John Schuler: Had you taken my suggestion and
searched out the provisional Declaration on the OWS
site you would have found term limits already
included. Needing celebrities to voice the needs of
the 99% seems contradictory to the spirit of the
undertaking. I was shocked how moderate the
Declaration turned out so far and surprised they
threaten a new 3rd Party if reforms do not happen
in good time. Their focus seems more law oriented
(judicial) than anything else, blaming the Supreme
Court for the outcome of Congressional
corruption.So far I’m skeptical of OWS consensus,
although it seems more than reasonable. It fails to
address our plight ecologically or technologically,
even educationally, but maybe they save those for
later. I see our Overlords as being very similar in
tactics to the Assad regime in Syria.

I thought Amy and Chris did a FINE JOB - up UNTIL the point that there was NO ACTION MESSAGE to the average voter.

Since it seems agreed that a 3rd Party can NOT succeed at this point, it seems to me that the only way we can get true change is with a 100% change in Congress AT EVERY ELECTION - until we have “Citizens who serve one term”, then go home.

If there is no other alternative to our corrupt Congress, other than to replace them, then we need to get out the message: NEVER RE-ELECT ANYONE. And we need to field new and hopefully honest candidates at every election – Local, State and Federal.

We need to have the few dozen or so erudite and “connected” speakers like Amy and Chris get together with the likes of Michael Moore - and with the economists, and educators like Michael Hudson and Noam Chomsky - and educate all of us on what SPECIFICALLY we can actually DO, now that OWS has the World’s attention.

John Schuler
Portland, Oregon

What we say here, or what Chris Hedges and Amy
Goodman say on the Charlie Rose Show really doesn’t
matter because we and they are not participating
in OWS General Assemblies. My politics are old
timey and pretty close to those of Noam Chomsky but
I find that OWS is issuing a Declaration and
organizing a Constitutional Convention for July 4th
2012 that is very different from what I would wish.
The planks of that Declaration are practical and
stem from consensus hopes. They resemble things
you’d see any middle-of-the-roader say on any forum
any day. They want campaign fiance reform,
abolishment of the FED, proper taxation of the rich
and Wall Street, stronger financial regulation,
prosecution of economic crime, end to foreign wars
and perpetual war, moratorium on foreclosure and
student loan debt and healthcare for all under a
single payer. It is difficult to oppose any of this
considering recent events. They have some things
about abolishing teacher tenure I don’t quite get
and a simplification of the tax structure that is
not completely thought out. I suggest that all
posters here at least search and read this simple
Declaration and find a way to gain input.

@ OzarkMichael
“I find it sad but unfortunately typical when Truthdig opines that a analysis of OWS can only become a “smart discussion”... if its between two OWS activists.”

Obviously, you have some issues with the phrase “some smart discussion about Occupy Wall Street”

What is “sad” and what is “unfortunate” or “typical” about the phrase? Give us some facts and examples to establish your claims. Anyone can make value, subjective judgments about anything. But evidence or justification is required to be believable.

Second, if you have personal problems with the discussants, you have yet to state them here for others to examine.

Benjamin Frankling, George Washington, and others were called terrorists, trouble makers, and traitors to the throne of the King of England by the British officials and their American sympathizers inside the American colonies of the revolutionary era during the founding of America. Therefore, do not rehash the usual misunderstanding of the history of America by talk-show thugs who make millions of dollars off the slavery they perpetuate to keep sucking the blood of the American people. The God who created the hosts also created the parasites, and both parties in the current parasitic political and economic environment retains the same God-given rights to survive.

The floor is yours!

Boy were they (and Rose)ever walking on eggshells!
Even if you are like me and consider OWS an answer
to your prayers it is difficult not to say the
wrong thing, or something that could be
misinterpreted, misconstrued or misused about it.
Having only been pushed through in a wheelchair
briefly for less than an hour and seeing the
village atmosphere I can’t consider myself a part
of it. I think Capitalism is dead, but I can’t
assume the campers and assemblers feel the same
way. I’d like worker ownership and worker
management to emerge from it but that might not
happen. I do think many fewer people will tolerate
wage slavery and debt peonage (usury) once they see
beyond the glitzy market brainwashing we all suffer
from.

OWS is a DEMONSTRATION in two senses. First, it
does show that a sizable number of people are
worried and angry and are demanding fundamental
changes. Second (and maybe more importantly)the
lifestyles and the consensus solutions there are
experimental, and they are a demonstration of what
people may have an opportunity to do and be once we
get the current system disassembled. That’s why it
hurts me so that I’m too ill to be part of the
solution in these early stages. I’m dreaming about
both Mr. Microphone (a silly toy from the 60s) and
the People’s Mic. I hear them repeating “Hey
Goodlookin’! We’ll be back to pick you up later!”

I said: “I find it sad but unfortunately typical when Truthdig opines that a analysis of OWS can only become a “smart discussion”... if its between two OWS activists.”

cpb asks:

Where did “Truthdig” opine such, might I ask?  Extrapolative tendencies getting the better of you again Krazo?

Lets look at the first sentence of the article, which the cpb troll apparently doesnt have time to read:

Finally, some smart discussion about Occupy Wall Street on a high-profile talk show.

The troll(cpb) might think that the article was written by someone from National Review Online, but i suspect it was written by someone from “Truthdig”, and that the editor of “Truthdig” approved it. It represents “Truthdig”, it was an opinion expressed by Truthdig, and not some other organization like Fox News.

But for trolls like cpb, such facts are irrelevent.

What else should we call cpb, who never answers an honest observation, never uses logic, but merely insults and harrasses other bloggers? We call that person a troll. You are a troll, cpb, and every time you write a post you prove it.

“I find it sad but unfortunately typical when Truthdig opines that a analysis of OWS can only become a “smart discussion”... if its between two OWS activists. “

- OzarkM

Where did “Truthdig” opine such, might I ask?  Extrapolative tendencies getting the better of you again Krazo?

@EUA Baker: Hedges has gone on at some length about the uselessness of the liberal class, which class specifically includes twits such as Charlie Rose and his do-nothing guestlist, which further includes such noted assholes as Tom {Suck on this} Friedman and war criminals such as Henry Kissinger.

Liberals are incrementalist cowards and part of the problem. And note carefully that progressives are leftist activists, a species quite separate from liberals and their gatekeepers.

Hedges and Goodman being on the Rose program was akin to John Stewart’s appearance on the Fox Sunday with Chis Wallace to tell them they were “insane.” I’m happy they showed up; perhaps they made a dent or two in some liberals’ consciousness, although I doubt it.

To EUA Baker,
  If you ever read any of my other comments on this site you would realize that I
am a veteran and served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  If you actually had any
reading comprehension, you would clearly see that my criticism of the so-called
liberal media is due to the realization that it is not serving progressive causes.  I
am an actual progressive, hence my praise of the discussion.
I was surprised that the interview was conducted with little of the faux objectivity
that waters down any discussion of the problems our country is facing.

Enjoy making your nasty comments laced with violent imagery.  You know things
are bad when legitimate progressives are attacked by “liberals.”

I find it sad but unfortunately typical when Truthdig opines that a analysis of OWS can only become a “smart discussion”... if its between two OWS activists.

@Payson

“worthless liberal celebrity circuit”

“Either he did it by accident or he has a producer with a penchant for stirring up
trouble.”

The only worthless at this time in the history of America is the government of the United States. It is worthless because of people like you who do not know the difference between their nose and their ahole.

If you were not worthless to the American ideals, you would not be afraid of discussions and exchange of ideas. You would not be afraid of those who speak their mind about the current anarchy and slavery caused by greed and treason. Only thugs and tyrants see troubles when they are given information and ideas through open discussions.

Be afraid and remain terrified in your treason because the impending revolution will need some heads on the guillotine.

Oakland Police Critically Injure Iraq War Vet During Occupy March

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html

Charlie Rose is a highly respected pillar of the liberal class, hence his dull,
ineffective and empty show.  Hedges and Goodman aren’t trying to be part of the
worthless liberal celebrity circuit, so their stated views and opinions transcended
the banality of Charlie Rose and actually helped any viewers interested in the
truth.

I am surprised Charlie Rose even invited them on as I doubt Goodman or Hedges
could get him invited to any swank dinner parties with oligarchs or fundraisers for
“fashionable” causes(typically anything that does little and only benefits non-
Americans).
Either he did it by accident or he has a producer with a penchant for stirring up
trouble.

IIt was a pleasant surprise to see Amy and Chris with Charlie Rose. The trick to
watch the show is to turn it on at the very beginning and find out who is being
interviewed. Most of the time the guests are very predictable -the kind that is
currently acceptable to most PBS viewers and funding institutions.  Sometimes,
however, there are interesting guests from the arts and sciences and, less often,
international and national progressive political thinkers.  This show is on late with
daytime reruns in some PBS stations, I believe.

@ cpb, in re: Charlie Rose

Personally, I can’t stand Charlie Rose. He is the poster boy for liberal gatekeepers, and a panderer to power of sickening proportions. Plus he’s a really shitty interviwer, who spends half his program putting words into his guests’ mouths. If having Henry Kissinger on your interview program more than half a dozen times without roasting him over a spit is an example of public service, then Rose is your man.

For another, slightly more objective opinion, in November of 2010, the media watchdog organization FAIR.org. published the results of its study of news and public affairs shows [http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4178]. PBS as an organization came in for some substantial criticism, and FAIR had this to say about the Charlie Rose Show:

“The Charlie Rose Show—a show produced
outside the PBS system but widely carried on public
television stations—boasts a remarkably narrow
guestlist. FAIR found the most common guests (37
percent) were reporters from major media outlets, and
corporate guests, well-known academics and government
officials also made frequent appearances. Of the 132
guest appearances, just two represented the public
interest voices that public television is supposed to
highlight (equaling the number of celebrity chefs who
appeared). Eighty-five percent of guests were male,
and U.S. guests were 92 percent white.”

“Charlie, congratulations for having the guts!”

For those of us unfamiliar with this host… anyone want to give a brief rundown?; what he’s about, how, given the context, this is gutsy (and by implication not typical) behavior, what his viewership might be?

“...a real populist movement…”

I’m in.

Charlie, congratulations for having the guts!  Now how about interviewing two or three of the young, articulate, politically and spiritually intelligent Occupiers themselves?  And don’t ask them what their “demands” are.  Ask them what their vision is—for the U.S. and for a more possible future world.
Media might all learn something.  If not you, who?

Excellent broadcast.  I watch this show but around here
it’s on late at night on PBS.  Personally, I don’t know
of anyone other than myself who watches it.

Where’s the MSM?  This should be broadcast, along with
others like it PRIME TIME and in depth.

(And the yokels over at Fox whine about the “liberal
media”.  Wish they’d let me know what channel that
is…. I might like it.)

I think Amy & Chris did an excellent job of explaining OWS.
Now that police are stepping up their aggression against
various encampments, I am waiting for the next phase.
I truly hope the police and local governments are held accountable
for unlawful arrests, and violating the Constitutional rights
to free speech and free assembly to petition the government
with grievances.

Charlie actually listened to Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges without being rude and defensive (as he was last time I saw Amy Goodman on the show).

I don’t know, I haven’t watched his program for a while. Was he wincing in pain???

He seemed to be. I hope he is OK.

You were both great!!!