firearms or ammo.

b) You are not allowed to use firearm in a crime. Attacking police with a rock will get you arrested and held overnight, then released. Attacking police with a gun will get you killed on the spot by every LEO that can draw a bead on you. The mortician would be lucky if the number of holes in your body will be under 100. Taking a firearm into a confrontational situation is a dangerous game.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[rwa2]

Just about all children I know have an innate sense of fairness that they are quite, 'ahem', vocal about. It's usually bitter adult voices I hear that say things like "you have to look out after your own interests, because no one else will", and "take all that you can get away with, because everyone else is just out there to screw you".

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who are poor because they are simply very bad with money. But OWS is sort of about the opposite of that.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ShakaUVM]

>>The coverage of the Tea Party (at least for the first six-nine months, before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers) was mainly positive in the mainstream media

The Koch support for them came much after the founding of the Tea Party movement.

Even though it causes liberal heads to explode, it really was a grassroots movement at the beginning.

And aside from Fox News, the Tea Party coverages wasn't anywhere in the neighborhood of being "mainly positive".

Contrawise, the OWS coverage has been mainly positive by everyone except Fox News and the Drudge Report, which has been reporting amazingly biased stories against OWS.

I'm not a member of either, but I have plenty of friends in both, and have watched both of them with interest since the beginning.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[jmorris42]

> I'm a member of the 1% and I damn well support the OWS movement because this country needs fixing for all 100% of us
> and they are the only people even trying to talk about it.

Well since one of the few demands that seem to be consistent with the OWS crowd is that the wealth of the 1% needs to be redistributed, and seeing as you are part of the 1% and agree with them.... why haven''t you divested your ill gotten gains yet? I'm not going to wait for an answer because I already know it. Socialists don't believe in charity, they believe in the government being generous with someone ELSE's money.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

It is old, but it is still a good idea.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[ganjadude]

and where is this money coming from that we are just giving to everyone every month.. do we expect them do do anything for that money or simply being an american grants them the money? but what about the illegals?? does just being in america grant them the money? how do we decide how much every american needs??

sure it would be nice if we could all just give everyone everything they want...the world dont work that way

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tftp]

the idea is that you shouldn't be able to own, say, a factory single-handedly (because you can't use it alone), but a car is perfectly fine.

That is not quite correct. Socialism and Communism prohibit ownership of production facilities. So you could own a car in USSR but you couldn't use it as a taxicab. You could own a home but you couldn't repair TVs in it for a fee. You could own "personal property" but only as long as it doesn't make you money. That part - making money - was reserved to the state, and no peasant was allowed to make money on his own.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tftp]

Citation Needed

Let me Google this for you. This is from the very first returned result:

Maximum stay is two weeks per Maryland Park Service camping policy.

There are about 3 million more results, and it appears that this requirement is not unique.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Mr. Shotgun]

And I've seen video of the "professional" police force start beating on a crowd of unarmed protesters because they were standing there. And unlike you, I have a link to back it up source. Be sure to notice the particularly dangerous small woman in the center who smiled at the police officer right before she was struck in the stomach with a baton.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well since one of the few demands that seem to be consistent with the OWS crowd is that the wealth of the 1% needs to be redistributed,

Citation required.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33rnpSyOPwk

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

Free speech ends at the destruction or property and environment. Or do those things go out the door when it is your side doing the protesting?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Archangel Michael]

I've seen all the videos. I'm not making excuses for the cops beating people up when they shouldn't, nor am I ignoring it. I'll happily compare how OWS has turned out with the Tea Party Protests. While the press was SCOURING for even a HINT of "racism" or whateverism at those events, they have simply ignored the total Fleabagging going on in these OWS "protests".

Why don't you head down to 1600 Penn and protest THERE.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[amicusNYCL]

a) Felons can't own firearms or ammo.

They're felons all of a sudden?

b) You are not allowed to use firearm in a crime. Attacking police with a rock will get you arrested and held overnight, then released.

In Oregon, assaulting a police officer will get you a minimum of 14 days, and since it's a class C felony there's a max of 5 years and $125,000 fine.

Taking a firearm into a confrontational situation is a dangerous game.

I see. And these guys are just out there to have fun. They don't think much is at stake.

I especially like the part in the post I replied to where he refers to the people thinking about forming an "angry mob". Make no mistake, no one in Portland is talking about forming a happy mob. The focus of the mob-building community in Portland currently concerns the area of angry mobs. I just love the authority of this line:

I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks

People aren't talking about forming an angry mob. They're starting to talk. They aren't actually talking yet, but they're starting to. They haven't formed the angry mob yet though, at the present "people" can only be heard starting to talk about forming said angry mob. Therefore, something has to be done.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Black Parrot]

Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.

When were TP protests ever met with phananxes of police in riot gear?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tftp]

They're felons all of a sudden?

Only those who are already felons. Those who yet aren't are a hair's breadth from becoming one. They are playing with fire, and that doesn't even include the police. A brawl between several OWSers can end up with someone dead; this has already happened in Oakland, as reported.

In Oregon, assaulting a police officer will get you a minimum of 14 days, and since it's a class C felony there's a max of 5 years and $125,000 fine.

That would be probably so if one violator is caught on otherwise good and quiet day, when the police has plenty of time to spend on him.

However case of mass disturbances it's very hard to prove who did what to who. If an arbitrary number of OWSers form a circle and each points to the guy to the right of him the police will have to release them all. There is strength in numbers.

I see. And these guys are just out there to have fun. They don't think much is at stake.

All I can see is a game. Do you see any sensible plan in their actions? Something that can be really, you know, accomplished by what they are doing? They look and act as children, but instead of ice cream they want other people's money so that someone can teach them for free. So far all their accomplishments consist of making noise and stink. (They probably also exchanged every communicable disease under the Sun, but that's their personal problem.)

They haven't formed the angry mob yet though, at the present "people" can only be heard starting to talk about forming said angry mob. Therefore, something has to be done.

Well, reading them the Riot Act would be a good start. If that fails, other provisions of the said act shall be implemented. The 99% of the country don't want the OWSers. Not because everything in the government is peachy but because OWS doesn't seem to be capable of any positive action. All that OWS is brewing is a bloodbath. Now, what would that accomplish and who would benefit?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And of course the video isn't quite as you represented. The cop ran over the guy's foot first and then the guy pushed the cop over. In a park. On the grass.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[poetmatt]

I should hope you realize that not all protestors destroy property. The ones that do are committing a crime, not protesting.

The one's that don't, are not committing a crime.

Guess which one of these is the majorty? Hint: the latter.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Pseudonym Authority]

You go to a restaurant. Your food taste terrible. Do you not complain even though you have no plan to replace the chef and his recipe?
The first step in fixing something is recognizing that it is broken.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Pseudonym Authority]

It's Ayn Rand; I'm glad you mentioned her, as it saved me the time of reading the rest of your post.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Pseudonym Authority]

Someone has to pitch the tea into the ocean and tar-and-feather the British stamp tax collectors.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Opportunist]

That's not what I was refering to. Yes, there have been revolutions that actually bettered the situation of those that revolted. But they're few and far between, statistics is not on our side.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[westyvw]

And you get 0 points. Wow, just wow. Thats the way it should work.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Evtim]

Well, you would not listen even without the insult. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification

Folks, honestly I am totally disappointed by the reactions to the OWS. Why, oh why the vast majority of common people, who are also victims of the perverse financial system (hell, I am too - when those assess on WS screw up the whole world suffers) find the most stupid, misinformed or downright idiotic reasons to blame the protesters. You are being pounded in the ass and you say "thank you, I want some more". Un-fucking-believable!!

Listen, I am serious, you have surpassed the fucking communists!! You are well ahead of them. I was camping for month in front of our Parliament a month after the Berlin wall collapsed, when all the totalitarian assess were still in full control of the system and they did not harass us on a daily basis. They did not manage to buy all of the media and turn the rest of the population against us. They actually fell because of the protest and because of a recording by a journalist (do you hear that western journalists?) showing them discussing whether to send military force against the protesters or not (on top of that the generals told them to fuck off anyway)!

I am disgust by all this! Mod me into oblivion (my character is doing well anyway, 22 level battle mage), but I will shout now - SHAME ON YOU, SHEEP!

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Zelucifer]

Are you kidding? More than 70% of attendees received financial aid in 2010. Are you suggesting that a Harvard english major is a member of the one percent?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[snowwrestler]

Sleeping is not speech. This is one reason the First Amendment is not typically construed to empower people to set up overnight camp wherever they damn well feel like it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

The vast majority of them don't give a damn about rich people being rich. The problem is that being rich means you can make other people poor.

So, the problem ISNT that people are rich!! Its that people are rich! Is that what youre saying?

And this is the first ive heard campaign finance reform touted as the answer. Ive alternatively heard suggestions about going green (?!), higher taxes on the rich, and guarenteed income (?!) as possible answers.

Incidentally, the bias of some of the mods today is really remanescent of Digg at its worst. Rather than modding based on content, people have decided that "troll" means "I disagree with this guy or suspect that he disagrees with me". Well, hopefully the metamods will clean the mess up; yall know that your moderations are rated, and will likely mean that you dont get mod points again, right?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

I dont disagree with this, and neither do most "fundamentalist" republicans. But go ahead and ask the OWS folks who they voted for last election, and whether or not they should vote differently next time?

It was rather telling that I heard someone on NPR ask that very question-- "If voting for Obama didnt work for the OWS folks, would they consider voting republican?" The answer: "If voting democrat doesnt work, clearly the system is broken." So the irony here is that apparently the OWS folks will continue to vote in a way that will GROW the government, all in the name of stopping the fat cats. Brilliant.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

They also do a really poor job picking their political party, if thats true. Democrat isnt exactly the "lets shrink government" party (isnt that basically what the Tea Party was about, come to think of it?)

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

Its one thing to say "capitalism has issues". Its another thing to heavily imply that we need to replace it with something else, violently, without any clue or suggestion as to what the fix IS.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

Im aware of that, but this issue seems to be so touchy people are brandishing troll mods for anything that smells of criticism. It really exposes how rational some folks are.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

Free speech and camping / bonfires are two entirely different things. Good luck convincing the SCOTUS that your tent deserves first amendment protection.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Paul Fernhout]

Have you thought about this for yourself first?

How much money is currently distributed per capita per month in the USA related to social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, and compulsory schooling? The figure might surprise you if you add it up. It's on the order of more than US$600 per month.

A basic income has no preconditions for working. I agree the issue of illegal immigration complicates things, but ultimately, this will become a global thing.

On motivation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

As for how much a basic income should be, it is basic, so people could work for more. We can just take one quarter or one half of the GDP through taxes or rent of government assets or the creation of money and redistribute it. $1000 per month per person (plus health care, so Social Security and Medicare for all) or 1/4 the GDP is probably just enough to get by. $2000 per month, or one half the current US GDP would certainly be quite liveable.

Do you pay for the air you breath? Do you pay to use the alphabet? Do you pay for your genetic code? Then indeed a lot of the world does work this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit
"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the âoecultural inheritance of societyâ was the primary factor. Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization. Consequently, mankind does not have to keep âoereinventing the wheelâ. âoeWe are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.â[5] Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx claimed that labour creates all value. While Douglas did not deny that all costs are ultimately due to labour charges of some sort (past or present), he denied that the present labour of the world creates all wealth"

Do you think the Alaska Permanent fund is evil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
"The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans. ... Though the payouts have varied from the smallest ($331.29 per person in 1984) and the largest ($3,269.00 per person in 2008 when a one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate was added to the dividend amount),[4] they usually vary between $600 and $1,500 ($900 and $1,800 when adjusted for 2005 dollars). ..."

Or do you think it was a good idea including when Sarah Palin expanded it as governor?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[makomk]

The people who are elected cannot be corrupted by the system if they are elected with the express intention of changing it, and are held to account for their decisions and actions.

How can they be held to account - by electing someone else in 4 years and praying that they somehow don't get corrupted too? It's just not possible. Hell, it's not even practical to tell whether someone is genuinely in favour of reform before electing them - the entire media is owned by the wealthy and has an interest in maintaining the status quo, and they can sling around enough misinformation that everyone will almost certainly vote in the wrong candidate.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

When they refused lawful requests to vacate, and openly broke any of a myriad of statutes.

Wait..... That didn't happen. That's right, they got permits to be everywhere they were, and left those locations in better shape than when they got there.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

Interesting view of history you have there. Utterly wrong though.

Yeah? Can you link to anything, anywhere about the tea party that was posted before Obama was elected? Because I never heard of them until then. We're not talking about the 1930s here, we're talking yesterday.

Any fool should know trying to make Democrats shrink the government is a fools errand

You never heard of Bill Clinton?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

The Tea Party didnt happen till we got a black president.... And neither did a housing market collapse, honest reporting on the national debt, interest paid to the US debtors, rising unemployment and subsequent home forcelosures

All those things happened before Obama was President. Except, of course, the Tea Party. The market crash happened months before the election, homes were being foreclosed on right and left. The economy got so bad in those eight years that Bush is the only President in history to enter office with more Americans working than when he left. Yet there was little or no outcry.

They should have been picketing at least the last two administrations

There was no reason to picket the Clinton administration; he went into office in a recession and huge defecit that had lasted since Reagan and left office with a booming economy and a balanced budget.

Personally, I was amazed that Bush got re-elected. His whole eight years were abysmal. I've never seen a worse President in my 59 years, and I suspect the US has naver had a President that harmed the country so badly.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tbannist]

Not really, that's what the Tea Party Express was about. They're the group that was created after the Tea Party started to take control of the movement and bend it towards the will of the specific Republicans who fund the Express. The Tea Party Express allowed Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers to redirect the anger with the Republican party against the Democrats and moderate Republicans.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tbannist]

And in your world there's no middle ground between passive acceptance and violent revolution?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tbannist]

The American political system is broken. The first past the post system creates a system where to promote a third candidate you need to weaken the candidate from among the top 2 that you would favor otherwise. Take for example two of the policy proposals of some of the Republican candidates:

• Destroy the EPA and effectively end all anti-pollution laws in the U.S.
• Rewrite the tax code to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class (flat tax/999)

If you are against either of those policies you either vote for the non-Republican front runner, or you help the Republican candidate to get elected by voting for someone else. That's because first past the post voting has inherently problems. That's why people often vote for candidates they don't really like. That's why the Democrats and Republicans have near complete control of American politics. Combine that with a media that is often in bed with one or both of the political parties and there is little chance for an effective third party to rise.

To gain power a third party would need to convince a large block of voters that both parties are equally bad, but in doing so it would inevitably pull more voters from one party than the other and in doing so damage the representation of their interests until the party was able to win. The system is effectively broken, for a chance at long-term gain voters must sacrifice short term interests. That's a sacrifice which is difficult to make and that's why third party candidates routinely get 1% of the vote. A vote for a third party candidate is effectively a vote for your political enemy.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[dwarfking]

Wait I'm confused, you make the point that A basic income has no preconditions for working, then you give a number for currently available handouts at around $600 and say that basic income in your view is $1000 (only about $400 more) but you also say if that isn't enough people could work for more.

So I'm confused, isn't this exactly how things are today? There is a group of people living off basic handouts from the government and a group of people that have decided they want more than the basic so they work for more. But now the first group is screaming how it is unfair the working group has more and the government should take it away and spread it out.

So maybe I'm missing something, but what you describe is exactly what is happening right now, except you left out the part where those on the basic level who don't want to work still want more.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[evilRhino]

The difference is that now is that people that work for a living receive higher taxes than those that live on handouts (capital gains).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Kelbear]

The OWS isn't a serious movement, the entire activity is meaningless. They each sure have a lot of passion for something, but they will have no effect on anything. Even if the movement grows at an incredible rate and sweeps the country, it still won't be a serious movement.

If they realize some kind of goal and cause change to happen in relation to that goal, then yes, it'd be a serious movement. But since they're not working towards anything, they aren't achieving anything, and will never be a serious movement until they start taking steps.

I only read about OWS news for entertainment only, I have no personal engagement in their success or failure because they can't have either without any goals.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[N0Man74]

So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...

No, that's not quite right.

First of all, it it isn't simply just "one mainstream network gave favorable coverage". It is the most watched television news network (by a huge margin), a news network that has viewership that single-handedly has often approached having the viewership of half of all the US news networks combined, and a news network that frequently has almost all 10 (if not all 10) of the most frequently watched news shows in the US.

And it wasn't just favorable coverage. They actively promoted it on both their shows and on their website. They presented dishonest reporting of events in order to exaggerate attendance. They were also caught actively directing the protesters for the camera.

I can't personally speak for the negative coverage for the other news networks, because I didn't see that coverage. Whether in the office, visiting family, or visiting local restaurants, the news channel that was always on during that time was Fox News.

So, no, you have my argument completely wrong. I'm not dismissing negative coverage because "one mainstream network" gave "favorable coverage", I'm dismissing negative coverage because the most influential and watched news machine in the country was actively promoting it.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Paul Fernhout]

One difference is that the "handouts" usually are structured with all kinds of preconditions and all kinds of paperwork to prove eligibility. So, you can get Medicaid, but you have to prove you are destitute. You can get education, but only in schools (which comes with a lot of other baggage, see John Taylor Gatto). You also lose things like welfare if you work (so, a disincentive for personal growth).

Another difference is that the jobs are obviously not there, otherwise we in the USA would not have such high unemployment -- which is likely to get much higher as automation progresses. Working for pay may not even be an option for more and more people.

The current system of disability-or-needs-based payments also creates a huge divide and moral problem. If you got a basic income right now, you could always depend on it in your planning, plus you could work for more. If you don't get a basic income, just the tax bills to pay for one that someone else gets (the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed, the lazy) then you will probably resent it as being unfair -- a benefit not accessible to you. You won't feel you have the option to say, OK, I'm going to quit my job and go back to school, or raise a kid, or volunteer in a literacy program, or whatever without then feeling like you are now morally inferior somehow because now you are on "welfare" or "food stamps" or whatever.

We can't adequately judge the value of much work to society by how much the market pays for it. A basic income helps adjust for that. Is it a "handout" when a person (for free) is raising a next generation of a society (taxpayers and workers) and needs resources to do that well? Or when someone needs time to volunteer in a neighborhood watch program?

Thus:
"Main German Government Party considers Basic Income as alternative to social welfare"
http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/main-german-government-party-considers-basic-income-alternative-social-welfare

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

I cannot argue that the spending during the Clinton years was reigned in, and that the national debt was reduced. Sorry for the confusion, I had meant to refer to the last two elections (both Bush Jr.). But did you didn't even read all that I wrote?

I stated quite plainly that much of those issues I pointed to had nothing to do with Barrack Obama. And it doesnt matter. People are feeling the pain of those things under his watch, and they arent going to give a shit who presented the problem. It takes minimal intelligence to recognize that if overspending, waste and corruption got us into this mess, then continue overspending, waste and corruption by whoever is in office right now isnt the fucking solution. If you're going to praise Clinton for reducing debt then you must equally condemn Obama for increasing it exponentially more so than even Bush Jr did. Or are you afraid of being labeled a racist?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lwsimon]

I don't recall armed people at Tea Party events. It may have have happened, but I don't recall a specific instance. I know *I* was at a tea party, and I was armed, but it was concealed and there's no way you could have known about that, is there? :)

As for OWS... You *do* realize there are Neo-Nazis with "assault weapons" in Phoenix with OWS right now, right?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lwsimon]

The first local tea party I attended - and helped organize - was in December 2007. It was a fundraiser for Ron Paul's campaign, and the one in Boston got the majority of the press: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html

Before you go off on me for being a "Paulbot", I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul. I'm an extreme libertarian - a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. My goal is to move the GOP towards libertarianism at the local level. That's neither here nor there, though - you asked for a link about the tea party prior to Obama's election, and I have provided it.

Locally, we started protesting regularly and calling them "tea parties" after TARP was passed. That was a month prior to the elections, and it was entirely because of the bailouts. Our group at the time was probably 60% GOP, 20% Democrat, and 20% minor parties - Constitution, Libertarian, etc.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lwsimon]

Great comment.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[B1oodAnge1]

capitalism is not the same as free enterprise.
capitalism is when the government creates special objects we call corporations which are not subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Go learn some basic economic theory, (preferable not solely from Marx), then come back and try again.

Capitalism is not the same as corporate nationalism or crony capitalism.

Your entire argument is fine except for your basic assumption that all these abuses are the result of capitalism. They are the result of a corrupt government.
The only reason it's illegal for you to bet a grand on the super bowl is that the government is busy controlling enterprise. Controlled enterprise is not capitalism.

Start by educating yourself on what you are fighting against, then come join the fight.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[PMW]

"2. The owners of the private property never objected to the protester's presence there. In order for being on someone else's property to be considered trespassing, the owner has to not want you to be there (e.g. if I walk through a church parking lot and nobody complains, that's not trespassing)."

The owner's have protested about OWS multiple times. The Police have simply stalled in their actions.

"3. The private property in question was actually required, by city ordinance, to be open to the public at all times, so even if they had objected they weren't allowed to do anything about it."

City Ordinance's also make it illegal to camp there. So they're clearly violating that.

Look, the reality is that if I or any other Joe Schmoe just showed up at a NY park, setup a tent, and said we're protesting _______________ and plan to stay until ____________ is achieved, the police would have you out within a few hours, at most. Far from being singled out for unfair treatment, OWS is getting especially kind treatment. The idea that they're peacefully protesting and therefore whatever they do is automagically legal is absurd and 99% of the people advocating that on slashdot would never want that made into law. Would you want peaceful anti-abortion zealots to be able to squat indefinitely in any clinic they don't approve of? Can I setup a camp in front of Old Faithful in Yellowstone because people don't respect The Bears properly? Can I and 100 friends setup camp in your house until the US government "does something" about Australian mistreatment of aboriginals?

Having a right to assemble doesn't magically make all other laws irrelevant, just like Freedom of the Press doesn't mean I can steal paper & ink to put out my newspaper. It certainly has never been interpreted that way in the past and even the people who support OWS today don't really want it to change the laws. They just want the laws changed for them only. Their attitude is, "I like OWS, so whatever they do is legal."

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Nadaka]

No. What I am saying is that when you are rich you can afford to steal bread from the poor because the police work for you.

When you are rich, you can get a windfall by laying off 20 thousand workers to improve the numbers for a quarter and then dumping your stock options at the high point before pawning off the damage on someone else and moving on to the next company to shred.

When you are rich, it is cheaper to bribe politicians to let you pay no taxes than it is to pay your taxes and support the society that enabled you to become rich.

When you are rich, it is easier to bribe politicians for fat government contracts, bailouts, and anti competitive laws than it is to work within the system and compete in a fair and externally regulated market.

There is a shiftless immoral criminal leaching class in America that siphon wealth from the system and weaken America as a whole. And the ones that do us all the most harm are the ones at the top.

As for the mods: its been that way for a while. It isn't just individuals suppressing comments they do not like, there are also groups actively using mod points for social engineering. It varies by topic but there are groups that purposely use moderation to silence and promote ideas that they do not like. I have seen in in action by Zionists, Iranian regime supporters, Microsofties, Apple Fanatics, Liberals and Conservatives alike. And probably a few more I have not seen specifically.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

Fox News also regularly challenges Obama policies, tactics, positions and did so during the elections. And yet the Obama administration has succeeded in implementing more policies they have attempted than not.

You can either claim that Fox is so huge and so influential that the coverage from any other major news outlet can be disregarded, or you must concede that the favorable coverage of the President and his policies on all those other networks greatly influences the national debate. You cant have both.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

Thank you for enlightening me.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[mcgrew]

Well, I didn't vote for Obama (voted third party), but he hasn't been a bad President. He's a lot better than Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. But he's not good enough. We need an FDR, but unfortunately, there isn't anyone like that who's come to the forefront.

Despite the fact that Obama's far from the best President we've had, I think he's still head and shoulders above any of the other candidates from the other four viable parties (by "viable" I mean on enough ballots in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, even if there's no real chance).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

eah? Can you link to anything, anywhere about the tea party that was posted before Obama was elected?

Technically, the first serious Tea Party protests were in direct response to TARP (Though they did happen after Bush left office, since he passed that law at the very end of his term). Obama's continued spending (in the form of the stimulus to follow) simply threw more fuel on the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

If was truly an "anti-Obama" movement, they wouldn't have reacted with hostility to TARP, passed by Bush.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

Go down to Wall Street or any of these other occupations and you will figure out the goals pretty quickly. Increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% and on major corporations (or at least close loopholes.) End the wars and bring our troops home. And end unlimited corporate campaign contributions (or possibly private campaign funding entirely.) Those are the goals.

End the wars? Wtf does that have to do with financial system corruption? Perhaps this right here is the exact reason many people can't "get on board" the OWS train. Because they claim to be specifically protesting financial corruption. But then when you look at their list of demands, it reads like a generic pork-laden "tax the rich and pay for all this free stuff I want" (healthcare, education, alternate energy, etc, etc). If they focused their concerns on addressing financial corruption instead of running on a "generic socialism" protest, maybe other people would get behind them.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

Well since one of the few demands that seem to be consistent with the OWS crowd is that the wealth of the 1% needs to be redistributed,

Citation required.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/

"Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality."
"Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich."
"Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%."
"Immediate debt forgiveness for all."

Are you daft or just ignorant?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Nadaka]

You presume that government by its very nature is inherently corrupt and it is the sole source of corruption.

Government and corporations are both corrupt. The free market ideal is flawed because it assumes rational actors with perfect knowledge and honesty. The free market can not correct the corruption of corporations in the current system. Government can. So what we want is to purge the corruption from government and realign its powers and goals to represent the well being of people of the US instead of crony malfeasance. More or less government is a moot point if the corruption in it isn't purged first.

As for voting republican? I would, if there was a republican candidate who I didn't find morally reprehensible, corrupt and economically idiotic. John Huntsman may have qualified, but he won't make it through the primary. I don't exactly like Obama either, but he is slightly less repugnant than any of the Republican front runners. I can't vote Reform any more either since they were Pat Buchananized.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Are you daft or just ignorant?

Clearly you are if you take random postings in a forum as indicative of consistent agreement.

How about you try something that has at least some formal level of approval within the movement like The 99 Percent Declaration.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[LordLimecat]

Sure there is. But moderation isnt the message Im hearing from OWS.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[tbannist]

One of us must not be listening very well because I don't hear what you're hearing.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Feyshtey]

Ok. Then by your logic, if you want to know whether or not the press as a whole is favorable or negative toward any topic, you much first gain metrics of only Fox news. If Fox is overwhelmingly friendly to the topic, then no other invesitigation into the position of any other news network or medium is required and you can definitively say that the [coverage by the media] is friendly. Any and all other sources of news are without consequence.

This ignores the fact that if any of these news networks were actually doing their jobs every one of them would be perfectly centerline between friendly/hostile on every topic.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[poetmatt]

your representation of this versus "a kid got his foot run over by a bike and then shoved the bike over" is not the same as the implied aggression you bullshitted your original explanation with, dumbass.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lehk228]

so the solution is to apply further deregulation and tax cuts?

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Lehk228]

As for OWS... You *do* realize there are Neo-Nazis with "assault weapons" in Phoenix with OWS right now, right?

[citation needed]

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

How about you try something that has at least some formal level of approval within the movement like The 99 Percent Declaration.

Very well, I'll use that

#6 Healthcare for All
#7 Protection of the Planet
#8 Debt Reduction
#9 Jobs for All Americans
#10 Student Loan Forgiveness
etc, etc, etc...

In totality, it's a laundry list of very expensive demands. Since the objective of the "99%" is to have the rich pay for all of this, the wealth distribution claim remains. Or are you honestly going to tell me they're willing to pay higher taxes themselves to pay for all these things? I certainly didn't see "raise our taxes!" as one of the bullet points in your document there ("since ALL pay fair share" from "fair tax demand #5" is synonymous with "rich people should pay more", as defined in the paragraph beneath it).

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Since the objective of the "99%" is to have the rich pay for all of this, the wealth distribution claim remains.

Except that the difference between your tired old canard and their actual demands is significant..

Just for starters you betray significant bias when you declare "protection of the planet" and "jobs for all" as wealth redistribution. If the planet isn't being protected its only because of rapaciously poor stewardship by the 1% - its not "wealth distribution" to say stop stealing from us all.

Similarly "jobs for all" is one of the most fundamental of all american values - these people aren't demanding handouts -- they are demanding that a system that has been co-opted by the 1% for their own benefit be returned to the original design.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

Except that the difference between your tired old canard and their actual demands is significant.. Just for starters you betray significant bias when you declare "protection of the planet" and "jobs for all" as wealth redistribution.

So what of my other points? Student Loan freebies? Healthcare? Secondly, from the document, "protection of the planet" isn't just about making corporations play nice and not rape our earth. It clearly states "demand the immediate adoption of the most recent international protocols to reverse climate change, including the "Washington Declaration" and implementation of new and existing programs to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels to reusable or carbon neutral sources of energy. " These are expenses, particularly the latter half. It isn't just "change your behavior" -- it's "give us a bunch of money to invest in a slew of potentially Solyndra-esque green energy ventures."

And the "jobs for all" thing is just stupid. If people (and by people, I mean corporations OR the government) could provide jobs for everyone, they would. You can't just act like the current recession isn't happening or that it's some kind of conspiracy to keep people unemployed.

these people aren't demanding handouts -- they are demanding that a system that has been co-opted by the 1% for their own benefit be returned to the original design.

"Healthcare for all"/single-payer is not the "original design". In fact, it's a brand new untested concept. Similarly, many of the other things on this list aren't a "return to before" -- many of these things aren't even checks on behavior or regulations to make sure corporations play nice. How can you say they aren't handouts? How can you say "pay off my student loan!" isn't a handout? No corporation sent you to college or forced you to take loans.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So what of my other points?

So you concede the weakness of your original claims. Good.

Student Loan freebies?

Student loan "freebies" is you yet again favoring canards over nuance. Education costs have skyrocketed over the last decade or two because the 1% were gaming the system. The kids indebted themselves following the gameplan set up by the 1% but when they came out of the other side, the 1% just screwed them by exporting jobs and waved their hands by saying "no one ever promised you a job." Yeah and Bush never said Saddam had WMDs either.

And the "jobs for all" thing is just stupid. If people (and by people, I mean corporations OR the government) could provide jobs for everyone, they would.

No they wouldn't. Corps look to minimize their own costs - everybody else be damned. They've been allowed to operate in an environment that doesn't just turn a blind eye it, it rewards them for damning the 99%. It isn't about "giving" these people jobs, its about changing the policies that encourage the elimination of local jobs.

"Healthcare for all"/single-payer is not the "original design".

Please stick to the context, I was specifically talking about the "jobs for all" goal. However if you do want to talk about healthcare -- we used to have a system where the big insurance corps weren't money-sucking leaches attached to all of us - all that "overhead" is actually counter-productive to providing healthcare for all - no matter the exact mechanism of funding. As it is now we have a "private" form of wealth redistribution that few can afford to opt out of. Yeah you can wave your hands and say that no one is forcing anyone to buy health coverage at the current exorbitant rates, except for that little thing about no one wanting to die.

In short I find your arguments superficial. You've already decided that OWS is something easily pigeonholed and instead of looking for truth and understanding all you do is look for a veneer of justification for your bias.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[lwsimon]

The leader's name is "JT Ready", and he's a media whore. They'll show up at any event in the Phoenix area that gets media coverage - but they are there.

A quick Google:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/unreal-neo-nazis-patrol-occupy-phonix-with-ar-15s-media-silent/
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=229899

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Magius_AR]

Education costs have skyrocketed over the last decade or two because the 1% were gaming the system.

Citation? Proof? Hell, if you should blame anyone, blame high school guidance counselors and/or parents. Attempting to blame corporations for that mess is confirmation bias at its finest. And you claim my argument is superficial?

Corps look to minimize their own costs - everybody else be damned.

No, they look to maximize profits, everyone else be damned. If there was money to be made, they would attempt to make it. Or are you going to tell me home builders aren't hiring because they want to cut costs and not because the market is saturated with inventory and no demand? (just to provide one example).

Please stick to the context, I was specifically talking about the "jobs for all" goal.

How do you figure? You said the OWS goal overall was to "return to the original design" -- as such, I would expect all of their demands to support that goal, rather than exceeding it.

we used to have a system where the big insurance corps weren't money-sucking leaches attached to all of us

You mean back when it was less regulated and patients paid their bills instead of insurance company proxies? I agree.

In short I find your arguments superficial

And I find you to be easily dismissive, argumentally selective, and biased to no end -- you've demonized "the 1%" so much that you see them as the fault for everything, even in the most marginal seriously reaching extremes. Your stance on student loan debt is proof of that.

You've already decided that OWS is something easily pigeonholed and instead of looking for truth and understanding all you do is look for a veneer of justification for your bias.

I don't look on OWS with bias. They had a good idea until they got co-opted by the Democratic party, same as the Tea Party with the Republicans. What had focus and purpose is now a hodgepodge of ludicrous self-serving demands. And the reason you fail to see that is because you happen to support most of those demands, partisan politics at its best.

Re:Go with the simple over complex theory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And I find you to be easily dismissive, argumentally selective

Sorry that I can't address every single one of your points, I don't have the time. I pick and choose what to respond to just as you do. For example all of the other points in that document I cited which you didn't feel where worth your time either. I do wish you would do a better job of sticking to context though - knocking down strawmen doesn't bring greater understanding to anyone.

you've demonized "the 1%" so much that you see them as the fault for everything,

The 1% run the country. I just recognise that, like all people, they operate primarily out self-interest and the interests of others tend to be neglected. That's not a problem when your sphere of influence doesn't reach much further than people you know personally. It is huge problem when your influence affects millions. That's not demonisation, that's simply calling for a commensurate exercise of responsibility.

I don't look on OWS with bias.

Citing a desire for full employment as an example of calling for wealth redistribution is so far out there that extreme bias is the only explanation that quacks like a duck.

What had focus and purpose is now a hodgepodge

Funny, everybody else who bitches about OWS claims that they lacked focus from day one. What I see is that documents like the one I cited are a coalescing of their discontent into more focused goals.

New boss, same as the old boss

[damn_registrars]

We see what our new POTUS, with his new administration, does as head of state. Not that this comes as any surprise considering every thing he's done so far. Naturally, our federal government will continue to make decisions that favor their corporate sponsors, everyone else be damned.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[elrous0]

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be giving us a fresh new round of bullshit promises in the Fall when he needs us to vote for him again.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Kenja]

Politifact shows Obama having kept more of his campaign promisses then any president in a long time. Granted there are some big ones he has failed on such as Guantanamo, but overall he has been very true to his word.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Lawrence_Bird]

As the original submitter I'd just like to add the one line that was truncated from my submission:

Nixon must be smiling!

For me, the issue isn't if the local coppers break up the protest (for instance, in NYC it is on private property not owned by the protesters) but that the DHS and FBI are helping coordinate the effort. I take a dim view of the Feds being involved in this in any manner unless it is happening in Washington DC.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[PortHaven]

Really...

And those were?

--

And half those orgs are biased. I used to have some respect for FactCheck.org, but they've done out and out hit pieces on things for which solid evidence existed.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[elrous0]

The sad thing is that the health care program he created is probably actually worse than nothing at all. It's just a big handout to insurance companies. It pisses people off with insurance mandates. And it doesn't even guarantee coverage. All it has *really* guaranteed is that now we'll never have a true single-payer government-backed system in the U.S. Thanks to that hand-out to the insurance industry, we just lost our best, and likely last, chance at the superior (and cheaper) kind of system they have in Canada and the UK.

Just fucking sad.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[khallow]

Politifact shows Obama having kept more of his campaign promisses then any president in a long time.

So where does Politifact evaluate the campaign promises for Bush or Clinton? Or Obama for that matter? I'd have to say that the truth-o-meter is pointing towards "false" unless you can provide supporting evidence.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[jasno]

Just off the top of my head, he's broken promises regarding:

- Ending the wars. Regrettably Bush was responsible for the draw-down in Iraq. Obama just held to the agreement.
- Human rights. He's deporting people in droves. He's murdering citizens based on the decisions of a secret council.
- Transparency. His administration is seeking to weaken the Freedom of Information Act. He doubled-down on prosecutions of whistle-blowers. He's stonewalling on Solyndra and Fast-n-furious.
- Guantanamo. Still going strong.
- Medical Marijuana.

Hell, he just added a new foreign base in Australia. Do we really need to expand our military into Australia?

There are 3 pages of broken promises over at politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Sure, other presidents might have been worse. I don't care. I voted for a guy who promised he'd be different. He wasn't. He lied.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[jasno]

Not only that, but he chose to spend all of his 'political capital' on health reform, losing control of Congress in the process. Just imagine if he hadn't been obsessed with a monolithic, controversial health-care package and actually focused on some of his campaign promises. Even Hillary wouldn't have been that stupid.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[jmorris42]

> And it doesn't even guarantee coverage. All it has *really* guaranteed is that now we'll never have a true single-payer government-backed system in the U.S.

Give your guys a little credit, k? They knew exactly what they were doing. Any fool knows the mandate isn't constitutional and the current SCOTUS is almost certain to void it. But any politically savvy fool also can see the SCOTUS is almost certain to recoil from accepting the logic of inseverability and voiding the entire thing. What does that mean? It will be unsustainable yet can't be repealed. Even the most optimistic scenario for the Rs doesn't get them to 60 votes in the Senate before it is fully phased in and keeping this massive handout will be a hill every D will die on. That means the benefits can't be removed and people can't be forced to pay for them. Can you say Single Payer? I thought so.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Vancorps]

I agree with your assessment, compromise in the name of bipartisanship was stupid when the other side doesn't reciprocate to a compromise.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[HornWumpus]

Except Hillary was _exactly_ that stupid, only 16 years earlier and not getting anything passed (thank Bob).

Perhaps you meant to say: Even Hillary wouldn't have been that stupid again.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[ShavedOrangutan]

As soon as they eliminated the concept of preexisting conditions, it was doomed to fail. It's not really insurance if you can buy in after you're sick. That's like car insurance you don't have to buy until after crashing.

The whole thing is going to collapse and the only response will be complete socialization of health care. I believe that has been the objective from the start.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Attila Dimedici]

Which of course is why many conservatives call the Republican Party the "Stupid Party", because they keep trying to compromise with the Democrats who then make that "compromise" the new baseline for negotiation.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[DarkOx]

Don' t be to certain of that. Every D might die on that Hill but there are enough Tea Party folks who will fight on the other front and none will be able to marshal the votes to stop them either. IF the SCOTUS does void the mandate and keep the rest of the law, and that is a big IF, then I will say their WILL be a prolonged government shutdown, likely a default, and a economic upheaval so big *ANYTHING* will become possible.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Xenkar]

Marijuana decriminalization. As in all laws on the federal level forbidding the growth of Cannabis Sativa and Cannabis Indica, regardless of the THC levels, are repealed. No bureaucracies to issue permits. No government mandated age requirements, leaving that role to parents. No special taxes. Just plain state sales tax if applicable if you sell it.

I don't need a special permit to grow tomatoes, corn, lettuce, wheat, etc. I just want to go out into my backyard, tend to a hypothetical quarter acre field of the stuff, and vaporize it for my chronic nerve pain.

I have something called Hemophilia B. It is an extremely rare bleeding disorder which basically means I have little to no factor IX. I can't take most over the counter pain relievers due to their blood thinning effects and I'm immune to the rest. I have to weigh between tolerating horrible pain and bleeding from some orifice for the next day. Decriminalizing marijuana will give me another method of relief.

Now you might say "oh but what do you need a quarter acre of it for?" Seeds. The seeds can be prepared into various food products such as hemp milk. I'm allergic to milk and there is a limit to the amount of soy I can tolerate in one day. This will allow me to eat more soybean based dishes in a day if I'm not using it in my cereal.

There are other uses such a paper and textiles. It is a great rotation crop because the hemp kills off weeds.

More productive jobs can be created from hemp than we'll lose in law enforcement and prison industrial complex. Our prisons will no longer be overcrowded. Taxes that were going to prisons could instead go to infrastructure upgrades and repair, or to pay down the national debt.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Lehk228]

and i will be holding my nose when i pull the lever for him next year, because when the cheese smells a little moldy i do not spread dog shit on my sandwich instead.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[jmorris42]

> Except Hillary was _exactly_ that stupid..

Not exactly. The Clintons did try a national heath care scheme about as ambitious but when they got their asses handed to them in '94 made a smart pivot to the center and even with some major scandals erupting around them handily won reelection in '96.... with the assistance (again) of Ross Perot that is. Obama, not so pivoty, not so smart, probably not so reelected in '12. Even though Obama has managed to keep his splooge off his interns, the economy is going to be more important than that detail.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[shaitand]

Obama didn't promise to end the wars. It is one of the reasons I didn't support him in the first place.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[shaitand]

No, the issue IS if the local coppers break up the protest. We a right to protest and most of these groups were camped in public parks.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[khallow]

He gave you the source for the claim, and you're too lazy to check it?

I did, hence, my post. Glancing through Kenja's recent posting record, I see a history of made up stuff. He's not worth defending.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[khallow]

Is that not what you're looking for when you say "Or Obama for that matter?"

Note that only a few of those statements are campaign promises (and Obama made a lot of such promises). And as far as I can gather, these are spoken statements, not his web-based stuff.

I don't think they tracked Bush or Clinton considering they didn't exist until August of 2007. I guess they could go back in time to do so, but would it matter?

That doesn't matter to Politifact obviously. But I was replying to Kenja who claimed Politifact as the source for the claim that Obama kept more of his campaign promises than other presidents for a "long time". We now see that statement is total bullshit.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[jez9999]

No, but sometimes going hungry may be the best choice. Vote for a third party candidate. There is NO reason anyone should feel obliged to support one of the Big Two.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[thejynxed]

Hell, if they taxed the production and sale at the Fed level, there would be no deficit anymore (seriously, do you know anyone but older folks who WOULDN'T be at the local hash bar if this happened?), as we could also become an exporting nation like Mexico, Brazil, Canada, or Thailand.

I am in favor of legalize, but regulate and tax, like they do for tobacco or alcohol. Hell, this would give those prison work-farms down in Louisiana and Alabama a whole new profitable enterprise.

Final comment: My sister has a Factor III disorder, and my brother and I have Factor IV/V disorders, so I literally, feel your pain when it comes to your Factor IX (Hemophilia B) issue - even if I have issues with poor circulation and too much coagulation and yours is faster circulation and poor coagulation, both cause stupid amounts of pain at times for some strange reason I don't understand. I do know it's tied into your chronic nerve pain, as it is in mine, as well as my arthritis, but for reasons unknown to me because I am not a doctor of internal medicine nor do I understand the terminology.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[An Onerous Coward]

I would point out that neither Bush nor Obama are responsible for bringing our soldiers home from Iraq. The Iraqi government set the withdrawl deadline over our government's objections, and both Bush and Obama pushed for extensions (which they didn't receive).

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[An Onerous Coward]

Sadly, it's just the way mathematics works. Under a winner-take-all system like ours, third parties mostly just damage their nearest ideological allies. Something's ending up on that sandwich, and we have to eat it whether we like it or not.

In a parliamentary system, third parties can be great.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[AP31R0N]

- Ending the wars.

What wars? We haven't been in any wars since the 40s. Read the Constitution. Congress should read it too.

- Regrettably Bush was responsible for the draw-down in Iraq. Obama just held to the agreement.

Obama has to deal with the real world, not the virtual world that exists only in plans and hopes.

- Human rights. He's deporting people in droves.

Good. Some people ought to be deported. All illegals for instance.

- He's murdering citizens based on the decisions of a secret council.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to impress the girl at the campus bookstore? She doesn't read /..

- Transparency. His administration is seeking to weaken the Freedom of Information Act. He doubled-down on prosecutions of whistle-blowers. He's stonewalling on Solyndra and Fast-n-furious.

Sure.

- Guantanamo. Still going strong.

He can't close it. He's the president, not a king.

- Medical Marijuana.

Strange, but there's been plenty of medical and "medical" pot available in some places. Again, he's president, not king or a wish granting faerie.

- Hell, he just added a new foreign base in Australia. Do we really need to expand our military into Australia?

Yes. There's this thing called the world we and we are in it. It's 2500 marines and few planes. More people attend any given pro sporting event.

- Sure, other presidents might have been worse. I don't care. I voted for a guy who promised he'd be different. He wasn't. He lied.

It was childish on your part and his to think he had a magic wand of wishes. President (not KING) Obama knows things that candidate Obama did not. Every teen swears they will be cool to their kids, they can promise anything they want to their hypothetical kids. There's no consequences and they have no authority to make these wishes happen. When adulthood rolls around, the teen is now the parent. The parent now has the authority to set policy AND bears responsibility for the outcome of those policies (and the limitations of the real world). If the kids are lucky, the parent will not be cool and will be a parent.

Presidents work the same way. As candidate they can promise everyone a pony. They can't make it happen and they don't have to deal with the costs. Once elected they have to deal with the costs and logistics of coming up with 300,000,000 ponies.

He didn't lie, he offered things he couldn't deliver, either because it was wrong to offer them or because Republicans oppose him on everything. If i tell you "i'm going to arrive at 7" and then get run over on the way, i didn't lie to you. i made a promise that i couldn't keep because i'm not omniscient and omnipotent.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[Optic7]

Why didn't you link to his complete record of promises on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Or his complete file on politifact?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Or was this just a lame attempt at twisting the data? Of course no politician will ever be able to keep all the promises they make, unless they're a dictator of some kind.

Re:New boss, same as the old boss

[seantide]

Hahahahahahahaha... really, that's hilarious.

This just goes to show you that it is true: you can fool morons by lying to them constantly until they believe you.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

You don't get it. OWS is protesting fraudsters like Christy Mack and Susan Karches and the increasing disparity between wage growth between the upper and lower clases.

Suprised they went on as long as they did

[elrous0]

Did you really think you could threaten the powers-that-be and not have them turn the full force of the government they control on you at some point? Did you really think that just because they supported protests in the Middle East that they would tolerate them HERE against THEMSELVES? Come on.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[sneakyimp]

Well put. It seems so obvious, but that doesn't make it any less worrisome.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they would. OWS is a bunch of useful idiots for leftist governments. They're clamoring for more powerful government to hammer down on the corporations and individuals that have the most influence on government. If that's you, you're going to let them clamor because at the end of the day it increases your power.

Now look at the Tea Party who are clamoring for less powerful government. Those guys had to get permits.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[MarkGriz]

I'm fairly certain the constitution says "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.
Why can't they protest, then go home and come back the following day. Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.

Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.

I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense
to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[GameboyRMH]

Except they weren't tolerated, so your theory goes up in flames (as expected when you get the relationship between corporate power and regulation backwards).

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Opportunist]

Sucks to have no Soviet Union anymore where we have to pretend to be the good guys.

Could someone resurrect Lenin please?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[halivar]

Err... define "threaten."

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[PortHaven]

What role higher than our Constitution and the sacred rights outlined does a park exist for?

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order. Using the park for issues related to Life & Liberty, comes before recreational (happiness) use IMHO.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

Did you really think you could threaten the powers-that-be and not have them turn the full force of the government they control on you at some point?

I believe both Gandhi and Rev. King counted on just that full-force response. It's rather the 'point' of a protest to get the powers that be to acknowledge you...and that acknowledgement, going back millennia, is usually full force/too far and results in the protesters getting some semblance of what they want, eventually anyway.

The OWS movement will need to do what the Tea Party did...actively influence election outcomes. Granted they have to do it without massive funding of the Koch's and Fox's relentless propoganda. But it can be done.

The mantra of the temperance movement back in the day comes to mind. "We don't need to win the election, just swing it to someone else". Once they show enough force to knock off a few incumbents, then the power starts flowing.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. They may think it's important to assemble, but the majority of us don't. Quit hijacking our spaces for your own agenda. Be nice, share with the people that don't care about what you're protesting about. Respect our rights and we'll respect yours.

Funny too how quick they are to bring up the 1st amendment in defense, but anyone there with a gun (exercising the 2nd amendment) is shunned from the group. You'll get ZERO respect from me if you're going to pick and choose the amendments that you think are worth defending...

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[frank_adrian314159]

I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.

I don't think that they denied anyone access - it's just that you'd have to listen to those damn drum circles and put up with a higher population density. Even so, I don't think there are laws against making a park uninviting, unless you want to start talking about "public nuisance" laws, in which case, you could probably charge anyone at any protest.

Look at it this way - not many people want to use parks between 10pm and 5am (which is why most curfew laws aren't vigorously protested). If the OWS folk had simply showed up each day (without camping) between the hours of 5am and 10pm, they would have been just as "disruptive" to the general populace even though they were not permanently camped. I'm not sure how you prevent this sort of "permanent protest" without also getting to the point where you can step on other protests that are shorter-lived.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[0123456]

The OWS movement will need to do what the Tea Party did...actively influence election outcomes.

The OWS movement are actively influencing election outcomes. Just not the way they want to.

If Obama loses the election, it will be in no small part due to the OWS movement.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[0123456]

Except they weren't tolerated, so your theory goes up in flames (as expected when you get the relationship between corporate power and regulation backwards).

How long would the 'tea party' have been allowed to live in tents in a public park making a mess before they were thrown out and then charged for not having the right permits, insurance, etc?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[LateArthurDent]

I'm fairly certain the constitution says "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.
Why can't they protest, then go home and come back the following day. Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.

Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.
I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.

Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.

Denying other citizens access to the park, no they don't have the right to do that. But I don't see why they have to go home for the night.

As for the place being privately owned, once you open up a place to public access, you're voluntarily giving up some rights over your property.

Frankly, I dislike the Occupy people just about as much as I dislike the Tea Party people, I find them equally ridiculous. That said, I fully support the rights of both groups to protest, as long they're being peaceful about it. No blocking of traffic, no looting, etc. When people try to force them out, it makes me want to force a third protesting group: "I'm not affiliated with those guys, and I don't approve of their message, but let them stay!"

I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense
to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.

I don't know what you're referring to here, and I'm curious about it.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Hatta]

It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters.

It doesn't say anything about NOT turning a public park into an encampment. Camping in a public park is a peaceable assembly, therefore Congress can make no law prohibiting it. End of story.

Don't misunderstand, I fully support those advocating the fight against corp and govt corruption, cronyism etc.

No, no you don't really. If you did, you'd realize that the inconvenience caused by OWS is negligible compared to the evil done by those on Wall Street. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.

OWS protesters are citizens too. You're advocating that they be denied use of the park. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[DeadCatX2]

I just don't agree they should be able to take over a public park and deny the rights of the other citizens access to it.

Do you happen to have a citation that shows where OWS kept other people out of the park? Because AFAIK, they don't "deny" anyone access to the park. Anyone is more than welcome to come in, even the homeless and drunks.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[halivar]

Granted they have to do it without massive funding of the Koch's and Fox's relentless propoganda. But it can be done.

There's always more room in George Soros's pocket.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please tell me what article "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear in in the constitution? Because I can't seem to find them in mine.

Oh, you mean those things are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution? My bad, sorry.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

Dunno, the 'roots' of OWS are arguably in the Wisconsin and Ohio movements. Wisconsin recalls did some work, Ohio was watershed type rejection of the GOP laws. (granted Ohio also overwhelmingly said no to insurance mandates so that may be something to watch for in 2012)

But the trend is pretty clearly back from the ultra-right towards middle to left positions.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

Funny, Soros' contributions are public...can't say the same for the Koch's.

Besides, what exactly would Soros' be 'buying' compared with the Koch's buying congressional favors to get legislation?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[MarkGriz]

Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.

No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law. If there are laws in place restricting the ability to set up a camp in a park, bring in generators, create health code violations etc., it must apply equally to all citizens.

I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense
to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.

I don't know what you're referring to here, and I'm curious about it.

Here's a few examples

http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-wall-street-activists-assault-and-threaten-videographer
http://www.pixiq.com/article/reporter-assaulted-investigating-who-pooped-and-peed-on-the-bank
http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-dc-activist-threatens

Granted, these idiots are the 1% of the 99% that really give the well meaning protesters a bad name

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe both Gandhi and Rev. King counted on just that full-force response. It's rather the 'point' of a protest to get the powers that be to acknowledge you...and that acknowledgement, going back millennia, is usually full force/too far and results in the protesters getting some semblance of what they want, eventually anyway.

Yes. I'm blown away by the lack of understanding of how protest and civil disobedience works. It's SUPPOSED to be inconvenient, it's SUPPOSED to attract attention and disrupt society, it may very well involve BREAKING LAWS, so long as the law-breaking is non-violent, and it is SUPPOSED to elicit government response, perhaps violent response.

Protest is not about politely asking for X, Y and Z, and the government saying "Hmm, let me think about it." Protest is about putting yourself in harms way to demand X, Y, and Z, and if you have to *non-violently* break laws to do that, then that's just part of the package. It's impossible to overstress how critical the "non-violent" part is. You? You're just standing there. The police? They're beating the crap out of you, spraying you, possibly shooting at you. No matter how much you disagree with somebody, a normal person will have a serious problem with the government brutalizing people who are doing nothing violent.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[LateArthurDent]

No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law. If there are laws in place restricting the ability to set up a camp in a park, bring in generators, create health code violations etc., it must apply equally to all citizens.

I see your point, and I concede. I approve of civil disobedience, but the disobedience in question should apply to laws you disagree with. Unless they're protesting against laws that restrict the ability to camp in a park, they shouldn't camp in the park.

Here's a few examples...Granted, these idiots are the 1% of the 99% that really give the well meaning protesters a bad name

Yeah, I agree with you completely. People start with the reasonable intent of trying to make themselves heard and then cross the line by wanting to drown out the voices of the opposition.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[argStyopa]

You seem not to understand what the "full force of the government" really means.

If the police/government(s) involved were really the jackbooted thugs that they're caricatured to be, none of the protesters would be going back to their (average $300,000) homes or (average $1500/month) apartments; they'd have been either incarcerated, disappeared, or simply killed.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[GameboyRMH]

i would guess about the same amount of time, all other factors being equal? Don't forget the Occupiers only got to stay because they flooded the park owners with angry phone calls.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Kaenneth]

Well, there's North Korea, where if your grandfather put a newpaper page with a picture of Dear Leader on the floor, you could end up being born in, and spending your whole life in a prison labor camp.

Apperently DPRK has a policy of carting off 3 generations of a family at a time for political reasons.

So yeah, it could be worse.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[CrimsonAvenger]

Camping in a public park is a peaceable assembly, therefore Congress can make no law prohibiting it. End of story.

Of course, this isn't Congress, it's the New York City government...which, being a tad left of center, might make you suspect their motives....

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[nine-times]

It doesn't say anything about turning a public park (privately owned I know) into an encampment for the convenience of the protesters. Why can't they protest, then go home and come back the following day. Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.

The park was open 24 hours a day, so there's no reason why they should have to leave unless they were doing something there that they weren't allowed to do.

As far as I know, they didn't prevent other citizens from accessing the park. Unfortunately, the coordination between cities to shut down the protests show that it wasn't a response to any particular thing they were doing, but a response to the movement itself. It's not like NYC said, "Oh, the conditions here are bad and we need to clean it up!" They said, "We don't like what these people are saying, and we don't like that they're getting attention for saying it. We need to organize against them." And *that* is why this is an attack on the first amendment. They're saying, "You can't have your public protest, wherever you have it and whatever the conditions are, because we don't like your message."

I also find it highly ironic that some of the protesters relying on the 1st amendment to enable their protest, also take offense to the very same freedom of the press that amendment enables.

Could you elaborate? Were the protesters saying that the press should not legally be allowed to cover their event?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shutdown -p now]

You don't need Lenin, really. Three years ago, Stalin was voted the third most popular political leader - and that poll showed up all signs of vote fudging (Stalin was actually on top until the last few days of the vote, where there was a sudden surge for the other two guys - many think that it was done to avoid the embarrassment). In 2006, 47% had an "overall positive" evaluation of his rule, and only 26% had it "negative" - and these figures have not been changing for better since then.

Short story, if current regime topples, it would be quite likely for commies to take over.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Red Flayer]

I believe both Gandhi and Rev. King counted on just that full-force response. It's rather the 'point' of a protest to get the powers that be to acknowledge you...and that acknowledgement, going back millennia, is usually full force/too far and results in the protesters getting some semblance of what they want, eventually anyway.

Gandhi (paraphrased from memory): First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

So I'm with you on Gandhi.

But King? I don't think wanted the full-force response. I think he truly believed that violence was abhorrent, even if it helped his cause. He continually preached messages of love, of non-violence: "Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Sloppy]

Because the right of the people to assemble peaceably doesn't have a time-limit? "You may assemble, but not at night. Limit your protests in public spaces to ten hours a day" isn't in the Constitution.

You're right, but nevertheless curfew laws have been tolerated for a long time. Maybe it's time to change that.

Even so, cellphones, signs, PA systems, pamphlets, etc are tools for petitioning government; tents and sleeping bags are tools for petitioning Freddy Kruger. A sleeping person cannot be engaging in speech, unless you're talking about a Dream Circle happening in defiance of the insulting "Free Snore Zone," where people are handing out Pillowphlets which explain why Wall Street Bedmakers shouldn't be gambling on Droolfaults.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pclminion]

No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law.

Obviously you are not "allowed" to violate the law, ever. That's the definition of a law, something which is not to be done without punishment. However, this does not mean that violating the law is not REQUIRED, from time to time.

it must apply equally to all citizens.

Go on down and violate the law along with the rest of the protestors, nobody is stopping you. Your argument is merely a diverting tactic. The law does apply equally to all, some people just choose to break it. If you try it out, you'll find that indeed the law does apply equally to everyone -- if you don't break the law you will not be punished. I don't see how this is inequitable.

Some people just believe that standing up for themselves is more important than being perfectly law-abiding. Nobody has ever said the law does not apply to them.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[jmorris42]

> Ohio was watershed type rejection of the GOP laws.

Not exactly. My takeaway was to not to try and do too much at once. In WI Walker wisely excluded police and fire from the union busting. Most folks didn't seem to mind faceless government drones and incompetent overpaid teachers getting thwacked but most folks, especially Republicans, like the cops and firemen. Of course their insane pensions are doing about as much to bankrupt cities as the other government unions but apparently that is too much to ask voters to do all at once. So divide and conquer. First peel off the teachers and drones and in a few years as the pension crisis is a little more visible take on the police & firemen... by then the rest will be mostly non-union so they won't all be united in opposition with zillions in cash on hand to buy ads so with some luck they will make concessions instead of street theater.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shaitand]

They have a right to use the park and there is no time limit. I doubt they are refusing other citizens access to the park if they attempt to enter.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shaitand]

"No, but just because you are protesting doesn't allow you to violate the law."

Actually it does. Your right to assemble isn't just your right, it is the law. It is a higher law than the park ordinances and trumps them. Additionally, there is a clear affirmative defense, which means that you have broken the law but you did so in order to prevent a greater evil. For example, if you tackle a gunman and hold him until the police arrive you've committed a number of crimes but did so in order to prevent a greater evil. You wouldn't even be charged because of the clear affirmative defense. The greater evil doesn't need to be a crime though. For example, a medical condition is considered an affirmative defense for marijuana use and it has been held up federally and in a number of states.

In the case of Occupy Wall Street, the greater evil is the crimes which are being protested.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shaitand]

A sleeping person can't be engaging in speech but they can certainly be engaging in expression which has the same protection. Their very continued presence is an expression. As long as each individual is present their presence expresses their support for their petition to business and government.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[Opportunist]

Stalin? Of all people of this planet ... Stalin? Who came in first and second, Hitler and Mussolini?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shutdown -p now]

It was a vote for "Greatest Russians" (ironically, given that Stalin himself was a Georgian). First was Alexander Nevsky, second was Pyotr Stolypin. Like I said, the votes were likely fudged, however.

As for why... in minds of many, Stalin is associated with "stern hand" and "tough but fair" kind of deal. In a country with inept government rife with corruption, these themes kinda resonate. Also, there are still quite a few people born in the USSR who remember it fondly now as the time of a superpower to which they belong, and which was "respected and feared", but gone now - and, of all Soviet leaders, Stalin is by far the most representative of that sentiment. Certainly, the West feared him much more than the other guys.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[thegarbz]

OWS protesters are citizens too. You're advocating that they be denied use of the park. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

There's no hypocrisy. You can't apply the word "use" without adding the word "reasonable" or "as intended". Yes it's a public park. Does that give you the right to build a house on it and live there permanently? No. You're not free to do with public land as you please, and if you think comparing an afternoon stroll in a park to setting up a tent camp for several weeks at a time comparable then maybe you would see more sense if instead of using the word "use" you used the word "abuse".

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[drinkypoo]

It's impossible to overstress how critical the "non-violent" part is. You? You're just standing there. The police? They're beating the crap out of you, spraying you, possibly shooting at you. No matter how much you disagree with somebody, a normal person will have a serious problem with the government brutalizing people who are doing nothing violent.

Anonymous coward is anonymous and cowardly. You know what would achieve more social change than standing around hoping the cops don't shoot you in the face with a tear gas canister because you're non-violent? Actually doing something.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[drinkypoo]

I see your point, and I concede. I approve of civil disobedience, but the disobedience in question should apply to laws you disagree with. Unless they're protesting against laws that restrict the ability to camp in a park, they shouldn't camp in the park.

So, where do you suggest they exercise their constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, keeping in mind that the constitution is the highest law of the land?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[makomk]

The trouble is that, for peaceful protest to be effective, the inevitable violent and over-the-top government response has to make the population and the government uncomfortable. They have to be embarrassed at the violence. This doesn't seem to be happening; people and politicians alike are quite happy with it.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[An Onerous Coward]

Woohoo! We have a better civil rights track record than North Korea! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[An Onerous Coward]

"The Tea Party wasn't trying to camp for weeks on end, they have jobs to get back to after all."

You mean the "job" of cashing their Social Security checks? The studies showed pretty thoroughly that the Tea Party crowd was -- despite their claims about representing a broad demographic -- predominantly white, old, male Republicans.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[shaitand]

The OWS needs to come back now. There are no shortage of people who are outright PISSED about the blatantly illegal actions taken. This is no crackpot conspiracy theory. If the feds didn't organize it and it was the result of a bunch of mayors acting on their own (in coordination, its obvious that 40 cities didn't accidentally attack at once) that only makes it even more clear how universally widespread the corruption is.

This along with the bank boycotts is the first time I have seen the American people respond to their treatment from the powers at be by doing anything other than whimper a little while taking it up the arse. If the powers at be keep responding in a forceful and illegal manner in response the people might just get pissed enough to do more than gather and whimper as a group.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

Well except for the polls that show majority support for OWS, I'm sure 'most' people don't like them...

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

They have to be embarrassed at the violence.

Indeed. And we're hopefully just starting this process. The over the top reactions don't generally come in the first 2 months of a protest movement. Civil rights took years. This will likely as well. Though, when the economy improves much of the impetus for this will start to seem less important.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[jmorris42]

> The studies showed pretty thoroughly that the Tea Party crowd was -- despite their claims about representing a broad demographic
> -- predominantly white, old, male Republicans.

Ok, whatever. You have your studies, I attended a few events. I saw a pretty good spread of ages, pretty balanced as to gender overall, even though our local spark plug was a lady which might skew things. Mostly Republican but also most were doing their first overtly political acts by attending. I know it was my first try at making a sign and from the looks of things I wasn't alone. The left has a lot more practice at protesting. Up until the Tea Party they might have been registered R but they weren't DOING things, donating money, organizing, etc. Do have to he honest and admit they were pretty monochomatic events, but I live in the South and besides, with blacks everywhere still 90+% behind Cadet Zero it probably isn't too suprising a lot of em aren't ready to grab signs denouncing him, his policies or his Party quite yet. On the other hand, before ya denounce the lot of us a racists I'd like to note a data point. I have been reasonably active in the past, though mostly the occasional donation, keeping up with stuff, etc. The Mrs. not so much. But she has become active now, first as a cable news junkie (FNS, CNN, CSPAN1/2), then books and guess where her first political donation went. Yup, she boarded the Cain Train a few months ago. Me, I'm more for Rick Santorum even though I realize he has little chance.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[AP31R0N]

It's not hypocrisy. It's acknowledging reality. Free Speech doesn't mean you can camp where ever, when ever. And it doesn't mean that you can even say what ever. It's not an absolute freedom. There are limits. Specifically: the rights of others. For instance, the right to bear arms ends when you use those arms to kill people who aren't threatening you. This is called Social Contract. To gain the right to live, you give up the right to murder. To have your religion, you have to tolerate the religion of others.

"you'd realize that the inconvenience caused by OWS is negligible compared to the evil done by those on Wall Street"

The ends rarely justify the means. My ex breaking my heart doesn't make it OK for me to steal her car or kill her cat. No matter how much she hurt me, i can't just do whatever i feel like doing.

Contrary to popular belief among angsty teens, you can't just do whatever the fuck you want, even if you feel very strongly about it.

OWS is not outside the law. No really, they aren't. They are accountable to the law. Yes EVEN IF THE PEOPLE THEY ARE AGAINST ARE.

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[An Onerous Coward]

Having a gay friend doesn't make you not-homophobic. Having a black friend (or voting for a black politician) doesn't make you not-racist, especially when that black politician is espousing views and policies that would hurt the impoverished (which is disproportionately black).

Herman Cain is what Republicans thought Obama was for white liberals: racial absolution on the cheap. "I'm not racist! I voted for a black man! I didn't even have to change a single one of my misconceptions about the black underclass to do it!"

There's a reason that the African-American community isn't rallying around Cain. It's not -- as you imply -- because of some misguided, unthinking loyalty to Obama. It's because they know that the right wing policies that Cain (and pretty much every GOP candidate minus Roemer and Huntsman) would implement would be disastrous for the poor.

Santorum. Eeesh. Have you *googled* him?

Re:Suprised they went on as long as they did

[pixelpusher220]

Walker wisely excluded police and fire from the union busting

Wisely? It's called crass political payback against the unions that *didn't* support his campaign. The ones he didn't attack are the only ones who supported him.

And unions are hardly financial drains. Hell, WI's budget was actually 'balanced' prior to his putting his union busting plan into effect. The only way he could get his 'budget' measure passed was to remove all the monetary items from it.

So in the end, Walker's bill to stop the unions from 'bankrupting' the state contained absolutely zero cost savings. That should tell you something about his actual intentions.

Re:Occupy...

[MarkGriz]

You don't understand a thing about this protest do you?

I think you can blame the protesters for that

Re:This begs an interesting question...

[Kenja]

No, you can not go to any country in the world. See other countries are protective of their workers. Go ahead, try to go to India and work. Others have tried and found that it simply can not be done.

How is that possible?

[khasim]

1. They were planning disrupting Wall Street. In other words, they were threatening the economy and even Bloomy can't allow that.

Huh? How is it even possible for a small group like that to be "threatening the economy"? No, don't answer that. Real terrorists might read your answer and use it against America.

2. The Occupy protests were jumping the shark and losing popular support as crime ramped up and local business suffered.

How could crime have "ramped up" when there were so many cops standing around watching them?

Re:How is that possible?

[Pope]

Ask the folks in Oakland. Starting a bonfire in the middle of a street is not exactly brilliant, and neither was the vandalism.

Re:How is that possible?

[Local ID10T]

Yeah, but this happens in Oakland even without the occupy protests.... its a shithole (I've lived there.)

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Oakland we usually called that Sunday Evening after the Raiders Win and or Lose.

Re:How is that possible?

[Opportunist]

Easy, if that small group is a small group of bankers, they can very easily threaten the economy of a whole country. Heck, they can even threaten the economy of the whole world.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in your world, two wrongs make a right?

No, but the original argument was "the police broke them up because they started doing criminal things", not "they started doing criminal things after the police broke them up". Or is in your world the police omniscient and did they know the protesters were going to do those things anyway and therefore preemptively broke up the protests?

(captcha: control)

Re:How is that possible?

[mcgrew]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you punch someone in the face, don't be surprised when they hit you back.

Re:How is that possible?

[LostAlaska]

2. The Occupy protests were jumping the shark and losing popular support as crime ramped up and local business suffered. How could crime have "ramped up" when there were so many cops standing around watching them? -------------------- Well there has been a surge in people getting beaten up pretty badly in the area with batons and attacks on people with the use of tasers and tear gas have gone up dramatically in the area. I'm guessing that's all the crime they speak of...

Re:How is that possible?

[cheekyjohnson]

It really all just depends on how you define "wrong" in the first place. To one person, one of those things might be considered "wrong," and the other considered "right." So it isn't that they think that two wrongs make a right.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

You never thought that those that want these people to stop bringing media attention to their suspect ways don't pay people to create the thug/vandal image? Wow, you are seriously naive! It's been a common practice since the 1930s in politics.

0. country gets pissed of with $SOMETHING
1. media picks up on a group of people complaining about 0
2. movement starts, public awareness increases, groups gather
3. hits the news, politicians are asked questions they don't like which ultimately leads to who paid them what to pass / ignore $SOMETHNG
3.5 some thick shit police jumps the gun and overstep their powers
3.7 media picks up on 3.5 causing outrage
4. politicians arrange public perception of organised groups but planting undesirable types to stir things up
5. public sees dodgy people on TV and decides to forget about their grievances over $SOMETHING and get back to reality TV, soap, sport etc

Re:How is that possible?

[DavidTC]

They were planning disrupting Wall Street. In other words, they were threatening the economy and even Bloomy can't allow that.

Huh? How is it even possible for a small group like that to be "threatening the economy"?

I think it's be adequately demonstrated that a small group of people in control of Wall Street can, in fact, utter destroy the economy.

Re:How is that possible?

[guybrush3pwood]

The Christian thing to do is to let him punch you again on the other cheek, rape you and your family, feast on your food, burn down your house, and - once they're though - practice some christian mercy and forgive them.

Re:How is that possible?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It really all just depends on how you define "wrong" in the first place. To one person, one of those things might be considered "wrong," and the other considered "right." So it isn't that they think that two wrongs make a right.

As an example, many think that doing unto others is perfectly fine, but the same thing done untio them is a crime.

Re:How is that possible?

[Archangel Michael]

If you hit them back, expect that police to arrest you too.

Re:How is that possible?

[fusiongyro]

In Albuquerque, it got shut down a few weeks ago because the bums were crashing the party and there was a stabbing.

Re:How is that possible?

[future assassin]

Wouldn't riding the world of that small group of bankers with so much power be better in the long run anyways? I say off with their heads.

Re:How is that possible?

[del_diablo]

The law doesn't work that way. Self defence against cops is legal. The "problem" is that you don't have enough friends, to you punch out 1, get arrested, and they plant evidence against you and do fake testemonies.

Re:How is that possible?

[donaggie03]

If disturbing a small group of bankers could threaten the economy of a whole country, or even the whole world . . . well, isn't that situation part of what OWS is fighting against?

Re:How is that possible?

[Surt]

I don't recall Christ advocating allowing someone to rape your family. And I'm fairly sure that most Christian scholars would agree that Christ would support intervention that reduced violence.

Re:How is that possible?

[DriedClexler]

Not really. But they can certainly make politicians *think* that they can threaten the global economy, which, along with bribes and whatnot, is enough to let them dictate policy like in '08.

Re:How is that possible?

[gujo-odori]

They sure screwed the (immediately) local economy here in Oakland, and they seemed to have the crime part covered, too, including a murder last week.

I'm glad they're finally gone. May they never return.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely started by LEA plants. They'll typically get agents to instigate illegal actions in the guise of protesters in order to give LE officers a reason to arrest folks.

Re:How is that possible?

[budgenator]

Obviously those hooligans would have been either heretics or infidels so we can just torture a confession out of them then burn them at the stake.

Re:How is that possible?

[DreadfulGrape]

Read the news much? Local businesses all around OWS have suffered greatly, because regular customers (y'know, the ones with money) don't want to come down and hang out cheek-by-jowl with the protesters. And crime ranging from petty theft, to vandalism, to sexual assault and more, have been increasing steadily over the past few weeks.

Re:How is that possible?

[Archangel Michael]

Mutual Combatants ... and it does work that way .. sometimes.

Re:How is that possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would normally not respond or mod you down, but have you gone down there? Have you spoken to them? Do you know why they are there? I bet the answer is no to all of the questions. Please go step off the largest building you can find and no longer pollute the gene pool with your mindless banter and poor excuse of a human.

Re:How is that possible?

[Black Parrot]

Easy, if that small group is a small group of bankers, they can very easily threaten the economy of a whole country. Heck, they can even threaten the economy of the whole world.

The actual reason city officials are hostile to them hasn't got anything to do with a threat to the economy. It's because they threaten to build political support for reducing the privileges of the privileged classes. We can't allow *that*.

Re:How is that possible?

[AHuxley]

The CIA types at the fusion centres know exactly how small groups can make huge statements - they did they in the 1980's in Eastern Europe - start small and keep stirring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huston_Plan shows some of the past US thinking.
As for "crime have "ramped up"" thats what aspects of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO worked on - it protesters are not been evil, get people to join and make them be very bad.

Re:How is that possible?

[Dasher42]

Starting a bonfire in the middle of a street is not exactly brilliant, and neither was the vandalism.

And it was Occupy Oakland denouncing that, and this fringe group declaring responsibility.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oakland-liberation-front-leaflet-slams-pacifists-as-wimpy-unpaid-soldiers-of-the-banksters/

Re:How is that possible?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Hyperbole. Either show us facts or stop spreading FUD.

Re:How is that possible?

[guybrush3pwood]

I wonder who modded you down, and why?

It must have been some anti-Christ, Satan-worshiping hipster... ;)

Re:How is that possible?

[Kelbear]

I think the earlier poster was referring to an old testament story in which two "angels" visited a man's house, and then a mob came over to the house demanding anal sex with the angels.

The man instead offered to give the mob his wife and daughter to protect the two angels. The mob raped them instead and went away.

Old testament story, so it's not one of the stories attributable to Jesus, it's just one of the jewish stories he would have known of.

Re:How is that possible?

[mcgrew]

Or a "Christian" who's never read the new testament would be my first guess.

Re:How is that possible?

[guybrush3pwood]

Is that you, Harold Camping?

Re:How is that possible?

[Opportunist]

Damn straight, just imagine, everyone being equal, everyone having the same say ... that could lead to democracy if you're not careful!

Re:How is that possible?

[Black Parrot]

Damn straight, just imagine, everyone being equal, everyone having the same say ... that could lead to democracy if you're not careful!

You know how democracy is supposed to work: one dollar, one vote.

Re:How is that possible?

[mcgrew]

Harold Camping is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He should stop worrying about the sins of gays and worry about his own sins.

Fire and brimstone preachers piss me off. Chriatianity is about love and forgiveness, not hate and pain. Real Christians don't act hatefully, like that Camping asshole. What's worse, wtf have gays done to him? He should remove the two by four from his own eye before he tries to remove the speck from his brother's eye.

Re:How is that possible?

[guybrush3pwood]

What's worse, wtf have gays done to him?.

Perhaps they shoved him the love-sausage up his crap-cannal behind the altar. I hear that's a pretty common practice in a certain mainstream religion.

Re:How is that possible?

[mcgrew]

He's Baptist, the kiddie fiddlers are Catholic. But who knows, maybe he did get assraped. Then again, I think it's more likely he's a closeted gay himself, he seems like that kind of hypocrite.

Mayor Quan Denies This

[ryants]

Denial reported here.:

Update: A spokesperson for Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has emailed to deny that Quan "coordinated" Oakland's response to Occupy protesters with other mayors. "Mayor Quan never said that cities with occupy encampments were coordinating their removal efforts," Susan Piper wrote in an email. "The mayor has talked with other mayors to share experiences." In a subsequent email, I asked Piper if Quan received advice from either the DHS or the FBI on how to respond to protesters, as reported was by Rick Ellis of Examiner.com. Piper's response: "Not true."

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[swinferno]

so nothing to see here, I guess..

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[GameboyRMH]

Sure they just all did it at the same time (including Toronto). It was just a big coincidence, like telco SMS rate increases & bandwidth capping...

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[artor3]

So all the mayors went on a conference call to discuss the protests, and then all stamped out the protests within a few days of each other, but the very same mayors say it wasn't collusion, so we should just take their word for it.

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[ryants]

I'm merely reporting some updated facts (the mayor issued a denial). Whether it's true, believable, plausible, or whatever, I leave as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[dave562]

The deception lies in the wording. I could believe that "Mayor Quan" might not have been directly contacted by DHS or the FBI. The mayor has a chief of police to liason with other law enforcement agencies. See how it works? The reporter asked the wrong question. The question should have been, "Have any members of the city government or city law enforcement agents been contacted by or been in contact with the FBI or DHS?"

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Not to my knowledge" "We don't discuss operational details", etc.

Oh, just shut up, pay, and obey the 1% already!

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[xstonedogx]

This is Oakland, not San Francisco. So I'm pretty sure she's not lying when she says she's a woman.

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[sjames]

In other news, Bill Clinton wishes for us to know that he did NOT have sex with that woman and Nixon informs us that he is not a crook.

He might be telling the truth, or he might just be downplaying an inflammatory fact. His reaction to the people petitioning their government does make him a bit suspect.

Re:Mayor Quan Denies This

[IsoRashi]

The way I see it, "Mayor Quan never said they coordinated" is different from "Mayor Quan said they did not coordinate"...

Re:This begs an interesting question...

[HornWumpus]

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Re:Occupy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't the OWS people out in front of the White House?

Too many people with guns there.

This was a good thing

[geekoid]

having an organized approach and being advised by experts was a lot better then every group of police doing it themselves.

Re:This was a good thing

[artor3]

Right, because when stamping out freedom, you want to do it in the most professional and organized way possible.

I suppose this is "a lot better" from the perspective of the fascists who want the protestors to disappear, but from the perspective of someone who's tired of the robber barons running the show, this is definitely worse.

Re:This was a good thing

[Pharmboy]

Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to shit all over the streets, block the free movement of others, and create a health hazard. I 100% support their right to speak, primarily because so much of their speech is anti-capitalist, and want them to be seen and heard for exactly what they are. But Jebus, the areas where these guys have been have become a health hazard.

Truth be told, the police have screwed up some, but overall, have been pretty damn accommodating when it comes to allowing them to express themselves. And they should be. Mistakes or no, the protesters have been given every reasonable ability to protest, and still are, but at some point, everyone elses freedom to walk up and down the street without fear of dysentery should get accommodated as well.

Crack open a history book and read about Kent State if you want to hear about oppression in America. This is not that situation, and overwhelmingly the protesters have had the ability to express themselves, and still do.

Re:This was a good thing

[WillDraven]

I'm really getting tired of all these "ZOMG, Poop!" comments. The protesters tried to bring in porta-potties but were denied. If you want to bitch at anybody about the terrible health conditions, bitch at the city for not allowing the protesters to provide the sensible sanitation arrangements that they tried to.

Re:This was a good thing

[dcollins]

"Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to shit all over the streets, block the free movement of others, and create a health hazard. I 100% support their right to speak, primarily because so much of their speech is anti-capitalist, and want them to be seen and heard for exactly what they are. But Jebus, the areas where these guys have been have become a health hazard."

This is simply false. I was at OWS in NYC several times and it was not remotely any kind of health hazard. If anything I was a bit irritated at how anal they'd become constantly sweeping with brooms and bagging/emptying garbage receptacles in an attempt to be spotless in their response to these claims. But obviously the reality hasn't got very much to do with the anti-OWS propaganda.

Re:This was a good thing

[Olduvai]

Because, times now are so great... http://youtu.be/rhFvSRWYusc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9g7FNcJ39U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBOq8XWS798

Re:This was a good thing

[xstonedogx]

Well, I'm pretty sure these idiots don't speak for all of OWS, but still:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMV0TR3pGzg

Re:This was a good thing

[Sloppy]

I suppose this is "a lot better" from the perspective of the fascists who want the protestors to disappear

It also might be a lot better from the perspect of people who don't want them to "disappear," as in get killed by local LE going off-the-handle "Kent State" style. The situation is a mixed bag; it suggests a pretty shitty attitude by city governments (though with a very close reading of the articles, I don't really see a smoking gun), but if you look at what the feds' advice here was, it steered things toward less violent confrontation.

Of course, less violence is bad news for martyr wanna-be romantics.

Take a look at what's left, though, and tell me The People are any less able to protest than they could before. If you think the fascists are responsible for this, then you ought to be delighted at the fascists' ineffectiveness, because this won't even be a minor speed bump to any serious attempt at reforming government. If this is your opponent's best move, then you have won.

That's why I think people are blowing this out of proportion with too much cynicism. The park-camp breakups really are for the "cover reasons" of public safety and sanitation, and I say this as a government-hating paranoid loon. I'm disappointed that the feds were involved in this at all, and pleasantly surprised by what they did.

Re:This was a good thing

[WillDraven]

You call peacefully assembling to voice your grievances "breaking the law" and consider toilets "special privileges" and I'M the one threatening the future of America.

Right.....

Re:This was a good thing

[Uberbah]

There's a reason why they keep going on about health hazards even as they're deploying ear-bleeding noise cannons....because anti-terrahrist legislation includes threats to.....public health.

Re:This was a good thing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

For help in this department they could have probably gotten away with products like these. No poop in the streets and not terribly expensive.

Re:This was a good thing

[seantide]

No, you bitch at the morons in the Occupy movement who were denied the facilities for valid reasons.

They were trying to use temporary infrastructure for semi-permanent occupation, which is quite obviously harmful and just plain idiotic.

They had a right to protest, but not in the way they were, and in the end the message they sent to me was: I don't have money, and I think I should be able to steal it from you to fix it.

They were dirty in their camps and in their minds.

NOTE: Yes I know not all of them were like that, but the fact is that was the face I saw on the movement so if it was intended to show anything else then it failed. Besides that, it looked to be artificially created anyway.

"threatening the economy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that this also implies that all that is left of "the economy" is Wall Street. How telling. How very appropriate.

Re:"threatening the economy"

[LordLimecat]

Im sure my employer (a consulting firm) just manufactures money out of thin air; clearly wall street does the same.

Re:"threatening the economy"

[evil_aaronm]

Not too far off. I'm almost done with this book and I'm not quite sure what "value" these guys provide for the money they get:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_09/b4217086779050.htm

Re:"threatening the economy"

[Nethemas the Great]

I can't speak for your employer but Wall Street sure as hell does.

Re:"threatening the economy"

[Paul Fernhout]

More alternative ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

The text for the presentation is here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf

Re:"threatening the economy"

[BlackSupra]

It's not an Occupy Wall Street thread without an onion article http://www.theonion.com/articles/bank-executives-on-15th-floor-gambling-on-which-oc,26565/ .

Re:"threatening the economy"

[Nethemas the Great]

Alas in this case what The Onion meant as parody is more likely an actual tragedy.

Interesting, but...

[PowerCyclist]

This is nothing new to protests. They get cleared out all the time (even in the USA) and then regroup. Is the timing suspicious, a little, but you could have picked any day for the clearing and then said it was to harm a future event. I was never in the protests (none were near my location) but I hope they shrug this off and regroup. I also REALLY hope they get some fricken direction and organization. Simply being there isn't enough, they have to organize efforts on specific targets more than the few leaders have so far. Oh, and for the love of God take some control over the 'live feeds' and at least try to find someone with any amount of charisma and social skills to narrate them. The live streams I've watched so far were a painful raping of my eyes and ears.

Re:Interesting, but...

[identity0]

I know some of the people doing the Occupy Portland livestream, so I would like to hear your or any other person's criticisms of it. Is it the video or audio quality? Camerawork? Lighting? Choice of subjects? What people are choosing to say?

I will pass on any comments you have.

If you would like to see it, it is at

http://occupyportland.org/livestreammedia/

Re:Interesting, but...

[mcgrew]

Actually, the ones in the '60s and '70s were worse... the 1968 Democratic convention and police beating protesters mercilessly, the Kent State massacre of unarmed students by the Ohio National Guard, etc.

Re:Interesting, but...

[PowerCyclist]

See, that's a MUCH better livestream than I've seen previously. The video quality is low, but that's forgiven for the media. Your friends control the camera well, knowing it's limitations.

Maybe I just had bad timing, listening to only the few hours of bad streaming from Wall Street. Here's my biggest two complaints about those; poor volume control, and irritating speech. Usually this is caused by someone yelling into their camera with an annoying pitch (at least it's annoying on camera), and drowning out all other sounds. Another minor complaint is not understanding frame rate issues. You have to move cameras very slowly (preferably leave them still most of the time) or it's unrecognizable blurs. This Portland crew addresses these issues pretty well. Good job, I'll listen to them more often.

I see they also have good organization and don't chant the same things over and over.

Re:Interesting, but...

[PowerCyclist]

If you want a better parallel, look at the protests during the Great Depression and how they were 'cleared'.

Re:Interesting, but...

[HornWumpus]

FYI.

There are audio tapes of the Kent state riot. Somebody shot a .38 (or similar) before the national guard opened up with 30-06s.

Just like the guardsmen claimed at the time. Took 40 years worth of technology to prove them truth tellers.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are audio tapes of the Kent state riot. Somebody shot a .38 (or similar) before the national guard opened up with 30-06s.

Are you seriously implying that one gun being fired within audio recording range (must have been faint to have taken 40 years to find that bang) justified the murders that followed? It's a potentially interesting fact (if it is indeed a fact), but it doesn't justify this:

"The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#cite_note-4

Links or it didn't happen.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Deliveranc3]

Just a reminder, we had something called the G20 protests here in Toronto a little while ago. The biggest point of interest was the agent provocateurs brought in by U.S. interests and distributed throughout the protest with orders to make things violent and disorderly.

If the government is going to allow for paid shills to disrupt peaceful protest without investigation or justice then grass roots will always be hampered.

People are mad, they are justifiably mad, they are mad for many reasons. In this case their message is simple, greed is not ok, it's a vice... a sin....

This whole thing is a bit like telling murderers that "hey, it's not ok". Not a tough message but these people have their heads SO FAR UP their own asses that it's going to take a LONG LONG TIME to get something done about it.

Let me say the word, Guillotine. Now let's come to an accommodation.

The mindset of the rich that their success is mostly the result of their efforts is RIDICULOUS. If you get rich enough you pay people to think for you. If I had $50,000 a year I'd be as smart as another university educated person... shit maybe I'd be a biologist or a doctor. It's an absurd system. The rich have maintained it by hurting job security in times of social consciousness. It's not disingenuous to say that a person who is at risk of losing their job, needs to make money to support children or deal with family illness or aging, or are otherwise bound to work will be more likely to do unethical things at the behest of their employer.

The truth is YOU NEED A JOB. It's expected in our society. And quitting because you're asked to do something unethical, evil, manipulative, unfair, hurtful, etc. Is something most people aren't capable of.

Add to that the new notion that a good employee is a dependent and non-creative cog, and you've got a system where the brilliance of employees (below VP level) is discarded(60% of VPs become VPs by saving massive corporations 5c or less on each unit sold, raising quality does not get you promoted). The often stupid, shortsighted, wasteful, three ring binder orders of the corporation... dictated by someone who cares nothing at all about the actual effects of the company.

The best part is how these same corporations that treat their employees like shit, take every opportunity to keep them dependent (which is not dissimilar from actively shitting on them), then use the fact that they have X employees who will be hurt by any regulation against the corporation.

If the government looked at how many GOOD jobs where people actually create, contribute, or are paid enough to have a decent life outside work the subsidies for WalMart, Rogers, T-Mobile, etc. Would disappear.

But remember you can't tax the rich, because they'll close their companies and move them somewhere else, where taxpayers haven't educated their employees.

Imagine M$ trying to start again with a bunch of Indonesian orphans, "This is a Mouse!". 10 years at least till they get a qualified person.

Anyway I'm sure that was all obvious, just a reminder.

Re:Interesting, but...

[PNutts]

Mic check!

Re:Interesting, but...

[Dripdry]

When will you get it?
There is SO much wrong in this country that a list of grievances is the LAST thing.
The FIRST thing is to group people together. Worry about direction later, disrupt NOW.

Re:Interesting, but...

[vegiVamp]

> The live streams I've watched so far were a painful raping of my eyes and ears.

it pleases your corporate overlords that this is the most important thought in your head while watching people protest the social injustices and abuses of power in today's world.

Re:Interesting, but...

[sjames]

However, the students who were shot were indeed unarmed. The truth that they shot unarmed students remains. That is not in dispute. It's just not acceptable to open fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians even if there is a nut with a gun somewhere. You also left out that the prime suspect for firing that .38 was a paid FBI mole photographing protesters.

Absolutely none of that alters the fundamental truth that government forces opened fire on unarmed students in any literal or figurative sense.

You also left out the part of the analysis that caught an actual order to fire.

So yes, it is entirely possible that the guardsmen were telling the truth about hearing a gunshot, but that doesn't really alter anything that matters.

Re:Interesting, but...

[PowerCyclist]

Reread my comment more carefully. The quality of the livestream was not the most important thought in my head. It's the disturbing lack of organization and direction of so many protesters. However, seeing livestreams from a few cities other than NYC, I see that many of the groups are better organized.

I know some people want to make the argument "Gather first, organize later". Well, guess what, there's already plenty enough people to sustain an organized movement AND if more order is demonstrated then more people will join. I think it's time for a 10k or larger march on Capital Hill. Everyone interested needs to take the responsibility to help organize bus trips from their location to gather as many participants as possible.

Re:Occupy...

[HornWumpus]

LOL you are kidding? I hope you are kidding.

The fact they got new publicists doesn't change their message. 'Capitalism is messed up, or something. We need world socialism and free stuff, or something. Fight the power! The rich are getting richer faster then the poor are getting richer! We're going to change the world with this hippy jam fest.'

Same tired old shit. I blame you for failing to look deeper.

The question practically answers itself.

[overshoot]

How could crime have "ramped up" when there were so many cops standing around watching them?

Watch the videos from Oakland. The protesters viciously assaulted the police nightsticks, shields, tear-gas cannisters, etc. with military-grade abdominal muscles, heads, and faces.

I'd tell you to watch the New York videos, but the media blackout was quite effective.

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[LordLimecat]

Can you link the video? The one ive seen-- the much lauded one about that veteran who got hit by something (we dont know what) thrown by somebody (we dont know who) had a bunch of protesters throwing a bunch of stuff at the cops-- including what looked like molotovs.

Not exactly what you would consider "innocent victims". I can believe that some cops got out of hand, but when the protesters then try to claim that they are completely innocent, my BS meter goes wild. Especially when the one case that theyre making such a big deal of relied on the word of Scott's friend, and there didnt seem to be any other evidence or videos.

Incidentally, Im in favor of people being allowed to protest for as long as you want, but public property doesnt mean you can set up a residence there. Darn right theyre going to prohibit tents and whatnot, its not your personal space and apparently even the people who owned the park wanted it ended. In fact even this heavily biased report doesnt deny that it was the park owners themselves who wanted an end to the tents.

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[wiedzmin]

I'd tell you to watch the New York videos, but the media blackout was quite effective.

I thought this was the protest of the iPhone-toting unemployed... are you telling me that the media blackout somehow extended to removing smartphone videos from YouTube?

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[ganjadude]

i havent seen that yet...but i was down at OWS today(have been there for over 30 days in the past 2 months), and tomorrow, there are people planning to literally burn buildings down

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[t3hfr3ak]

Well if the cops arrest everybody with a cell phone, regardless of media black-out. Laws allow officers to go through your phone now! All they need is probable cause. I just can't believe this, how does a world/mind evolve if we are shutting every voice out of being heard?

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[ganjadude]

thanks for posting anon... the protesters, the ones who cant figure out how to actually do anything so if they cant have their toy, they will ruin it for everyone

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[LordLimecat]

The very video that the Occupy Oakland folks have been passing around showing that vet supposedly getting brutalized? I thought I made that rather clear. I dont feel being your personal google bot--a quick google for "occupy oakland vet hit by police" would have turned it up.

Re:The question practically answers itself.

[wiedzmin]

Hm, I wonder does plausible deniability clause with encryption/password still apply? "Sorry officer, my phone is locked and encrypted and in all the stress of getting arrested, I completely forgot what the password was". Would that work, or would you just get beaten with a wrench until you remember the password.

Re:Occupy...

[pixelpusher220]

How much did Michelle Obama's last vacation cost?

Less than GWB, the most frequent vacationer president of all time?

Re:Occupy...

[smpoole7]

Or why doesn't the OWS crowd complain about the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac receiving millions in bonuses ... at the same time that they're asking the feds for another bailout? :)

I guess that doesn't count.

Re:Rally! Take Direct Action!

[PowerCyclist]

If you're going to troll, at least be creative and original.

FAIL

[MrEricSir]

Oh, I didn't realize only "liberals" were in favor of free speech. Thanks for enlightening us.

Re:Occupy...

[khallow]

You don't get it. OWS is protesting fraudsters like Christy Mack and Susan Karches

What fraud? When you have a legal, all you can eat buffet served out of Washington, then why expect people not to eat as much as they can? Maybe these people ought to be protesting out by Washington, DC where the problems come from?

and the increasing disparity between wage growth between the upper and lower clases.

Sounds like, if you pulled your heads out of your collective asses, you'd have some common cause with the Tea Party movement. After all, they oppose wealth transfers to the wealthy via government. They also oppose the government enforced cesspool of regulation, entitlement, and privilege that has led to the current situation.

Communism failed: class warfare alive and well!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The OWS movement in some form was inevitable. A movement to galvanize a response to economic inequality would have developed in some other way if OWS hadn't come along. Now they have a nice long winter to plan around kitchen tables across the USA.

MF Global

[FudRucker]

stolen 900 million dollars of customer money, and if you disagree with Occupy Wallstreet then all i can say is: "get yourself a jar of vaseline go to your bank and give them all your money and bend over"

Re:MF Global

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

So what if some Dems were also helping the banksters steal our money? What makes you think OWS is ok with Dems stealing the money? Looks like you are the hyper partisan here looking everything from a R vs D view point. Let us throw all the pols in cahoots with the banksters to the dogs. It might so happen we will end up throwing more Rs than Ds. But it is ok even if the mix is reversed. I am ok with it. Are you? Or would you rather let the banskters steal our money so you can have your precious R majority?

Re:At least they didn't

[TheGratefulNet]

they're living in tents, you insensitive clod. they don't *have* carpets.

dumb ass.

Re:Occupy...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to South Park, it's because they can't blame a guy they voted for, especially a black guy. So they found a new target.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

[splatter]

Thought it was telling that this quote from HsT was on the bottom of the Slashdot page. I can't help but to think he would have been proud.

Re:This begs an interesting question...

[mmcuh]

Virtually every country in the world will gladly accept someone with experience and qualifications, provided they actually get a job in the country before going over there.

Interesting, isn't it?

[khasim]

During a war, our military can "embed" reporters with front-line combat units.

But with what appears to be a peaceful protest (in NYC), the police have to remove the media from the area.

Re:Interesting, isn't it?

[gstoddart]

But with what appears to be a peaceful protest (in NYC), the police have to remove the media from the area.

Of course. If the police are about to do something they know is going to lead to violence and protest, they sure as hell don't want anybody there to report on it. They don't want an abundant supply of evidence to demonstrate that they violated laws and/or people's rights -- which that action is almost guaranteed to provoke.

For the same reason that "free speech zones" aren't intended to foster free speech.

My bet is that most of the people who got arrested will never be charged because there is no grounds for the arrest in the first place. Just some heavy handed police intimidation.

Re:Interesting, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an interesting thought. Have the protesters ask for the state militia or even higher for military policing. They can embed reporters just find and being as trained as they are, they could likely control themselves better than a run-of-the-mill cop. It also gives some form of employment for returnees, at least temporarily. If they really wanted to push it, they could try to setup camps built in such a way that would not pose a "health risk" through use of military guidelines. A win for everyone but the mayor.

Re:Interesting, isn't it?

[curious.corn]

Or a pony? A pink one...

Re:Interesting, isn't it?

[Krokus]

I thought the whole country was supposed to be a free speech zone.

Telegenically?

[tomboalogo]

"a 'carnival' on Wall Street on Thursday in which protesters would telegenically tell their individual stories of hardship, job loss and disenfranchisement." def. Having a physical appearance and exhibiting personal qualities that are deemed highly appealing to television viewers So only the PRETTY protesters get to tell their story?? Who is writing for the media these days? Somebody tell them that the 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters wasn't a real solution!!

Re:Occupy...

[Opportunist]

I am, and I guess a lot of bankers are, too, happy that they decided to turn for the soap kind of liberty box first. They are at the point where they cannot grin and bear it anymore, so they start using the liberty boxes.

I hope they don't have to reach the fourth. I have a gut feeling that they would eventually use it if no other way to reach an agreement can be found.

civil disobedience

[bcrowell]

Wasn't this pretty predictable? I can't see how anyone participating in these protests could have imagined that they would be allowed to stay indefinitely without getting rousted by the cops. It's a form of civil disobedience. What is the point of arguing about whether DHS and FBI are involved, about details of the law, about various mayors' secret motivations, etc.? If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.

Re:civil disobedience

[Dcnjoe60]

Wasn't this pretty predictable? I can't see how anyone participating in these protests could have imagined that they would be allowed to stay indefinitely without getting rousted by the cops. It's a form of civil disobedience. What is the point of arguing about whether DHS and FBI are involved, about details of the law, about various mayors' secret motivations, etc.? If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.

Actually, it is only civil disobedience if you ignore the order to vacate. However, even those who did vacate were arrested outside the park as they were leaving. So, yes, once lawfully ordered to leave, some did refuse the order and were arrested. Many more were arrested, however, that had already left.

As for DHS and FBI involvement, it matters, because it is limited federal resources being applied to local problems. Again, the only law being broken was for the failure to leave when told to do so. The FBI and DHS involvement occurred prior to this. Is it really the role of government police authority to be used on citizens when no federal laws are being violated?

The irony is that people camping out in the park may be an embarrassment to city officials, but doesn't cost them much. Arresting and processing them through the legal system is a whole different story.

Re:civil disobedience

[psydeshow]

Well exactly, but now it's the general public's turn to get pissed off and yell Fuck da police! and show up for rallies in support of the ousted protesters.

It's not entirely clear how any of this actually changes policy, except by forces that are glacial and generational.

But at least it highlights the hypocrisy of an administration that is happy to foment populist protests in other countries and equally happy to shut them down in our own.

If the DHS and other federal agencies were helping to coordinate, that's a pretty big stain on Obama-the-organizer's record as an organizer.

Re:civil disobedience

[dave562]

If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.

Exactly. To add, the only way civil disobedience "works" is if people can get enough like minded people together so that when the arrests happen, there is not enough space to hold everyone in the jails and the cost of prosecuting all of the arrested people outweighs the benefits of prosecution.

What the OWS folks really need to do is organize a huge, jurisprudence education campaign to inform people of their rights to judge the law itself. That way if the state decides to prosecute, they will find themselves saddled with juries who will not convict. THAT will deliver the message that the people stand with OWS and their goals. Once the state loses control of the judiciary and their ability to enforce unpopular laws, then we will have real change.

Re:civil disobedience

[Hatta]

This isn't civil disobedience. This is a constitutionally protected peaceable assembly. The ones breaking the law here are the city governments and police.

Re:civil disobedience

[snowgirl]

Simple, it is called posse comitatus, though it doesn't seem that it was violated if the Fed's were just advisors. Heck I don't know if it applies to DHS or the FBI, it was as a result of a compromise after reconstruction. It basically banned the use of the Army to enforce local laws, the southerners didn't like it cause it let them selectively enforce their laws depending on a persons race which messed up their world view.

No, posse comitatus does not apply to the DHS or the FBI. If it did, the FBI couldn't even exist. The Posse Comitatus Act of the USA holds that the US Army, and by extension any off-shoot thereof (the US Air Force) cannot be used as a a law enforcement agency. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Federal government having its own law enforcement agencies, only that the US Army cannot serve as one.

Re:civil disobedience

[dkleinsc]

It's a form of civil disobedience. ... If you do civil disobedience, you expect to get hauled off to jail.

Civil disobedience, by definition, involves violating the law. That's why the details of the law are important: If the protesters were in the park legally, then the mayors and police acted against the Constitution of the United States by even attempting to remove the protesters, regardless of the tactics, force used, etc. If the protesters were in the park illegally, then there's at least the pretense of rule of law rather than suppression of free speech.

Re:civil disobedience

[misexistentialist]

They were in a park. If jail is the punishment for that they might as well have occupied city hall or the stock exchange (of course the NYPD would deploy helicopter gunships if that happened).

Re:civil disobedience

[evil_aaronm]

At least there were no tanks and the army wasn't involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Re:civil disobedience

[Red Flayer]

To add, the only way civil disobedience "works" is if people can get enough like minded people together so that when the arrests happen, there is not enough space to hold everyone in the jails and the cost of prosecuting all of the arrested people outweighs the benefits of prosecution.

No, that totally misses the point of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is not exactly what the protestors did; the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to unjust laws by violating then en flagrante, willfully submitting to punishment, in order to publicize the injust nature of those laws.

Disobeying one law to protest another law isn't really civil disobedience in its true form.

Re:civil disobedience

[dave562]

the point of civil disobedience is to draw attention to unjust laws by violating then en flagrante, willfully submitting to punishment, in order to publicize the injust nature of those laws.

Oh, I see! So in that world view, what is going on here is that Goldman Sachs et al are practicing civil disobedience by flagrantly violating the laws, and submitting themselves to toothless SEC / DOJ regulation and oversight to publicize the unjust nature of those laws. Or is it the unjust nature of the enforcement? IANAL.

It seems clear to me now. The OWSers need to be emulating the 1%, rather than opposing them.

Re:civil disobedience

[DerekLyons]

There is nothing constitutionally protected about impeding others use of public property or of creating a public health hazard or of infringing on others rights. If you're going to wrap yourself in the constitution, you'd be well advised to learn a little bit more about constitutional law than you did in 3rd grade.

Re:civil disobedience

[uglydog]

It is peaceable assembly for the most part. But there are still limits on rights like that (eg, can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater). The right to assemble doesn't mean the right to camp out on private land over night. You can't impinge on other people's rights. Would you agree that IF the reports of sexual abuse, etc, are true, then the city was right to shut them down?

Re:civil disobedience

[bcrowell]

This isn't civil disobedience. This is a constitutionally protected peaceable assembly. The ones breaking the law here are the city governments and police.

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinions about how the constitution should be interpreted. However, the opinion that really matters is the opinion of the courts, and especially the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with your interpretation, even in the case of a normal public park. (Zucotti Park is more complicated because it's a privately owned public park.) Here is a nice analysis by a lawyer sympathetic to the protesters.

Re:civil disobedience

[jez9999]

There is nothing constitutionally protected about impeding others use of public property

Yeah I know, but the cops cleared them out despite that.

or of creating a public health hazard

What health hazard?

or of infringing on others rights

Which rights of whom are being infringed?

Sorry, but your whole post stinks of bullshit.

Re:civil disobedience

[Hatta]

The Supreme Court seems to think that their rulings supersede what's actually written in the Constitution. They are wrong. When they cannot enforce the Constitution as written, they endanger the legitimacy of our government.

Re:civil disobedience

[wkcole]

If the DHS and other federal agencies were helping to coordinate, that's a pretty big stain on Obama-the-organizer's record as an organizer.

That's a big if. Every story about federal involvement ends up referencing a story by a glorified blogger in Minneapolis publishing under the umbrella of a far-right Christianist billionaire, who claims that he got his information from one anonymous source at the Dept. of Justice.

Also, even if there ends up being a non-ridiculous corroboration of the story, people need to get some perspective on how government, and especially policing, actually works under normal circumstances. DoJ is supposed to be largely autonomous from political control, and even if you were to assume that Obama would like to have replicated the Bush model of trying to pack DoJ with loyalists, the objective fact is that GOP Senators have blocked appointments there to an unprecedented extent and as a result there is a serious leadership gap there which is largely surrounded by people hired under a regime that sought "Loyal Bushies" to fill all roles. The lead agencies for this sort of thing would be the FBI and DHS, both of which are still mostly run by people hired by Bush. The GOP project of obstructionism via political appointment blockage has resulted in a government that runs mostly on autopilot, and autopilot for police agencies tends towards paranoia and excessive force. Even if this is an entirely true story that is just suffering from crappy journalism, it isn't clear that this is the sort of thing that would even make it up to political appointee level even if there weren't so many of those seats sitting empty.

Re:civil disobedience

[bcrowell]

The Supreme Court seems to think that their rulings supersede what's actually written in the Constitution. They are wrong. When they cannot enforce the Constitution as written, they endanger the legitimacy of our government.

But of course different people have different opinions about the meaning of "what's actually written in the Constitution." The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is nothing "actually written" in the constitution about sleeping in a public park. If you equate sleeping in a park to "assembl[y]," you're stretching the meaning of what was "actually written." In this particular case, the Supreme Court *is* reading it as "actually written," and you're not.

Re:civil disobedience

[Red Flayer]

Oh, I see! So in that world view

It's not a worldview, and it's not an opinion. It is how civil disobedience is defined.

Re:civil disobedience

[bstender]

As for DHS and FBI involvement, it matters, because it is limited federal resources being applied to local problems.

NO NO NO NO NO! it is about that sacred feature of the USA that all POLICING is LOCAL. Never FEDERAL. Posse comitatus and all that. This is a big deal and this firewall has been under siege since Bush and Co and their creeping Fascism under the veil of 'Homeland Security'.

Re:Occupy...

[Nadaka]

There are people protesting in Washington. OWS is not limited to wall street.

Re:Occupy...

[Opportunist]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Ponder it for a moment and realize how much more he could have messed up this country if he wasn't a slacker.

Re: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro

[Grog6]

Agreed.

Re:At least they didn't

[Opportunist]

Even surgical strike bombs could have hit some bankers as well.

Funny how collateral damage suddenly becomes an issue...

Re:Occupy...

[gorzek]

The utter refusal of the Occupy protesters to become politically engaged--as in, organizing, canvassing, petitioning, fundraising, and eventually voting--is what dooms them far beyond anything else.

The Tea Party would've been a footnote if not for the fact that they became highly politically organized and actually went after elections. I'm not going to hold my breath that Occupy protesters will try something novel like, say, primarying Congressmen next spring.

But they don't want to change the system from within, they want to destroy it and rebuild from scratch. Whether one agrees with that as a goal or not, it's simply not something that is going to happen by staging street rallies and sit-ins and camping in parks.

Your tax dollars at work....

[Dcnjoe60]

I'm just curious how much the FBI and DHS involvement cost the taxpayers? I know I sure feel safer knowing that limited resources are being spent to protect us from peaceful protestors camped out in city parks.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

Well, first off, the FBI and DHS were bound to get involved, the moment the OWS movement decided, or spontaneously morphed into, the occupation of more than 1 location. A national event, elicits a national response, from federal agencies, to some degree.

Certainly the overwhelming majority of the individual protesters, behaved peacefully, or at least, passively, but you cannot rightfully claim *all* participants in the protests, at the protest areas, behaved peacefully, because there is lots of video of protesters and/or people standing within 2 feet of the protesters, behaving violently. Violence has erupted, crimes have been committed, and regardless of whether you support the overall movement, to ignore that violence has not occurred is to ignore reality.

As for people claiming this is a crackdown on free speech, I would like to point out that free speech is safe. What is being cracked down upon, is the location the protesters have decided to exercise their free speech. The protesters, you, I, and anyone else, if given permission by a land owner, to hold an event, can still say whatever they want. Free speech of course, is not inconsequential speech, and there will be various reactions from the public, government, etc. based on what is said. This is normal and unavoidable. There would be no incentive to say anything, if people did not react to it.

When you begin to investigate property laws, you will find they provide the basis for the police taking actions like the eviction of protesters, and the park cleanup. If the protesters, evicted, voluntarily or forcefully, by the police, at the request of the landowner, left anything behind, then it is considered abandoned property. So for all the conspiracy theories and allegations concerning crackdowns, search and seizure, etc., its no different, except in scale, than what would happen if a vagrant pitched on a tent on your front lawn, and started making a mess.

One last reminder ... all this chaos and conflict, for better or worse, misguided or spot on, was created by the canadian magazine leftists. I suppose they couldn't create nearly as big a mess in their home country, because as I understand it, Canada does not have freedom of speech. You can get arrested in Canada for saying things people don't like or that which could be considered hateful. Somewhat ironic don't you think ?

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

I should point out, I understand that freedom of speech, or any other concept or right or privilege, is not absolute, even in the US. Didn't mean to imply that it is absolute in the US, but not in Canada. I suppose its 6 of one half dozen of the other.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

Admittedly, I drifted off the main topic, but alas, I cannot take it back now, but only thank you for the personal attack.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[Red Flayer]

One last reminder ... all this chaos and conflict, for better or worse, misguided or spot on, was created by the canadian magazine leftists.

Not so. It was first organized by an international leftist magazine based in Canada (of note: 60% of Adbusters subscribers are in the US.)

The "chaos" was caused by the "conflict". The "conflict" is between different strata of the economic spectrum, due to the inability of those on most of the spectrum to share in the gains of the entire spectrum. This conflict was caused by the policies and culture that have led to the economic disparity. Please note this is only one cause, IMO the primary one.

Don't attribute to a single entity what is caused by a host of socioeconomic factors.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

While an intelligent elaboration of the situation you provide, it is wholely superfluous, as, when was the last time humanity participated in conflict when all parties were content ?

As for the magazine being Canadian based on subscription, or publication, my statement reflects the publishers, ie, the "creators" I spoke of, not the consumers and environment they are exploiting.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[Lawrence_Bird]

Well, first off, the FBI and DHS were bound to get involved, the moment the OWS movement decided, or spontaneously morphed into, the occupation of more than 1 location. A national event, elicits a national response, from federal agencies, to some degree.

I guess you missed the late 60's and early 70s? I thought we established then that FBI or [insert federal agency here] involvement in political speech was a no-no? That there are protests, rallies or whatever you want to call them in the 50 states is none of the business of Washington DC and the Federal government. Guess you won't be happy until there is an urban version of Kent State using Federal forces.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

None of this is about my own personal happiness, and as I have stated elsewhere, the police eviction of the protesters is not about political speech. It is about property laws that they are violating in order to deliver their message. While you may think this is a free speech issue, it is in fact property law that allows the police action thus far to be justified. If the protesters bought a small plot of land, say an acre, they could say whatever they want, all day long. When they decided to squat on someone elses land, they violated property laws, and empowered the property owners to take action, and the police on their behalf, regardless of what it is they are saying.

As for your reference to Kent state, you may in fact begin to see something similar if the protesters escalate their civil disobedience in a violent direction. One of them was on the news today saying something similar to "soon you'll see molitov cocktails." Are you going to claim they are innocent as they burn down New York as promised, violating the rights of the property owners and the public in the process ?,br>
Say what you want, you are protected. Do what you want, without regard for others, and noone cares what you are saying while doing it, and expect a reaction.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[Lawrence_Bird]

How many times are you going to miss the point? This is *not* a federal issue. Any action should be taken by the local authorities on their own as is appropriate to the laws of that state and municipality, The FBI and DHS should not be involved. Period.

Re:Your tax dollars at work....

[fsckmnky]

Regardless of what I, a nobody, thinks, the FBI and DHS disagree with you. Maybe you could call them and explain.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

That article looks a little suspect to me. Most inhabitants of NYC don't live in "homes" they live in rented apartments.

Re:Occupy...

[Dr. Hellno]

with an upfront investment of $15 million, [Christy Mack and Susan Karches] quickly received $220 million in cash from the Fed

What the fuck?

Those securities were valued at $253.6 million, though the Fed refuses to explain how it arrived at that estimate.

What the fuck!?

Gary Aguirre, a former SEC official who was fired years ago after he tried to interview John Mack in an insider-trading case.

Seriously?

Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve

Holy what the flying shit!?

hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands[hello, subsidized tax evasion]. Many of those addresses belong to companies with American affiliations, including prominent Wall Street names like Pimco, Blackstone and . . . Christy Mack.

I'm calling the gun store with all my phones at the same time

Idea for OWS - Rose Parade Spoof

[Tablizer]

Create a spoof of the Rose Parade on the same day. For example, a Scooby-Doo float that says "Rax the Rich!". (Except RIAA will get to them before the FBI does.)

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I think what you and the tea party fail to understand is that government, however imperfect it may be in practice, is how wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor. Perfect capitalism, without wealth redistribution, is feudalism.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[halivar]

This is a war between rich parents who created the wealth, and the rich children who cannot sustain it. All I have are anecdotes, but I saw a lot of people complaining about being $100K in debt. How the hell do you do burn that much cash if you're "lower class"? That's more than I earn in a year.

Re:Occupy...

[Vancorps]

Do us a favor, watch any news source that is not Fox News and come back to the table.

Either your satire is lost on me or more likely given what I've heard from a lots of folks, people actually believe what you're saying and think that is what they are protesting. They are protesting corruption on a never before seen scale, companies that have grown too large for even the federal government to control. Bringing attention to the laws that have been bought and paid for is a noble goal and I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle people that have the audacity to stand up and speak about the core issues of what is wrong with America these days. Wallstreet has unprecedented control over the country but of course they are not alone which is why you are seeing protests happen all over the place. There are many guilty people.

You don't have to be jobless to see how banking laws have stacked the deck against American citizens. You don't have to be jobless to understand the ridiculous debt required to go into almost any professional field these days. Hell, I went almost 100k in debt to get my degree. I had no trouble paying it off because of a number of factors that simply don't apply to most people. When you are relying on the right people discovering you, landing a good job that actually let's you pay off a targeted college degree becomes like getting picked for the latest NBA draft when they aren't striking that is.

This I got mine so fuck off attitude is extremely prevalent these days and it makes me sad to see what was one of the most generous nations on earth turning on itself because times are tough due to retarded policy decisions targeted toward Reaganomics which was a concept proven false even before it was ever deployed. You have 30 years of bad laws that have been building to this point and a congress unwilling to do anything for the President even when the President is proposing Republican ideals. We're one country, we're supposed to be on the same team, not fighting each other. I hear class warfare again and again from the likes of Fox News and Rush, forgetting that the war has been going on for decades and only now are people disenfranchised enough to speak up about it.

Instead of drowning out their words try listening to them. It's a rally with lots of people so yeah, there are nut jobs, but that doesn't change the heart of the issue which is very real regardless of your membership status in the middle class or above.

Re:Occupy...

[MarkGriz]

Haha, hardly.

People make all kinds of fun of the Tea Party idiots, but at least they had a coherent (albeit misguided) message.

The problem with OWS is there is no coherence. You have everybody from the outsourced laid off worker, to the
screwed over homeowner forclosed out of his house, to the socialist mom's basement dweller who thinks everyone
should make at least $15/hr.

At first, they were completely ignored by the media. Then Fox News made fun of them. Then some momentum picked up
and there was finally some decent news coverage. And then it devolved into a complete incoherent mess where a few bad apples
spoiled the bunch.

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

"The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850."

just trust us...

[Isaac Remuant]

Why don't you just trust us? I can't understand it.

truth /trooTH/ (noun): Whatever government officials are quoted saying. Bonus points if they're anonymous.

Re:Occupy...

[Vancorps]

They are protesting that, where are you getting your news from? You might want to make adjustments. Of course you probably don't understand how they both got royally screwed by what were essentially junk bonds with AAA ratings. This was allowed because of the repeal of key banking laws during Bush Jr's tenor which was the last straw to send all the cards tumbling down. Deregulation of banking is so beyond retarded I have no idea how any can argue for it given that banks have led to almost every period of financial hardship in this country's history.

Hell's angels

[Oswald McWeany]

All this talk about the 1%ers controlling 50% of wealth makes me wonder.

If the 1%ers control that much wealth- why can't they afford to buy a car instead of having to drive motorcycles?

Re:Hell's angels

[Pope]

Freedom, maaaan.

Re:Occupy...

[Vancorps]

What do you think they've been doing for the last 20 years? Washington hasn't been listening and has only gotten worse with Obama as President facing a congress unwilling to act on anything, even things that they've had no trouble acting on in the past such as raising the debt ceiling. For more visibility has been gained by the Wallstreet protests as evidenced by the fact that we're discussing it now.

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

Feudalism was a form of government where lords decided what was distributed to the poor. It was the rise of the merchant class that ended it. What you're proposing is the return of feudalism, with technocrats in the place of lords.

Re:Rally! Take Direct Action!

[halivar]

Occupy Monster.com?

Re:At least they didn't

[Chris Mattern]

So you're telling me people in tents can't have carpets? Interesting.

Corporate control starting to feel like Shadowrun

[CayceeDee]

Is anyone else starting to feel like we are living in the Shadowrun universe. Except the magick that is.

Free Speech

[PortHaven]

Hmm...

Where were all the liberals defending the free speech of Tea Party groups. Who largely, have been fighting for the exact same causes.

With two expections. They view .gov as an equal part of the problem. And aren't asking for entitlements. But Tea Party has been opposing the bank bailouts and Wall St crap for years. Where have all you OWS people been the past 4 years?

Re:Free Speech

[MrEricSir]

The Tea Party was bankrolled by billionaires and given nothing but positive press by certain news outlets.

The comparison is absurd.

Re:Free Speech

[Vancorps]

Opposing bail outs while supporting deregulation of the industry are mutually exclusive and why the tea party isn't taken seriously besides the fact that there is no such thing as the tea party. They just supported Republicans that met their viewpoint which is certainly fine but precludes the possibility that they are their own party. You also don't see anywhere near the money in OWS as you did with tea party protests. That in and of itself speaks volumes.

As for the past 4 years, they've been out looking for jobs or racking up debt that can no longer be forgiven past bankruptcy.

Re:Free Speech

[rsborg]

> The Tea Party was bankrolled by billionaires and given nothing but positive press by certain news outlets.

Which is totally unlike OWS which was bankrolled by different billionaires and given nothing but positive press by every news outlet that wasn't Fox News until they body count got too high to ignore any longer. So even accepting your defective premise your point is?

[citation needed]

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[icebrain]

They did it by taking out loans to go to small private liberal-arts schools and getting useless degrees like (insert group) studies or ancient non-rhyming Sumerian poetry. They were then completely floored that employers weren't lining up outside their door to shower them with money and beg these people to come work for them.

And the Bloomberg administration's response is...

[recharged95]

'999'

That is all.

pubic spaces

[Ultra64]

huh huh, huh huh

Re:Occupy...

[HornWumpus]

You should shut the fuck up until you understand capitalism. Hint: read Adam Smith, not Carl Marx. Marx didn't understand capitalism, rather he constructed a straw man.

Seriously you hurt your sides case spouting historical ignorance like this.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[babblefrog]

I think they call it "Student loans"

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Oswald McWeany]

You probably live within your means. Many don't.

Debt creates debt. It is very easy for those in debt for that debt to exponentially grow.

It is just like investments- your money will grow quicker than the money you put in it. Debt does the same thing in a negative way- only quicker because instead of 5% interest it is (for some) over 24%.

I feel the frustrations- in the world of marketing telling us we need this and that- it is tempting to feeling like you're entitled to certain lifestyles... ... but when over 50% of the people in the country classified as living below poverty level still manage to spend hundreds of dollars a year on cable-TV- it's easy to see a lot of the money that throw people into mega-debt is not the necessities it is silly luxuries that people feel they are entitled to.

Re:They were hurting the Democrats' image

[Hatta]

Yes, it was hurting the Democrat's image. Specifically by telling the truth and making people aware that Democrats support and protect the 1% every bit as much as the Republicans do.

Free press

[Iamthecheese]

We'll know when things are picking up speed when all of the following conditions are met: -People at the top are ignoring bad news. -Crack-downs are met with larger numbers of supporters every time OR crack-downs are so severe that protest groups go underground. -Active and obvious attempts are made by the US government to interfere with stories like this very one; slashdot, for example, would pull stories "so we can stay operational" -The general populace starts completely ignoring and/or mocking the government-controlled media -Governmental organizations start worrying about loyalty in employees in the context of inside politics. For example the FBI would start to quietly lay off liberals or conservatives. These are the things that happen in every regime with a "free press" and a fairly wealthy population when the government jumps the shark. I don't believe any of them have happened yet in the US.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

While there are a lot of ludicrous, insane demands (see here), there are specific demands that sound entirely reasonable and, in my opinion, long overdue.
* close tax loopholes for corporations
* investigate bankers responsible for bank collapse and either criminally prosecute those who committed fraud or enact reasonable legislation like the Dodd-Frank act which will mitigate business practices that lead to unstable markets.
* reduce defense spending, especially no-bid contracts like those given to Halliburton
* increase spending on education
* reduce the influence of money on elections and the influence of lobbyists on policy
* increase taxes on wealthy individuals in order to pay down federal debt

That's what I mean by digging deeper.

I've never attended any OWS events nor do I plan to, but I like that they provide a counterweight to the Tea Party. I'm all for lower taxes, but given the debt situation it's just not a good idea right now. Both sides have all kinds of crazy going on and both sides can actually influence the direction of government.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[halivar]

You mean they don't work through college anymore? An interesting notion...

Re:Occupy...

[bill_mcgonigle]

How much did Michelle Obama's last vacation cost?

Less than GWB, the most frequent vacationer president of all time?

Nah, he was always playing golf or clearing brush for the cameras. Michelle rents out castles in Spain for her and her 400 most-trusted advisors.

Magnitude vs. frequency (ignoring that one is actually an elected office). Both are the 1% anyway.

Homeland Security.

[Simulant]

And you were worried that the Patriot Act would be turned on you. Oh wait....

OWS and the Tea Party

[Phoenix666]

are the last non-violent warning the 1% will get.

They may bottle it up for now (though I doubt they'll succeed at that), but the root causes of OWS and the Tea Party remain and they will build to the point where the 1% are publicly beheaded, mark my words.

The federal government has shown it cannot manage hurricane relief, which is something that was forecast and for which they supposedly train constantly. How will they fare when the country explodes along every fault line at once? Hint: the 1% will be lynched.

Re:OWS and the Tea Party

[R3d M3rcury]

The federal government has shown it cannot manage hurricane relief, which is something that was forecast and for which they supposedly train constantly.

Unfortunately, the training budget was cut.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he means that tuition costs have increased beyond the amount of money you can make working during college. Take a look for yourself.

Protesting too much -

[Darth Snowshoe]

I'm going go to out on a limb here and say that the level of animosity directed at OWS is more telling about Slashdot than about the movement itself. Take a look in the mirror for a moment - have you all really had bad firsthand experience with "hippy rapists crapping in the streets downtown" or whatever - or is it more true that OWS has hit a nerve here?

The honest answer is a lot of Slashdotters are either IT people or programmers (or IT people wishing you were programmers) and you ARE part of the 99%. Your jobs CAN and HAVE been outsourced, to a large degree. Your current income level IS a product of outsourcing and capital flight. How much IT support comes from offshore?

How many of you paid a big chunk for a CS degree and are now wondering how you're ever going to pay it off? Still renting? Living with friends? Living at home? Living without health care? Not yet confronted down-the-road looming expenses like kids, a mortgage, your parents' end-of-life care?

Maybe put aside, for a moment, your epigrams about dirty hippies, and think about how OWS is relevant to your own situation.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Darth Snowshoe]

I'm sure lots of individual OWS protesters would benefit from some lifestyle coaching. On the other hand, if you look closely, you'll see that lots of people like lawyers, doctors, technology people have also been contributing time to the movement - it's not just a big party for unemployed people.

But that doesn't really address my point - the level of anger here at Slashdot has less to do with negative interaction with hippies, and more to do with the fact that they've struck a nerve. It's far easier to make fun of the pictures on Fox News than it is to sit down and consider what the real message is, and how it might relate to your own life and prospects. There's very few people here who are going to get rich in some new startup or writing the next Angry Birds. There's a lot of people here who are going to scrape by on part time IT, freelance work and occasionally installing WiFi for the neighbors, and wish they had a 40-hour-a-week developer job with benefits and a path forward. (Or actually working that developer job, and finding out that to hold it really requires something like 60 hours a week.)

It's easier to be angry at or make fun of the protesters than to admit they have a point.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Supa Jorell]

OK - what exactly are people hoping to have changed by these protests?

Re:Protesting too much -

[Un pobre guey]

There's very few people here who are going to get rich in some new startup or writing the next Angry Birds.

Nobody wants to hear that. Most people cherish the fantasy that one day they'll be rich, especially while they're young. After they've been in the workforce for a few years, been at startups, or have tried to start their own small businesses, they learn the details of how societies and economies work. They slowly realize that the accumulation of great wealth is very hard to do by strictly legal or ethical means. Very hard. Very very hard. So hard in fact that one comes to question whether it is even possible at all via strictly legal or ethical means.

Re:Protesting too much -

[thoromyr]

That is definitely the right attitude, you absolutely need to keep an eye firmly on the goal of staying employed and benefiting your employer. It is important to make money from gainful employment so that you can spend it on products. Consume, do not reflect on your position in life. You should accept it, and ridicule anyone who tries to cast aspersion on the ruling class.

Re:Protesting too much -

[ShakaUVM]

>>you ARE part of the 99%

Which is a framing of the narrative that has become quite pervasive and hideous.

>>How many of you paid a big chunk for a CS degree and are now wondering how you're ever going to pay it off? Still renting? Living with friends? Living at home? Living without health care? Not yet confronted down-the-road looming expenses like kids, a mortgage, your parents' end-of-life care?

None of which I'd ever protest about on Wall Street.

Well, I've complained a fair bit about the government's role in the creation of the housing bubble (which forced me to rent through the 2000s), but I'm not going to blame it on "Wall Street". It's a non-sequitor.

The problem with crony capitalism (which is ultimately what OWS is about) is the fault of corrupt politicians in DC, who listen to the voices of corporations instead of the people.

Re:Protesting too much -

[uglydog]

Why do you assume the responses are emotional? Why do you think I haven't thought it through? Because if I had, I'd see it your way? What nerve has OWS hit? Let's say I AM part of the 99% and still disagree with them. What does that say? For those that got a CS degree, are in debt, aren't living the american dream, and still don't see OWS's point of view, you explain it by them being emotional. But it could be that OWS doesn't represent the people on this site. It's possible that many of the people went to cheaper schools. They might not have the debt. They might have lived at home for a number of years after graduating college to establish a nest egg, maybe to buy a house. To get personal, I work hard, I get a decent salary, decent healthcare, I manage my budget, and I live a decent life. I don't need a fancy and expensive products, a big house, etc. I don't expect to live the american dream working eight hours a day. But I do expect someone working 10 to 12 hours a day to live a decent life, even if they don't own a house. I expect universal health care. But I don't expect smokers' to be covered by that. I don't know what the stats for slashdot are. But judging by the results, I'd guess that most are living decently. I wouldn't think that they just didn't think it through.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Deliveranc3]

I'd also like to point out something specific to the IT industry (and increasingly the manufacturing industry).

We put ourselves out of work. If we build something that does the job, it doesn't need to be built again. In fact it can be used forever.

When industrialization came in the number of manufacturing jobs was cut in half, with modern robotics it's cut in half again. Not profits, not prices, costs are cut in half.

When we realized that the system was increasingly becoming a few owners lording over automation they didn't envision, design or implement we should have kicked up a fuss. Implemented some kind of system so that corporations couldn't have billion dollar companies with 20 employees... distributed the wealth or enforced price scaling measures.

For the rich of course nothing has changed, they have enough money that they could never spend it normally (only battles between the incredibly wealthy over power [I can sell shares in your company until it's bankrupt] or prestige [I'm willing to pay more for that Van Gogh] really have any effect on their money supply).

Ironically the rich have largely managed to gentlemanly avoid such confrontations, unlike the poor who still lie on their resumes.

At approximately $3-5 million dollars you start to be approached by people many times smarter than you who want to manage your money. At that point it starts growing beyond any normal spending habits. It never stops growing.

As long as really smart people whore themselves out to the rich they'll always be able to compensate for the intellectual with the fiduciary. Their funds will never diminish. And we'll have an increasing number of people with an essentially unlimited amount of money.

To maintain their wealth as being unlimited they will simply dissuade the others from organizing behind... say a smart person... or an ethical person. People being naturally antagonistic to good advice or submission to anyone (on any grounds) make this incredibly easy.

Let it stew long enough, until that percentage is 2-3% and you get a class situation not dissimilar to France under XIV, and probably the same results.

Re:Protesting too much -

[jez9999]

There's a lot of people here who are going to scrape by on part time IT, freelance work and occasionally installing WiFi for the neighbors, and wish they had a 40-hour-a-week developer job with benefits and a path forward. (Or actually working that developer job, and finding out that to hold it really requires something like 60 hours a week.)

Heh. I think this is becoming one of those transatlantic divides, as strong as the attitude toward guns.

Here in the UK, a 40-hour working week is considered long. We have a thing called the European Working Time Directive that makes it illegal for your employer to ask you to work any longer than that, and I agree with it 100%. It blows my mind that Americans put up with 60 hours a week. Do you do anything but work? I'm not trying to insult anyone here, so please don't get the wrong idea - but is it just a cultural thing that makes you OK with 60 hours a week (and 3 jobs - WTF???) - or do you think about it the same way we would?

If you were asked to work 60 hours a week over here, you'd probably have good reason to sue your employer.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sjames]

I honestly wonder if it's not some variation on Stockholm syndrome. Practically nobody here is part of the 1% and very few have likely been personally inconvenienced in the slightest by OWS or knows anybody that has been

A good part of it may also be a -1: uncomfortable truth moderation.

.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sureshot007]

I have a decent job in IT, with great healthcare, live alone, and I can afford to pay all my bills.

I still hate OWS, but it's because I hate whiners. That seems to be all they are doing, is whining and blaming someone else for their problems. Take some responsibility for your own actions, and then work on improving it. It's not like Wall Street showed up and forced you to take a mortgage you couldn't afford. They didn't tell you to spend too much on your college degree. You either want the freedom to do as you choose, or you want the government to make the choices for you so you don't make stupid ones - pick which situation you want and accept the consequences.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Darth Snowshoe]

I'm glad you've got a great job, and feel like all your needs are covered.

The message of OWS is not simply that they're whining and all want the government to solve their problems. There's a lot of big interlocking issues, but let me see if I can hit some of the highlights

- corporate profits are near an all-time high
- fraction of income and wealth held by the top 1% is at an all-time high
- hiring, especially for good, solid, middle-class jobs with benefits has tanked
- the rate of growth in price of big ticket essentials like health care, education, and (until recently) housing have all outstripped income growth for at least 15 years.
- in fact, median income in real terms has barely moved in the last 30 years
- in the same period of time, productivity has gone through the roof - who is benefiting from that?
- a lot of great middle-class jobs have gone offshore, as a result of lobbying that has allowed capital flight (rebranded as 'free trade')
- the government (e.g. the taxpayers) have been left footing the bill for a lot of excessive risk-taking by big banks
- that the banks have been allowed to make those foolish bets is a direct result of the roll-back of regulations
- that the real-estate market bubbled up, then tanked, is again a result of the discarded regulations (that had been working fine for decades) and 'innovative financial products'
- Wall Street banks stole billions of dollars from their investors with these products, broke all kinds of laws, paid themselves tremendous bonuses, stuck the taxpayers with the bills, and they're getting away with it.
- corporations and rich individuals have undue influence on politics (even moreso because of recent Supreme Court decisions) and continue to use it to push for further roll-back of regulations, yet more tax breaks for the rich, and dismantling of the social safety net.

Basically the rich don't get it - they've pursued their own interests to an unprecedented degree, and in doing so have, inadvertently or not, eroded the middle class in America. But there's not going to be any more growth in America without a middle class and without a manufacturing base to cater to it. When the American economy was working, that's how it worked, and that's why everyone else envied it.

If all the money in America is sloshing around in a bunch of hedge funds in Greenwich, waiting to short Eurobonds or whatever the next scheme is, it's not actually going to create very many jobs. That that tremendous amount of wealth has been amassed by so few and so self-interested is a result of relentless lobbying and government pressure over decades that has basically changed all the rules regarding taxes and wealth accumulation. OWS is reminding people, most of whom haven't been paying attention since everybody's so busy trying to be productive and keep their own job, that they've basically all been screwed.

It's OK to advocate for your own best interests, because you'd better believe the 1% surely are, and they have a lot more resources than you and me.

Re:Protesting too much -

[webheaded]

I get really tired of hearing the "damn dirty hippies" angle too. There was an Iraq vet shot in the god damn face and an 80 year old women pepper sprayed. People need to pull their heads out of their asses and see these people for what they are: regular people. They aren't just hipster college kids, hippies, lazy jobless losers, etc. There are people just like you and me and they are trying to fight for chance that would actually benefit US but people shit on them. Why? Why would you not support a group that is working towards things that would help you? I see an overwhelming ability of people in this country to consistently not support things that would actually benefit them and I simply do not understand.

As I get older (in contrast to what people say), I've actually become more liberal. At this point, I have 0 fucks to give for rich people and how much money they think that they're entitled too. These infamously low taxes we are dealing with now are simply not the way things have ever been done in America. WW2 taxes on the rich were are 90%. NINETY GOD DAMN PERCENT. And you know what? They just dealt with it and paid their dues to society. America was better for it. Also anyone who tells you that rich people work harder than we do can go fuck themselves. I think we all know how rich people got rich and it isn't because they worked harder than us. Most of them start at a higher station, they cheat to the top, and they basically have good luck. To imply that a CEO works harder than the guys loading boxes into trucks at UPS, the person cleaning shit out of the bathrooms, or the guy getting up at 3am to work on a building is obscene. I do not buy it. I simply don't. They aren't rich because they worked harder...they are rich because they are taking advantage of the system.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sureshot007]

Out of everything you said, the only thing I agree with is the government regulation on the banks allowing (or more accurately, not preventing) them from doing stuff they shouldn't do with other people's money. That needs to change. And corporate contributions to politics should be stopped as well. OWS should make that their goal. Maybe then, something might actually happen.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sjames]

[citation needed]

Re:Protesting too much -

[Vektuz]

I'm guessing most of it is astroturfing. They are up against folks with a lot of money who find their image to be important, after all.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sjames]

And the corporations have NO blame at all? Just innocent babes in the woods being corrupted by the bad ol' government? They couldn't restrict themselves to ethical transactions with government no matter how hard they tried? If that's the case, they are still the ones to protest, it's just that we should protest that they exist at all.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Un pobre guey]

He'll probably mention Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Note that I used the word "ethical." I suppose ethics is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sjames]

Or legal. Gates lead MS to become a repeat felon in several countries in addition to a number of ethical problems. I don't honestly know that much about how Buffet got where he is.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Magius_AR]

I'm sure lots of individual OWS protesters would benefit from some lifestyle coaching. On the other hand, if you look closely, you'll see that lots of people like lawyers, doctors, technology people have also been contributing time to the movement - it's not just a big party for unemployed people. But that doesn't really address my point - the level of anger here at Slashdot has less to do with negative interaction with hippies, and more to do with the fact that they've struck a nerve. It's far easier to make fun of the pictures on Fox News than it is to sit down and consider what the real message is, and how it might relate to your own life and prospects.

The same basic "consider what the real message is" could apply to the Tea Party, who was mocked incessantly (with focus on "guns at rallies" and "racism" and similar nonsense). No one who disagreed with their general philosophy spent even a moment seeking "deeper meaning". Why do you think that people who disagree with the general mindset of the OWS protestor would be mocking out of anger rather than the fact that they simply disagree with their ultra-socialist tendencies? (just like the Dems decry the Tea Party's ultra-libertarian tendencies?). Neither movement (Tea Party or OWS) is one of "moderate sensibility" -- they're both extremist views.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Darth Snowshoe]

I respectfully disagree. Generally I think most people can agree with the basic facts that OWS are highlighting. I'm sorry to keep posting the same link to the same thread, but I feel like many people would rather ignore it than spend a few moments actually reading, and that's a shame;
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

I also think 'ultra-socialist' is unfounded. Progressive taxation, uncorrupted politics and the rule of law (for banks and individuals) are not radical - they're the way the system is actually supposed to work.

Re:Protesting too much -

[NoWhereMan]

the level of animosity directed at OWS is more telling about Slashdot than about the movement itself.

So what does my animosity tell you? I find it hard to parse your comments. I may see myself as part of the 99% who will struggle making a living for the rest of their life, but that does not mean I will turn a blind eye to the stupidity involved in the OWS movement. I do think about how OWS is relevant. I enjoy reading the comments from others about how it is relevant. But then again, I am only looking at 148 of those comments since 412 are too abbreviated for my consideration as it currently stands.

Of course your MMV and you are free to set your threshold wherever you want.

Re:Protesting too much -

[ShakaUVM]

>>And the corporations have NO blame at all?

I'm not really an all-or-nothing sort of fellow. I can think of plenty of people and "people" I'd like to throw mud at for the current mess we're in, and corporations like Goldman-Sachs and Fanny Mae are definitely two of them.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sjames]

And so, the protest goes to Wall Street...

Re:Protesting too much -

[azgard]

The problem with crony capitalism (which is ultimately what OWS is about) is the fault of corrupt politicians in DC, who listen to the voices of corporations instead of the people.

So you believe that you can have high levels of social inequality, but low government corruption? In my opinion this is very naive, but I would like to know how you justify that belief.

Re:Protesting too much -

[sacbhale]

Suggested reading for you "The Big Short" by : http://books.wwnorton.com/books/978-0-393-07223-5/
The forensic analysis of the Housing Bubble and how Wall street and Corporations contributed.

Re:Protesting too much -

[ShakaUVM]

>>So you believe that you can have high levels of social inequality, but low government corruption?

What is social inequality? Do you mean income inequality? If so, then yes.

>>In my opinion this is very naive, but I would like to know how you justify that belief.

Because rising income inequality is almost entirely caused by the success of corporations like Google in foreign countries. Needs no tinfoil-hat corruption theories to explain.

Re:Protesting too much -

[Magius_AR]

generally I think most people can agree with the basic facts that OWS are highlighting.

That depends on what you define as the "basic facts" -- and that's the problem. Quite a few people can get on board with financial system reform and political reform, or some payback for the bank bailouts. But the laundry list of demands from the OWS group goes well beyond those specific concerns: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

For example, have you noticed the intense anti-war protesting going on at the very same rallies?

I also think 'ultra-socialist' is unfounded.

Really? The very link you posted is like pages and pages of charts railing about one single thing: income inequality. Not to mention the aforementioned laundry list of demands. As I posted in another thread, what does "healthcare for all", "protection of the planet", "student loan forgiveness", "ending wars", etc, etc have anything at all to do with fixing corruption of or regulating the financial industry? How are student loans or wars even related to corporations? To me, that document reads like a mixed combination of good ideas and "demanded free handouts". It's the latter that people find fault with.

Progressive taxation, uncorrupted politics and the rule of law (for banks and individuals) are not radical - they're the way the system is actually supposed to work.

I would agree that these are noble and sensible goals. Sadly, OWS has demanded far, far more than just that. Hence, my original post comparing the Tea Party to OWS is very accurate. Both started with focused and sensible goals (the original Tea Party targets were the bailouts and stimulus spending whereas the original OWS targets were wall street fatcats/the financial industry/banks/the bailouts) - however the Tea Party and OWS have both since expanded to now encompass a wide swath of their related party's platform stances. That's why you see the attacks on defense spending, the demand for universal healthcare, and the green movement amidst the OWS demands.

Pull out the pork demands and I can get onboard with OWS. But if they continue to make generic ludicrous free lunch demands instead of remaining focused on a specific problem, I simply won't support it.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I don't claim to understand capitalism, but I'm pretty sure that it depends on the existence of a functioning government. I'm also pretty sure that capitalists like Christy Mack and Susan Karches give capitalism a bad name and need to be stopped.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I appreciate you attributing such a grandiose notion to me, but I can hardly take credit for such a far-reaching proposal. I was just thinking of some tweaks to our current evil system in a direction I consider reasonable and somewhat less evil.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I still think your article is suspect, so you'll need to find another one or do some more research to make a convincing point. Even if the information is accurate (I wonder...), has it occurred to you that 2-4 people might be sharing the rent in one of these apartments? And, for the record, both wages and rents are much higher in NYC than almost any other city in the United States. If you pay $1,850 for an apartment in NYC, it's probably 200-400 square feet.

Re:This begs an interesting question...

[thelexx]

Cling very, very tightly to that foaming patriotism. It's all you'll have left if things keep going like they are.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

THANK YOU. Somebody finally RTFA. Textbook example of government fail and corrupt wall street assholes pouncing on the gaping loophole. It's gotta stop. I hope that you will please help me spread the word about this. Some heads have GOT to roll over this.

Re:They were hurting the Democrats' image

[jmorris42]

Exactly. Observe that every city with an Occupy group was run by progressives/Democrats. They waived permitting regs they agressively enforced on the Tea Party because they supported the idea of OWS, believing they had finally found their answer to the Tea Party after the failures of the Coffee Party and No Labels. It was the exact moment that opinion among the Party opinion makers decided OWS had went from asset to liability that the crackdown started.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[jmorris42]

> I saw a lot of people complaining about being $100K in debt.

Better question: How the hell do you burn through $100K and have no marketable skill?

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

Perhaps I misspoke when I said "you're." I should have said "they're" in reference to the protesters.

They were allowed to exist as long as

[Shivetya]

they served a purpose for those who started them (an outfit in Canada of all places). The Democratic party needed something which they could take over to present the idea that there was an actual liberal version of the Tea Party. Unfortunately they did not get this. Why? Simple, it was not a true spontaneous movement, it was fabricated and being such it was susceptible to being corrupted by those who wanted it for something else.

So yeah, it only went on as long as it got GOOD press. As soon as the seedy side started being published everywhere it was toast.

You cannot fabricate a change in politics. You can certainly try to co-opt one as Republicans attempted to do with the Tea Party but the Tea Party's genuineness is provable by the fact that old school politicians (Read Washington Republicans) despise its influence.

There may truly be a liberal equivalent but we will never know because the powers that be on the Left refuse to allow it to rise on its own because they cannot allow to happen to them what the Tea Party did to the Republican establishment which is, the people are more important than the party.

Re:They were allowed to exist as long as

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Nah. Tea party is a genuine astro turf organization by Dick Army. Well coordinated media events, spin doctors present, buses rented to bring in people for the day etc. It started as a spontaneous movement, but it was immediately co-opted by a radical faction of the Republican party, redirected the anger towards Democrats and hijacked the Republican party. It claimed the natural ebb of support that happens after every historic election, 2008 this time and is pushing Republican party to the extremes it does not really want to go. Its over reach already cost the Republicans two senate seats in 2010 they could have had. It is affecting their nomination for the Presidential elections.

OWS on the other hand is a genuine grass roots movement without any leadership, without media savvy, without spin doctors, without even self-policing to root out the hooligans and vandals who are attracted to any protest movement. Time will tell, which one is real and which one is astro-turf.

The 1% had even stronger media control, and even stronger stranglehold on the government machinery in the past. They were broken. If the 1% are smart they will voluntarily and peacefully allow the taxes to go up and bring deficit under control in a more equitable manner. If not, it is going to be a lot more ugly than a bunch of hippies camping out in some public park.

Re:They were allowed to exist as long as

[shaitand]

"The 1% had even stronger media control, and even stronger stranglehold on the government machinery in the past. They were broken."

When did this happen? The 1% and their counterparts have had and maintained their stranglehold from feudalism to today. Call them the nobles, the aristocracy, or just the rich. A tiny minority has always held all the wealth and stood on the backs of everyone else. They might not have titles and be appointed by a king anymore but they are still an exclusive club that most members are born into.

Re:They were allowed to exist as long as

[Magius_AR]

OWS on the other hand is a genuine grass roots movement without any leadership, without media savvy, without spin doctors, without even self-policing to root out the hooligans and vandals who are attracted to any protest movement. Time will tell, which one is real and which one is astro-turf.

Anything that grows large enough to be powerful gets co-opted. The Tea Party started grass roots without media saavy as well. I bet you're see politicians picking up the OWS "platform" within a year. Michael Moore will probably get picked up as a "leader".

Re:They were allowed to exist as long as

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

"The 1% had even stronger media control, and even stronger stranglehold on the government machinery in the past. They were broken."

When did this happen? The 1% and their counterparts have had and maintained their stranglehold from feudalism to today. Call them the nobles, the aristocracy, or just the rich. A tiny minority has always held all the wealth and stood on the backs of everyone else. They might not have titles and be appointed by a king anymore but they are still an exclusive club that most members are born into.

Correct, I am talking about that large sweep of history. Two hundred years ago the 1% could actually kill with impunity (using their hired thug underlings) and throw people in jail. Four hundred years they could do it personally, without using intermediaries. In 1890s company towns, company stores and company scrips were common. In the 20th century every town had a handful of newspapers which were hand maidens of the local cliques of top 1%. Their media control and news distribution was absolute. With Radio and then network television, between 1950s till about 1980s the entire country listened to just three TV news broadcasts. Politicians had to speak simultaneously to both friend and foe at the same time. So we were able to reform atrocities and fight for civil rights, against segregation, clean air, clean water etc. As network news waned, as politicians from Regan fine tuned the "coded" message that means one thing to the general uninitiated but sends a signal to their base, the 1% are gaining strength. So yes, the top 1% had incredible levels of power and control in the past. It waned, now it is waxing again, and I am sure it will wane again.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I don't think it's possible to assign such specific qualities to OWS. Like the tea party, they are a mob of both reasonable people and wackos trying to find common ground and give voice to shared frustrations.

I really like "OccupyX"

[leftie]

#OccupyX will look great on twitter. Consider it stolen. ;)

Re:Rally! Take Direct Action!

[PowerCyclist]

Hahaha, yes, like that.

Re:Occupy...

[HornWumpus]

Advocating self defense in response to a poster who was advocating/threatening murder and plunder if his 'side' didn't get their way.

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

I still think your article is suspect, so you'll need to find another one or do some more research to make a convincing point.

I don't have the time to sort the same public records The Daily Caller did. I did a search to find anyone disputing their findings, and either my Google-fu is weak, or there is not yet any dispute of that article. Note that the article was front page on many new sites last week, so it's gotten exposure.

And, for the record, both wages and rents are much higher in NYC than almost any other city in the United States. If you pay $1,850 for an apartment in NYC, it's probably 200-400 square feet.

Part of living within your means is where you choose to live. This is why I disembarked at Augusta, GA: one of the lowest costs of living in the US. I also made the decision to go to a jumped-up commuter-college-turned-state-university rather than over-borrow for a more prestigious school. These are choices that have done well for me, and anyone could have made them.

Paraphrasing Leia Organa

[CanHasDIY]

"Obi-Ron [Paul], you're our only hope!"

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Bengie]

And you thought someone making $24k/year could pay a $30k/year for college without using loans?

If you're working in a low end job because you don't have any secondary education, you're probably not making enough to pay for college.

That doesn't answer why/how people rack up $100k of student debt for a useless degree, but that's another issue entirely.

Re:Occupy...

[HornWumpus]

Not understanding it didn't stop you from claiming the feudalism is an edge case of capitalism. It isn't, unless you follow Marx's 'analysis' of Capitaism.

You should shut the fuck up now.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[halivar]

Depends on where you go to school. My local university is $2000 a semester. It isn't prestigious in the least, but I took out only one loan in my time there, and I was able to work my way through the rest. Why these kids demand to got to prestigious schools for vocations that are not in demand is befuddling.

You have got to be kidding

[Quila]

Corporate, mainstream media is still giving conservatives blowjobs while lobbing brickbats at liberals.

Fox of course was promoting the Tea Party activists as much as possible, but the rest were either apathetic, or downright hostile like MSNBC (Keith Olbermann was particularly vile).

They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious

Be honest, it was hard to get the same statement from two OWS protesters as to what the protests were about in the beginning. Since it is a centralized movement, they had a committee finally agree to a list of demands a month after the protests started.

before people figured out they were a bunch of Koch-funded ex-Birchers

The Tea Party, founded as grassroots, has no command structure. However, various people have donated money for events and tried to influence or coopt it. Occupy Wall Street was started by Adbusters with other liberal help, and underwent three months of planning before the first protest (the domain was registered in June). George Soros' money is showing itself everywhere in the Occupy movement, with the likes of MoveOn.org, Res Publica and the Tides Foundation coordinating financial and material support and publicity nationwide. Leftist union money and support has been there from the beginning, ordering members to show for protests and providing other material support.

Re:You have got to be kidding

[Lehk228]

the tea party was founded because racist conservatives were pissed that there was a black man in the white house.

Re:You have got to be kidding

[tftp]

racist conservatives were pissed that there was a black man in the white house

Well, that certainly explains why Cain is in the lead. He may or may not get the nomination in the end, but he is going strong at the moment. If someone doesn't know, Cain is black. Very black.

I would say that among conservatives Obamacare was Obama's greatest sin. Taxing people just because they are alive is unacceptable. If Obamacare is that great, why don't people join the program on their own?

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[halivar]

It is my opinion (just that, no more) that someone making $24K and no safety net has no business going to a $30K/year school. There are cheaper schools that are perfectly fine.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

I appreciate your willingness to separate me from OWS. I consider myself a moderate.

I consider it pretty feudal when a merchant worth $1B can buy a dozen houses each year without working a single second (3% interest on $1B compounded yearly is $30M) when I work 2000-3000 hours per year and can't afford a house here in Los Angeles. I'm don't harbor any sense of entitlement to a house, but I work full time and would love it if I could afford one.

On another note, anyone who's studied nonlinear differential equations should be able to recognize an asymptote. Money makes money. The more you have, the more you make. You have to put something in the equation to prevent points of unstable equilibrium. The zillion dollar question is what to put in and where.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

Ooooo...angry little troll. Tell me, did you read the article?

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Vancorps]

Your statements are asinine and you should probably reconsider before making yourself look more like a fool.

Given that we're on Slashdot and have had many stories about engineers jumping over to IT because all the work is being outsourced your view of reality is stunning. Given that I went 100k in debt getting a software engineering degree, and that I actually landed a job that paid well enough to justify it. I can't comprehend how you could imagine a world in which that makes sense? People don't have a choice of schools, they all cost a lot if you want a quality education. This is why you're seeing the rise of community colleges which are more cost effective. Certifications cost a lot so schools get more and more expensive as they have to hire PHDs to achieve certain levels of certifications. Community colleges are already getting a lot more expensive so all the options are disappearing fast. Then of course their is ever more dwindling support for federal funding of public universities causing them to raise tuition further.

I have several friends that graduated med school over the last few years and they are similar freaking out with 180k in debt on the light side.

Education and healthcare never make sense as for profit ventures, this is always the end result. Only the rich can then afford an education and then we're back to where we started.

Fortunately we're talking about fundamental issues which have been grossly neglected. Perhaps with enough light getting shined on the situation people will start to realize that it doesn't have to be that way and we don't even have to be communists to change it!

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Joe U]

You mean they don't work through college anymore? An interesting notion...

Where is an undergrad going to make enough money to pay for even 1/5th of college, and still expect to graduate on time with good grades?

McDonalds? Starbucks? Target? Wal-Mart? Not unless they raised the salary to $50 an hour.

Kill myself

[icongorilla]

Meh. I didn't quite get through my degree in school because of severe mental stress caused by my leg and family issues. I have no degree, so it's hard to get a job in my major for Computer Science or minor Japanese. I'm doing some work for an indian company right now so I am hoping for about 400 a month. You can say, "FUCK YOU YOU GIMP, GET A FUCKING RETAIL JOB AND WORK YOUR SHIT. I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE MISSING A FUCKNIG LEG." But that is the reason why I ran away to Seattle to kill myself in front of the student loans office. Fuck OWS.

Re:Kill myself

[tftp]

That is the reason why I ran away to Seattle to kill myself in front of the student loans office.

Most programming jobs don't require use of legs in any way at all. Degree is not important, skills are. If nobody hires you, open your own business, it's free and you can sell stuff right away. There are thousands of niches where no big company can survive but a single small company can thrive. Write a cheaper MS Exchange clone, for example, that runs on Linux, that would be worth something, don't you think?

Besides, of all nice places to kill oneself, why the dreary, watery Seattle?

interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was the original submission title changed from Obama Administration who have direct executive control of FBI and DHS to "feds"

Re:interesting

[Red Flayer]

Because the original title was flamebait and would likely cause a degeneration of the discussion into traditional two-party bickering.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

Having looked around a bit, I see that the DC has some controversy in its past but nothing extreme. It looks to me like a selective presentation of facts with a slant in mind, but does not appear to be blatantly false. Thanks for bringing in some facts, although I'm not sure it's the scandal they attempt to portray.

You do have a good point about life choices. I applaud your pragmatism. I borrowed and went to a fancy school and paid off my debt a long time ago (damn I miss the 90's). I would love to get my ass in a house.

Non-violence is still an option (albeit difficult)

[Un pobre guey]

I disagree. I won't spam you all again, but repealing these three laws would avoid yet another economic crisis due to the sort of speculation they allowed:

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley),
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, and
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

FWIW, I also started a petition. Sad to say, it has not been successful.

Re:Occupy...

[PaladinAlpha]

"I think your article is suspect because ... because ... well, just because. You have to find another one." Moving the goalpost, no true scotsman, etc.

Re: "oh, wages are higher in NYC" -- funny, I don't see any of those evil 1% income disparity graphs correcting for location.

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

I disagree; money cannot make itself. There has to be external work involved, even if only brain power. Consider how lottery winners never stay rich ("a fool and his gold are soon parted"). As silly as it may sound, even Paris Hilton has displayed more fiscal acuity than most people in debt by managing her money well, even if only because she listens to the good advice of her handlers. Compare with someone like MC Hammer, who was also fabulously wealthy, but money was not really his forte, and he lost it all.

Now, if you said smart money make money, then I'm with you all the way. And every paycheck you make can be smart money if you use it wisely.

"First they came"

[MountainLogic]

Bobcat,

I heard people starting to talk about forming an angry mob with their own sticks and rocks to go down and confront the camps if the police didn't do anything.

So you are suggesting that we should arrest everyone who might become victims of violence? Or only those you don't like? If a mob wants to come to your home or office and assault you should you be arrested because it is "your" fault other are threatening you with violence? Are you saying that someone is "asking" to be carjacked because they own a car?

Or did you do the right thing and report these threats of violence to the police?

" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[PaladinAlpha]

*takes a look for himself*

Large, well known university -- in state tuition is less than 6k a year. Minimum wage full time is 16k/yr; so you could easily pay it off entirely. Even if you chose not to, you could pay a lot of it before graduating (and interest accrual). Even failing that, your maximum loan amount would be less than twenty-four thousand dollars.

Oh, what? In-state tuition isn't fair? Now we get to the crux of the issue. No one seems to take cost of university into account when planning attendance -- they go to an out-of-state party school or overpriced private institution, live beyond their means by taking out huge amounts of loans, and then expect everyone else to foot the bill. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

Read it yourself, it's obviously biased. Faults with the article:
* listing of single-family homes would preclude multi-family dwellings, skewing the results higher
* claims homes of occupiers are "luxurious" and they provide 5 pictures out of 1,000 of nice homes which are hardly the "definition of opulence" as the article claims. I wonder if those homes might belong to someone's parents?
* the cost per sq foot of real estate in NYC is much higher than the average -- this in no way means these homes are "luxurious". A $300K house in Little Rock, AR is a nice fucking house. In NYC, it's a disaster. Even a $500,000 building in New York City totally sucks.

As for everything being pricier in NYC, I think that's a relevant point. One's standard of living is not about one's absolute income relative to the US at large but rather the difference between income and expenses in one's locale. And, if you want to account for disparities, we should also talk about the disproportionate contribution of large cities to federal coffers versus rural locales. NYC is more expensive than Bee Branch, AR but it also contributes a lot more money to national defense, interstate highway systems, etc.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

No it's quite simple. I have $1M. I put it in a savings account. Presto! $30K or more per year (20% more than the median US income). As long as banks pay interest, money makes money. And the more you have, the more you make. 3% is a terrible investment, btw.

Re:At least they didn't

[Red Flayer]

they're living in tents, you insensitive clod. they don't *have* carpets.

Last time I was in a yurt, there were carpets *everywhere*. The ground was overlaid with carpets (probably two layers thick), and carpets were draped all over the damn thing. Of course, that was in Nepal, not NYC... it's possible that tent-dwellers in NYC aren't as wealthy as the 1% over in Nepal.

Re:Occupy...

[thoromyr]

They are protesting corruption on a never before seen scale, companies that have grown too large for even the federal government to control.

Applies to more of your post than just what is quoted, but its hard to get past this exaggeration. You might want to read about some great American presidents, their cronies and what they did to this country (and the global economy). A decent place to start is with Harding.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nah, we're all doomed to repeat it.

Re:And the Bloomberg administration's response is.

[DriedClexler]

You left off the D at the beginning.

E) None of the above

[JRHelgeson]

You'll never hear the real reason why in the main-stream media, because they support the Occupy Wall Street, but there is a very clear reason why the Feds stepped in and shut this down.

What you may not have heard about is that on Friday, there was an assassination attempt on Obama. Haven't heard about it? Well, someone shot an AK-47 at the white house, and he's been at large until today, when they finally caught him and now the story is coming to light. Apparently, this guy went to the White House straight from the OWS encampment.

Re:Occupy...

[halivar]

Aye, but the trick is getting the $1 million in the first place, and having the discipline and good sense not to touch it.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[Red Flayer]

Depends on where you go to school. My local university is $2000 a semester.

Where the hell do you live?! My cheapest local university is more than three times that. For part-time students, the tuition is $325/credit hour.

Re:Occupy...

[Vancorps]

So you think there was a time in history where banks had the power to topple governments? Iceland, Greece, Italy, and strife all over the US and the UK. I'm sorry, but it is no exaggeration. I do appreciate history, every time in history where merchant entities achieve too much power has always led to great problems, see the great depression. See the East India Company going further back with private armies, compare that with the abilities and abundant use of Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan today and I challenge you to say they aren't far worse.

Believe it or not, my statements don't come lightly. I'm not comparing anybody to Nazis but if you want to we can look at German economics and how it was usurped by private parties causing great harm. That's probably something even to support your side, except that the problems today reach much further than Europe and North Africa.

Re:Non-violence is still an option (albeit difficu

[Red Flayer]

I haven't read all your links, though I'm familiar with all three acts, but I think you're aiming at the wrong target. The root of the conflict is not the economic crisis (that's only been a trigger for conflict-related movements like the Tea Party and OWS). The root of the conflict is economic inequality and the unholy alliance between economic titans and the federal government.

The income disparity was growing, and becoming problematic, prior to any of those three laws being passed. It really started to become a big problem in the 80s.

Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

> there are specific demands that sound entirely reasonable

Not exactly. Lemme take em one at a time:

* close tax loopholes for corporations

So long as we pair it with a general lowering of rates I'm for it. The rest of the world has been lowering corporate rates to attract em. Just jacking their rates will only force more offshore. We live in a global economy ya know.

> * investigate bankers responsible for bank collapse and either criminally prosecute those who committed fraud or enact reasonable
> legislation like the Dodd-Frank act [wikipedia.org] which will mitigate business practices that lead to unstable markets.

I'm ok with that if you will ALSO investigate the politicians who did as much as or more. Such as Dodd and Frank, along with Chuckie and Nancy. And a certain Acorn lawyer that made it to the bigtime. And for balance who can forget Shrubbie pushing the 'affordable housing for all' line as well. For that matter I think a certain lizard who dreams of greater things was just fine with it. News flash, when you put people who can't afford a house into one eventually something bad will happen. The banks who were regulated into doing it tried to pass the hot potato and Freddie and Fannie were more than willing to take it. The CDS business was all about trying to hide the salami, nobody wanted to be holding the stuff when it all went Foom!

* reduce defense spending, especially no-bid contracts like those given to Halliburton

I think we can all agree we could find some savings in the Pentagon budget but you guys have to get over Halliburton and Darth Cheney. Most of the stuff Halliburton got contracted to do was stuff there aren't too many other entities can do.

* increase spending on education

Why piss away even more borrowed money chasing the bad we are already wasting? None of the problems in education can be solved with money.

Step One, short term: End tenure. Tenure is a system to promote diversity of opinion in an academic/research setting. K-12 teachers are expected to teach a government blessed corpus, not create new knowledge so tenure is nothing but a sop to the unions which makes it impossible to fire incompetent or burned out teachers.

Step Two, longer term: End the government monopoly on education. If we as a society believe in universal education that is a goal that can best be achieved through vouchers.

* reduce the influence of money on elections and the influence of lobbyists on policy

No. Money == Speech. You don't have to like it to realize you can't avoid it, especially in the current environment. Make the government too weak to need lobbying and the congressional seats not worth spending millions to obtain. I like the idea of citizens pooling their money and petitioning their government for redress. What else is something like the NRA or AARP? And if they can petition why can't the American Petroleum Association?

* increase taxes on wealthy individuals in order to pay down federal debt

Nice simplistic notion. Too bad it won't work. First there just ain't enough wealth amongst the wealthy, assuming they would sit still and allow a life's work to be pissed away. See above about that global economy thing. Remember the rich have a lot of money, but there is a very finite number of them. If you want to raise serious scratch you have to move down and tax the shit of the middle class. And anyway, in case you haven't been watching the news, there is a bit of a recession on right now. Tax receipts are down because we already depend on the rich for the vast majority of the taxes and they ain't doing too well at the moment. Raise the rates and history tells us receipts would probably go down more... along with employment as the rich moved to survival and flight to preserve capital instead of worrying about earnings.

You guys are always pissing and moaning about income inequality. I understand it is a blessing. Why? Because nobody is actually falling behind (once

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[drsmithy]

No. Money == Speech.

Money is not speech. No amount of repetition will change this.

Money is bribery, and given the nearly incomprehensible wealth gap between the fraction of 1% at the top and everyone else - to say nothing of corporate wealth - trying to equate money and speech clearly and obviously places far, far too much influence in too few people.

About the only fair and reasonable way one could go with the "money == speech" thing is if only individuals (not corporations, unions, or other collectives) could donate, and donations were annually limited to no more than whatever 2 weeks of full-time labour at the current minimum wage.

And anyway, in case you haven't been watching the news, there is a bit of a recession on right now. Tax receipts are down because we already depend on the rich for the vast majority of the taxes and they ain't doing too well at the moment.

Tax receipts are down because taxation is focused too much on income rather than wealth. This is particularly relevant to taxing the rich, since they tend to have relatively (to their overall wealth) low incomes

You guys are always pissing and moaning about income inequality. I understand it is a blessing. Why? Because nobody is actually falling behind (once you correct for social factors) the rich getting richer is just a side effect of wealth creation, and that wealth doesn't tend to stay concentrated beyond the second generation of the creator and even before it spreads out from inheritence it tends to enrich everyone around.

Utter bullshit. Wealth has been coming steadily more concentrated for decades. For all but the richest few percent, real incomes have barely moved in nearly half a century, while productivity and overall wealth creation has gone through the roof.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

> Money is bribery

This is a popular notion but it completely mistakes cause and effect. While some outright bribery does occur, the vast majority of political giving is exactly the opposite. Think it through. Which is more likely to be successful, bribing someone who disagrees with your position to change their vote (and piss off their previous supporters) or dumping money into electing someone who already agrees with your philosophy?

> About the only fair and reasonable way one could go with the "money == speech" thing is if only individuals (not corporations, unions, or other collectives) could donate

Oh right. That will empower the little people. NOT. The two groups I cites, the NRA and AARP, are the two most feared outfits on the hill. You might call it undue influence but their millions of members call it the power of numbers. Granny donating $50 to a congressional campaign doesn't mean jack, AARP on the other hand commands everyone's attention.

> Tax receipts are down because taxation is focused too much on income rather than wealth.

As it should be. Funding ongoing expenses of the government by seizing assets is a suicidal short term solution. Most of the assets held by the rich are not in the form of mansions and sports cars, they are stocks, bonds, farms, real estate, factories, productive things. And even if the government seized that stuff, unless we are going full socialism and seizing the means of production, etc. they would just be selling it back to different rich people and raking off a percentage. And more importantly, at the first whiff of a movement to go something that crazy most of the nation's liquid wealth would disappear overnight. Rich folks have the luxury of mobility, ain't a nation on the planet will turn away a political refugee with a sack of cash and a few dozen priceless works of art in their luggage. That 'plastic surgeon to the stars' can do just find in the Bahamas, his clients won't mind the flight. Look in your history books, happened lots of times and would happen again. You can tax income and they holler, but you start on the accumulated wealth and the smart people (who tend to be wealth creators) bail because they know how that story ends.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[sneakyimp]

I appreciate your reasonable response. It's a breath of fresh air. I hear you on some of your points and I disagree on others:
* tax loopholes - i get the whole global argument, but this is ridiculous. I think we could tap a tiny bit of that $2.5 trillion in sales without scaring off too many jobs.
* sure, investigate them all. put them on the hot seat. do it already. is it done yet?
* no-bid contracts are bullshit -- especially when they are that big. "not many companies do what they do blah blah." i call shenanigans. what on earth was halliburton doing that no one else could do? space? nope. nuclear? nope.
* education spending - pissing it away? i went to public school and then a prestigious college. I value my education and am grateful for it. I'd hardly call that pissing it away. And, personally, i like it when the guy working at Mcdonald's or the DMV is not a total idiot. Having an educated populace is an incredible privilege. Uneducated people are *such* a drag.
* money != speech. they are two different things and we should all keep that in mind. cynical attitudes equating them lead to moral decay and corruption.
* taxing the rich - suppose we take a mere 1% from all the US millionaires next year. With approximately 3 million US millionaires, that's 3,000,000 * $1,000,000 * .01 = $30 Billion. And, if those millionaires were shrewd enough to get a 3% return on their investments (which is not a lot) then they'd still keep their million in assets plus twice what we took from them in interest. 1% too much? OK take a bit less and include more people. Let's adopt the Reagan-era tax structure! The notion is simple, not simplistic. Your attempted refutation (which seems simplistic to me) doesn't provide any facts at all. Less rhetoric, more reason please.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

* tax loopholes - i get the whole global argument, but this [reuters.com] is ridiculous.

Yes they play games. That is why I'm not objecting to flattening the tax base so long as we flatten to a lower level and remain revenue neutral on a static scored basis. In a real world dynamic model that would almost certainly mean more revenue to the government and I can live with that. But don't allow cherry picked numbers to enrage you. Remember that a handful of corporations, those making $250M or more, still fork over 75.4% of the corporate taxes collected (2009 figure) so it isn't like they are dodging their duty and small mom and pop outfits are paying the bill. Same for personal income tax, the hated 1% paid 38% (2008 fixgure) of the income taxes collected.

I will now pose a question I always ask when I find a semi sane person of the left. Define 'fair share'. What percentage of the product of a person's labor is the State entitled to? I say it crosses the line to slavery way before we hit the magic 50-50 split, where do you draw the line?

> Having an educated populace is an incredible privilege. Uneducated people are *such* a drag.

Agreed. Which is why I want the government schools razed. Take a look around, how many educated folk do YOU see lately? I have a book on relativity by Einstein on my bookshelf. In the introduction he asserts that he wrote it for a general audience, anyone qualified to matriculate into a university should be able to understand it he says. What say you, would the average college entrant of today at your 'prestigious college' have a prayer of understanding general relativity? Hell, McDonalds can't find people who can make change or even work a register... after they bought special keyboards with pictures of the menu items on the keys. The guy at the DMV probably IS a total idiot. Something has to change and doing the same failed things, only once more with feeling, isn't the answer.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

Aw crap, second reply because I forgot this one....

> With approximately 3 million US millionaires, that's 3,000,000 * $1,000,000 * .01 = $30 Billion.

Yup, and you end up with a rounding error on a deficit the size of ours. The rich look like they have a lot of money, and they do. But there just ain't enough of em to pay off a deficit this big. You want to tax your way out and the middle class is screwed because that is where the real money is to be found. Seize every dollar of Bill Gate's stash and you can fund the deficit for a few days. And then what, that wealth is destroyed. Seize and sell off Microsoft itself and you could fund the deficit for a little longer. But then what, now you have a big sucking hole in the economy, the whole Seattle economy is a smoking hole in the ground consuming government transfer payments instead of full of taxpayers and what do you do for an encore?

The rich are an asset. Yes you can mine them but ya can't run em off or totally demoralize em or the economy dies. It is a great thing when somebody gets rich. Everyone around is a little richer when it happens so I'd prefer it happen here instead of Hong Kong.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[sneakyimp]

hmmmmmm....fair share? That's a tricky philosophical question. My immediate impulse is to suggest that it would be some kind of exponential function that is just enough to counteract the tendency of enormous fortunes to grow ever larger. Something akin to the physical formula for drag in a fluid -- initial movement is trivially easy but ultimately there is a terminal velocity. I think wealth past a certain point is absurd and pointless and doesn't benefit anyone. At the other end of the spectrum, even the poorest people would pay *some* tax. It's one kind of unfair to have one guy pay 50% and another guy 1%. It's a different kind of unfair for one guy to have 3 jobs and no home and another guy to have six residences simply because he's got a trust fund. Hard work should be rewarded. Hoarding should be discouraged.

In practice I know that kind of tax scheme would never fly. In practice, I would say we have to pay down our debt so let's take a bit of money from those who are comfortably afloat rather than creating a bigger homeless problem.

As for public education and its goals, I don't think Einstein's estimation of what people should understand is a fair metric. The guy made one of the greatest intuitive leaps ever in science so his estimation of what is easy to understand is likely to be skewed on the hard side.

I read Einstein's book when I was 17 while attending Little Rock Central High School and it didn't seem particularly difficult. LRCHS is not Andover or Exeter but it's making the people of Little Rock less stupid every day. I wonder what the cost per student is per year? Let's say it's $1000. People at this school learn things like reading and math and vocational skills.

At my "prestigious college" the average combined SAT score was 1380 so I would estimate that perhaps 50-75% of entrants could understand Einstein's book. Tuition there was $37,000 last year. People there learn the difference between Proust and EE Cummings. Some people write their senior thesis on baseball.

Personally, I think teaching 37 kids how to read and write and do basic math is a better investment of $37,000 than teaching smarty pants kids about retable alterpieces in the northern European renaissance. Imagine the literacy rate if all public schools were closed? *shudder*

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[sneakyimp]

Taking an extra $30B from our top 1% will not really hurt them. The smoking crater metaphor is hardly appropriate.
Taking $30B from the $2.5T corporate market (about 1.2%) is unlikely to hurt corporate america all that much. Hell, we could probably get about half of it by collecting some tax from Exxon, Google, GE, etc.
End our foreign wars (kind of like Nixon got out of Vietnam) and thereby reduce defense spending from 4.7% to about 4% of GDP and save $120B each year.

That's $180B per year....which means we'd pay of the debt in something like uhhhhh....85 years (assuming no interest) ? *sigh*.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

> That's $180B per year....which means we'd pay of the debt in something like uhhhhh....85 years (assuming no interest) ? *sigh*.

Exactly. There isn't enough money in the world to sustain the level of government spending currently happening. Not in the US, not in Europe. It is a worldwide problem.

There is exactly one way out of this if we are going to survive without a total collapse of civilization; we have to do two things and we have to do both of them before we go over the cliff.

1. Drastically cut government spending.

2. Drastically cut regulation. We have to jump start the economy and we can't cut taxes. If we raise taxes we will trigger the crash. I don't think we can cut enough spending in time to save ourselves honestly, but there really ain't a chance of cutting enough to balance the budget AND do a drastic tax cut so regulation it is if we want to change the game. Revenue neutral tax simplification could also have a big stimulative boost, depends how it is done.

Then 3. Pray to whatever deity you believe in that the capitalists seize the opportunity and run with it bigtime. Wealth creation on a scale unseen in a long time. New industries. Biotech perhaps? Something that can double GDP in a decade.

We are in a lot of trouble but there aren't any problems YET we couldn't claw ourselves out of if GDP doubled. Just inflating the currency would solve the debt problem but that solution would be worse than the problem. Growth on the other hand would be real wealth.

To fix things longterm we still have a lot of problems that just growing the economy can't fix, but it would buy us some time. We would still have a country in a decade where we could still be arguing about problems like fixing the schools.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

> I think wealth past a certain point is absurd and pointless and doesn't benefit anyone.

But you can't limit how much wealth someone can have. At best you can limit how much someone can own/earn HERE. So once someone hits max level here you are just saying they have to move to the expansion pack... called Hong Kong. Care to ponder what would have happened in the 20th Century if the the thousand richest Americans had bailed out when they made their first hundred million and rebased their empire in whatever country was most welcoming? If Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Facebook, eBay, Amazon, Oracle, Intel, Dell, etc. were all foreign headquartered corporations?

> Hoarding should be discouraged.

It isn't like the rich are like Smaug or Scrooge McDuck with huge piles of gold and gems they sleep on. They own productive assets and if they aren't managing them better than their competitors they soon find themselves with a lot fewer assets.

> Imagine the literacy rate if all public schools were closed? *shudder*

Lets us imagine. Imagine if half the US student body were graduating from Catholic or other religious or not for profit schools, the other half from for profit schools. And every student was in a school their parents thought was the best option based on whatever criteria they believed important. We just might be back at the top of the world literacy rankings again.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[drsmithy]

This is a popular notion but it completely mistakes cause and effect. While some outright bribery does occur, the vast majority of political giving is exactly the opposite. Think it through. Which is more likely to be successful, bribing someone who disagrees with your position to change their vote (and piss off their previous supporters) or dumping money into electing someone who already agrees with your philosophy?

This is a false dichotomy wrapped up in a non-sequitur.

Oh right. That will empower the little people. NOT. The two groups I cites, the NRA and AARP, are the two most feared outfits on the hill. You might call it undue influence but their millions of members call it the power of numbers. Granny donating $50 to a congressional campaign doesn't mean jack, AARP on the other hand commands everyone's attention.

The point is not to "empower the little people". It's to DISempower the "big people", who currently have a vastly disproportional influence.

Firstly by requiring individuals to "speak" for themselves, and not have their "speech" co-opted by the leaders of a group who may not actually represent them.

Secondly by preventing a small number of rich individuals misrepresenting their "speech" as the "speech" of a large group.

Thirdly by restricting the maximum amount of "speech" anyone can have, and making that level within the grasp of basically everyone.

As it should be. Funding ongoing expenses of the government by seizing assets [...]

This is a straw man. No-one said anything about seizing assets.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[makomk]

So once someone hits max level here you are just saying they have to move to the expansion pack... called Hong Kong.

So long as they actually have to live in Hong Kong, why not? You'll probably find that a lot of wealthy individuals want to live in the US. Over here in the UK, even our tax exiles usually spend as much time in the UK as they legally can and try to lobby the Government to be able to stay longer without legally being counted as living here.

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[jmorris42]

> This is a false dichotomy wrapped up in a non-sequitur.

No it isnt. You say money in politics is bribery and I point out that bribery is not a logical way to do things. Unless you are using the word in a way not found in a dictionary.

> The point is not to "empower the little people". It's to DISempower the "big people", who currently have a vastly disproportional influence.

And I say there is no practical way to do the one without also doing the other. Your hatred of the evil rich is so strong you would silence the weak in the false belief it would also silence the strong... when we BOTH know it wouldn't. Who is the fool?

> Firstly by requiring individuals to "speak" for themselves, and not have their "speech" co-opted by the leaders
> of a group who may not actually represent them.

What? You are against forced unionization or something? Ok, lets fix that. Get to the root of the problem instead of treating symptoms.

> Thirdly by restricting the maximum amount of "speech" anyone can have, and making that level within the grasp of basically everyone.

Scare quotes aside, sounds like you are 'this' close to admitting money == speech and are willing to limit it for your own 'higher' goals such that everyone still has a right to speak... so long as nobody can actually hear them or it actually does any good. Unless of course they simply use their wealth to BUY A TV NETWORK. OR A NEWSPAPER? I can't do that, certain other people can. Rich people.

So let me put you the question I was burning for Senator McCain to get close enough (don't think he ever came within two hours though) to me in '08 for me to ask:

"What part of Congress shall make NO law... is beyond your English comprehension skills?"

> This is a straw man. No-one said anything about seizing assets.

Oh really? I could have swore I saw this with your userid upthread:

> Tax receipts are down because taxation is focused too much on income rather than wealth. This is particularly relevant
> to taxing the rich, since they tend to have relatively (to their overall wealth) low incomes

Perhaps I read the wrong thing in it? Or perhaps you would like to revise and extend your remarks?

Re:Debunking the 'demands'

[drsmithy]

No it isnt. You say money in politics is bribery and I point out that bribery is not a logical way to do things. Unless you are using the word in a way not found in a dictionary.

Bribery is the giving of money to influence behaviour.

You do not need to change someone's opinion dramatically to be bribing them.

You do not need to choose between bribing only one person out of two (or more) options.

And I say there is no practical way to do the one without also doing the other.

This is like arguing if cars were speed-limited to 100km/h, cars that could only do 120 would be slowed down more than cars that could do 150.

Capping "speech" to a maximum reasonably attainable by practically everyone, doesn't prevent those at the bottom from making that level of contribution, but it does prevent those at the top from making a larger one.

Your hatred of the evil rich is so strong you would silence the weak in the false belief it would also silence the strong... when we BOTH know it wouldn't. Who is the fool?

You haven't identified any way in which my suggestion would "silence the weak".

What? You are against forced unionization or something?

Absolutely.

Ok, lets fix that. Get to the root of the problem instead of treating symptoms.

The root of the problem is codifying inequality in law by equating money with speech, and thus explicitly giving the rich greater power of "speech".

Scare quotes aside, sounds like you are 'this' close to admitting money == speech and are willing to limit it for your own 'higher' goals such that everyone still has a right to speak... so long as nobody can actually hear them or it actually does any good.

No, I'm not. I reject the very concept that money and speech are interchangeable. My point was that if someone were to try and make that argument, it could only be considered vaguely reasonable if the maximum amount of "speech" was as disconnected from their wealth as possible.

Unless of course they simply use their wealth to BUY A TV NETWORK. OR A NEWSPAPER? I can't do that, certain other people can. Rich people.

This is another, separate problem that needs to be addressed. It's also irrelevant to the topic.

"What part of Congress shall make NO law... is beyond your English comprehension skills?"

What part of "money is not speech" is beyond your comprehension skills ?

If you want to exercise your right to free speech, then write a letter or get up on your soapbox on a street corner. Don't try and pretend, however, that writing a cheque for a few hundred grand is in any way similar to doing that.

Perhaps I read the wrong thing in it? Or perhaps you would like to revise and extend your remarks?

Taxation is not seizure. A 10% land tax (to use an example) doesn't mean teh evilz gubbermint takes 10% of your land away every year.

America just passed 15,000,000,000,000 public debt

[Colin Smith]

Congratulations!

 

Re:Occupy...

[HornWumpus]

Banks funded both sides of the 100 years war. U.S. Grant was the unbelievably corrupt. Only L.B.J. comes close in the modern era. L.B.J. started in politics dead broke. He retired a multimillionaire. He never worked an honest job in his life.

But Iceland, Greece and Italy are ruined by their own inability to budget sanely within their political process.

If you want to blame the banks, blame them for lending money to deadbeats. Don't blame them for the deadbeats eventually defaulting.

Re:Non-violence is still an option (albeit difficu

[Un pobre guey]

Those three acts are the concrete evidence of what you are saying. They exist as a direct manifestation of the unholy alliance between economic titans and the federal government, and are a proximal cause of a significant fraction of today's economic inequality.

Please sign my petition, BTW. I think we agree more than we disagree.

Re:America just passed 15,000,000,000,000 public d

[Nethemas the Great]

Hey no worries. Thanks to FRB inflating our money supply that's only 103% of GDP. Bernanke says I should be comfortable with that number. Besides, there are 13 other countries ahead of us in the world...

Re:Occupy...

[PaladinAlpha]

You know, that's a very reasonable and informative reply -- more than my too-snarky quip deserved. Thank you for that :) I got up a bit too early, methinks. Sorry if I sounded sharp.

On topic, I'm thinking about your points regarding the article and seeing some merit there -- I don't know if I am ready to completely discard it, but certainly can see a serious slant going on, there. The issues you point out would at the very least deserve mention if they weren't malicious. You're certainly correct that it is not above-board. Hmmmmm.

Regarding local income disparity -- how does that change the distribution of wealth graph? Or, in other words, what does it look like in terms of multiples of local median income per person? Well, no, now that I think about it, that would be a huge job to try to control (ultrarich neighborhoods, multiple residences, etc.) and my intuition tells me that as absolute income rises you become more insulated to differences like that by sheer virtue of ability to relocate. Gotta be a paper in there somewhere, but my original point isn't holding much water so I won't belabor it.

Isn't there...

[t3hfr3ak]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a few people who have been protesting IN FRONT of the White House for YEARS now, perhaps even decades. I vaguely remember my trip to Washington DC, but I do believe I remember seeing a protester out front who was there for 4 or 5 years at that time. Why weren't they removed? I was unaware peaceful(in most areas) protest required a permit.

Re:Occupy...

[ShakaUVM]

>>OWS is protesting... the increasing disparity between wage growth between the upper and lower clases.

Which is a fucktarded thing to protest.

If I made an extra $10k this year, but Bill Gates made an extra $1B, I shouldn't be particularly upset about it, as my standard of living just went up.

It's a stupid philosophical point, that verges on simple jealousy.

Facts are not accusations

[rsborg]

Except the on-going accusations of a bunch of racists, Koch-funding ex-Birchers, "wingnut" birthers, violent milita types, and paid Republican plants?

Do you deny that tea partiers showed up toting guns to a peaceful rally on public property [1], or that the Koch brothers funded them [2]?
There's baseless accusations, and then there's facts. You can't complain about "accusations" that are rooted in fact and provable.

[1] http://helenair.com/news/article_f01b1b8a-4676-11e0-bbad-001cc4c002e0.html
[2] http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/11/03/360433/romney-koch-tea-party/

Re:Facts are not accusations

[Feyshtey]

I didn't say they were untrue. In fact, I stated that the media pointed out the fringe idiots and painted the Tea Party as a whole by the same brush. Conversely the media has given every excuse for the violations of the law, the complete disregard for public safety, and the open calls for violence and overthrow of both the government and our system of commerce. While the "leaders" of the Tea Party actively denounced the idiots who attended the town halls and rallies even though no actual crimes were included in the allegations, the "leaders" of OWS have wholly refused to denounce blatant crimes, and calls for bankers to be drug into the streets. The media has ignored that the "leaders" of OWS have covered up thefts, rapes and drug overdoses, and openly stated that they will not report such things to law enforcement and will "handle it themselves".

Re:Facts are not accusations

[lwsimon]

I can say with authority that my local tea party had not received any outside funding as of March of this year, when I left the group.

I can also point out that there has never been a violent crime committed with a gun during a tea party event, despite their obvious and apparent presence.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

No worries about the quip. Yeah, let's give it a rest. My arms are tired from all the hand-waving.

Re:Occupy...

[Wildclaw]

Which is a fucktarded thing to protest.

If I made an extra $10k this year, but Bill Gates made an extra $1B, I shouldn't be particularly upset about it, as my standard of living just went up.

Except that the real wage minimum wage hasn't gone up at all in the last 50 years while the real gdp per capita has gone up by 170%.

But don't let facts cloud your damaged brain. Go on believing the fairy tale lies about how everyone benefits from the rich getting richer.

Re:Occupy...

[flimflammer]

Allow me to blow your mind. There's a pretty novel concept heavily in use across the world called "roommates". Essentially one or more unrelated people share your dwelling at a percentage of the cost of rent and utilities.

I can understand your unfamiliarity with it; it's a relatively new concept spanning back only about a year or two. Pretty easy to miss.

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

Let me guess: You *didn't* make an extra $10k this year?

Re:Occupy...

[Wildclaw]

who thinks everyone
should make at least $15/hr.

$15 is only 20 times that of the minimum wage in 1950. The gdp per capita has gone up by closer to 25 times in the same time period.

Those who are spoiled are those who exploit minimum wage workers as modern day slave labor.

Re:At least they didn't

[Lawrence_Bird]

wait.... are they in Philadelphia too? Good thing WIlson Goode ain't in charge anymore... certainly some similarities!

Re:Occupy...

[ShakaUVM]

>>Except that the real wage minimum wage hasn't gone up at all in the last 50 years while the real gdp per capita has gone up by 170%.

Wages for all quintiles have gone up over time. From that conservative bastion, NPR:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/26/141716961/why-has-income-gone-up-so-much-for-top-earners

But don't let facts hurt your crack-addled brain.

Re:Occupy...

[ShakaUVM]

>>Let me guess: You *didn't* make an extra $10k this year?

I'd have to check my tax records for sure, but yeah, it was a bit upwards of $10k more I made this year.

Must be all that crony capitalism I benefit from, from being in the 1%.

The internet race between liberation & crackdo

[Paul Fernhout]

BTW, the big thing this coordinated event shows is the internet can either be used to promote liberation or to crack down on dissent in a big way, as I comment on here:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1
"As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for things like a basic income, all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."

Re:Occupy...

[sneakyimp]

You win.

Re:Occupy...

[Wildclaw]

Two things:

* Lots of states have gone away from the ridiculously low federal minimum wage (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html)

* Your link points to household income, not minimum earning per hour.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[PNutts]

I'd tell you but the 70's are kind of foggy...

Quan told the BBC. CBS Evening News played it

[leftie]

CBS Evening News last night actually mentioned — and played a portion of! — the BBC interview with Oakland mayor Jean Quan, where she ‘fesses up to being on a nineteen-city conference call to discuss things like OWS

"I was recently on a conference call with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation," Ms Quan told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15761454

Again...Quan told the BBC. CBS News played it

[leftie]

CBS Evening News last night actually mentioned — and played a portion of! — the BBC interview with Oakland mayor Jean Quan, where she ‘fesses up to being on a nineteen-city conference call to discuss things like OWS

Here's the quote from BBC website,,,

"I was recently on a conference call with 18 cities across the country who had the same situation," Ms Quan told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15761454 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Occupy...

[Lunzo]

Who modded parent post up? Since when is idle conjecture "Informative"? So much for no stupid question, a few minutes googling what OWS is about would have answered the question.

Re:Occupy...

[khallow]

I think what you and the tea party fail to understand is that government, however imperfect it may be in practice, is how wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor. There's a reason I "fail to understand" this. That's because it isn't true. The US government does not in practice redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. When the practice deviates that much from the theory, then you discard the theory.

Re:Occupy...

[Pseudonym Authority]

Maybe Dick Cheney would have had less control, or at least failed more often if Bush were there to fuck things up.

Re:Occupy...

[khallow]

Since I failed hard on my reply, I'll try again.

I think what you and the tea party fail to understand is that government, however imperfect it may be in practice, is how wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor.

There's a reason I "fail to understand" this. That's because it isn't true. The US government does not in practice redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. When the practice deviates that much from the theory, then you discard the theory.

Re:Occupy...

[ShakaUVM]

>>* Your link points to household income, not minimum earning per hour.

Right, because median wage is what matters, not minimum wage, and the most important metric of them all is median household income in PPP.

Re:Occupy...

[ShakaUVM]

What's really challenging for certain people to understand is that devout Christians donate a lot more of their time and money to charities than less devout or atheistic folk.

So when you hear the same people arguing against government run charities, you shouldn't think, "OMG! They're hypocrites!" (because, after all, they've placed their money where their mouth is) but rather that they think that there's better ways of running charity than having the government overseeing everything.

Now, you may disagree with them, especially groups like the Salvation Army that I've developed quite a few issues with, but it's inaccurate to call them hypocrites, as your comic does.

Re:Occupy...

[smpoole7]

In this particular instance, if I was wrong about the OWS vs. the heads of Fannie and Freddie, I stand corrected. But the actual comment was a rhetorical question, not a conjecture, per se. :)

The Price of Admission

[neoshroom]

Analogous to what you said:

I'm fairly certain the constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

It doesn't say anything about publishing a book. A book is writing. Speech is out loud. Why can't you just read your book out loud? Then it would be "speech." Convenient, no, but that's the price of admission.

Really, what you said doesn't make any sense. An occupation is an assembly, just as a book is a form of speech. The constitution does not say "may only assemble for 8 hours" or "may only assemble during the day" or "may only assemble so long as nobody is annoyed," what it says is: "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

The Bill of Rights has no price of admission.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[bogjobber]

I'm currently going to a pretty cheap state school studying hard sciences. When I graduate, I will be $25k in debt and likely will have to go to grad school in order to find a job in my field. So all told I'll probably end up with at least $40k in student loan debt. And I will have to find a pretty damn good job in an increasingly competitive job market in order to pay off all that debt relatively quickly (God forbid I should be able to buy a house or start a family before I turn 35). And I'm doing it the "right" way. I'm studying a technical field and being smart with my money (I took most of my gen eds at community college, work 40 hour weeks, and I follow a pretty good budget).

What about the people that don't want to be scientists? That don't want to be engineers or finance majors? They still deserve a quality education. Should we tell them to not study history? Should we tell them to not study literature? We should just tell them to bite the bullet and bust their asses in a field they aren't passionate about?

There is no such thing as a useless degree. College is not supposed to be a career factory. But how many quality schools are out there where you can earn a bachelors without paying over $25k in tuition? I'm sure there are a few, but if you aren't fortunate to have rich parents you're most likely going to be stuck with quite a bit of debt no matter where you go to school or what you study.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't have teachers? We shouldn't have social workers? We shouldn't have artists? We shouldn't have musicians? We shouldn't have writers? I know plenty of people of people who are getting "useless" degrees and they are well aware of the fact that it will not lead them to a lucrative career. But they still deserve to get a quality education at a price that won't leave them financially crippled well into their 30s.

Unemployment rates are a serious problem, particularly among the young. The rising cost of college tuition is a serious problem. You're just being a hyperbolic, condescending dick.

Re:If your wondering what OWS wants here is a link

[artecco]

Well then, just shut down the OWS and move to Norway and get most/all of the above ;-)

Re:Outsourcing

[cardpuncher]

Look at the same issue from the point of view of an Indian or Chinese and they'd be asking what right you have to protect your income at their expense.

The utopian rhetoric of the "occupy" movements is just a cover for self interest - give *me* more money and take it from "them* where *them* is anyone who happens to be perceived to be better off at the present moment.

If this were genuinely a campaign for a more equitable distribution of resources (and had managed to explain precisely what it meant by those terms), it might have a bit more moral authority. If it were to be successful, there'd be even less money for still-mostly-comfortable westerners than there is now.

Equity doesn't stop at national boundaries - that's actually one of the benefits of globalism.

The "occupiers" are just as greedy as the people they're protesting against, their greed is just more easily sated.

Re:Occupy...

[kletus]

Rolling Stone does some great reporting, especilly Matt Taibbi. He is a must read for me.

Re:Occupy...

[makomk]

Part of living within your means is where you choose to live.

Of course, the places with cheap housing tend to have rather a shortage of jobs because generally that's why the housing is so cheap! In fact, I've seen comments about OWS that make the exact opposite argument to you - they argue how widely available jobs are in areas like New York and how the unemployed just need to move to where the jobs are, ignoring the huge rent.

Re:Occupy...

[An Onerous Coward]

That explains it. I wondered why the milk in my fridge is disappearing so fast.

Re:Occupy...

[makomk]

Of course, Christian "charity" comes with conditions designed to further their ideology. Remember how the Salvation Army shut down their government-funded homeless shelters a while ago because they might have to allow gay people to work at the shelters that the Government was paying for, and they'd rather let the homeless starve to death than employ gays? That tends to happen even more when the Government isn't paying for it.

Re:Occupy...

[An Onerous Coward]

The point isn't about minimum wage. The point is that "household" income combines the incomes of multiple potential workers. Over the last few decades, hourly compensation has gone down for perhaps the bottom 80% of us, but we've sent more adults into the workforce to make up the disparity.

The picture remains: people are working harder for less, even as per capita productivity has risen dramatically. Who gets the excess? Mostly the 1%. Not because they're working harder than they did thirty years ago, but because the laws are now rigged so as to privilege their work at the expense of ours.

Re:Occupy...

[An Onerous Coward]

What's challenging for certain other people to understand is that, as your income goes up, the fraction of your income donated to charity goes way, way down. Here in Utah, most of our state legislators are real estate barons or other successful businessmen who constantly write laws for each other. Their stinginess towards the poor probably shows up in their private life as well as their victim-blaming legislation. Hell, one of the bastards runs a payday loan business that preys on those who are in desperate financial straits.

If you're arguing against government-run charity, you can't just wave your hands about how private charity will pick up the slack. You need to show how private charity will do at least as much to combat poverty as government programs like Social Security, Medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps, etc. Otherwise you're essentially arguing that it's better to increase human suffering than to edge away from an absolutely pure capitalist ideology.

And as you point out yourself, private charities aren't immune to corruption.

Keep believing that

[Quila]

Swallowing fabricated charges of racism helps you avoid the issues.

Re: Communism failed: class warfare alive and well

[halivar]

It most certainly does not cover the cost of books. But then, I never bought the books after my first semester there.

Sourcing for this story is abysmal

[wkcole]

Every echo of this story leads back to the same original source:

Rick Ellis, a Minneapolis-based journalist for Examiner.com, reports that these cities also had the help of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Calling Ellis a journalist is really talking about his past, as Examiner.com is not a journalistic operation. It is a glorified bloghost that hands out locality and topical concessions to whoever wants them. If you'd like to be the Fargo correspondent on the topic of alien abductions, head on over and sign up... Ellis' claimed source for federal involvement is a single anonymous DoJ employee. No serious journalistic operation would publish a story on such a thin thread, particularly given the on-the-record denials of federal involvement. Veterans of Usenet will recognize his claim as akin to the classic "the lurkers support me in email" assertion.

Beyond that weakness, it is helpful to understand the background of Examiner.com. It is a property of Clarity Media, which also owns dead-tree newspapers using the Examiner name in SF, DC, and Baltimore and The Weekly Standard. A sibling company owns The Oklahoman. A watcher of media would note the common thread here: strident right-wing publications unconcerned with issues of fact or journalistic integrity. The whole bunch is owned by Philip Anschutz, who is something of a native-born Rupert Murdoch, except that he avoids media coverage himself and is more of a partisan theocrat than a pure devotee of money. Anschutz has bankrolled a menagerie of anti-gay, anti-porn, and anti-science entities such as Colorado for Family Values, Discovery Institute, Media Research Council, Institute for American Values, and so on. He also is the main backer of the Narnia films and has helped prop them up via his Regal Entertainment Group theater chain. In short, Anschutz is someone with a history of spending large amounts of money on evangelism, propaganda, and disinformation in support of a far-right Christian Dominionist agenda. Examiner.com is less purely bullshit than some other parts of Anschutz's media operations, but the rightward tilt is pretty clear behind the amateurism.

Even if Ellis isn't shilling for Anschutz and has a real source at DoJ, it is also important to recognize the failed status of the DoJ. Under Ashcroft and Gonzales, there was a project of political hiring for staff positions that mutated in 2008 into 'burrowing' of Bush appointees into civil service slots. Since 2009, GOP Senators have used their 'hold' privileges to prevent many appointments in DoJ (and elsewhere) so there are a lot of empty chairs at DoJ and some Bush holdovers to go along with the "Loyal Bushie" staff and the burrowing. In short: there is an ethically problematic population of anti-Obama partisans at DoJ, one of whom could be Ellis' anonymous source.

There is an interest on the Right in feeding the basic distrust of Obama in the Occupy movement. That distrust is not entirely baseless, but the legitimate issues (e.g. the courting of financial sector contributors, heavily compromised policies, etc.) aren't overwhelming. Convincing the Occupiers and their sympathizers that there is an active role being played by the Obama Administration in trying to collapse their movement serves the purposes of the GOP and of those to its right such as Anschutz. It should be expected by anyone watching politics that there will be a barrage of efforts to convince the Left that the Democrats who are actually electable to office are as unsalvageably corrupt and enslaved to Big Money as any Republicans. Some of that will be spinning of facts, some will be disinformation. This story smells strongly of disinformation.

States vs. Federal

[niftymitch]

What federal laws have been broken?
Laws that justify the expenditure of federal funds.

For the most part these are all "local law" enforcement
issues with some interesting mutual aide repercussions.
The handling of the problem in Oakland CA was so troubling
that the community leadership of the neighboring
community called into question the use of mutual aide
police force staff.

If local mutual aid is being questioned how does federal
involvement come to play.

Now I do see a common far reaching national based
organization inserting itself into this. CNN, NBC, ABC
and CBS all national (and international) organizations
are presenting the protests in very colored ways. Are
they being guided by some unseen sinister force?