Slashdot Mirror
New Documents Detail FBI, Bank Crack Down On Occupy Wall Street
jvillain writes "The Guardian has up a story detailing the crack down on Occupy Wall Street (OWS). It goes on to show how the FBI, DHS, Terrorist Fusion Centers and the banks all worked together to stifle dissent. From the article: 'This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protesters organizing with the Occupy movement These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.' The next question is how many Americans are now listed as part of a 'terrorist group' by the government for their support of OWS?"
Really? "Stifle descent?" You couldn't have corrected that to something that makes sense?
Is this the hope or the change?
What the hell does an "astroturf movement" mean?
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
If you love freedom of speech and association, here is your chance to do something concrete about it. Make out a physical check in the amount of $1 or $5 or whatever you want. Mail the check to OWS (http://occupywallst.org/donate/) and copies to the FBI and the DHS.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
What the hell does an "astroturf movement" mean?
Seems like it would be sort of like an earth quake, except then you realize that there's actually someone to blame for your fall because someone yanked the rug you were standing on.
Our Constitution guarantees us a number of ways to work through government for change.
One of those constitutional guarantees is freedom of speech to say you disagree with what the government is doing. Nothing about that "damages" the constitution.
Astroturf == Fake Grass
astroturf movement == fake 'grass roots' movement
Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.
and the evidence that it was an astroturf movement would be?
It's called "astroturf" because it's fake, manufactured "grass roots".
Obviously a scare-term that imbeciles have made up on the spot to 'justify' cracking down on protests & activists who don't cheer about rampant corruption between the government and the financial sector.
You're confusing them with the Tea Party protests.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
that "Descent is the highest form of Patriotic"?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unpossibles/3462246191/
So the FBI silently investigated people who reasonably could have resorted to lawlessness, and that's now stifling dissent? As someone who supported the idea of OWS, even that doesn't make any sense to me. As the saying goes, civil disobedience is still disobedience. When you walk the thin line of breaking the law, you should expect the organizations which investigate crimes to be interested.
The summary, and the article attached to it, seem nothing more than sensationalist in order to drive web traffic. More than sensationalist, outright biased. Just reading a few paragraphs of the summary pretty well shows this article was not at all interested in truth, but rather just spreading biases against the many agents and officers who were simply doing their job.
This article and summary make very little sense. Or, would that be "since", in order to keep in step with stifling descent?
As long as you don't consider rock throwing as speech. That's when things get ugly.
Obviously a scare-term that imbeciles have made up on the spot to 'justify' cracking down on protests & activists who don't cheer about rampant corruption between the government and the financial sector.
The term is often used in reference to the exact opposite groups, as well. For instance, the Tea Party (who don't necessarily support a crackdown like this) were called an astroturf movement. Generally any case in which a conspiracy theory can be put forward in order to discredit the group is an astroturf movement.
What the hell does an "astroturf movement" mean?
The reference is to Astroturf, a kind of artificial grass once used for sports fields. It means a campaign run by or at the behest of an organization to generate the appearance of grassroots support or opposition to a product or policy positions.
It's most often used in marketing, but also increasingly in politics.
"Cracking down" as in "allowed an illegal occupation of a private park for months before getting fed up with the ghetto that resulted"?
Wow, super harsh. OWS was full of itself from day 1.
Corporations cant vote, only people can. Stop giving the voters a free pass simply because you deem their intelligence less than yours; it reeks of arrogance and a superiority complex.
Joe McCarthy, is that you?
Occupy Wallstreet was an astroturf movement, who the heck cares about an astroturf movement?
If the FBI was investigating it, who would be the group behind the astroturfing? Are you imagining it as a trick to bring out the people who don't support the government's policies so the government can identify who they are?
How many videos have you seen? How many minutes, total? Do you realize that the protests have been ongoing for well over a year? Can you comprehend how utterly stupid it is to extrapolate the motivations and behavior of a movement with thousands of people, spanning millions of man-hours, from a few minutes of cherry-picked video?
No, I suppose you can't... because Fox News hasn't explained that to you.
LordLimecat lives in a fantasy land where all parties have equal exposure and corporate malfeasance is Absolutely Not A Thing and massive businesses cannot sway elections or influence the government in any way.
1. Do not carry any kind of ID on you. None. And remember, personal cell phones, esp. smart phones, are a form of ID. If you absolutely MUST have a phone with you, make sure it's not registered to you. 2. Do not talk to the cops. Not one word. 3. And, instead of "occupying wall street", you might try "occupying a job". Lastly, a question: did you vote for Obama? Remember, it's his minions who are spying on you.
I mean seriously this reeks of paranoia. There's a very valid reason for banks cracking down on OWS. In the USA there are really only two ways to legally create a bank account. One is as an individual the other is through an incorporation. Individuals can obviously have multiple co-signers such as in a family. And, incorporated entities can be businesses, non-profits, cities, etc... OWS organized itself as the antithesis of any incorporated entity. There were no official leaders, no board or leadership who was legally responsible for filing taxes, nothing. Their use of banks to collect donations, organize and pool funds, and then disperse them therefore broke pretty much all the laws that were put in place to stop groups like organized crime and terrorists from utilizing banks in the same way. The folks who work at banks can lose their jobs and face criminal prosecution if they don't report activity that looks exactly like what OWS was doing with the bank accounts they were opening. So please, use your brain and think things through before you post an article like this that simply reeks of paranoia. You may not like the system or the laws, but they exist, and the banks and FBI are simply following them.
Back in the day Janet Napolitano put out a report warning of right-wing extremist at the time of the Tea Party. Here is a bit of ranting by the progressives on how it should have been pursued: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/06/1117242/-Remember-the-DHS-Right-Wing-Extremist-Report
At the time that the crackdown happened to the OWS people I wrote the following:
"I’m very sorry to hear about your forceful removal from Zuccotti park where you were peacefully demonstrating against what you see as what is wrong with our country. You were exercising your free speech and free assembly rights and I hate to see this taken from you. Let me tell you that I know how you must be feeling right now. About two and a half years ago several of my friends and I joined a movement to protest the government bailing out the bankers that you are so upset with (first time I ever protested anything BTW). We had rallies around the country with the theme of promoting individualism over corporate cronyism. This movement was attacked by the press and government as being racist, gay-bashing, “Astroturf” (term for grass-roots effort sponsored by big money sources), and heartless (I’m sure there were cases where people on the fringe were causing such issues, the same can be said about the fringe in the OWS crowd, but for a majority of people I met while involved this was not the case) but now the whole movement has been marginalized. It is unfortunate that we were unable to convince you at the time of the importance of the issues we were facing and that you chose to sit on the sidelines mocking us as “Tea Baggers” and such. I do hope we can find some common ground now that you are awake and we can take our government back from the statist and big money influences we’ve ceded it to."
Are you out of your fucking mind ?
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
Getting rid of the monarchy, getting rid of slavery, votes for women, civil rights, whatever. None of these happen through people simply going through the motions of voting. "Change must come through the barrel of a gun ..." might be an exaggeration, but it is not far off. Non-violent protest is sometimes sufficient, I hope that this is all it will take to reduce the current "government by Goldman Sachs" but sitting on your backside righting letters to congress or voting for a particular candidate definitely is not going to do it.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Oh, good comeback. Bravo.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yup, and another, tight beside that speech, is the right to peaceful assembly.
Hmm right to speak out, and a right to assemble.... sounds like protest to me!
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Any reasonable definition is going to include terrorists primarily targeting civilians or using civilians for shields. The founders didn't do that.
They're not comparable.
The poor bankers and oil companies behind the "grassroots" Tea Party don't have a chance against the overwhelming financial might of the tree-hugging hippies!
The next question is how many Americans are now listed as part of a 'terrorist group' by the government for their support of OWS?
Get some historical perspective and look at the stings the FBI ran on MLK Jr and the Civil Rights Movement. This is nothing.
Nothing new. The FBI has always viewed anybody that questions the prevailing powers as subversive.
Cointelpro was a widespread illegal operation to quash civil rights and other movements. The documentation that proved this illegal operation existed was found by accident when some anti-war protesters broke into a selective service office that was shared with an FBI station, and found boxes of documentation which they removed, and distributed to media. Poor article, but you can google cointelpro and look around for better information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
The FBI also went after the head of the University of California, and eventually, under governor Ronald Reagan (who had acted as an FBI informant when he was in Hollywood), was able to have the head of the UCs fired. The UC head's only crime was not _completely_ stifling free speech rights of students-- he had made it an expulsion offense to protest any non-UC business on campus, but that didn't go far enough for the FBI. They wanted him to expel any students who protested anything on or off campus.
The FBI has a long storied history in anti-labor.
The FBI doesn't just engage in legal and illegal repression, it also is corrupt as in the connected being able to call in favors. Ronald Reagan suspecting that his daughter was living with an older married man, asked the FBI to check into this. The FBI sent multiple agents (at taxpayer expense) to stalk her, and report back to her father and mother.
The FBI has, since its inception, been an instrument of the rich and powerful to stifle dissent (and at times, even act as a personal police force to select members of the rich and powerful classes).
Aye, because unlike the Tea Party protesters and their corporate backers and media conglomerates with special interests, OWS hasn't singled out a political movement/activist group as its supposed mortal enemy and started compiling lists of every time a member of that enemy group goes to sleep, goes to the toilet, scratches his or her arse, and everything else in between. Of course you're going to document some of them smoking weed (etc.) if you're watching them like a hawk. You're also going to document particularly nasty things like murders, rapes, and assaults that happen in the area and are not, in fact, caused by the protest, as websites like that would have us believe.
If the Tea Party protests were subject to such unhealthy, obsessive scrutiny, I can guarantee that you would find a similar frequency of crimes documented.
Here's one example of that unhealthy interest, across the pond:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053463/Occupy-London-90-tents-St-Pauls-protest-camp-left-overnight.html
Looking through tents with heat-detecting cameras, FFS. If that isn't an unhealthy and chilling manifestation of the special interests of a media conglomerate, nothing is.
And for the record, "some of the protesters are committing petty crimes" is not a justification for clearing protests. It is unconscionable to support the silencing of either political movement.
Our various governments propose ways of "petitioning for redress of grievance", and, as each becomes popular, strive to cut them off.
In British law, as applied to the 13 colonies, a signed petition could be presented to a governing body and it had a duty to respond. As the Yale law journal points out, that was so heavily used in response to slavery that it was withdrawn in the U.S. (see http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/796438?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101604364957) A certain well-known president is trying to bring it back, but that's a different discussion.
With organized petitioning unavailable, personal appeals to one's representative became popular. It soon became impossible to meet your representative, and written letters turned into counts pro and con that their staffs reported.
Groups and companies then banded together and hired lobbyists, to button-hole legislators in the lobby of their building, where the public was allowed. When these became too bothersome, only selected lobbyists were invited to meetings, and the general public was excluded from the buildings.
The press is still allowed in some selected lobbies, but there is always a back corridor available for legislators to use to bypass them.
Groups then started petitioning in person, on the front lawn of the parliament buildings, and occasionally their representatives would come out and meet them. More often, the police closed off access to the building and its vicinity.
No organization, whether legislative or commercial, enjoys hearing criticism. As soon as they get too much from a given channel, that channel will be cut off. Only the occasional brave, duty-oriented legislator will ask their electors for comments.
In my own country of Canada, this last happened when the government of the day asked for broad comments on amending the copyright law, when my local city councilman needed opinions and options on a garbage-collection proposal, and most recently when the CRTC asked for suggestions to moderate the bad practices of cell-phone providers.
Redress of grievance still exists, but it's genuinely rare.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
You would have preferred that they throw their vote away on the Libertarian candidate, who, by the way, caucused with the GOP? Or the Green candidate, who didn't even manage to get press coverage? Face it: we're in a two-party system, and they voted in the lesser of the two evils. Unless you're in it for the GOP to take over all branches of government, then voting Dem. was the only viable option.
Don't let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good self-righteous rant, though.
In my view a government, totally controlled by 'the big money' in the form of campaigning money, support money for senators and representatives, can be named corrupt. It is not interest in the country or people that drives them, it is only money.
HAHAH Not suffer the kind of scrutiny??? What networks do you watch? They are heavily scrutinized. They even had false accusation brought up against them, such as the "N" calling incident. But no one could provide proof, even with ALL the cameras rolling. And it's not an EVERYDAY protest because those people actually have jobs that they go to and don't have the luxury of rich daddy and mommy tits to suck on as they sit in their little tents and play on their phones. But I guess you are sitting in your moms basement right now cheering them on. So by all means keep being a leech.
Yes, precisely like the term "useful idiot". Both are cop-outs that are thrown around to trash entire groups; "they're just [bogeyman term here], ignore them or laugh at them and cheer when they get their skulls split open by police batons".
But it really takes an imbecile to believe that ows could spring into existence fully formed, complete with a slick web site and well orchestrated publicity.
What, is this the same movement that has been criticised a million times for not being organised, having no leadership, and having "no clear message"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
Sure, the political changes that led to this for starters (if you count lobbying your representative as part of the democratic process). If you mean changes for good, then no, I haveno examples.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
From *personal experience* Occupy was peaceful and never physically antagonistic...
See, here's your problem, "Captain"...you're judging a the behavior of a few and applying it to a large group. It's false equivalence...
Sort of like if I were to, say, claim that the US military is a murderous organization based on what I'd "seen and heard" of one soldier going house to house murdering civilians.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Fake grassroots. People have gotten quite skeptical these days, in some ways - they always expect a lie. Espicially in politics and advertising. Astroturfing refers to the increasingly common tactic of creating an apparently populist or spontainous movement while hiding the support of a large sponsor (government, pressure group, business, etc) which would have something to gain.
For example, and using entirely fictional elements to avoid getting into politics, imagine that the manufacturer of a particular widget starts taking public criticism for the negative social or environmental impacts of their product (Maybe the widget causes cancer with prolonged use, or the manufacturing process produces toxic waste) and race the possibility of expensive regulation. The company executives could well go on national TV and try to explain that the fears are overblown (truthfully or not), but no-one is going to believe them because they have a personal stake, and corporate PR departments are not respected for their objectivity right now. So they might instead organise an apparently independant 'Widgets for America' fan club to talk of how widgets make the country great, or they might find a group which is opposed to regulation in general terms and anonymously donate money to a 'Hands off Our Widgets!' campaign. If they PR department is feeling particually slimy, they may create a movement from scratch - supplying the funding, designing websites, paying people to attend protests. All to create the impression in the minds of the public that there is massive popular support for widget production, and attempts to regulate them are ill-considered.
It seems unlikely that Operation Wall Street was an astroturf movement though, because there was no-one in a position of power or money to gain from it. Who would benefit from orchestrating such protests?
No, you are confusing the second admendment with the first. Though they do go hand in hand.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Perhaps they wanted to identify the people who were responsible for creation of such AstroTurf movement.
That's just redefining terms to suit your argument. The No True Scotsman fallacy, I believe it is usually called.
So, basically, what you're saying is that you want a bunch of random people to not only give up their time, but give up their lives for you while you sit on the sidelines criticising?
wow.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And crap!
I should never post before my coffee. I've said that before. I had two different posts in mind and blended them together into a mess. I'll go away now and hide.
My apologies, Joss.
You mean the FBI and police sat down with business owners to talk about a large-ish scale protest outside their premises directed at them? Screw that, if there's a mob outside your front door, why would you ever want advice and reassurances from police, it's not like it's their job or anything!
Police drawing up plans in case the OWS potentially resorted to criminal or terrorist behaviour ? How dare they! I demand a police service that doesn't prepare for any eventuality and is always taken by surprise!
It is rather shocking that the police didn't inform the leaders of an organisation that prided itself in having no leaders that they had vague threats of violence against them. Imaginary people have the right to information too!
Here's another such window:
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2012/Fahrplan/events/5338.en.html
http://mirror.fem-net.de/CCC/29C3/mp4-h264-LQ-iProd/29c3-5338-en-enemies_of_the_state_h264-iprod.mp4
Marxist AGW scientists?
#include <irony.h>
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I agree that the tone of the BBC article was a bit flamebait, however you are giving the FBI, etc more benefit of the doubt than is rational...
"Stifling dissent" is accomplished through many means...we only know what was declassified.
The FBI was warning bankers about things they heard Occupy planning, but the FBI didn't say jack shit about the assassination plot to the protesters...that's a big one.
Of course law enforcement should look in on what groups like this do...it's their job. But **what they do with the information** is the crime here. I made a few LE people who attended Occupy meetings that were open to the public...I felt that was fine.
A second point, notice how geographically FBI etc. had vastly different responses. FBI agents in, say Houston, TX are understandably more likely to view 'occupy' as a terrorist org than say, FBI agents in Seattle. America is a big place with regional cultures that vary widely along the political spectrum. It stands to reason that FBI agents who work in the South are more Fascist-minded than those who elect to work in more liberal areas.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Any reasonable definition is going to include terrorists primarily targeting civilians or using civilians for shields. The founders didn't do that.
This "reasonable definition" is rarely used in practice, which makes the definition suspect. Most people use the word to refer to enemies using unconventional tactics, even when they target legitimate military targets. I first learned about "terrorism" as a kid when a lot of kids of my generation did, when a suicide bomber attacking a Marine base in Beirut. Apparently marines are civilians now. The apparent justification for considering this terrorism regardless is that the marines were off-duty. If attacking soldiers while they're off-duty is terrorism, you're completely wrong about "the founders didn't do that". Few wars are won by those who wait at the battlefield patiently for their enemies to show up on their own schedule, and we've bombed plenty of military bases ourselves, barracks and all...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
What would you have done? Stormed the citadels? Great idea: A small army of protesters could probably rush through the doors of some banking headquarters and take over the building. What happens then?
The police get called in. A large-scale protest of a business handling such money and of such importance would be considered a serious event. There may be a brief period of standoff, but it wouldn't be long before the SWAT teams go in. Highly trained, experienced police officers with the best civilian equipment around vs political activists. Half an hour after the first door breach most of the protestors will be in cuffs and on their way to jail, with a few who tried resisting on their way to hospital or waiting for forensics to come along to document their corpse. And that's where it ends - because two days later the security is tightened, the employees are back and business is back to running as usual. At best - and this is a very optimistic scenario - you have shut down the bank headquarters for, oh, a week. Well done. Total achievement: Nothing. Really nothing, because while OWS is jamming one building operations are just shunted off to various sub-offices and regional headquarters.
Well, one thing would be achieved. A month or three later, someone in congress would propose a bill making it a criminal offense to organize an attempt to enter a place of business with intent of causing disruption to business operations. That way the FBI would be able to better infiltrate any grassroots movements and arrest anyone who do much as tried to rally support for doing it again.
Life isn't like the movies. There have been times, historically, when the underdog revolutionary managed to break the system, overthrow the oppressive powers that be and build afresh something new and better. But this is a rare event. Far more revolutions have ended quickly, with the rebels imprisoned or executed.
Terrorists terrorize civilian populations to reach political ends. The Founders didn't do this.
Instead, the founders could correctly be described as revolutionaries, rebels or insurgents.
There's an older version. It's called the 'golden rule.' He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Corporations cant vote, only people can
People can't decide who we get to vote for, only corporations can.
There are exceptions at the low levels of politics, where it doesn't cost so much to get a good percentage of the vote if you're on target. But the higher up the ladder you go, the more it costs to participate, until only corporations can even (effectively) have that much money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A highly decorated Marine Corps General, and one of only a handful of men to receive the Medal of Honor twice wrote:
"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
-- General Smedley Butler
Who would benefit from orchestrating such protests?
no one with power benefits, directly. if you have say in this world, you would not benefit in OWS's objectives, initially. over time, if things ever got more equal and fair, everyone would benfit (ie, society goes up a notch).
everyone who needs the system to change but whose voice is never heard, they are the direct beneficiaries of OWS. if their voices counted, we would have had change by now. but those in power hear us, ignore us and continue on with the same-old same-old.
yes, its a class war. what are you going to do about it? ignore it? help things get better? or fight to keep your precious status quo?
"which side are you on?"
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
on the part of non-taxpayers
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that they pay taxes.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
But it really takes an imbecile to believe that ows could spring into existence fully formed, complete with a slick web site....
Really? What site did you think you were posting to? Yes, making a slick web site. That must take a team of computer nerds and years of labor.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Our Constitution guarantees us a number of ways to work through government for change.
And if the Government obeyed its restrictions in the Constitution, those would be valid methods.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Spooner
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"Stifle yourself, Edith!" --Archie Bunker
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Isn't that pretty much how every revolution ever has worked?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Canada.
They wanted to make sure nothing was going to happen and look, it didn't.
Could it be that they failed because they were infiltrated, manipulated, and de-funded?
But to the larger point, most of the recent successful revolutions (Orange, Velvet, Icelandic) were non-violent.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Unfortunately I don't have the points to mod you up for pointing out something that is true, though it seems the majority of slashdotters can't figure that out. But I will say that, although corporations can't buy elections, they can and do buy the politicians.
Seriously, for a bunch of squatters that were not always civil, they were allowed to get away with way, way more than any other protest I can remember.
Aside from a delusional persecution complex, I can't believe anyone would think the government "stifled dissent".
Get away? Yes. I mean it's not like there's some kind of precedent for this like, any sort of right of the people to "peaceably assemble." Oh, wait. Moron.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
No, I am dissatisfied with any group that offers only a pretense of action towards their goals. Sort of like someone selling Girl Scout cookies would be a joke if they only tried to sell them at their neighborhood homeless shelter - no money, no sales and no real effort at sales.
What OWS (and any similar group) should have been able to foresee was that the government would come down on them with both feet hard because their goals are the diametric opposite of what the government in power wants. So of course they are going to be monitored, tracked and observed. If they tried to do anything real it would be a race to see who won - the government in stopping them or their achievement of their objectives.
Sadly, their objectives were so pie-in-the-sky without any real plan for implementation that the government didn't have to do anything at all, just sit back and watch. The news media figured out there was no story there and never would be one sometime about a week after the group emerged.
What I am fine with is a pretense of action being exposed as a pretense. You want to see action? How about Bloody Sunday as an example of action - what Kent State could have turned into, only it didn't.
We would be picking up the pieces and might actually be figuring out how to make the world work with a lot fewer people - a big economic crash and restructuring would kill millions if not billions.
You wouldn't be picking up the pieces, you'd the the slave of an army general who decided to take over whatever place you were unfortunate enough to be in. Or a gang leader. Or a police chief.
Someone with a dedicated trained loyal armed forced under them. You'd be their bitch.
And they wouldn't be nice like you're used to the government being. They think you're complaining? They torture you publicly and then shoot you (if you're lucky).
Er, the election is rigged before it gets to the vote. You can't win a U.S. election without tons of money for TV ads, and you won't get that kind of money without corporate support.
Is this the constitution written by slave owners who didn't allow the poor or female to vote?
The constitution was NOT written to give freedom to all, it was written to give freedom to rich white males. NEVER FORGET THIS. NEVER forget the famous Greek democracy was build on slaves.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It seems unlikely that Operation Wall Street was an astroturf movement though, because there was no-one in a position of power or money to gain from it.
I guess you've never heard of "controlled opposition" and "manufactured dissent..."
People have gotten quite skeptical these days,
Largely, I suspect, because having discovered how weak their critical thinking skills are they're applying their disbelief with a broad brush.
Fake public demonstrations existed before the Internet, but they really took off with the Internet because a single person can pretend to be dozens using the anonymity of Internet forums. With technology and focus a half dozen people could appear to be hundreds, or even thousands.
But there being tigers hiding in the jungle doesn't mean they're hiding under your bed.
I went down to see the Occupy Boston encampment down in Dewey Square last year. I'm no expert in counting people, but there were clearly hundreds of people living in a constricted half-acre tent city -- the densest human habitation I'd ever seen. This is the *opposite* of the labor efficiency of Internet astroturfing. How much would it cost to pay hundreds of people to live like that for two months, or to be arrested as hundreds of the protesters were? Altogether there were over seven thousand arrests, and that was only a tiny fraction of the protesters.
I think the reaction to the FBI documents is overblown. The FBI was keeping tabs on the movement, but that's part of the agency's job, and that *can* be done without violating anyone civil rights (whether it *was* done remains to be seen). But the movement itself wasn't overblown. It's the largest economic protest in this country since the Bonus Army of 1932.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My god, your grasp of history is fucking flawed.
READ up on the suffragette movement you fucking insane moronic piece of shit before you try spouting your lies.
On November 15th, 1917, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, founders of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) were arrested along with 216 other women who had picketed the White House under the Woodrow Wilson administration, bearing signs for the right to vote. By morning, some of the incarcerated women were barely alive. Lucy Burns had been beaten. Her hands had been chained to the cell bars over her head, bleeding and gasping for air. When Alice Paul engaged in a hunger strike, guards tried to force-feed her, tying her to a chair and using a tube to pour liquids down her throat. Thirty-three women endured ongoing torture until word was finally smuggled out to the press.
No violence by the government against the movement my ass.
You are scum.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
A slick web site looks suspicious when the movement teemed with artists and designers? And the many unemployed college graduates among them could not possibly have any writing, technology and publicity skills, eh?
Well orchestrated is what I would call the media response that belittled them from day one. No attempt at even trying to participate in the discussion. Just straight forward name calling of the sort you just did. To the point that you obviously completely missed the violent police crackdown that this article is about. Doesn't look like this 'McMovement' did much publicity orchestrating after all...
Rene Kita
can't be bothered to log in
Actually, half the things you named were done by legal means. MLK Jr. and the riots didn't give anyone civil rights, Republicans did that
No, that is in fact exactly the idea he was responding to. What you didn't answer was his actual question. You know, who the supposed backers with something to gain were.
Absolutely correct. And I'll do what I can to prevent it in the future.
"Simply left to rot?" Are you high or just sadly..., hillariously ignorant of the coverage during that entire mess?
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
Step 0: Control media outlets and discredit all that are not under your power, Propaganda!!!
Why is this step 0? Because with the media intact and doing what it is required by society, none of the other crap would have happened, however the buck stops with the people, if the people aren't going to do anything about it then they get what they get.
Step 1: Create a crisis or allow one to happen.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
-Rahm Emanuel
Create an enemy that will never go away (terrorist) and wage a war that will never end (terrorism) and define the enemy as "those without any rights" and can be held indefinitely (National Defense Authorization Act)
Step 2: Promise to protect the populace from said crisis/enemy by any means necessary, begin by restricting rights in the name of security.
Step 3: Implement a massive trillion dollar (data from The Economist) surveillance network HLS, TSA, NSA, DIA OMG, WTF, BBQ ), record all calls, maintain facial recognition database (thank you Facebook) fill the air with drones and the ground with cameras.
Monitor for dissent. (see: fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy below)
Step 4: Dis arm populace (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)
Step 5: Tighten grip further via martial law or other "required security protocols", rename political protest groups as "terrorist" deregulate corporations, dismantle workers rights, remove environmental protections, and finally ammo up. (Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets)
Anyone not complying or protesting is a terrorist. (see step 1)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/09/costs-homeland-security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fbi-treated-occupy-terrorist-group/60289/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247765_1_atk-rounds-bullet
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
They have persuaded uneducated fundamentalist Christians and the same poor people who would suffer from their policies to vote for them in the belief that they are somehow aligned to "conservative values". Vote for me and I'll stop abortion. But hey, it won't matter because the rape victim will die for lack of medical treatment.
The Libertarians are the spiritual heirs of Al Capone, and use the same schtick to energise the base.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of
PS: How in God's name are all the Fox-News-Hounds & fairly obvious trolls getting 5-point mod's/ratings here while those who point out the facts on the ground are scoring "2, Interesting?"
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
What, is this the same movement that has been criticised a million times for not being organised, having no leadership, and having "no clear message"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
It doesn't need that to have been organized by someone. Check it out, it was formed by the anarchist group Adbusters. They carefully planned it as well. Lawyers gave them the advice to stage it in Zuccotti park because it is a privately owned public space, which made it confusing whose responsibility it was to clear it.
Of course, to start a movement, you need people who will go along with you, to carry the movement along. It's not like all those protesters were manipulated into being there, they wanted to protest.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Far more revolutions have ended quickly, with the rebels imprisoned or executed.
Absolutely. Revolution is hard and dangerous. So stop saying you are for a revolution that will kill millions of people unless you are really, really serious about it. So far, I haven't seen anyone that I would call serious about it in the US.
Some folks came close to being serious in 1968-1970 between the riot in Chicago and Kent State. There were too few people to really accomplish much and the people that were really committed to revolution were just a little too far gone to get anything done other than make a few bombs and generally blow themselves rather than others up.
What an occupy movement could have done is to stage a 1968-style sit-in protest and block business from getting done on Wall Street. Sure, after the first couple of rounds with the police arresting hundreds of people it might have gotten more and more difficult, but this would have forced both government and business to stop what they were doing - business of the day - and focus on protecting infrastructure. Armed guards everywhere, ID checks at every door, security, security and more security. The result would have been a lot of security and not a lot of real work getting done - hence at least a part of their objective achieved. It would take more than 30-40 people to do this - it would have taken hundreds.
Look, supposedly this was a movement by "the 99%" against 1% of the country's elite. If that were true there would be no way it couldn't succeed because at some point the guards (part of the 99%, after all) would be joining with the protesters. Once that happened, it would all be over. That's what happened in Russia - the army and police stopped fighting against the protesters and joined with them.
Now, to be real, it is very very unlikely anything like that could happen in the US. People subconciously know which side of the bread is buttered and that their interested lie in the status quo. Some people would actually figure out that an economic collapse like what OWS seemed to be going for would result in millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of people dying. So while it might seem like a good idea for a few moments, it would be quickly shown to be a disaster. So it wouldn't really work. One thing the American Revolution didn't do was try to wrench the social order too much - that is what leads to a lot of people dying. Again, as shown by Russia and a bunch of other places.
An important point is in Russia the elite fled the country. In France today they have decided to tax the rich to support the government - a futile policy that Mr. Obama seems to be leaning towards. Of course, anyone with portable money in France is looking for somewhere to go - check out Google. Stir up things enough in the US and similar things will happen here.
You want a peaceful revolution? First thing right off is don't try to destroy the social order and don't try to collapse the economy that is feeding 300 million people.
he's mentally ill. OWS was just the thing he latched onto. There would have been something else. Also, the FBI wasn't watching guys like him, it was watching the leaders of the movement in an obvious effort to shut it down.
OWS had one unforgivable sin: it offered a working and likable alternative narrative. Right now the only narrative in American society is that if you work hard and play by the rules you'll succeed, and if you didn't it's your own damn fault and you're a bad person. It's prosperity gospel by any other name. OWS and the 'We are the 99%' was catchy, simple and made sense. It was a movement that had a real chance, which is why we're even talking about it, and also why it was crushed relentlessly.
In short, you didn't think speech was really free, did you?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
http://wh.gov/UCL9 sign on folks! I can hardly wait to see the mealy mouthed BS answer to this... Oh, and expect to be on some FBI troublemaker list, if you're not yet. Consider it a badge of honor. ;)
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I went down there (Zucotti Park) and spoke to them too. Their message was pretty clear, so I'll repeat it:
The wealthiest 1% of Americans have most of the income, most of the wealth, and control the political system through their campaign contributions and power generally.
They're not running it very well. They've used health care, education, and housing as a way to make money, driven the costs up, and made them unaffordable to the rest of us.
There's more of us than there are of them. We can vote. We don't have to vote for politicians that will sell us out (50/50 divided on Obama). We can organize to teach people how they're being exploited by the 1%.
There was Government violence against the Suffragettes, and shows of force intended to intimidate them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
when we're told from day one as children that America is the greatest country on Earth? It was mostly young people that aren't as jaded as you and I, and You're taught to believe that we're all basically Americans and in the end we'd come together, work together and prosper together. I seriously doubt they were expecting to have counter terrorism groups hand them their asses. That's the sort of thing that happens in Syria, not America...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Our Constitution guarantees us a number of ways to work through government for change.
Yes, there are. There's even a little ditty to remember them by: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
The problem with protests is that by working around these methods,
Protest is the most elevated form of the first method we are supposed to use for change, as documented in The Constitution. The soap box is first because it is least injurious. The second box, electing officials based on their position on a single issue, constrains our ability to choose leaders based on their principles, their wisdom, their honesty, or other issues -- you get corrupt, polemic demagogues whipping people into a frenzy over wedge issues like abortion and gun control. The third box, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, weakens the public trust, especially if the predictable response from government is refusal to hear the petition for redress based on a decree of national security or lack of standing. The fourth box is revolution, which is extremely disruptive to the economic engine of the nation, and it kills people.
Given that we have already been using the second and third methods, to no avail, and are loathe to resort to the fourth, an elevated form of the first method is exactly what is appropriate. The correcting mechanism is working perfectly, exactly as the people who were pushed all the way to the fourth box -- the founders of the nation -- documented them. The part of our nation that is causing the distortion is not We The People. We The People are doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing, and the engines of the political parties are driving down a different path. Protest is exactly the most responsible action in our current context.
Consider the consequences: If the leadership is responsive to protest, things change and maybe they get better or maybe they get worse and we have to correct again. If the leadership is not responsive, the public grows more unsettled and their propensity to use the other boxes increases. The way the public uses the second and third box will become more disruptive, and there will be a greater risk of people resorting to the fourth.
One great reason to support piracy is to weaken the profits of Hollywood and the news-entertainment media.
A fine example of using the soap box to advocate for disruptive change to a system that you feel has become distorted, and which you believe is unresponsive to less disruptive attempts to use the second and third boxes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
There was nothing illegal about it.
Zucotti park was a private park open to the public 24 hours a day, according to a legally binding agreement between the City and the original developer. The local Community Board voted to support the occupation. There were court decisions in the past allowing similar protests.
In addition, there's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives people the right to peacefully protest, as other people here have mentioned.
I could come down to Zucotti Park at all hours of the day and talk to people about politics. What better use could anyone make of a public space?
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
Outlawing the slave trade in/by the United Kingdom, followed by outlawing slavery in the UK.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
you seem to be deluded that OWS somehow will fix that problem. you are deluded that anyone who says something bad about OWS is against fixing that problem you mention. OWS won't fix that problem, OWS will change nothing. OWS is backed by mostly wealthy people who probably pay less taxes than you do. only either changing the law or changing the government will fix the problem you mention.
Zucotti park wasn't planned. I was there on day one, originally the plan was to occupy Wall Street itself...but the entire area around it for several blocks was barricaded by the NYPD requiring a corporate ID to walk down the public streets...So we marched for a while until coming across Zucotti, at which point people basically decided "screw it, let's camp here!"
Lawyers wouldn't have made that decision. Zucotti is private property, while there is case law on the books protecting coming on sidewalks for protests.
As for occupy having a fully formed website....big Fuckin deal, so does everything these days. Not hard to find a college kid to buy a domain and install WordPress. Please tell me what corporations were funding the dozen student orgs I did that for in college....because we sure could have used that money....and why the hell did I pay for all those out of my own pocket?
In other words, they were out there minding their own business getting on with their Constitutional right to petition the government and peacfully assemble and some screeching cuckoo jibbers at them for 15 minutes and they were polite enough not to dump you head first into a trash can?
1. Zucotti Park was open to the public 24 hours a day, according to a contract signed between the developers and the City. There was no "after hours."
2. Occupy Wall Street wanted to bring portable toilets like every other big event in New York City. The City denied them a permit. So they used the bathrooms in the MacDonald's across the street and the neighboring restaurants.
3. I was at Zucotti Park a couple of times during the demonstration. They organized a volunteer cleanup crew that cleaned every inch of the park continuously. If you threw a candy wrapper on the floor, somebody would sweep it up within 5 minutes.
4. The local Community Board voted to support the demonstration. So the local taxpayers approved.
5. There were surveys of demonstrators which found that most of them were employed, and their average income was probably higher than yours. So they pay more taxes than you do.
6. You find it offensive. Too fucking bad. That's how we do things in America. If you don't like it, go back where you came from. (If they'll have you.)
Mod Parent 2 - Interesting.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Of course. We (those of us in the US and Western Europe, anyway) have a stable system of government. What this means is that there are negative feedbacks in the system which counter any attempt to change it. Furthermore, the systems learn: When a tactic manages to overwhelm the existing feedback mechanisms and cause an actual change, new feedback mechanisms are set up to render that tactic ineffective in the future. Thus the more the system changes, the more stable it becomes.
It follows that any technique for change actually sanctioned by the system (such as voting) will not work, as those techniques have long since been countered. They still serve a purpose, however -- they waste the energy of those seeking change, and they present an excuse for barring other techniques.
Yeah, it's not like they were squatting on private property or anything. Oh, wait.
Except for the fact that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Zucotti park wasn't planned. I was there on day one,
You mean you didn't plan it.
Lawyers wouldn't have made that decision. Zucotti is private property, while there is case law on the books protecting coming on sidewalks for protests.
It's not private property, it's privately owned public space. There's case law on the books for clearing people who try to occupy sidewalks overnight.
As for occupy having a fully formed website....big Fuckin deal, so does everything these days.
It's not a big deal, but if you think OWS was a spontaneous protest, then you're ignorant.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Really? What site did you think you were posting to? Yes, making a slick web site. That must take a team of computer nerds and years of labor.
You're making the word 'nerd' sound derogatory. And you're not making yourself look any better by building incomplete sentences. What site do you think you're posting to? 4chan? Reddit?
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Check it out, it was formed by the anarchist group Adbusters
OK. Now, what's the problem there?
Today those same founders would be set up to make them look as terrorists, probably with the help of the FBI. would be far easier than what was done with OWS or Wikileaks. And would be faster if they could be attributed with something that could be seen as a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. one of them sneezing in public)
Now let's be honest: Hollande's proposed confiscatory 75% tax (which was just ruled unconstitutional) is in no way comparable to President Obama saying that we should let the top income tax bracket rise a few percent as a result of the profoundly ill-advised Bush tax cuts expiring.
It is allowed if you agree with the Politburo. Then you can assemble and speak as much as you like.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's the real astroturfing going on here.
OWS was about holding the financial goons responsible for wrecking our economy. The FBI, et. al. was about cracking down on legitimate dissent, and that is unconstitutional.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Election of Hitler.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
They were there for at least a month and a half before the camp was initially cleared and then restarted again later for few more months, for a total of almost 6 months. It's not as if the police stormed the camp on the first day. In fact the city was quite accommodating to the protesters and provided all sorts of services. At some point it just became too much for the local residents to bear: "residents at a community board meeting complained about inadequate sanitation, verbal taunts and harassment by protesters, noise, and related issues", not to mention assaults on police officers, widespread theft and drug use, vandalism and not least, enough reports of rape that "women only" separate tents were set up. Don't pretend that they were angels.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Just read though all the documents provided. There's the possibility that there's other activity in the "redacted" documents, but what's reported isn't that interesting.
There's some material on the attempt to shut down the Port of Oakland, but it's mostly after the fact. That was mostly handled by the Oakland PD. The FBI was interested, but doesn't seem to have done much. There are some monthly reports of meetings with banks along the lines of "well, that's what Occupy is up to, now back to that check fraud problem you've been having". The Richmond Fed was apparently worried, but the FBI didn't see any real threat to them.
There are a few incidents that were investigated. Someone threw something burning over the White House fence, and it turned out to be a road flare. Some white powder was dumped in some protest, and it turned out to be uninteresting. One protester came in to the FBI to report that the leaders were holding secret meetings and she was worried about what they were up to. There was a concern that a right-wing group was going to attack an Occupy group.
There was apparently at least one one terrorism investigation. The FBI was concerned that a known suspected terrorist might use an Occupy group as cover to get close to a target.
It would be more interesting to see what Homeland Security was up to. The FBI has a real job, catching crooks, and measures success by convictions. So they don't want to devote too much effort to time-wasting activities. That doesn't up your stats, which is how you get promoted in the FBI. Homeland Security's anti-terrorism operation, on the other hand, has few terrorists to chase and too many people chasing them. So they're looking for work to keep themselves busy. Most of the troubles with law-enforcement come from the parts that generate their own work, not the parts that are complaint-driven.
This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously. Stupid. Moronic. This "information" had to have come from Fox.
First, understand that Unions are self-funded. They're funded from dues paid by the members. They don't take anyones taxes.
Likewise, pensions are largely funded by contributions from the employees. I know, I was a member of government union. Yes, the government chips in a portion as well, but only to a certain point.
While people that are high up in the ranks may get a 6-figure pension (I doubt it though), 99% of the rest of the union employees don't. And what money the do get comes largely from their own contributions, interest and investment gains.
Fox news pretends that pensions are entirely funded by taxpayers, and that's simply not the case. Most Public employees pensions end up less than $30k per year.
http://www.seiu.org/a/publicservices/fact-check-on-public-sector-pensions.php
Finally, Public Employee Unions taking over OWS? Seriously? Where do you get this shit? Oh yeah, Fox. If you had spent any time there, you would know that this to be flat out wrong. What is the motivation exactly for a PEU to do this? There was absolutely nothing there in the interest of a PEU, either for or against.
This Is just ridiculous. and you're a fucking moron for believing it and worthy of ridicule.
Second,
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Violence in suffrage movement actually happened, so I don't understand your post.
This post argues there was no violence on the part of the movement, but they certainly endured violence.
However, over in England violence on the part of the movement was a tactic. "Meanwhile, and in striking contrast, the woman suffrage movement in Great Britain under such leaders as Emmaline Pankhurst, escalated its militant tactics. By 1910, it had moved from mass meetings, marches, and heckling of cabinet ministers, to arson, violence, and hunger strikes. The radical tactics enacted by British suffragists captured the media's attention and helped gain their victory."
It's only a problem if you believe OWS was spontaneously formed.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's not even that easy, because 15% to you or I is worth a lot more to us than 15% to a corporation. To you or I, that 15% is the difference between living in a so-so apartment to living in a GOOD apartment. To them, that 15% is just less money in the pockets of the already super rich who want golden toilets and new yachts every year.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Were Aaron Greene and Morgan Gliedman arrested recently for legitimate dissent? Or were they arrested for illegally possessing destructive devices (and apparently planning to use them against others)? Also, don't you find it ironic that OWS is so heavily staffed by children of privilege like those two?
The FBI, and military police, and the CIA, did it back then. It was a large enough scandal that Congress passed laws against it.
Too many years of pro-crime (white collar, please), pro-totalitarian (corporate, please) Republicans, and they did it again. I'm *so* surprised.
"Support, protect, uphold the Constitution", if it doesn't bother the people that own you.
mark
You know, I am always surprised at how often those who dismiss OWS choose to do so by pointing out that the people that showed up at the camps were unemployed.
Who the fuck else can show up there? The employed supporters of OWS had jobs to go to. I would love to have participated in my local OWS protest but it didn't jibe with my work hours at all.
Nonetheless I support the need for change in our system (here in Canada as well as down in the US and over in Europe). The concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few based on their historic control of the political system to leverage things to their own advantage has not and is not working out well for our society. The money the extremely wealth folks earn doesn not trickle down worth a shit, bailing out companies that failed due to massive mismanagement/greed does not work to the public advantage (oh sure, some jobs are preserved, but since the bulk of the money comes from the middle and lower classes taxes its stealing from Peter to pay Paul).
Unfortunately, I think its too late. The Rich (tm) control things and nothing is going to change that.
The only thing that baffles me is the number of folks who flock to support the Republicans down in the US (or the Conservatives up here in Canada) and in effect are saying with their support "Ok, so the rich are trampling on the bulk of the population and fucking the economy up severely so they can keep their position, oh and they are removing our rights to privacy, destroying health care, ruining the environment and all for their own personal gain - but you know? I am okay with that". Blows my mind every time I read a sincere post from some fucking idiot that just doesn't see whats going on around them.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
They're not comparable.
The poor bankers and oil companies behind the "grassroots" Tea Party don't have a chance against the overwhelming financial might of the tree-hugging hippies!
If history keeps repeating itself, today's tree-hugging hippies are tomorrow's bankers and big oil executive.
lucm, indeed.
First, way to take partial, out of context quotes. The first point you make I've already responded tip of you actually read what I posted.
Secondly....Nothing is spontaneous. Obviously you're not going to get hundreds of people out just by....Not doing anything. So yea, the idea was published by adbusters. That doesn't make it astroturf. First, anyone who was there, anyone who spent more than five seconds looking at it knows that. Astroturfers generally try to hide who is behind the campaign. Secondly, they published an idea...that's all. They didn't pay people to attend, not did they provide any material support for the event. What they did is pretty much equivalent too creating a Facebook event.
Finally, if the park is fully public, why was the nypd able to force everyone out at the request of the property developer and with the help of private security? That's why OWS later moved to union square and other parks before the permanent occupation finally dissolved.
Suicide bombing usually requires having the suicide bomber disguised as a civilian. Being disguised as a civilian is a variety of using civilians as shields.
you're talking about one place. there were many places the protests happened, and park hours violated. That is not how "we americans" do things, just a few.
So yea, the idea was published by adbusters. That doesn't make it astroturf.
This is a strawman, I never said it was astroturf. I said it was planned.
Finally, if the park is fully public, why was the nypd able to force everyone out at the request of the property developer and with the help of private security?
It isn't a public park. It's a privately owned public space. I mentioned this earlier, please stop being confused by this point.
The first point you make I've already responded tip of you actually read what I posted.
Yes, but you were wrong. It was planned, but not by you. Adbusters did a lot of work to make it a success.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
PS: How in God's name are all the Fox-News-Hounds & fairly obvious trolls getting 5-point mod's/ratings here while those who point out the facts on the ground are scoring "2, Interesting?"
Since mods are a numbers game, I would say that this may suggest that the 99% figure was a bit overinflated...
lucm, indeed.
Baader and Meinhof were also descendants of well to do people. However, I do not think OWS compares to the Baader-Meinhof group.
Large portions of your argument are ad hominem so I won't address those portions. Your cited source has obvious bias. Anything that's "self funded" was ultimately derived from taxation. It might be more correct to say, "taxation, with the government as an intermediary", but that's obvious.
AFAICT, the motivation for individuals in PEUs to join OWS (as opposed to the organization itselff, which probably didn't endorse it, but I haven't got a source) was that they identified with it as being part of the Progressive movement.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
While it is true that the founders often used legal means such as letters of attainment (passing a law declaring someone guilty so they can be stripped of their property, freedom and often whipped or hung) or by people such as Judge Lynch who would pretend that their court was legal (the Continental Congress passed a law retroactively giving Charles Lynch immunity) to terrorize those opposing the revolution there was also the common practice of painting boiling tar on Conservatives then covering them with feathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
First amendment does not allow you to squat on private property.
It remains PRIVATE PROPERTY. The public has access, but there are rules, like, I dont know, not setting up your tent and grill.
"Allowing public access" swings both ways, when OWS basically prevents any other use of the park.
I would think that the transition from Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution was a rather major political change that happened through democratic means without widespread protests.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
We engaged and educated a large number of people about political issues that the mainstream media refuses to cover.
We provide food and some semblance of shelter to many who had neither.
And above all we did what any political action must - make noise and make change. We've purchased and abolished millions of dollars of debt. We've stopped home foreclosures. We filled (and continue to fill) the gaps of mainstream disaster relief organizations. We provided networking and training for activists. And we altered the political discourse of the nation.
And even if we'd accomplished nothing, who cares? It wasn't "on someone else's dime" -- nobody was forced to pay for a thing related to occupy, except for the police's repression. Everything else was donated by supporters.
In addition, there's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives people the right to peacefully protest, as other people here have mentioned.
The first amendment sets up boundaries that legislatures cannot cross to "stifle dissent". That doesnt mean you can just randomly go onto private property and reserve it for the exclusive use of your own group at any time and then claim "But FIRST AMENDMENT!"
Im quite sure the Zucotti Park agreement did not entitle members of the public to turn it into a campground, and Im quite certain that the first amendment doesnt get rid of zoning laws.
No fucking chance in hell of that. From an economic standpoint the Libertarians are worse than the Republicans; if possible. Remember the Libertarian Poster Boy, Ron Paul had the most conservative post war voting record on anybody in congress between WWII and 2002, and is a Republican. So hell no they aren't going to vote Republitarian.
And giving their choice between pissing away their vote on the Greens and helping the Republitarians win, they vote Democrat, which is what those who were old enough to vote last time voted.
Union reaction to occupy. Question the motives all you want; but the association is right out there, and even involves an SEIU local. OK, have a ball guys. AFK for a while. Happy New Year. Lucky '13.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Do you know what the alternative is? Blanket socialism / communism or whatever other marxist system that does not allow for private ownership and encourages income distribution.
Any reasonable definition is going to include terrorists primarily targeting civilians or using civilians for shields.
The broadest definition of terrorism does not require civilians to be targeted.
At its most basic level, terrorism is (A) tactics intended to create fear and (B) some kind of political goal to be furthered by that fear.
Most people now equate terrorism and civilian targets, but reasonable people can easily disagree with that portion of the definition.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Slightly wrong: Advertising has such an effect that the voters don't care. It's a system that makes propaganda mandatory but inaccessible outside the corporate loop, but it also makes it independent of the state, and as such it is yet another example of your great freedom. Of course the voters won't think of it as a big deal. That would be anti-American.
The issue is whether it was legal. The answer is yes. It was legal. Zucotti Park was in an unusual legal situation in that they had an agreement with the City to make the park available to the public 24 hours a day. There were also court decisions giving demonstrators the right to sleep in the streets.
Gordon Crovitz, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, lives in Battery Park City and went to Community Board hearings to complain about OWS, as he wrote in the WSJ. They heard him out and voted him down. The OWS representatives heard the complaints, and made changes. The Community Board supported OWS. In a democracy, we follow the majority decision.
This is New York City. We have lots of big events. Mayor Giuliani used to declare public celebrations, which tied up the City and disrupted traffic, after his favorite sports team won a game. We put up with it. We have Fashion Week, in which clothing companies put up tents in Bryan Park, a little bigger than Zucotti Park, for a couple of weeks and deprive everyone else of the use of that popular park. We put up with it. The crime in Zucotti Park was no worse than other large events. (There were several reports that police encouraged troublemakers and mentally disturbed people to go to Zucotti park.)
Occupy Wall Street had some money and wanted to rent portable toilets, the way every other big event in New York City does (including Fashion Week). The City refused to issue them permits. So they used the toilets in MacDonald's down the street, and some of the other local bars and restaurants. So first you refuse permits for toilets, then you complain about inadequate sanitation.
Oh, yeah. Then there was the First Amendment to the Constitution. Zucotti Park was the best example I've seen in my life of people from everywhere assembling to discuss their complaints with the political system and decide what they were going to do about it. That's not only legal, it's one of our basic American rights that we were supposed to have been fighting those wars for. So it's legal. No question about it.
Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?
How about corporate America taking over the government?
Don't flatter yourself, you "educated" nobody. This was just like a NRA event or a pro-life protest or a Westboro Baptist Church picket line - people who agreed before still agree, people who disagreed before still disagree. No change whatsoever, just noise and waste. This whole thing was people playing revolution without a cause (and without risk).
You got away with being a public nuisance. If that gives you a hard-on, good for you. But you changed nothing except help a bunch of NYPD cops to get a fat overtime bonus for their "repression" (which I prefer to call: enforcing the democratically agreed-upon social order), and that money did not come out of your pockets.
Next time you want to change the world by repeating the same empty propaganda, give everyone a break and just open a fucking blog. Who knows you may get +1s.
lucm, indeed.
The Koch brothers. After all, their company isn't on Wall Street. So the enemy of my enemy is my "friend".
Actually, there were surveys of the people at OWS, and about half were employed. (You can find references in the Wikipedia article on OWS.) Surprisingly, a lot of them were professionals who had fairly high incomes -- and thought they should pay more taxes themselves.
I'm not yet convinced that it's too late.
I agree with you otherwise.
There were other places where demonstrators were arrested by the police even though they were there legally. At UC Davis, they held a demonstration on their own campus lawn -- at a place that was designated for such events. It's hard to get more legal than that. The university police pepper-sprayed them. As a result, the university settled a damage suit for $1 million http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81699.html
At any rate, the First Amendment overrides a lot. Gathering to protest the government is a pretty basic right in America.
I would say the EPA and Clean Air/Clean Water acts were major changes. The WPA, Social Security, the TVA all were fundamental shifts. Hell, getting off the gold standard was huge.
I must point out that on the state level, all these happened without protest in the early-adoption states. Well, except getting rid of the monarchy. Hell, women had the right to vote in some states in the 1700's, long before slavery was abnolished in those states. Slavery was peacefully abolished in 1/2 the union without violence or protests. And civil rights came about in some areas (e.g. the military) quickly and painlessly.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
In addition, there's the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives people the right to peacefully protest, as other people here have mentioned.
The first amendment sets up boundaries that legislatures cannot cross to "stifle dissent". That doesnt mean you can just randomly go onto private property and reserve it for the exclusive use of your own group at any time and then claim "But FIRST AMENDMENT!"
No, but you can go to the owner of the property and ask permission. This is what happened. The city asked for permission to have public access 24/7 and the owner agreed to it.
Im quite sure the Zucotti Park agreement did not entitle members of the public to turn it into a campground, and Im quite certain that the first amendment doesnt get rid of zoning laws.
Why do you think that the agreement didn't allow people to camp there? From the wording of the agreement, it seems pretty clear that it did exactly that.
It remains PRIVATE PROPERTY. The public has access, but there are rules, like, I dont know, not setting up your tent and grill.
"Allowing public access" swings both ways, when OWS basically prevents any other use of the park.
Do such rules exist? I am not aware of them. You may well be correct. But, at least for me, that's not really the point.
I posit that you're looking at this backwards. That's not intended as an insult, BTW. Rather than looking for ways to limit and discourage our fellow citizens (and no, I did not take part in any OWS activities) from expressing themselves and their points of view, I believe we should expand and encourage opportunities to do so for all of us.
The NYC government should have provided sanitation facilities and police *assistance* with security to the OWS (and any others, regardless of their point of view) protestors, rather than treating them as criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.
As a native (and life-long) New Yorker, I was ashamed of my city government for debasing the ideals of our once-great nation.
Feel free to disagree with me. I don't expect that everyone should share my point of view. What I do expect is that we, as a society, and our government should be accommodating, assisting and expanding the ways that peaceful protests, dissenting opinions and alternative ideas can be expressed and discussed.
Your thoughts?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
But the people on very top who finance this -- thought to destabilize political process and banking in the United States to create either a pressure on a certain political leaders through their direct actions or, to a lesser extent, to create a large enough backlash to pressure them into the opposite actions.
So, the people behind this are trying to enact change to the system by organizing a bunch of followers in a peaceful protest. Is that a bad thing for some reason?
Tell that to the people who received aid from Occupy Sandy when FEMA and the Red Cross were nowhere to be found; or to the people who have had thousands of dollars of debt erased by Rolling Jubilee. Or those facing foreclosure who had their homes saved by Occupiers.
I get it, you don't think political activism can ever bring change and nothing I say will change your mind....but OWS has done quite a lot of good with real, concrete action as well:
current.com/groups/news-blog/93963203_four-occupy-offshoots-making-a-difference.htm
Primaries aren't as honest as you think. Games can (and are) played to help sway votes in a certain way.
Closed primaries disallow the general public from choosing a candidate, and only registered party members are permitted to vote. If the party wants a certain candidate to gain ground, but feel the general public will not vote in their favor, they have a closed primary vote.
The flip side of this is poisoning the well. The opposition party votes in an open primary to attempt manipulating a candidate's popularity. They attempt to create false competition, or get a less-than-favorable candidate elected. This trick can also be used by the party itself if an unpopular party choice is winning.
Then there's the actual candidates themselves. Any real choice of candidates has been far removed for a while. The only candidates who end up in a national primary are ones who've already committed to the party's views and demonstrated their willingness to "play the game." Anyone with a real chance of winning with moderate party views or won't cooperate with lobbyists were pruned out of the process on the local/state level. Candidates like Paul or Huntsman aren't seriously considered contenders (reflected by both the parties and the media).
So no, those primaries are not the bastions of democracy you think they are. I would say, in my region, the highest level of government I see is probably sparsely at the County-level election, but mostly the town/city level. Admittedly, I'm from a fairly skewed state for this (Illinois), so I'm probably a bit more pessimistic than most. It's possible other regions might get more honest elections up to the state level.
If you ever want a real sobering realization on the subject, befriend someone in your state's official party committees. They can tell you, to a much more detailed extent, the games that are played with elections to ensure certain candidates never get anywhere, while others get groomed for higher offices.
Do you know what the alternative is? Blanket socialism / communism or whatever other marxist system that does not allow for private ownership and encourages income distribution.
So, that is the only alternative to the 1% controlling the government? You can't think of any other possible solutions? How about the 99% starts being more politically aware of the corruption of the politicians and votes the ones giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% at the expense of everyone else out of office?
The big-L Libertarians still aren't, they are part of the Libertarian Party. Small-l libertarians split among the LP, both major parties, no party, and some other parties. Its true that libertarian-ish rhetoric has been part of the Republican schtick starting around the time of (and mostly as a reaction to) the New Deal, and more intensely, IIRC, from about 1980 on.
"Also, don't you find it ironic that OWS is so heavily staffed by children of privilege like those two?"
No. The investment banker takedown of our economy put lots and lots of middle to upper middle class people out of work. Besides, what is your point? That children of privilege should not care about the country? Or that children of privilege are trying to overthrow the government?
The real conspiracy is that OWS got labeled as a bunch of dirty hippies when in fact they were regular people who were fed up, and the whole country should have been behind them.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Your argument is so insightful. There's no waythey can be right. Because they're on one side and they will be on the other. That's so cool. Reminds me of that fable about the wolf and the lamb.
I wonder, if they are the 99%, that's a LOT of people. How will they find oil company executive jobs for all that people?
Well, if I have to choose one side, at least I know one thing. The Tea Party guys are, and will always be, wrong.
The problem "global", is that you're making the same mistake by extrapolating from your "personal experience" to the whole movement.
Im quite sure
Well, you're quite wrong.
I've talked to lawyers and I'm somewhat familiar with First Amendment law as it applies to New York City.
The Zucotti Park agreement said that the park was open to the public 24 hours a day.
Once it's open to the public, everyone has a right to exercise First Amendment activities, exactly as they were doing.
There was a court decision that also ruled that demonstrators have a right to sleep in the streets.
The City allows commercial operators to put up tents.
I knew that neighborhood from before the demonstrations. Zucotti Park is a lightly-used park.
The opponents were basically saying, "We want you to leave that park so that it can be empty and unused."
I worked hard to get where I am today without taking a dime from the government.
You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
I see, now the truth comes out. You were the one wanting to bring violence to the party and you're all butthurt that they wouldn't fall for the trap. Chill out, eat a few good books!
if I have to choose one side, at least I know one thing. The Tea Party guys are, and will always be, wrong.
According to Wikipedia: "Tea Party supporters are mainly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education."
Somehow this does not jive with the fact that they picked Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as their leaders. Maybe they just watch them on tv with no sound.
lucm, indeed.
The tighter the grip, the faster everything slips through.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Astrochicken == self-replicating chicken exploring space for Andromeda (yes, i spelled chicken in the exam)
"Access to the public" does not mean unrestricted access. Prostitution in the park would neither be protected by the park agreement, nor by the first amendment. Likewise, just because a park is "public" does not mean that you can legally camp there.
Do such rules exist?
Havent done specific reasearch, but if they did not there would be no reason I couldnt simply go to Zucotti park now and tape the entire thing off for my personal use for a game of football or something.
Again, just because they signed an agreement allowing public access 24/7 does not mean anyone can do whatever they want in the park. It COULD, but I would be suprised if anyone could find any documentation saying that was the case.
I indeed hope this was sarcase: Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
You do realize that the person you replied to is from Canada (a Socialist country), right? Socialism, unlike Communism, does allow for private ownership.
Do such rules exist?
Havent done specific reasearch, but if they did not there would be no reason I couldnt simply go to Zucotti park now and tape the entire thing off for my personal use for a game of football or something.
Again, just because they signed an agreement allowing public access 24/7 does not mean anyone can do whatever they want in the park. It COULD, but I would be suprised if anyone could find any documentation saying that was the case.
You continue to focus on the narrow, unimportant issue. That's your privilege, but I'd prefer to discuss the more important ones. Thanks.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
That's the law in New York City, established by the contract between the City and the owners of Zucotti Park, the court rulings on the rights of demonstrators, and the decision of the Community Board on how to balance the rights of the demonstrators against the concerns of the community.
I doubt that you've discussed the right of assembly under First Amendment law with many lawyers.
An American Nazi Empire is inevitable. The Banksters screwed up Germany in the 1920s and at some point it was rational for everyday people to vote for Adolf Hitler. He was the only man who had a credible plan and resolve to help the common man.
You know the rest.
So, I hope for America that Occupy Wall Street will succeed.
As someone who was hauled off for similar offenses ("standing in the wrong place near an object the police decided was not permitted on the ground that day" basically), I can tell you that you are wrong. If anyone is ever permitted to put up a tent in the area, anyone engaged in political protest has a right to put up a tent. You can only restrict political speech with clear regulations that are enforced universally, and serve a major public interest. Whether you like it or not, damned smelly hippies can set up tent cities and protest their hearts out, unless your state wants to ban even permitted use of tents. There are other precedents regarding spontaneous demostrations that weaken permit requirements.
Source: a year of sitting in court listening to the same trial about nine times over.
In the U.S., if you actually get access to the legal system, political speech is our most protected right.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Except for the fact [wikipedia.org] that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
But, of course, if a corporation seized control of Zucotti Park and used it for employee housing, you'd bellow something about the "tragedy of the commons" and complain about how long it took the police to charge the executives with loitering and/or trespassing.
Right?
I know, it is something like it is not the speech that you said. Someone else said it before. It is OK, I'll help deal with your plagiarism by giving the source (as you should have)
Barack Obama, July 13, Roanoke, Va
But he was wrong. Just like you ripped off his quote without giving him a credit, you are ripping off other people's money without giving them credit claiming that government did it.
And He was wrong too.
There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there but remember that 47 percent of the population still do not pay the income tax, and the top 10% of the population pays more than 50% of the income tax.
I am successful, and I did not ask for anyone's help. Asking for help would be "gimme food-stamps", "gimme money", "gimme welfare". My family came in America with literally 1 dollar in our pockets and twenty years later we own two houses four cars and successfully multiplied.
Yes there was a great teacher somewhere in my life. She, he and many others of them got paid for their work and retirement. My parents paid for it.
The "Somebody" who helped to create this unbelievable American system is capitalism that produced and maintain this place of opportunity where anyone can make a business and be successful. Try that in the old Soviet Union, the "Best" Korea, the handful of the socialist states that still exist. You can not create your own business in many of them unless it allows for private ownership. Many of the old Socialist states did not allow for private ownership.
Yes somebody invested in the roads and bridges. Many of them are toll roads and many are built on a tax money collected by the state or the federal government. We are still paying with our tax money to maintain them. Every time we renew our driver licenses and license plates we pay for their maintenance. Don't make me feel guilty for a service that I have paid for.
When you come to a five star hotel, receive a great service for a waiter and tip them generously for it you do not come around and say, "We should be ashamed for even thinking that we bought the stay at that hotel room and that food and that food service for that night because the waiter really did us a favour by bringing in that food." Makes sense? not to me.
And another reason why Obama is wrong. He said, " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that . Wrong, this is the exact same way that the Soviet system were telling us that in capitalist-based system every single business owner became rich by exploiting the working class. Now you understand what Obama was really trying to say by that?
Yes, of course if you got your own business -- you absolutely built that.
I know of a certain Korean immigrant who came into this country 10 years ago. For the first three years he was breaking his back trying to feed kids and save up. He worked probably 16 hours a week, later on paying for their education.
Eventually he had 100,000 dollars that he saved up and bought a laundry-mat with adjacent dry-cleaning store. His family, his extended family is now working in that store. He bought nearby office spaces and opened a restaurant. His family now works that restaurant too. He also just bought another building space, and from what I heard it will be a drugstore. The guy now lives in a big house, his children are going to school, and all-in-all he is employing at least fifty people, including some natural born Americans who are not part of his family. He absolutely built that business, and paid for building it. Not by exploiting the working class, not by anything that the President is trying to make us guilty for.
The Internet case is special, was invented by the Army. But the individual networks existed way before the Internet. There were many different networks prior to the Internet and in alternative to the Internet as well. Also US universities were the first websites to expand into the internet.
The government had very little to do with the Internet, only by sponsoring the initial implementation of Darpa-Ne
That depends on the type of socialist system used.
In Soviet Union we were not allowed to own property. Well some did. Well some absolutely did. Well you see, in Soviet Union some people are more equal than others.
In Best Korea too.
But it really all depends on the country.
Marxist-Leninist socialism most likely does not allow private ownership. And there are only four countries right now.
China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. China has limited shared ownership (many companies are owned or co-owned partially by the state or state-based organizations such as the Chinese Red Army), Cuba -- none, Laos -- none, Vietnam -- I don't know.
Peaceful? Peaceful my ass!
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-document-record-of.html
Not from videos and reports I've seen. And I'm sure that those OWS folks who actually got off their sleeping bags and voted, put the current administration in office which is now cracking down on them.
Imagine that. I have an opinion, and it is that I disagree with the actions of OWS (based upon what I've seen), I'm automatically labeled. Does no one see the level of hypocrisy that is out there. I an neither a lefty or a righty. I think both sides should get the hell out of the 'middle' and stop trying to tell others how to do things.
And for the fact AC that tried to troll me with fox news line, pick your poison. You actually think there is an unbiased media out there? Are you that ignorant?
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I am capable of holding an argument without need to resort to violence.
Given that you couldn't even make it all the way through one reply to me without thumping your chest and uttering a threat, I doubt it.
in the land of the free.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Knowing who is behind a protest is not "cracking down". All the article shows is intelligence gathering activities. Since some of the protesters did things like smash windows and block streets, intelligence is not unwarranted.
If there's any point in there beyond your ridiculous non-sequitur, please do share.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Of course I'm a bankster $hill. It's a well-known fact that Wall Street people have nothing better to do on New Year's Eve than promote on Slashdot the dirty, nasty, disgusting capitalistic agenda that so far has led the modern civilization fairly well.
Could things be better? Sure. Could things be better by listening to stoners who have nothing else to do than go sit in a park and send tweets and instagrams of their little May 68 moment? I don't think so. Anyways whenever someone put a mike under their noses they always start babbling idiotic commie propaganda, it's probably not even possible to clearly establish what they stand for or how it could be enacted.
And if you think that you have it as bad as the French people before the Revolution or as the victims of the holocaust, you are not only a loud mouth and a whiner but also a disrespectful brat. Get lost.
lucm, indeed.
Life is short, and there is not enough room in this brief post to correct your many mistakes.
The easiest one, and the most appropriate one for Slashdot, is, "The government had very little to do with the Internet."
Fortunately, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Gordon Crovitz -- the same asshole who lives in Battery Park City and complained about Occupy Wall Street at the Community Board meeting -- also wrote an editorial debunking the "myth" that the government invented the Internet.
Crovitz has contributed to computer education and the history of technology by making an argument that is completely wrong, but has been the occasion for people who know far more about the Internet than Crovitz to explain it. Two of the better rebuttals are here http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723 and here http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/ As Hiltzik points out, those "university researchers" you cite did their work on government contracts.
I don't know where your family came from, but I guess it wasn't the Soviet Bloc. The USSR had one of the best education systems in the world -- all free. Soviet emigres came here with their EE degrees and PhDs and were quickly hired up at good salaries. I know other Soviet emigres who came to this country with less marketable degrees who where shuttled off to free (welfare) housing, free (government-paid) job training, and often civil service (government) jobs. Immigrants from Communist countries got a better safety net here than most Americans, and they vote Republican and preach self-reliance from government.
I've heard all these self-made immigrant stories and I don't believe them. Every time somebody looks at the facts behind the self-made myth, you find government handouts.
No you forget one important detail :
If history keeps repeating itself, today's tree-hugging hippies are tomorrow's bankers and big oil executive.
If history keeps repeating itself, 10-20 among today's tree-hugging hippies will shoot the rest and themselves become bankers and big oil executives.
So because someone's salary is paid by tax dollars, that means that tax payers have a right to say what they can do with the money they have earned?
That's BS. Once that money goes into their paychecks, it's no longer "tax money". Whether or not they are a member of the union, they get their money and they can spend it however they choose. They choose to contribute to union dues with THEIR money.
This is crux of the issue, greedy assholes that think they can dictate what people do with their money just because they happen to work for the government.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
That's complete bull. I've worked for a public union in the past (I'm not a fan of them, as I feel I can negotiate my salary a lot better than a union can. In fact, in the private sector I make 3x more money).
Pensions are about 40% funded by the employee, 30-50% funded from interest and investment gains, and only a small amount is matched by the employer (ie, the government, ie the taxpayers).
I *WISH* my retirement had had more than 10-20% match from my employer. That would have made things a lot more palatable. As it was, I was making less than half what the private sector was paying for the job.
The only reason I even took the job was because of the crappy economy, back in the early 2000's.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
This is an interesting point. Why didn't the OWS people try to provide sanitation? Except that they did. Bette Midler even offered to pay for them, but the city of New York refused to issue a permit. The refusal to issue a permit stopped OWS from providing sanitation and de facto created the problem. Then they turned around and made sure the media knew that OWS was causing unsanitary conditions. The city of New York in cooperation with the media presented a situation which they could use to discredit the organization.
The OWS movement had medical tents and cooking tents set up. The city of New York confiscated their generators and created yet another incident to use as media fodder in their battles to discredit OWS.
There were also verified incidents of OWS members approaching NYPD officers to ask for help in dealing with disruptive people. The NYPD officers refused to help and helped create a situation where criminal activity was left completely to the OWS people in direct violation of their promise to serve the needs of public safety. They were also caught sending homeless people released from jail to the OWS protests to cause further problems.
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
We are not exactly Socialist (with a capital S) up here in Canada - we have some government controlled elements to our system (the health care system in part, some Crown Corporations etc) but we are primarily capitalist in nature.
I know that in the US the general opinion seems to be that a society is either completely Capitalist (with a capital C), OR it is "Godless Communism"(tm) and threatening the existence of Democracy) but that's utter bullshit. There are plenty of countries where some elements are socialist and others are not that are proving quite successful (look to most of the northern European countries like Norway, Sweden or Denmark for instance).
It works up here in Canada, although our current Conservative government (read very radical right-wing), are doing their best to ruin things as much as possible before they lose control.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Large portions of your argument are ad hominem so I won't address those portions. Your cited source has obvious bias. Anything that's "self funded" was ultimately derived from taxation.
I don't think union dues are taxes in that the government does not collect them or use them or touch them in an way. I don't think the government acts as an intermediary either. Likewise, pensions are not taxes. The government is not an intermediary for those either. As far as I know, your employer takes the money out of your paycheck and forwards it to your 401K or whatever.
No, I am dissatisfied with any group that offers only a pretense of action towards their goals.
While many of the goals of the OWS movement are lofty, they have achieved great success. They crushed the Tea Party movement and gave Obama the support he needed to (at least partially) get rid of tax cuts for the rich. I would say that they have been much more successful than I thought they would be...
So. Your answer to the seemingly-inherent tribulations of generally-peaceful things like OWS is for the government (be it local or national, administrative or legislative, or anything else "government") to supply trash cans, showers, hand-washing stations, toilets, and security?
Seriously? What next, on-site education on how to properly and safely stay warm outdoors instead of proclaiming that all heating devices are disallowed? What sort of other sensible problem-solving does this slippery slope lead to?
I like your concept on the basis that it supports what I believe are two basic tenets of government: To help ensure the health and safety of the public, while allowing free expression and congregation.
And it's definitely cheaper than jail time (three squares, clean clothes, and a cot) and court action.
Good luck. You've got my vote.
Kid-proof tablet..
He is probably chicano, mexican-american. They are even worst than the WASP in the Tea Party against foreigners and immigrants. I suppose they have the same mental insecurity that makes bullies bullies.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Thomas Jefferson? Not so much.
Maybe it's just differences in education in different parts of the country (although, considering the political leaning of Alberta, and especially the town I grew up in, it was probably just my specific teachers), but I was taught that Socialism and Communism are not the same - Socialism being a combination of Capitalism and Communism using the selected best bits of each to form a mixed economy. And I agree (if I'm reading your "ruin things" correctly) that it's too bad that more people can't see Harper and the Tories he's leading for what they are. Although, with only 40% of the popular vote, I guess most of us tried to get rid of them and screwed ourselves through split-votes.
Please be advised that I have Mexicans in my close family.
There are a great variety of Mexicans, ranging from great scientists http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/molina.html to criminal mobs.
Immigration is a tricky balance and is usually unfair. I know a lot of immigrants. I don't mind if they come to this country, contribute to it and benefit from it. But some immigrant groups have strong lobbies, and are showered with government handouts as soon as they get here. I don't mind that too much, because that's what it took for every immigrant group to succeed. I want to see that same safety net for people in general.
I do mind when they turn around and create a myth that they did it all themselves -- and use that myth to destroy the social safety net that has given the same benefits to other Americans. I don't hate the 1%. I do hate the 1% who got rich and are trying to make it worse for the rest of us.
which is the narrative. Their Narrative was that unless you are part of the 1%, they aren't going to take your money, because you don't have any (the 1% has all the money). Whether you agree with the narrative or not, it was an effective one.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think the best way to protest is http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/
Casteism
The OWSers were anything but peaceful. They also appeared to know little about what they were protesting and even less about remedies. Their encampments were cesspools of filth and crime, contrary to the observations of a few. They did more harm to creating a climate for change than good and in general displayed a lack of knowledge about the issues or decision making. They were the epitome of those not suited for college.
All communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists.
Your teachers taught you wrong, simple as that.
What is practiced in most western nations is capitalism with a welfare state. AKA mixed system.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I see that picture with the local GOONS all suited up with billy clubs and it pisses me off. Maybe groups like OWS should invest in gas masks and riot shields along with other NON-WEAPONS purchases to become a more resistant and stubborn force. As they are now... any wanna be reserve cop can push them around. TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE TIME WASTERS!
You were the one who first mentioned violence. Smoke less pot, your shot term memory is shot.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I MENTIONED a mildly violent act (really more of a deeply insulting act) that another might have felt tempted towards and suggested that it would have been poor form to employ it. He then volunteered that he brought along friends to act in an intimidating manner for the duration of the tirade and THEN uttered a direct (if not terribly credible) threat against me.
Do read more carefully!
Actually, the talking point that the Clear Channel talkshow entertainers have long been hammering is that the Federal government, i.e., Barack Obama hisself, covertly created and supports the OWS movemen, which promotes Socialist government policies, in order to counter the threat posed by the brilliant minds of the Tea Party. What, now you're saying no?? Next thing they'll be trying to tell us that the President isn't even a Muslim.
Marxist AGW scientists? #include "irony.h"
error: conflicting declaration or overloaded equality operator /usr/include/logic/irony.h
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I mean, considering my current and last couple of roommate are lawyers, and I (demonstrably) like discussion..... You can suppose and doubt all day long if it makes you feel better.
That's the law.
Sarah Palin looks like a dentist's secretary and Michelle Bachmann reminds me of Shannen Doherty's mother in 90210, but overall it's a lot better than Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. I wonder what would happen if the Democrats had really hot female candidates.
It's like Star Wars (the original movies); Carrie Fisher is okay-ish but I suspect that if they had picked a real knock-out for this role instead of a pouter my Star Wars experience would have been totally different. Natalie Portman did a lot to make the new movies easier to watch, if they had picked Drew Barrymore or Whoopi Goldberg I would have been bothered by Jar Jar Binks a lot more.
Looks matter in show-business, and that includes politics.
lucm, indeed.
(Shrug) You're the one who seems to be saying that it's ethical to "occupy" a public or semi-private space.
Is it, or isn't it? If it is, then the question becomes, who is entitled to do so?
(Shrug) You're the one who seems to be saying that it's ethical to "occupy" a public or semi-private space.
Is it, or isn't it? If it is, then the question becomes, who is entitled to do so?
I don't "seem" to be saying it. I do say it. And vehemently too. I'm also saying that not only should this be encouraged, but that we, as a society, should welcome it. Please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything else for you.
And best wishes for 2013. I hope it is a happy, productive and *free* year for you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
So Wall Street selling America's technology and manufacturing infrastructure/defensive arsenal/war reserve to the communists in the PRC directly (for example, Bain Capital is a leader in the field) is "OK", but Americans exercising their right to free speech and assembly is a "no-no"?
Hey, NCIS/FBI? Think about it: Why bother? There isn't any America left to protect when the only thing that defines treason is whether or not you're making money at it.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Thanks for the reply. I'm mexican myself, and get amazed at the ones I met that formed my opinion of the conservative mexican-americans that I stated in the GP post. Personally, after getting and education thanks to the mexican, US, european and soviet taxpayer in a UN funded school I'm really grateful for the chance they gave me, and I'm sad that the people that gets the most to lose in the current environment doesn't want to give a chance to the poor kids that wont get a chance to improve their lives by honest means without community help. If not for that chance I would have ended cleaning windshields or in the mobs like many of the kids of my old neighborhood.
We don't live or progress in a vacuum. For me is even more baffling that the american conservatives are so individualistic when the US Constitution begins with "We, the people of the United States.." not "I, the ruler of..." and the name of the country itself indicates an union of free self governed communities, not an empire.
Best regards.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
It's a puzzle why people act against their own interests. http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2010/09/the-tea-crumpets-party/ It is the job of psychologists to figure out why.
I recently read about one psychological mechanism that may be operating.
In normal functioning societies, people take care of each other and have a responsibility for each other.
Sometimes, people see others in need and don't want to meet their responsibility. Or they don't want to face the fact that they too could wind up in the same situation. They respond by finding some way in which the person in need is responsible or at fault for his situation. Of course it's not logical, but right-wingers aren't logical.
A Greenwich Village couple, affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street movement, was arrested yesterday for allegedly having a cache of weapons and bomb making materials in their apartment. A detective discovered a plastic container with seven grams of a white chemical powder called HMTD, which is so powerful, cops evacuated several nearby buildings. http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/7929
Permission was never to my knowledge granted to allow multi-day residency of the park by anyone, nor to allow overnight camping.
If you can find in the agreement where that was allowed, I think everyone would be on your side on this. Fact is, people are trying to conflate "access" with "completely unrestricted access"; they are not the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuccotti_Park
"In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," Kelly said. "The owners have put out regulations [about what's allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things."
A spokesperson for Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park, expressed concern: "Zuccotti Park is intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public for passive recreation. We are extremely concerned with the conditions that have been created by those currently occupying the park and are actively working with the City of New York to address these conditions and restore the park to its intended purpose."[17]
Why dont you read up here; as suspected, the agreement did NOT provide for "unrestricted access", and in fact the owner's right to restrict certain activities were upheld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuccotti_Park
"In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," [NYC police commissioner] Kelly said. "The owners have put out regulations [about what's allowed in park]. The owners will have to come in and direct people not to do certain things."
Starting at roughly 1 am local time on November 15, NYPD began clearing Zuccotti Park.[20][21] After a court order was released allowing them to return,[22] police refused to allow them back in. Later that day, the New York Supreme Court that issued the injunction ruled against allowing protesters to camp or sleep in Zuccotti Park.
My roommates aside, you are free to argue with the NYC police commissioner, the owners of the park, and the NY supreme court, but I would advise against it.
I'll let the National Lawyer's Guild argue it for me.
So 7grams of a substance too unstable to be particularly useful in a bomb in now a cache? If a redneck did this it's hardly make the local news, much less national news.