You recruiting Charlie Sheen?
Coke and Whores for the CEOs
Bankruptcy and Foreclosures for the Working Class
Smash Capitalism!
I mean, seriously, when is the proletariat going to be able to enjoy coke and whores?
Speaking of coke, although not my favorite musical genre, disco did have its killer tunes:
Awesome example of disco's influence on contemporaneous rock, in this case punk.
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/uk-usa-wallstreet-protests-idUSLN E79D03N20111014
Park clean up delayed for now in New York.
Does anyone know if reports of work ids being required to walk on wall street are accurate?
They cleaned up after themselves?
Downright unamerican. Clearly these people are up to something sinister.
You recruiting Charlie Sheen?
Coke and Whores for the CEOs
Bankruptcy and Foreclosures for the Working Class
Smash Capitalism!
I mean, seriously, when is the proletariat going to be able to enjoy coke and whores?
Speaking of coke, although not my favorite musical genre, disco did have its killer tunes:
Awesome example of disco's influence on contemporaneous rock, in this case punk.
Oh hey! A Bowie/Eno fan! Awesome!
And yeah Giorgio Moroder is another luminary in electronic music.
Rabble Rabble Rabble!!!!!!
Comrade, when you are out occupying keep an eye out for agents provocateur.
So, I found this article, which I think is the same event from the other side, plus lots of ruminations on American history, capitalism and General Ludd.
Let's see, what else? Oh, a guy with an Arabic name on a socialist website agrees with me, so you know I must be right: BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
And, finally, Occupy the Hood! This article was run in a bunch of different places, but The Village Voice had the best picture (hot chick giving the black power salute? Oh yeah!)
Now, that's what I'm talkin' about! Red and black is a combination that has always given the rulers of this country nightmares. If the Occupy movement can forge an alliance between the student radicals, the unions and the black population, it will have achieved a trifecta of radicalism that was unattained during either the 30s or the 60s.
There was some black activism in the thirties (e.g. see Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression by Robin DG Kelley), but for the most part the CIO didn't want to upset the "New Deal alliance" FDR had cobbled together with the Dixiecrats and they left the south mostly unorganized. Operation Dixie in the '50s (?) was hardly a serious effort.
In the sixties, labor was mostly too happy to enjoy big fat wages to get involved in either the anti-war movement or the civil rights movement (although that is a generalization, see Viola Liuzzo, e.g.).
Anyway, I have to go Occupy New Hampshire today, and I didn't make my sign. :(
Thank you for the history lesson. Very interesting.
Comrade, when you are out occupying keep an eye out for agents provocateur.
So, I found this article, which I think is the same event from the other side, plus lots of ruminations on American history, capitalism and General Ludd.
Let's see, what else? Oh, a guy with an Arabic name on a socialist website agrees with me, so you know I must be right: BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
And, finally, Occupy the Hood! This article was run in a bunch of different places, but The Village Voice had the best picture (hot chick giving the black power salute? Oh yeah!)
Now, that's what I'm talkin' about! Red and black is a combination that has always given the rulers of this country nightmares. If the Occupy movement can forge an alliance between the student radicals, the unions and the black population, it will have achieved a trifecta of radicalism that was unattained during either the 30s or the 60s.
There was some black activism in the thirties (e.g. see Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression by Robin DG Kelley), but for the most part the CIO didn't want to upset the "New Deal alliance" FDR had cobbled together with the Dixiecrats and they left the south mostly unorganized. Operation Dixie in the '50s (?) was hardly a serious effort.
In the sixties, labor was mostly too happy to enjoy big fat wages to get involved in either the anti-war movement or the civil rights movement...
Thank you for the history lesson. Very interesting.
Yes!
Here's another article with some interesting links.The Dems, Move-On, and agents provocateur! Oh, my!
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just visited my local occupy group, they were a litle cold and hungry. They did not like my Iraqi Freedom veteran hat and commented on how I am a part of the "military industrial complex.". I told them that I may not agree with their protest message, but I would sacrifice my life so they could do it. Then they took my food and apologized. We had a good talk and amazingly, I understand their pov and they said they understand mine a little bit better. Too bad more people can't be civil and put a face to the issues instead of dehumanizing each other. It makes it much easier to kill nonhumans than humans when the fighting starts. Hopefully they will stay warm tonight. I would bring them some chicken noodle soup, but some people can't have gluten and others are vegans. I really hope no one gets sick there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed Hiro.
If there's one thing I've taken away from this thread, it's that people agree on more than they think they do. (See Sebastian's post on page 8.) This is evident when people stop using labels and talking points and start actually talking.
Civil discussion is only possible if people realize others are more complex than their opinion on one issue.
It's kinda like the Dalmer party. Yes, we can argue that cannibalism is wrong and that they shouldn't have tried to extend their lives - that they should have just died.
Yes, we can argue that, since America has reached peak oil, America shouldn't pursue additional oil resources - the American culture should just die.
But it's not gonna happen and, frankly, despite all it's warts, America has done a lot of good for the world. It has been a beacon of human rights. I don't think it would be a good thing for the world if America just died.
Would be a better argument if it does not look like its really Iran that comes out ahead and not the U.S. If one is going to engage in colonialism its absolutely imperative that there is an underlying cultural appetite for it. To really be able to control that oil America needed to be willing to conquer Iraq and then stay and occupy their conquest.
As it stands most of what has been done is to destabilize the balance of power in the region and pretty much remove Iraq as a buffer against Iran. Though if one does want to put a positive spin on it its quite possible to note that the majority of Iraqi's are now free and if they want to support their natural allies in Iran more then they want to support their historical oppressors (who are usually propped up by Saudi Arabia) then its a win for freedom and democracy...but it sure ain't no win for the West which has chosen to back Saudi Arabia and oppose Iran.
All in all saying it was worth it to keep America strong really falls down when it looks like it cost a fortune and has done very little to keep America strong...in fact it might well do the exact opposite if things continue along the present trajectory.
stuffNo, I wasn't trying to hide anything.
I also disagree with your assessment of the consequences of an American revolution.
But, I doubt rational conversation with you is possible if you're going to accuse me of being in favor of things I've never said.
Have a nice day!
The problem is that there are two kinds of revolutions. In one kind you have what amounts to a War of Liberation. The American Revolution and the Vietnam War (if you include the French portion as well) are Wars of Liberation. While there is no guarantee that the resulting leadership will be any good in such a war there is a reasonable chance that it'll be good mainly because what the war is about is generally about having the locals take over they key apparatus of government without that much emphasis on actually changing the culture. In fact the goal is usually to take an existing or generally desired culture and enhance and enforce it while removing the influence of a culture that is perceived as foreign and at odds with the local one.
The other version of a War of Revolution is where different disparate groups actually within a society engage in a violent free for all for control of the apparatus of power. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Civil War are all examples of this. These usually are extremely bloody and brutal affairs, winning requires that some groups within the same society defeat and effectively destroy other groups within that society (while revolutions of liberation usually just see the foreigners and their most fervent supporters go back to wherever they came from).
Furthermore the top leadership of such bloody affairs are almost never the kind of people that serve two terms and leave. To survive and thrive to lead in a conflict where one segment of the society needs to liquidate other competing segments of the same society requires extreme ambition, absolute but flexible conviction (a certainty that whatever objectives are currently being pursued are of such importance that no price in blood is too high to pay combined with the ability to change those objectives to deal with changing circumstances) and utter ruthlessness.
The only two possible options are a world controlled by America and 2 dollar a gallon gas or death! No other country has ever managed to not be in control of the planet and still live!
The repubs pushed deregulation through. The dems, taking money from the same lobbyists, went right along with it (for the most part).
Now we're seeing the results of that. A real protest is growing.
I disagree with the idea that it was just that the Dems let deregulation happen purely because they where corrupt. The 'centre' of the political spectrum itself swings back and forth and by the time the Dems where letting deregulation through it was because 'everyone knew' that deregulation was a good idea.
Its simply the case that this ball is now, once again, up in the air due to the financial crisis and the reasonably clear link between it and deregulation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was around Wall Street area on Saturday and saw all kinds of marches heading uptown. Everyone staying on the side walk, flanked by dozens of police with wads of zip cuffs attached to their belts. Rows of police vans were all over the place, often racing here and there with lights and sirens. They even had rows of buses parked in the area. All parks and public spaces filled with cops and parade fencing.
I left the city around 6pm, but apparently Times Square was filling up with about 5,000 people. Police brought in horses, and things got very tense. I think there were about 75 arrests related to the Oct 15 protests.
I found this video of a soldier scolding the police. I have seen mothers with children, elderly, clergy, foreign and domestic tourists, etc. scold the NYPD, and usually just get ignored, threatened, or arrested, but this is the first time in my life that I have ever seen anything like this.
Wow.
Just wow.
I was around Wall Street area on Saturday and saw all kinds of marches heading uptown. Everyone staying on the side walk, flanked by dozens of police with wads of zip cuffs attached to their belts. Rows of police vans were all over the place, often racing here and there with lights and sirens. They even had rows of buses parked in the area. All parks and public spaces filled with cops and parade fencing.
I left the city around 6pm, but apparently Times Square was filling up with about 5,000 people. Police brought in horses, and things got very tense. I think there were about 75 arrests related to the Oct 15 protests.
I found this video of a soldier scolding the police. I have seen mothers with children, elderly, clergy, foreign and domestic tourists, etc. scold the NYPD, and usually just get ignored, threatened, or arrested, but this is the first time in my life that I have ever seen anything like this.
Wow.
Just wow.
How do you reply to something like that?
How do you reply to something like that?
Usually rotten fruit.
I didn't see what caused the outburst, however.
I have yet to see, online or on TV, a rational, knowledgeable response in opposition to the protests.
CNN, the "darling of the left wing media conspiracy" had a commentator lamenting the lack of organization and clear message from the protestors... while showing a video of one protestor stating their demands/requests, with the first 500 people in the crowd repeating it back , in unison, to the next 500 people in the crowd, who did it for the folks behind them.
|
|
I have yet to see, online or on TV, a rational, knowledgeable response in opposition to the protests.
CNN, the "darling of the left wing media conspiracy" had a commentator lamenting the lack of organization and clear message from the protestors... while showing a video of one protestor stating their demands/requests, with the first 500 people in the crowd repeating it back , in unison, to the next 500 people in the crowd, who did it for the folks behind them.
If you dig around you can find some rational responses:
For ex, the head of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, he's ex goldman sachs.
The rolling stone seems to be doing an okay job too.
I have yet to see, online or on TV, a rational, knowledgeable response in opposition to the protests.
CNN, the "darling of the left wing media conspiracy" had a commentator lamenting the lack of organization and clear message from the protestors... while showing a video of one protestor stating their demands/requests, with the first 500 people in the crowd repeating it back , in unison, to the next 500 people in the crowd, who did it for the folks behind them.
...
"We want bananas and Miss Piggy! Throw out the pickles and relish!"
"Wait, what? Surely that isn't what we started with 2,000 people ago is it?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For ex, the head of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, he's ex goldman sachs.
Well, that doesnt exactly sound like opposition. And it might be different in canada, but what exactly is going to prevent
" things going back to business as usual,’’’ Mr. Carney said in the interview. ``If I may say, that is not going to happen, but I can understand the frustrations.’’
in America?
Corporations still control the government. They now have more tools than ever to influence an election, since they can just have a superpac (which has restrictions on speech but not on funding) funnel money to their pacs (which have restrictions on funding but not on speech)
They're still allowed to play Roulette with their money, they keep it if they win, and get us to bail them out when they loose. They can then use that money to drown out the people running to say "stop that" - or at least enough of them to keep the laws from getting through our byzantine quagmire of a legislature.
If i had a dime for every time these guys said "never again!" and then did it again, I'd be one of them.
"We want bananas and Miss Piggy! Throw out the pickles and relish!"
"Wait, what? Surely that isn't what we started with 2,000 people ago is it?"
Outta ammo already? lol
They're still allowed to play Roulette with their money, they keep it if they win, and get us to bail them out when they loose. They can then use that money to drown out the people running to say "stop that" - or at least enough of them to keep the laws from getting through our byzantine quagmire of a legislature.
If i had a dime for every time these guys said "never again!" and then did it again, I'd be one of them.
"Their money?" Try OUR money. Last time I checked that is what the government was spending. :(
Outta ammo already? lol"We want bananas and Miss Piggy! Throw out the pickles and relish!"
"Wait, what? Surely that isn't what we started with 2,000 people ago is it?"
|
|
For ex, the head of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, he's ex goldman sachs.Well, that doesnt exactly sound like opposition. And it might be different in canada, but what exactly is going to prevent
" things going back to business as usual,’’’ Mr. Carney said in the interview. ``If I may say, that is not going to happen, but I can understand the frustrations.’’
in America?
Corporations still control the government. They now have more tools than ever to influence an election, since they can just have a superpac (which has restrictions on speech but not on funding) funnel money to their pacs (which have restrictions on funding but not on speech)
They're still allowed to play Roulette with their money, they keep it if they win, and get us to bail them out when they loose. They can then use that money to drown out the people running to say "stop that" - or at least enough of them to keep the laws from getting through our byzantine quagmire of a legislature.
If i had a dime for every time these guys said "never again!" and then did it again, I'd be one of them.
Ahh, sorry, I read "in response" and missed the "in opposition" part. Reading comprehension failure on my part. No I haven't seen anything either.
We (for better and for worse) don't have the same separation of powers you folks do. If the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance agree to curtail business as usual, it gets done. The Finance Minister can force a bill through legislation or change regulations as quickly as he feels like. Canada basically elects a dictator every four years (provided a party wins a majority, and always subject to judicial review against the constitution and charter of rights). Hopefully they don't screw up.
You guys have a rockier road for financial reform.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Corporations still control the government. They now have more tools than ever to influence an election, since they can just have a superpac (which has restrictions on speech but not on funding) funnel money to their pacs (which have restrictions on funding but not on speech)They're still allowed to play Roulette with their money, they keep it if they win, and get us to bail them out when they loose. They can then use that money to drown out the people running to say "stop that" - or at least enough of them to keep the laws from getting through our byzantine quagmire of a legislature.
If i had a dime for every time these guys said "never again!" and then did it again, I'd be one of them.
This is about as perfectly and succinctly I've seen explained what OWS is all about.
How do you reply to something like that?
Usually rotten fruit.
At the guy, or the police?
I didn't see what caused the outburst, however.
I wasn't there, but it is probably a response to the way the police treat protests in NYC. It is difficult for me to sum up in words, but there is something... disturbing about the tactics they employ against obviously peaceful protesters. Often the police outnumber the protesters. Since a protest probably won't be granted a "parade" permit by the City, you are required to keep on the sidewalk, while not obstructing pedestrian traffic. The police are very strict about this, while they themselves will move parallel to the march, often with each officer equipped with several pairs of flex-cuffs, and nervously holding a baton. In addition to the regular police, there will often be several "white shirts" giving orders, as well as a phalanx of police racing around on motor scooters, several marked and unmarked police cars, vans, and sometimes buses. If the vans and buses are full, then that means a lot of bored cops, if they are empty, then the vans and buses are for taking you to jail. All of this traffic is to prevent you from stepping off the sidewalk, and "obstructing traffic". Oh yeah, there will also be an NYPD helicopter or two in the air as well.
There is also a very adversarial attitude between the police and any form of protest. The police are told that your group has been infiltrated and taken over by out-of-town anarchists, bent on mayhem and destruction. There will also be all kinds of reports of weapons, conspiracies to commit violence, and various wacky "plans" that they "uncover". The general attitude is that controlling the protest is part of a greater War on Terror, and that 9/11 taught us not to take any chances. So stay on the sidewalk.
I think this guys outburst was a response to this treatment. Not everyone can just suck it up and take being herded like that, especially in light of real dangers faced by soldiers.
-Widespread and televised police brutality would be very good for the protest. Remember the pictures of dogs and water cannon on civil rights marchers?
-Widespread and televised police brutality would be very good for the protest. Remember the pictures of dogs and water cannon on civil rights marchers?
I don't think it is quite that simple. Images like that often just polorize things- both sides will view it as supporting their cause. For every person horrified, it seems there is another who will just say, "look how out of control that situation was...I'm sure the cops were just doing what they had to do." Many people know that the cops would never treat "us" the way they treat "them", so it must be "their" fault.
There is also a commonly held belief that protesters go out in the street in order to be beaten up by the police... why else would you put yourself into such a hostile environment? Good folks know to stay home when there is "trouble" around, only crazy or stupid people would want to get beaten up, thus protesting is crazy and stupid.
Also, the mainstream media loves selling fear above all else. People consume more when they are afraid, and if it bleeds-it-leads. Media companies are supported by their corporate sponsors, and have a generally cozy relationship with those who regulate them. In the case of NYC, Mayor Bloomberg is personally worth 18+ Billion dollars due to his financial media company, and has broad influence in politics, AND media.
-Widespread and televised police brutality would be very good for the protest. Remember the pictures of dogs and water cannon on civil rights marchers?
Assuming it gets on air. Then again, the corporations may not be able to stop youtube from taking it viral...
|
|
How do you reply to something like that?I was around Wall Street area on Saturday and saw all kinds of marches heading uptown. Everyone staying on the side walk, flanked by dozens of police with wads of zip cuffs attached to their belts. Rows of police vans were all over the place, often racing here and there with lights and sirens. They even had rows of buses parked in the area. All parks and public spaces filled with cops and parade fencing.
I left the city around 6pm, but apparently Times Square was filling up with about 5,000 people. Police brought in horses, and things got very tense. I think there were about 75 arrests related to the Oct 15 protests.
I found this video of a soldier scolding the police. I have seen mothers with children, elderly, clergy, foreign and domestic tourists, etc. scold the NYPD, and usually just get ignored, threatened, or arrested, but this is the first time in my life that I have ever seen anything like this.
Wow.
Just wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ItGnI6tP_jA
Interview with Sgt Shamar Thomas. Wish it was on PBS or something besides Olberman, but he lets the guy speak at least.
|
-Widespread and televised police brutality would be very good for the protest. Remember the pictures of dogs and water cannon on civil rights marchers?Assuming it gets on air. Then again, the corporations may not be able to stop youtube from taking it viral...
The other corps will hate Google, I guess.
Mistakes I'm noticing this guy make
-He's assuming that the protestors wand all corporations dead, or assuming corporations have to commit the worst excesses or die. That doesn't seem to be (most of) their position. A little corporate humanity isn't too much to ask for.
-He doesn't seem to realize why we can't put people in jail (they own the elections)
-Also, how dare people not be fully aware of the deliberately arcane and obfuscated work that goes on in our financial system! Why isn't everyone an expert at things I'm an expert at!
-Also, how dare people not be fully aware of the deliberately arcane and obfuscated work that goes on in our financial system! Why isn't everyone an expert at things I'm an expert at!
The other side of that coin is, why do people who aren't experts in a field think that they can spout off like they are?
The other side of that coin is, why do people who aren't experts in a field think that they can spout off like they are?
Well, when a car's brakes fail, it careens off to the side of the road, catches on fire and then explodes you don't need to be an expert mechanic to say "You know i think something there ain't right."
No, but you do to offer realistic preventive measures.
No, but you do to offer realistic preventive measures.
For some things yes, for other things no. Not letting wall street investment firms outright bribe public officials for example is a no brainer.
Or to be able to verify that it was in fact the brake failure that was the cause and not something else, and the brake failure wasn't just a symptom of. Most especially if you intent to then drag the guy who replaced the brakes to jail for the accident.
Or to be able to verify that it was in fact the brake failure that was the cause and not something else, and the brake failure wasn't just a symptom of. Most especially if you intent to then drag the guy who replaced the brakes to jail for the accident.
And perhaps that expert should NOT be the person who replaced the brakes?
No, but you do to offer realistic preventive measures.For some things yes, for other things no. Not letting wall street investment firms outright bribe public officials for example is a no brainer.
Except there isn't very much evidence that is going on.
Here's what happens. Company A gives money to candidate X, or spends money for candidate X. Candidate X wins and does things that in favor of company A, thus obviously candidate X was bribed by company A. Except that isn't what happened. What happened was that candidate X was already pushing for things that would favor company A. Thus company A invested in candidate X's campaign so that those things would happen.
Company A didn't change candidate X's decisions by giving him money, instead they support a candidate that had positions already in line with their's. That isn't bribery. That's investing/contributing.
Now if candidate Y was against things that would help company A and once elected, company A gave candidate Y money and Y changed his positions to fit company A's interest, that would be bribery. But that happens very infrequently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My political views are on the far far far far left , so i sometimes dream(hope) that the idea of an UNIFIED WORKING CLASS is really happening.
obs: For me and many others, the USSR was a disgrace for the idea of socialism.
FROM BRAZIL.
Company A didn't change candidate X's decisions by giving him money, instead they support a candidate that had positions already in line with their's. That isn't bribery. That's investing/contributing.
Yay for the lawful evil alignment!
You've completely ignored WHY bribery is illegal in the first place. The entire point of anti bribery laws is to prevent individuals or small groups of people from unduly influencing the governments decisions.
What, pray tell, is the functional difference between starting with 50 senators who oppose you and 50 who agree with you, then bribing 10 of them with a million dollars each to change their minds
or
Spending a million dollars each on 10 senators elections and getting another 10 senators into office who agree with you?
Either way you're buying the government actions that you want.
Same difference as voting for a guy that shares your ideals, or accepting money or favors to change said vote.
Same difference as voting for a guy that shares your ideals, or accepting money or favors to change said vote.
Its one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.
No, but you do to offer realistic preventive measures.For some things yes, for other things no. Not letting wall street investment firms outright bribe public officials for example is a no brainer.Except there isn't very much evidence that is going on.
Here's what happens. Company A gives money to candidate X, or spends money for candidate X. Candidate X wins and does things that in favor of company A, thus obviously candidate X was bribed by company A. Except that isn't what happened. What happened was that candidate X was already pushing for things that would favor company A. Thus company A invested in candidate X's campaign so that those things would happen.
Company A didn't change candidate X's decisions by giving him money, instead they support a candidate that had positions already in line with their's. That isn't bribery. That's investing/contributing.
Now if candidate Y was against things that would help company A and once elected, company A gave candidate Y money and Y changed his positions to fit company A's interest, that would be bribery. But that happens very infrequently.
Yes, but lets say candidate Z wants to run, but he opposes the change. Company A wont give him money. Other companies wont give him money either, because they want the change. He needs a source of money to fund the insanely expensive campaign, or else he wont be able to stand a chance at getting elected. By withholding their money from 1 candidate and sponcering annother, they are able to ensure that only 1 candidate is competative. And even if candidate z does win, he will only be one voice in a sea of other voices who were most likely not the underdog like him and he will be drowned out.
EDIT Summary: Companies don't need to bribe candidates to their views because they can find people amenable to those views already and ensure that they win in large enough quantity to control the vote.