Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
God Is Back

God Is Back

by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge
$18.45

more items

 
Report

Which Side Are You On!

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 13, 2011
© Jeff Pappas

By Richard Reeves

I am all for Occupy Wall Street—and a lot of other places—but I wish I understood where this is going. And why it took so long to get going.

"When men can speak in liberty, you can bet they won’t act," a Philadelphia lawyer named Charles Ingersoll told Alexis de Tocqueville almost 200 years ago as the French writer traveled the United States (24 of them) taking notes for what would become his great work, "Democracy in America."

The United States has followed that line for most of its history, and it has generally worked. Because of Ingersoll’s words, I was chilled a bit by the fact that New York City has denied the Occupy people the liberty of a sound system to allow them to speak to more than just the people within earshot.

Does the government want to mute the cries of the "99 percenters"? That would be a great mistake, and I’m sure officials around the country know that. As a veteran of both civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests, I know that when authority uses all the powers at its disposal—including shooting people—that is when the rebellion begins. That was what Ingersoll was talking about.

This is not Syria. If the police and their bosses use force against these people in these troubled times, they will reap the whirlwind. So far, the closest historical parallel to these pained cries of people—people who are losing their livelihoods, even the fabric of their lives—is the Bonus March of 1931, when World War I veterans marched on Washington during the administration of Herbert Hoover and camped out around the city to demand early payment of their bonuses. They were dismissed as a rabble, as Occupiers are beginning to be branded now. The 1931 protest ended in violence. Troops commanded by Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur charged on horses into the veterans’ "Hoovervilles," driving the protesters from the city.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
In fairness, Hoover had ordered the Army not to use violence, but in the aftermath he said: "Thank God we still have a government in Washington that knows how to deal with a mob."

In New York, listening to the radio, the governor of the state, Franklin D. Roosevelt, turned to a friend and talked big change.

"Felix," said Roosevelt to Felix Frankfurter, "this elects me president."

If this confusing movement has the momentum, and the government—local, state and federal—has to confront the Occupiers, it will change the politics of the country. People will have to choose sides: order or change.

This may be a momentary thing, a flash in the pan, but the pan is hot, people are hurting, and they do believe they are being robbed by the top 1 percent. The income of the middle class is falling as a few bankers and such are making more than ever—even though they were a big cause of the collapse of the national economy.

This is powerful stuff. American stuff. Steve Lopez, a Los Angeles Times columnist who stayed in the Occupy tent city around Los Angeles City Hall, recorded the messages on some of the placards around him.

"We Are Not Overthrowing a Democracy, We Are Restoring One," said one.

Another quoted Steve Jobs: "The People Who Are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World Are the Ones That Do."

But the most powerful numbers of the day are not 99 and 1. They are something like 20 and 400. When I wrote about Tocqueville in the 1970s, the salary ratio between chief executive officers and their lowest-paid workers was in the 20s. Now it is more than 400 or so, and that doesn’t include bonuses and extended pension plans.

Pay inequality has triggered many a revolution over the centuries. There comes a day when ordinary people have to answer the question:

Which side are you on! Which side are you on!

© 2011 UNIVERSAL UCLICK


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 18, 2011 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

re: ardee

Hey, i’m just a historian, digging through records is my forte. You should look at them sometime: Library of Congress, National Archives, European Archives, Vatican Archives, Jewish Archives, Middle East Archives, Asian Archives etc. etc.
Then we have archeology and rest of sciences. It’s amazing what you can find if you get off your butt and look smile
Especially in those out of way corners and rooms of museums.

Leadership of Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, Jesuits etc. are from same mold too.

Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists?
Muslims are the opposite side of same coin as Jews.
Taoists & Buddhists are ones who gave concepts and info to Jesus. You know, all those lost yrs of Jesus.
If all comes down to original Laws of Men and Women as set forth by the “Creators”. Above this is Universal Law, Laws of the Universe.

Condensed history: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_movement_too_big_to_fail_20111017/#432800

You should source it all and see for yourself raspberry
They are all over internet too.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 18, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

“It should be clear not all people of the 10 percent or
1 percent category agree with the gutting of the middle
class.” - Leefeller

I think those within the 10 percent but not the 1
percent could be argued to be ‘upper middle class’. 
Many such, despite having tremendous financial privilege
relatively speaking, are still running the treadmill, as
it were, just doing so with a three car garage and
better vacation options.  Higher up and closer to power,
they are less likely to realize which side they ‘should
be on’.

Similarly I don’t think the middle class realizes the
bigger picture just yet, certainly not generally.  That
the middle class is hurting suddenly is a crisis - but
only for the middle class themselves.  The emphasis on
the middle class smokescreens the big picture of social
justice that we should all be either revisiting, or
visiting for the first time, depending on prior
education and awareness.  The lower class is where the
middle class came from, and only as a requirement
brought about through technological innovation and
industrialization.  Dominant culture has the middle
always looking up, aspiring and empathizing.  We need to
remember how the existence of the lower class, far from
being the end result of a rational meritocracy, serves
the needs of the aristocracy as a requisite part of the
whole economic structure. 

The collapse of the middle class may be leading many to
question the inequalities of the system, but those
inequalities are merely undergoing demographic shifts,
having been present (and unjust) all along.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2011 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Breaking down what the 1 percent means seems to really more accurately mean the top 10 percent!

According to melissa-harris-perry the average medium income of Congress is circa 950,000 plus a year.  Looking at this figure I understand why those in Congress are less respective to the populous than they should be.

I suppose being in the close to a million dollar income range makes for wealthy bedfellows! It should be clear not all people of the 10 percent or 1 percent category agree with the gutting of the middle class. Just as all Democrats do not fit stereotypical absolutism’s.

Get the money out of politics is a pipe dream just like expecting the Republicans to support the populous instead of their benefactors as they only appear to be representing the top 1 percent.

Occupy Wall Street calls attention on a number of abuses and inequities, so the silent majority have been silent for a far to long time now,it appears the ignored majority is finally awake!

One person, one dollar, one vote!

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 18, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

@ Leefeller,

Trolls don’t stand for anything particularly, unless it
suits their purpose.

Report this

By ardee, October 18, 2011 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Gabriel, October 18 at 2:46 am

My goodness! I’ll wager that you have absolutely no clue as to how revealing your post is, how much of a glimpse into what I might call a severe personality disorder.

Jews doomed for all eternity, Jews responsible for all the dishonesty, all the greed and every evil and illness that pervades our societies and cultures. In fact , as you call righteous only those Jews who converted to Christianity, one might assume a similarly disordered opinion of Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists and all the other “doomed to hellfire” religious beliefs extant.

Why no mention of the heinous treatment Jews offer the Palestinians whom they originally made homeless? I might note that it was a government and not a religion that committed said atrocities but I could not reasonably expect to reach you and the worms inhabiting your “logic”.

I further might mention that the majority of stockholders of every single financial institution that helped to wreck our economy remain Protestants, some are Catholics, and a significant portion might even be atheist or agnostic. But again, of what use is such fact against your unassailable fortress of ignorance?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, October 17 at 8:55 pm:

Anarcissie:
I hope to hell you are right and that it’s just infiltrators trying to discredit the OWS movement. If so, they will be discovered and rooted out.

Well, what else would it be?  But as for rooting them out, the powers OWS has challenged dispose of trillions of dollars and all the agents money can buy.  If some are rooted out, others will be sent.  The movement has to become a lot broader and deeper if it’s going to survive present and future counterattacks like these.

Report this
Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 18, 2011 at 2:46 am Link to this comment

“anti-semites”?

Nope .. It was Merchant and Money Changer Jews whom were kicked out of temple by one of their own. A guy called Jesus. Later they got Romans to crucify him and took responsibility for it for All Time ... LMAO

Parts of those houses/tribes of Jews moved to Europe and became Merovingian Kings in the South of France. Then became Templars who inverted the modern banking system. Up to that point “Usury” was outlawed and carried a sentence of Death.

Some of them moved to German areas and became very wealthy and dabbled in the Occult, Magic and other sacred knowledge. They are now known as the Illuminated Ones / Illuminatti. They covet this knowledge to keep in power.

Most Jews that are Righteous and followed Jesus despise those who abuse everyone and shun them with a passion; The merchants, money changers and illuminated ones. There are literally tons of records that document such atrocities done by the corrupt Illuminatti, merchants and bankers. It is their system that’s about to fall, today known as the Economy, fractional banking and fiat money ... all part of Usury.

They have spread like a virus and plague across this planet and are the main cause of all the problems. Yes, many have jumped on the bandwagon and joined them in a Machiavellian way.

They think they are so untouchable they brag about every change they get, as in this thread.

Thank you for telling everyone which side you’re on. smile
I will surely add this thread to history books and make lots of copies.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 17, 2011 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

I hope to hell you are right and that it’s just infiltrators trying to discredit the OWS movement. If so, they will be discovered and rooted out.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

The Constitutional Convention was backed by the ruling class and had important political and legal consequences (as it was intended to).  It was much more than a discussion.  More like the negotiation of a contract between power blocs and other important stakeholders.

Report this

By gerard, October 17, 2011 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

oddsox?  Way back when, somethere, you scorned the idea of a nationwide deliberately organized citizen discussion based on problems being raised by the 99% in the form of protest—greed, theft, lies, cheating, disregard for public health and welfare, continuous wars, torture, illegal surveillance, etc. etc.
  You said something like “an exercise is not an accomplishment.” A seeming denigration?
  In your terms, then, the Constitutional Convention was an exercise, but not an accomplishment?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Hey cpb, what is really amusing, I have absolutely no fricking idea what hell OM stands for except the opposite of anything I happen to believe in.

One can understand how Obama feels about the Republicans and their tail chasing dogmed tea bagging friends, they stand for whatever Obama does not!

Pointlessness, ossification, BS and grabbing crap from their asps is all I have ever heard from any of them. Nothing has ever touched on what some people would suggest as facts. Look at the Republican stable of ass wipes running for president, they make stupid look smart!

I have never heard OM speak on the issues or even topics regarding the articles except in a deluded side stepping way. So OM just what the hell do you believe in? I know you do not believe in collective bargaining, you seem to have a handy deluded knowledge of all as in every liberal believes in or what all liberals are thinking, what all liberals are promoting and I heard it from the horses ass,  OM knows the Occupy Wall Street folks are all liberal Pinko, Commie- Bolsheviks!

Nothing new,  Money the sponsors the rich and one percent who just about every damn time they want to get their idiot cronies and minions to support the one percent they pull up the commie wedgie so they squeal like pigs!

Can anyone here tell me what the hell Om Stands for, besides ossification?  Om, will you please tell me what you stand for or believe besides what everyone else does not stand for or believe and just for interests sake I am being so very polite here!

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

cpb, October 17 at 12:02 pm

Thank you, that needed stating and restating.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 17, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

“Once any kind of altercation begins, the police can
move in and smash everybody, which is often the outcome
desired by the authorities and their fans in the first
place.”

- Anarcissie

Indeed.  Sometimes they don’t even wait for an
altercation, not in the immediate vicinity anyway.  I
spent time waiting outside the ‘jail’ in the middle of
the night during last June’s G20 in Toronto, hoping to
offer a ride for friends who had been locked up after
the authorities had the pleasure of their “desired
outcome”. 

There was a story reported about the police being given
stand down orders while the handful of alleged rioters
ran amok in the city for the better part of an hour and
a half.  Thousands of ‘boots on the ground’ couldn’t
stop a handful from providing some fantastic photo op’s
of smash & burn.  The story went away quickly and was
not revisited as it turns out. 

Quite apart from the (overblown) violence, in spirit and
in place, thousands and thousands were abused, violated,
detained, beaten, kettled, and rounded up.  It was a sad
sad weekend.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 17, 2011 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

“@Ozark Michael: 
You’re correct, we won’t agree on many things. 
But you do a service to the site by offering diversity
of thought when airing your views.
Fellow posters should realize there are many, many
others who believe as you do—they don’t visit TruthDig,
that’s all.”

- oddsox

I would agree with you wholeheartedly, except that Ozark
does not come to offer a diversity of thoughts or views. 
A truly thoughtful and respectful conservative viewpoint
is lacking here, generally, and I would welcome such. 
Ozark, on the other hand, is here to obfuscate,
misinform and attack, all the while pleading the victim. 
He is not attacked unfairly, he is attacked because of
what he is doing, where you are giving credit for what
he mostly does not do.  His methods are classic troll
behavior, the worst among them being his predictable
habit making false accusations with words put into the
mouths of other posters, taking word-bites out of
context etc.. and mis-using such for his own shallow
ends. 

He does throw in the occasional thoughtful post,
presumably to gain sympathy or water down the sheer
volume of his otherwise disingenuous rhetoric.  He’s not
representative of diversity, rather, he’s an enemy of
respectful and informed debate wherever the theme of the
discussion offends him.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, October 17 at 9:35 am:

‘Anarcissie said: The Occupation has been rigorously nonviolent, but some other movement or formation…

Why is it remarkable that OWS is non-violent? Again and again you want a great deal of respect, perhaps a medal, for something that millions of us do daily. ...’

Activism is not like ordinary life.  When you go to work in an office, you normally don’t find it surrounded by police and mysteriously hostile bystanders, your co-workers aren’t randomly beaten for being in the wrong place or looking in the wrong direction, you don’t have to wonder if one of your colleagues is planning a violent act in order to get the business shut down, you don’t have to wonder who’s an informer and may be collecting information about you in order to put you on a blacklist or report it to the police (with maybe some embellishments).  That sort of thing tends to make people nervous, and some people’s instinct is to respond to threats and attacks violently.  It is quite a problem which is why many demonstrations have monitors and legal advisors.  Many of the Civil Rights movement’s groups used to refuse to allow people to go along on their marches until they had had training in the methods of nonviolence, which included such things as self-control while being abused physically and verbally.  Once any kind of altercation begins, the police can move in and smash everybody, which is often the outcome desired by the authorities and their fans in the first place. 

I’m surprised I have to explain this.  I’d recommend hanging out with some activists as a way of learning about them, but your convictions may preclude that.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

ITW—You should remember that an open gathering like Occupy (anything) is likely to be infiltrated by provocateurs and saboteurs as well as spies and informers.  The anti-Semitism thing was tried against Occupy Wall Street almost as soon as it appeared; a woman named Rothschild, who writes for HuffPo, wrote a derogatory piece about OWS and shortly thereafter someone, quite possibly Rothschild herself, posted an anti-Semitic comment under it.  She then fastened on this as proof that OWS (all of it) was anti-Semitic.  Naturally, this little pas de deux was derided—how many Occupiers, out in Liberty Plaza, can we suppose were reading right-wing bloggists on HuffPo?—but the beat goes on, I am sure.  And this is to say nothing about self-propelled trolls who profess anti-Semitism purely to rile people up and draw attention to themselves.

Thus far OWS has not been taken very seriously by its actual and potential enemies, which has in a way protected it, but if it should be perceived as having any substantial effect, you are likely see far heavier-duty activities against it, which will include provocations and false-flag activities.  One hopes those directly involved at the site are planning some way of handling them.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 17, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

@Ozark Michael: 
You’re correct, we won’t agree on many things. 
But you do a service to the site by offering diversity of thought when airing your views.
Fellow posters should realize there are many, many others who believe as you do—they don’t visit TruthDig, that’s all.

A tip of the cap to you, OM, for weathering the insults and name-calling hurled your way. 
I’d encourage you not to respond in kind.

OM, you’ll be less frustrated, in my view, if you appreciate the wide range of views expressed here on the site. 
From your perspective, they may seem to be much the same.
But just on this thread alone, we have heard from
—one poster espousing anarchy
—another supporting a third-party
—a third rationalizing civil disobedience as a constitutional right
—and yet another favoring the use of righteous (in his mind)retaliatory violence. 

Right or wrong, you’re not going to change many minds here.

—-

@ Leefeller:  “Political parties matter little in the scheme of things, if one doest not get the (CORPORATE) money out!”

HA!  Your statement + my edit in caps = Truth.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 17, 2011 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

“They have a right to publish and yes it is free speech,
but you might want to gather information from
independent sources that arent so commited to the cause.
You might be wise not to accept the filtered information
which Truthdig provides as if it was the truth.”

- OzarkM

What are your sources Krazo?  Care to link?  Got
anything to say other than your tired diatribe?  Gonna
back up the assertions you make with a link now and
again?  Got any pictures of protesters hitting cops as
you assert in another thread?  Got anything Krazo? 
Anything?  C’mon Krazo, find something…

Of course, trolls ignore direct challenges unless they
can cheery pick, overlook, and turn it around to spin
more of their own detritus. 

How many direct questions have you conveniently
overlooked in the last little while Krazo?  You’re
really busy lately huh?  This OWS got you working
overtime?  I mean, you are just all over these threads,
morning, afternoon and night.  Are you that bored Krazo,
or are you actually being paid?  Nice work if you can
get it huh?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 17, 2011 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Thanks, OM.

I think Chris Hedges can be intellectually lazy, but I don’t think he’s lying…and NYC is NOT a place where anti-Semitism is likely to be tolerated on any side of the political spectrum.

OTOH, I cannot imagine why OWS would WANT to publicize bigots at their rallies in L.A.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 17, 2011 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

ITW said

When anti-semites came to Wall Street, the OWS people shouted them down and away (See Chris Hedges’ article on the girl called “Ketchup” for this).  That was very encouraging to me.

ITW, are you aware that OWS is turning out some nice propaganda about themselves? They make themselves look good and the cops/businesses/government look bad? Its called agitprop. Truthdig posts some of it. Chris Hedges writes some of it.

They have a right to publish and yes it is free speech, but you might want to gather information from independent sources that arent so commited to the cause. You might be wise not to accept the filtered information which Truthdig provides as if it was the truth.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 17, 2011 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: The Occupation has been rigorously nonviolent, but some other movement or formation…

Why is it remarkable that OWS is non-violent? Again and again you want a great deal of respect, perhaps a medal, for something that millions of us do daily.

Why? is non-violence so rare? No. Or are you saying that the alternative is just poised on the edge? Yes, that is what you keep implying.

Your repeated description of non-violence by Occupy Wall Street as an exceptional and miraculous occurance, placed side by side by your ‘description’ of Bastille, sounds like a shakedown to me.

oddsox called it just right. OWS is a shakedown.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 17, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

I am in a dilemma.  As a Progressive American I fully support what’s going on with the OWS.  But today a disturbing report has come in from L.A. that deeply affects what I also am, a Jewish American man.  That is this: that blatantly anti-Jewish posters are being displayed at their version of OWS.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/13/more-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/

When anti-semites came to Wall Street, the OWS people shouted them down and away (See Chris Hedges’ article on the girl called “Ketchup” for this).  That was very encouraging to me.

But in L.A. they are NOT shouting them out. They are tolerating the bigots.  This is very disturbing.

So: over the last 10 years we seen a vast movement of Latino-Americans move from supporting Republicans to supporting Democrats. Why?  On issues like abortion and gay marriage and easy divorce and other “value issues”, many Hispanics are traditional, conservative and very, VERY Republican.  So what caused them to leave the GOP?

The answer comes down to one word, and all the implications of that word: Immigration.  That is the great equalizer, the trump card, the item that binds everyone from well-to-do Cuban-American businessmen in Miami to migrant workers in San Diego and construction workers here in New Jersey.

Immigration and “Illegal” immigration laws, draconian and imposed primarily by Republicans scare the shit out of Latin-Americans, as well it should.  When ANYONE who has olive skin, a Spanish name, and features stereotypically associated with Hispanics can be subjected to summary accosting by the police, with demands for proof of citizenship or legal residency, and immediate arrest if it’s not forthcoming, Hispanics are right to be scared.

They are also wise to ignore the “family value” issues and rush to support the party most likely to protect THE most important family value: Keeping the family together and not deporting members.

When Republican Senators are calling to revoke citizenship for native born Americans because they call them “anchor babies”, Hispanics are wise to drop all support for Republicans.

I worry I might be in a similar bind. If the OWS goes toxic and becomes anti-semitic (and many members of TD are exactly the kind of people to trumpet those slogans) how can I POSSIBLY support it?  When my family and my children might be branded as “criminal” solely for being Jewish and therefore SOMEHOW responsible for the evil Wall Street has done, how can I support it?

It is my fervent hope that OWS members and activists will step up to the plate, call out the “human megaphones”, and blast these near-nazis out of the park and out of OWS.  That way I’ll be able to happily support OWS some more in good conscience.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 17, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

@Anarcissie:
“The means and the end are one and the same.”
A thought pondered by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NpXNTLkM1F0C&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=the+means+and+the+end+are+one+and+the+same.&source=bl&ots=t6x3dDmPMu&sig=xtDoUnr5Do6xsxLOnvftvluT2j8&hl=en#v=onepage&q=the means and the end are one and the same.&f=false

Definitely agree with you if you’re asserting, as I think you are, that the ends do not justify the means.

As this applies to OWS: keep it peaceful and peace will be the fruit of the movement.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, October 17 at 4:30 am:

After I exposed the anti-democratic principle behind the Occupy Wall Street threat to “Storm the Bastille”, Anarcissie responded on Oct 15th:

  I didn’t like Amy Goodman’s Bastille metaphor.

However, it wasnt that long ago(Oct 10th) that self avowed far-Leftist Anarcissie expressed a rather different view of OWS, and issued this warning

  It’s not a good time to be standing on guard at the Bastille.

From http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_do_they_want_justice_20111006/

I’m glad someone reads what I write!  However, you’re overlooking this difference:  Amy Goodman’s metaphor seemed prescriptive; mine was descriptive. 

Now, Amy might protest that she was not recommending a Bastille sort of event, either.  Her usage is a bit ambiguous there. I suppose mine was, too, because I see not only you but someone else misunderstood it.  To go into more detail, I see the Occupation and a number of other events (for example, the popularity of the Tea Party(ies)) as evidencing a lot of fear and anger in the general population which could develop in many different ways.  The Occupation has been rigorously nonviolent, but some other movement or formation arising out of present circumstances might not be so nice—we are, after all, not generally a nation of postmodern urban hippie intellectual activist types.  That fellow at the Spectator had total contempt for the Occupation’s nonviolence.  There are probably a lot of people like that.  Meanwhile, as I’ve pointed out, the ruling class is continuing to prove incompetent and the political system continues to be frozen up, unable to translate the desires and interests of a large portion, maybe the majority, of the population into political facts.  That is not unlike the situation in France just before the revolution.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 17, 2011 at 8:04 am Link to this comment

@gerard—

EXERCISE vs. ACCOMPLISHMENT

Your 5-item plan shows a willingness to work for change. 
But, with respect, an exercise is not an accomplishment.

Re your item #4: “...support financially from present resources of Wall Street’s elite as a public service.”
Hmmm.  What’s going to motivate Wall Street’s elite to perform such a “public service?”

Sounds like a shakedown to me.
Frankly, OWS doesn’t yet have the chops to play hardball. 

UPSIDE:

That said, kudos to the movement for keeping it peaceful so far.  (and for keeping guys like “bob zimway” from ruining it all.) 
The General Assemblies are wise to note that OWS isn’t another French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising. 
Peaceful tactics will buy the movement another next month & I see there ARE people working on solution-oriented strategies.

One worthy OWS accomplishment on the horizon?
Likely increased participation at the polls next year.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 17, 2011 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

Political parties matter little in the scheme of things, if one doest not get the money out!

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 17, 2011 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Clearly Krazo-The-Troll has turned to pure volume as a
strategy.  So much BS is still just BS.

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2011 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

I don’t see how going from one political party to another, without some basic structural change in politics and economics, is going to make much difference.

But Anarcissie we have more choice than the Duopoly Party at hand. I fully agree that voting either GOP or DEM is a futile action doomed only to further the status quo.

I offer the Green Party, dedicated to refuse the strings of corporate monies, whose platform includes the necessary changes to our system of election that will bring about free and fair elections.

Yes I know that this course is opposed by many, in particular those wedded to instant gratification, those who cannot abide a stratagem that does not reach fruition in the time of the average TV commercial.

But ,as I have stated and re-stated, I believe in the basic solidity of the system our Founders created. I further believe it possible to change that which has distorted that system, though it may occur after my life has ended, just so it does change.

I see no alternative frankly, and , as you are aware I am certain, I reject your anarchy as a reasonable, or even workable, alternative.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 17, 2011 at 4:30 am Link to this comment

After I exposed the anti-democratic principle behind the Occupy Wall Street threat to “Storm the Bastille”, Anarcissie responded on Oct 15th:

I didn’t like Amy Goodman’s Bastille metaphor.


However, it wasnt that long ago(Oct 10th) that self avowed far-Leftist Anarcissie expressed a rather different view of OWS, and issued this warning

It’s not a good time to be standing on guard at the Bastille.

From http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/what_do_they_want_justice_20111006/

Report this
Gabriel's avatar

By Gabriel, October 16, 2011 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment

LOL .. i think i figured out why i still come here ..

@ Ozark
re: “All they need to do is apply for a permit.” .. ya tell us another one smile

1. Obviously you forget about something called Right to Peaceful Assembly
I didn’t know a “permit” overruled a Right, or set any conditions on a Right. Can you show me/us this specific example in Law?

2. Apply? Last time I checked Apply in law terms means to get on your hands and knees and beg for something from a Master. Which means one must be a slave in order to do so. So which slaves are you talking about?

3. Permit? Does it not mean to get permission a signed notice/contract? Is it not a “city” ordinance, ordinance being an order, as in order something from a vendor or catalog?
Wow, if a city orders something then I guess I better send them an invoice or a bill.

4. Need? I though a “need” is something that was required for survival and life ... such as food, clothing, shelter and love. Does one need a piece of paper to Assemble?
Maybe for wiping thy butt during lengthy stay. Oh but they have something called “toilet paper” at nearby MicQuaks

I think your words are all mixed up and you better to go back to school or look them up in an English dictionary again and good Law dictionary as well.

So the result is: if many have the Right to Peaceful Assembly they don’t need a permit or apply for anything. To do so would mean they are slaves to whomever. According to Law, [the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Natural Law] all Sovereign Individuals are not slaves, therefore don’t require any of that garbage you say.
Get it?

Yup, I come here to get a good laugh ... LMAO
As for the rest of your words? = Man speak with forked tongue smile

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: One more war, one more execution, one more roundup of the bad people, and all will be well.  Such ideas are more in tune with the traditional rightist principles (authority, power, wealth, hierarchy, order, discipline) than with leftist ones (peace, freedom, and equality),

Since the power of self-definition is infinite, why dont you also add goodness, sweetness, and light to (peace freedom and equality)?

You are proving my case by the way. You are saying that when your methods lead to trouble, it has always been and always will be my(the Right) at fault. Your rhetoric and revolutionary methods might lead to disaster and i am to blame for that?

By your definition, as soon as people get hurt, the Leftists are absolved of any blame for it. That is a tremendous advantage you give yourself.

so leftists should know better, but a lot of them in history haven’t.

And a lot of Leftists in the present dont know it either. By the way, what are you doing with those people? Besides relying on their help, I mean.

The fact that they add a little ‘Storm the Bastille’ is quite useful to Occupy Wall Street. Its leverage. You already showed us that you are willing to play that card. In so many words ‘Negotiate with us before something bad happens because the police might provoke one of them soon’. “Them” being Communists I guess, or maybe its some of your Tea Party members who you fear are hoping to jump ugly with the police?

Yeah right.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment

Being an anarchist, I’m as far Left as you can get.

I don’t regard the violence perpetrated by nominal leftists, such as the French Revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., as generally arising ‘from the Right’.  Rather, these revolutionaries were seduced by the persistent and very widespread notion—see your TV, if you have one—that good things can be obtained by force, especially military force.  One more war, one more execution, one more roundup of the bad people, and all will be well.  Such ideas are more in tune with the traditional rightist principles (authority, power, wealth, hierarchy, order, discipline) than with leftist ones (peace, freedom, and equality), so leftists should know better, but a lot of them in history haven’t.  However, I do, and so should all of you.  You can’t obtain peace, freedom and equality through violence and domination.  The means and the end are one and the same.

Lenin, of course, would call my views ‘infantile’.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

oddsox, we probably disagree about many things. But all i care about is that we apply the same rules to each other, and you seem to be willing to do that. Bravo. i might not support your every cause, but I will try to respect you, and what you say. 

oddsox said to cpb:
“@cbp
Hell, yes, I’m gonna judge OWS by my own criteria. 
Don’t we all?
Don’t you?”

Well, thats the problem.

cpb and many Leftists have two different criteria. One is a strict criteria they apply to the ‘non people’, the ‘paid mercenaries’, which is to say… all conservatives. When Leftists judge conservative political activity they search for hidden controllers, etc etc etc. and any method we use for change, including voting, reeks of authoritarianism.

Having tried to measure up to this strict criteria in the past, I can tell you its painful, impossible, and negotiating with it is a waste of time.

When far-Leftists judge themselves, the criteria is lax. Actually it isnt even laxity, because their self-criteria doesnt exist at all. Anything that they do wrong is because of outside forces. Anything. Everything. Piles of corpses as recently as 40 years ago? Overlooked. 

Historically they see the French Terror and the Soviet Gulag as arising from the Right. The Left decides that it bears no responsibility although their rhetoric and their methods led to those things. So now it is no surprise that they will blame conservatives for absolutely anything that happens from Leftist actions on Wall Street.

Anarcissie has already positioned the pieces on the table, already explained who will be blamed for anything evil that might happen at the Occupation. This is the MO of the Left.

Yes instead i should say the “far-Left”, but nobody ever admits to belonging to such a thing. Many far-Leftists portray themselves as ‘moderates’ and so i have to speak broadly.

I speak to you, oddsox, and to any Leftists who step up and use the same criteria on themselves that they use on the me: i apologize profusely to you for besmirching your good name. 

Question: Do you think if the Occupation blossoms into something more powerful, that it will suddenly be sweeter and more fair? That the Left will begin to judge itself more carefully, with stricter criteria?

Was Lenin sweeter than Marx? Was Stalin more fair than Lenin? No. No. No. Power tends to make people less strict with themselves and more strict on their opposition. That is a human truth.There is no escape from it.

Some of us are only human. We judge ourselves and we must be judged. We strive to treat all alike, to judge those we like and those we dont like by the same criteria. i do not claim that we always succeed.

There are others who strive not to judge equally but to be exempted from rules and from equal judgement. The Leftists here are are like gods who cannot be judged at all, not even by themselves.

Report this

By gerard, October 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

As to focus and solutions:  How’s this for size?
  1. An opening has occurred:  A coupld Wall Street biggies told the NYT a couple days ago they “would be glad to have a conversation: and that the Occupiers “have a point.”  Nothing terribly significant, but ... a crack in the “No Access” door.
  2. Someone with some inspiration (and experience if possible) suggest to Occupiers, and “government” and “business” forming a National Convention to Strengthen Democracy, reaching out as broadly as possible, to all factions involved—Wall Street, Main Street and everywhere in between (forgotten people included).
  3.Put together some kind of outline for clarifying problems, pointing out historical, educational and ethical resources, suggesting methods to present problems from various aspects, to study, share ideas together, investigate possible solutions and work horizontally to tally opinions and promote decisions.
  4.Call it a national experiment in democratic search for answers to vital questions.  Support it financially from present resources of Wall Street’s elite as a public service.  Involve all media and discourage “ownership” of news and class “warfare”
propaganda.
  5.Such a venture would help unlock international stale-mates and encourage invention of new (more rational than war) ways to solve current antagonisms.  It’s a golden opportunity for the U.S. to innovate instead of stagnate.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 16, 2011 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

gerard & cbp:

@gerard,
Yes, nothing:

000 00 = 0
Top of the 6th, no score.

#1 & #2 = kumbya at summer camp would do as much.
#4 & #5 if not having a job can’t do these already, OWS can’t either.
#3 agree w/Ozark Michael here.  Keep off the bridges, don’t block traffic, stop poopin’on patrol cars and the cops will leave you alone. 
Half of them are already on your side if you’d get a clue!

Don’t get me wrong—I’d like so see something positive come out of OWS. 
The movement is wide enough, but without depth.
Time now for focus and solutions.  gerard has it right.

@cbp
Hell, yes, I’m gonna judge OWS by my own criteria. 
Don’t we all?
Don’t you?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Democracy means supressing the majority of the people to the selected whims of the 1 percent elite and their cronies this is not really a democracy nor is it a republic!

Grabbing out of ones asp again OM!

The inequites are real, the abues are real and so is the lack of representation by the bought and paid for Repulicans and blue balled Democrats, so the delusions of those tea baggers and OM would screw the majority as 27 percent, like the brown shirted fanatics they are!

We do not live in a democracy, nor is it close. We live in an abusive unrsponsive republic, supported by money.  Of coures money is people too acrodding to the monied interests, so we have Fox News, Koch brothers and ALEC sponsering their own interests superseeding the populis, (the real people)!

Yes OM screw all the people for the 27 percent.

Occupy wall street is not a politicl movment is appears to be a social movement and is now world wide, not even a relisous one, you represent the money, support the money, the abuses and the inequites.

Get those damn blinders off OM, you and apathy may be the majority for now.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 16, 2011 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

I think the question of whether or not the Occupation of Wall Street turns into some kind of violent event is now pretty much up to the ruling class.  Thus far the Occupiers have been remarkably calm and disciplined in the face of repeated provocations, but as the Occupation increases in numbers and variety, the chance that the police or less official hired thugs will pick the wrong target increases.  Put ‘wrong’ in quotes; the authorities may well desire some sort of violence to occur, so they will have an excuse to wipe out the whole business.  I believe that if it weren’t for the numerous video cameras about, that would have happened already.

I’m trying to be a bit less pessimistic, but as I said in my article, the political system seems to be frozen and the ruling class deeply incompetent, and may panic when confronted with any challenge to its power, uncontested for so many years.

I didn’t like Amy Goodman’s Bastille metaphor.  Things will not be improved by great leaders looking over their shoulders at potential rioters.  We need to emerge from the whole idea of great leaders and leadership.  Rioting may be fun, but it’s not going to accomplish much, or certain Midwestern cities with victorious football teams would be paradises.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, said: “Tea Baggers holding congress hostege, dost not seem a majority to me!” and you call that “userpation”.

We voted. I know you Leftists have a problem with that. Who is the one giving up on democracy here?  You are the one who is resorting to the threat of force.

Leefeller proclaims as if this proves you are the good guys: “Wisconson for instance!!”

and I yell it right back in Rage Boy’s face, “Yes, Wisconsin for instance!!!”

Wisconsin. That act of ‘holding hostage’ the elected representatives by a hovering threat of force at a capitol building is exactly what I am referring to.

We vote. You gather and threaten force. See the imbalance? How long so you think that is going to last?

Someday it wont be just talk…  One year from now if the election results in a turn to the Right, then what? Either you will have to back down or you will have to use more force. And if you must use more force…. then what?

I see a future where electoral results wont count because the 99% will storm the Bastille to ‘correct’ the millions of people who voted.

Do you really believe you can play Bastille Day, and the rest of us are just going to sit on our hands? Are we going to thank you for erasing our votes? You dont have a clue what that will lead to. I wrote a post explaining this 3 years ago. Oh I was nice but nice didnt work.

All you know is how good and pure you are. If someone disagrees with you they must be tainted, they must be bought and paid for, manipulated, machines etc etc.  Thus you must turn millions and millions of people into ‘non-people’. Damn me for a fool because I participated in that process with a smile here on Truthdig for a couple years.

Amy Goodman captures the situation perfectly. But I disgree with the result she forecast: If the President looks out the window and responds to the threat of force(Storming the Bastille)... democracy is dead.

Report this

By gerard, October 16, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

The lesson millions in various nations are trying to learn—the new pattern for social-political change—is nonviolent revolution.

When it has been used before—in India and in South Africa—it has resulted in significant success == and been a steep learning curve for everybody involved on all sides.  It is generally recognized as more humane and just than war an brute force.

It’s a choice the people of the world seem to want to make.  They are tired of being maimed and killed for nothing.  They are trying to create an alternative.  They are making it possible to avoid dropping A-bombs.  They envision and demand a more cooperative, more interdependent future. Please help them by understanding and support.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 16, 2011 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

“I figure: The “99%” will not allow resistance to them by ballot if the “99%” has the force to block it.”

Watching your figure are you OM?  How about the 27 percent who are Tea Baggers holding congress hostege, dost not seem a majority to me!

Voting rights are being unserped by the same 27 percent majority in Red States, of course this is not an issue! Wisconson for instance!!

Report this

By bob zimway, October 16, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

If I see a cop on horseback charging a peaceful OWS demonstrator, I will try to pull
him off his horse and punch him in the face. Call me a criminal, but I don’t care,
because the status quo of this thoroughly corrupt capitalist hell I live in is the
greater evil.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, October 16, 2011 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

The tendency of human governments to totalitarian control is endemic - but in the case of so-called capitalist democracies, the power and hence the governance is in the expansionistic economics and its decreasing cadre of private owners.
The name of this aristocracy of money in the US is called Wall Street.
Again the elements of the French Revolution are playing themselves out- needing a revolt analogous to the storming of the Bastille.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 16, 2011 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

Amy Goodman described the Occupation’s inspiration best as she begins describing the Fat Cats as:

forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the President must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.

Now this threat or implied threat of ‘Storm the Bastille’ short circuits democracy, it is what Anarcissie calls ‘revolutionary’ method.

The strange thing is that Anarcissie and the Occupation want to have their cake and eat it too. “This is what democracy looks like!” they chant as they bang their drums.

To suborn the entire people(who have all sorts of differing views) to yourselves, to claim that you represent 99%, and that anyone who opposes you and your method is the mere 1%...  that is what grants you carte blanche to threaten force, and call it democracy.

If conservatives claimed that we represent everyone and more than that… if we decided that force or the threat of force outside the President’s window was needed to steer the country to ‘democracy’, you would call it fascism.

In other words, the method that you use to propel your beliefs are reserved only for yourselves. You are not 99%. You are 20%, (maybe only 10% or 5%) and you are just as prone to all human failings as anyone else. Among these failings are: being manipulated, being emotional, being in error, not thinking about consequence, not anticipating outcomes of your actions.

Your posts here show that you can apply all those errors to the Right and to me.

But now it is time for the True Believers to apply the same logic to themselves, and by golly they cant. At every turn, in every way, you demand to be seen as the exception, and you demand to have every privilege. 

This is your moment. A beginning. In my opinion you have already shown that you arent ready. It is not just a matter of policy, it is really a matter of method. If you deny equality of method now, it is hard to imagine that later you will tolerate those of us who arent part of what you call “the 99%”.

I am not talking about the millionaires. i am talking about those of us who just disagree with you. Yes, i know you think that we are all paid, all fooled etc etc. What if we genuinely see this differently from you? I want to know… Can we vote, or a better question is should our votes bring about a change that the “99%” dissaprove of? That question is crucial.

If power falls to the Occupation, so that they have a ‘force’ in the President’s ear via a threat to “Storm the Bastille”, what must you do to secure the gains that you made if we soon elect a President who listens to the electorate instead of your force?Will you go away? Rely on your vote? i dont think so. Force is your privilege. What for me is unthinkable… for you is natural.

I figure: The “99%” will not allow resistance to them by ballot if the “99%” has the force to block it.

As Anarcissie has said many many times, “Its been done before.”

Any Goodman, celebrated Truthdigger of the Week for her work on 99%, is telling the truth. “Storm the Bastille” does not need a majority, it needs to ignore the majority, even overrule the majority…for the sake of the people. Thats Leftist democracy according to V. Lenin.

Not one person spoke up and said… “Hey that isnt good, that isnt democracy”, Not one Leftist. Not one of the 99%. Actually no one spoke up. Only me.

I am your machine/corporate shill/fascist/1%/non-person who sees what is ahead if you succeed. And it aint pretty.

I contradict Amy and say, “If there is someone outside the President’s window, we are all in big trouble”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 16, 2011 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

The conditions which set off Occupy Wall Street are a combination of two related problems; one, of course, is the bad state of the economy, and the other, far more comprehensive, is capitalism, that is, the total domination of the politics and the economy by capitalists.  The former will probably be patched up after a period of thievery and bumbling, but the latter problem will remain.  One aspect of that problem is that practically no one can get elected to high, policy-making office who does not serve the rich.  This means that other Great Depressions and Great Recessions will occur, interspersed with booms which are equally destructive in their own way.  If history is any guide, these will be accompanied by constant wars and revolts and massacres and massive environmental destruction.  History shows all that, including the history of the United States. I don’t see how going from one political party to another, without some basic structural change in politics and economics, is going to make much difference.

Report this

By ardee, October 16, 2011 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, October 15 at 7:59 pm

I read the article and found it quite well done, as are the majority of your comments here. I must stand in disagreement with your premise about our system of governance however.

While I absolutely agree with your premise that the privileged have usurped, for their own personal gain, that system, I strongly believe it is worthy of rescue from the clutches of fascism. Nor do I accept that our Founders purposely created a system for their own selfish benefit.

I do indeed find merit in that which our Founders created,much merit in fact, while I understand that a self professed anarchist would not.

As to the babbling of OzarkMichael.

Of course you reject my premise regarding the differences between the assemblage on Wall Street and the several Main Streets and those of the Tea Party gatherings. You have consistently proven to uphold the narrowest of viewpoints, the most slanted of illogical premises and seem oblivious to your increasingly irrelevant commentary.

So sad and too bad really. The contributions of a real and thoughtful conservative here would make for a much better forum I believe.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 11:11 pm Link to this comment

@ OzarkTrollingMichael

Something occured to me since my previous posts that I thought it only fair to point out.  You are, here and in other threads, pleading victimization; on many levels, but one that is interesting is the accusation, quite false, that other posters are accusing you of being a fascist. 

In my case you referenced my own reference to Goebbles, when describing your troll-like behavior.  BOLLOCKS!!  The famous quote attributed to Goebbles need not be repeated.  I simply pointed out that you seem to be taking his advice, vis a vis your tendencies to repeat your BS over and over again. 

I never called you a fascist Krazo, I’ve only ever called you a troll.  I don’t know if you’re a fascist or not, but you are clearly a troll.  Calls it like I sees I do I!

But of course taking others out of context and cherry picking their statements and then making inappropriate accusations based on an intentional misrepresentations is to be expected from trolls.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 15, 2011 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Reporting what really happened to some people is like telling facts to a rock,
only difference is most rocks would not call it whining, yeah its a communist plot! To big to fail,

Inequities, lies and abuses sponsored by money is people too and so this is labeled as whining by the master whiner his self, who obviously whines like an old air raid siren without an off switch. Plus the same person has not shown one iota of reason, argument or discussion, except to call names, insult and now reaching in the the great hole of tricks, call the 99 percents a communist plot!

One person, one dollar, and one vote!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2011 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

I doubt if I will feel any need to defend the Occupation.  As I explained in my article, the Occupation arose because the political system of the United States has frozen up.  If the Occupation is now suppressed or subverted or suborned—any or all of which could happen at any time, because I am sure people are working on the possibilities—the forces which brought it into being will remain and they will do things, as social forces do.  That’s what’s interesting to me, not all the hysteria.  I will try to set the facts straight if I think people are getting them wrong, but I’m not going to be defending groups or parties.  Why should I?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie said: If you think this stuff makes the Right look bad, I can’t help it—I’m just reporting what really happened.

That why our little chats about the Occupation are going to be perfect. When we show the trash, the violent threats by a few communist Occupiers… we will just be ‘reporting what really happened’. And who knows what will happen that will make the Occupation look like crazy evil people. Just remember Anarcissie , “you cant help it if thats what really heppened.”

I dont want to hear your whining about it later but you have whined about everything else so far so probably you will anyway.

Report this
Not One More!'s avatar

By Not One More!, October 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

If the individuals of Occupy Wall Street are acting for personal gain, it will ultimately fail.

If Occupy Wall Street is done for community gain, then it will be more powerful, and even if they fail, they will still be doing the right thing. And you never know, they may actually succeed.

But we also have to be aware in how we define ‘victory.’ Egypt threw off the dictator, but the dictatorship remains.

http://www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

OzarkMichael, October 15 at 8:09 am:

Anarcissie said:
  As I recall, at first the distances were much smaller, like ten feet, but it turned out that anti-abortion protesters could throw things (like paint or rubber fetuses) at their targets, and use heavy-duty sound systems.

But see, you just tarred all of us with misbehaviour by citing one bad event by one protestor. ...

Not at all.  You asserted that the rights of anti-abortion protesters were being more severely limited than those of anti-corporate or anti-elite protesters.  I gave you the reasons (assuming they are, which is debatable).  I didn’t say all of anyone did one thing or another.

For awhile, it was necessary for pro-choice counterdemonstrators to escort people seeking abortions, or even unrelated services that happened to be provided in the same place, through whipped-up crowds of demonstrators who opposed their progress physically.  This does not mean all those opposed to abortion were in those crowds.  The crowds were actually rather small, but they were effective when jammed around the front door of an ordinary office building.

That was some time ago.  After Salvi, the Roman Catholic Church and other centers of anti-abortionist effort dialed back their rhetoric a good deal and I heard less about the problem.  Perhaps it was in decline well before his escapades.  There is still terrorism, but I don’t think any but a small minority of anti-abortionists have been involved with it.

If you think this stuff makes the Right look bad, I can’t help it—I’m just reporting what really happened.  You brought up the subject.  I don’t think any of it has much to do with the issues posed by Occupy Wall Street and its doings, and I don’t really understand why you introduced it.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

@ oddsox

Ditto to gerard’s points below.  Accomplishment is a value judgement based on expectations.  Your own expectations should not be projected onto OWS.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

Dialectic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The School of Athens, by Raphael.

Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indic and European philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.[1] Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent’s argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take their side of the argument.

OzarkM puts “Leftist” in front of this and makes it sound like a bad thing.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

OM quotes me -  “The same leadership that is apparently, according to you, manipulating these people as pawns from behind the scenes?; an accusation you’ve made on more than one occasion.”

Then says - “Absolutely correct. i have explained what i am doing and why it must be done. I am applying your own Leftist dialectic to you. In other words, the chains you wished to bind me with needed to be returned to you until you treat me as an equal. I explained that several times, many times. I wasted entire posts explaining this before. How many more posts will I waste explaining? I am wasting a post right now, and we both know it, dont we?”

You have avoided every direct question I’ve asked you Krazo.  And you quote me above leaving out the sentence before, where I asked you if you have any connection to this supposed leadership you allude to.

What’s this accusation about me wanting to chain you down Krazo?  I’m not sure I like the sound of it but can you justify it?  You’ll ignore this question too will you?

Report this

By gerard, October 15, 2011 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment

oddsox:  “Accomplished nothing?”
  1. Drawn tens of thousands into meaningful learning, sharing, discussing, suggesting, visioning a better future.  Nothing?
  2. Lived together peaceably, taking care of each other, in very crowded circumstances, sharing, cooperating, engaging a lot of help and participation beyond those immediately on scene.
Nothing?
  3. Survived police aggression peaceably and engaged further sympathy from others not on the scene. 
  4. Made “authorities” and “elites” think, ask questions, suspend judgment, understand the breadth and depth of current discontent nationwide.
  5. Encourage people to think seriously about the future of the country. Called for economic justice.
  Nothing?

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 15, 2011 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment

Agree with gerard when he writes OWS should be engaged in solutions.

I posted a couple ideas downthread & I’ve read a few signs with similar messages. 

The movement is nearly a month old. 
It has spread widely, but otherwise has accomplished nothing thus far.

Report this

By gerard, October 15, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

A couple days ago I wrote— Any halfway smart “financiers” etc. know what they should do…. they just don’t want to change to a more just financial system. How to engage them is the main problem, as up to now they seem to prefer inflammatory, teasing, childish theatrics like drinking cocktails while “looking down on” protesters from balconies, and donating large sums of money to police forces.

Today the NYT (for whatever truth may be in it) quoted a couple Wall Street financiers as expressing “willingness to have a conversation” with
Occupy Wall Street, and allowed that Occupy Wall Street has some legitimacy etc. etc. There are others out there who could help put something together.

So treat it as an opening.  Engage them in helping to plan a representative “convention” to develope some “Articles of Confederation” or some kind of structure for necessary reforms to rectify the divisive and unproductive imbalance of 99 to 1.

They have the money, the clout and the media.  They should be engaged in the solutions. It’s never been done before?  So?  Now the door has been opened a crack.  Seize the opportunity for a nation-wide discussion based on facts and moral integrity.  We don’t have chances like this very often.  And since the primary need for protests comes from lack of access to “the elites” in government and finance, such an outcome would be a great victory—not just for the US but for the world.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

When a movement is a populist one, as are the current Wall Street protests, your statement above may contain a certain truth. But such as the Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, well financed and consisting , for the most part, of folks without a clue. The signs found at such rallies are a clear insight into the correctness of my previous statement.

Because ardee has certified who is populist and who is not, then ardee can assign rights to some but withhold it from others. Ah, how 99% Communist of you to put it like that. In sum: “The people support us. If you resist us you are not really people”

You have proven my point beautifully. Good one ardee. You cant wait to break a few eggs to make your Communist omelette, i bet! Your Puppetmaster will be pleased with you.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

I said: “when conservatives do those things we are called a fascist mob and you are happy if the law is called to arrest us…”

ardee protested: This comment cannot pass sans noting the increasing instability of this particular poster. Offer one such example of what you claim as fact, Michael, but actually is a fiction you believe to be otherwise.

One example?

Are you serious? This whole fascism thing, which you are claiming is a fiction, has happened 1,000 times on Truthdig alone. Just as a conservative who speaks out I hear it daily. And it is true ardee, that in times past i was so nice about it. Why that had to change is not something you would understand.

Now do I need to ‘offer one such example’ of being called a fascist? No, its a waste of time. it happens every day. Its like proving the existance of dirt. But just one more time i will indulge you, ardee.

The ground is under our feet, I dont have to search to prove it. So here, right after ardee posted, we have cpb saying this to me: Admire Goebbles much?

If i am a fascist for speaking in a way that you dont approve of, imagine how easy it is to call us fascists for getting together and trying to change things. I could waste time showing you examples of conservatives meekly protesting well within the confines of the law…  and we are called fascists. It happens every day. In fact that ‘accusation of fascism’ is what Truthdig is based on. Do you want proof? Really?

I think you want me to waste more time.

Report this

By ardee, October 15, 2011 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

I said: “

  Looking for who is behind a movement is a way to discredit all the people who have their own rationale, their own motivation, who have their own individuality, who have their own commitment to that movement… by rolling them into a ball and tying them to a supposed ‘controller’ with nefarious motives, thus explaining away all those people and their individual decisions with one negation.

When a movement is a populist one, as are the current Wall Street protests, your statement above may contain a certain truth. But such as the Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, well financed and consisting , for the most part, of folks without a clue. The signs found at such rallies are a clear insight into the correctness of my previous statement.

The mouthing of phrases, learned without a care as to the meaning they contain, as shown plainly by those like Rachel Maddow who interviewed several Tea Party enthusiasts in Seattle and found they had not a clue as to the meaning of that which they shouted, seems quite a bit different than the current wave of protests taking form around this nation..

Now, obviously, there are gradients within the Tea Party as there is in any mass movement and to tar all such adherents with the same brush is incorrect. Of course that is precisely what you do in your diatribes against the left and fail utterly to consider in your strange and semi-coherent defenses of the right.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

cpb said: “The same leadership that is apparently, according to you, manipulating these people as pawns from behind the scenes?; an accusation you’ve made on more than one occasion.”

Absolutely correct. i have explained what i am doing and why it must be done. I am applying your own Leftist dialectic to you. In other words, the chains you wished to bind me with needed to be returned to you until you treat me as an equal. I explained that several times, many times. I wasted entire posts explaining this before. How many more posts will I waste explaining? I am wasting a post right now, and we both know it, dont we?

Nevertheless, i will defend myself. Read what i wrote a month ago:

I said: “

Looking for who is behind a movement is a way to discredit all the people who have their own rationale, their own motivation, who have their own individuality, who have their own commitment to that movement… by rolling them into a ball and tying them to a supposed ‘controller’ with nefarious motives, thus explaining away all those people and their individual decisions with one negation.

Such negation is frightful, it is very dangerous. In a democracy it is the destruction of the foundation of civics. In ethics it reduces the human spirit to nothing.

Yeah the hated conservative wrote that. The hated fundamentalist Christian, wrote that. I am the only one here who could write that stuff, precisely because I am a conservative, a fundamentalist Christian. So i have already criticized myself, and done a far better job than you could.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/99_percenters_occupy_wall_street_20110920/#428121

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 15, 2011 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Here’s a recent story about a Tea Party leader being arrested. 

Sorry.

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/top-tea-party-organizer-arrested-for-prostitution.html

Report this

By felicity, October 15, 2011 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

Bit of history. At the end of the Revolutionary War,
the men who had fought in it weren’t being paid. 
They stormed the then seat of the government
demanding their pay.  The fed called on the governor
of that state to send the state militia to put down
the protesters.  He refused.

Thus the creation of DC where the feds have the
entire American military to call on should unhappy
citizens threaten to get-rid-of-the-bums (feds).

The OWS movement is best described as democracy
fighting aristocracy - thousands of years old and
never-ending.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

“The Leftist accusations in response to my question are dehumanizing, reducing me to being a paid agent, and then ultimately to being not human at all, only a machine.” - OM

You’re only reducing yourself Krazo.  You’re the one that throws out the invective against those you perceive as “Lefties” and “Leftists”, at near every opportunity.

“That is the natural result of your 99% vs 1% mentality. According to the 99%, there is no true humanity or moral force outside themselves. Therefore any resistance to the 99% is mercenary at best and inhuman at worst.” - OM

Really Krazo?  When did the 99% issue this collective communique on humanity and moral force?  Do you have an inside line to the true leadership?  The same leadership that is apparently, according to you, manipulating these people as pawns from behind the scenes?; an accusation you’ve made on more than one occasion. 

As memory serves, the majority of your accusations and indignation arise from the fact that the crowd at OWS didn’t follow your preferred protocol and apply to the city for a permit?!!

FAIL Krazo.  FAIL.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie said:

As I recall, at first the distances were much smaller, like ten feet, but it turned out that anti-abortion protesters could throw things (like paint or rubber fetuses) at their targets, and use heavy-duty sound systems.

But see, you just tarred all of us with misbehaviour by citing one bad event by one protestor. And then you enlarge that as a reason to further limit the protest rights of all the people you disagree with.

This is why, Anarcissie, your demand that one cannot judge the Occupation from what one crazy person does, or your demand that we should all overlook any Occupier bad events as caused by ‘agents or provocateurs’ is very stange.

How absolutely unequal! Morally reprehensible! You make yourself completely free from all the rules you just applying to me. 

You really think you and your friends are superior human beings who deserve all consideration and exemptions from rules.

Of course the rules apply to me. And I can accept that. You can justify it really well too.


Can you justify the same logic and application to yourself? Do the rules apply to you? Didnt think so. Because your cause is far more sacred and true than mine. And you are a real person too, lets not forget that part.


Fact is, the Planned Parenthood business suffered, and the sacred right to perform and access abortion without being identified was the real issue.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

I am asking for your permission to break the law for the sake of my cause and not be arrested for it, just like a Leftist does. Not one person through all the articles on the Occupation can address my question. i am not asking you to agree with my cause, which is incidental.

How much time should I waste explaining to you the history of legal rulings regarding protest at Planned Parenthood?  If you didnt care to be informed in the first place, and if you wont listen to me anyway, why should I make a digression to explain it to you? It is never a dialogue that you desire, but distraction from the main question. Planned Parenthood is not the point. 

If you will not allow me(a conservative)to employ your methods(for my cause), then we have a fundamental inequality. I want to know if you will even admit to that fact? 

yes i have asked that question many times and i know you dont want to answer it. I get non-answers like “I cant help it if I prefer my ideology to yours” 

cpb said:

I’m becoming more convinced that you are in fact a paid shill. Or perhaps some of the techno-conspiracy-buffs are correct, the technology is sufficiently advanced, and you’re just a highly advanced shill-bot?

 

The tendency of oppressors to justify their unequal policy by further dehumanizing their victims is well known. Of course you are not oppressors… yet. You dont have that power… yet. But if history repeats itself, your words here provide foreshadowing of how it will play out if Occupy builds and succeeds.

I ask my question again: will you still approve of your own suggestions for success by the Left… if the Right uses them? Can we break the law or threaten to storm the Bastille and you would say,” yes thats everyone’s political right in America?”

The Leftist accusations in response to my question are dehumanizing, reducing me to being a paid agent, and then ultimately to being not human at all, only a machine.

That is the natural result of your 99% vs 1% mentality. According to the 99%, there is no true humanity or moral force outside themselves. Therefore any resistance to the 99% is mercenary at best and inhuman at worst.

I absolutely refuse to have my beliefs, my sanity, my political participation, and my very humanity all reduced to nothing, just so that you can advance your version of “equality”.

Report this

By DHFabian, October 15, 2011 at 7:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Initially, I was very enthusiastic about this. I tuned into MSNBC to keep current. What I saw early on is that this is defined as strictly a middle class movement. Since the ‘80s—and most especially since Clinton—the poor, the post-middle class—are excluded. Reality: not everyone can work, and we have a fraction of the jobs necessary for all who need them. Of course we heard the call for job creation, as we’ve been hearing for 30+ years now. What we should do about the poor in the meantime, until those jobs are created/ By definition, if you are middle class, you have adequate food and shelter. We continue to ignore those who lack these basic human rights, still insanely regarding poverty as a mere “lifestyle choice.” You can’t strengthen the middle lass without supporting the poor—it’s like putting shiny new windows on a house while ignoring the crumbling foundation.  That house will collapse, shiny windows and all. If this means continuing to turn our backs on those who are worse off, count me out.

Report this

By Mekhong Kurt, October 15, 2011 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While I certainly hope violence can be avoided, I am alarmed that in a few cases I’ve read elsewhere, some commentators in Comment section such as this have openly called for violent revolution. That’s grossly irresponsible.

One commentator here called for OWS to force the reversal of the Citizens United vs. FEC decision made by our Supremes. I’m certainly no constitutional lawyer or scholar (nor an attorney at all, for that matter), but I have read several cogent articles arguing that such a reversal will have to come after a new Constitutional amendment is passed. Passing any such amendment represents a huge hurdle, of course, one that involves serious committment by those seeking it, a committment that recognizes that being in the trenches isn’t at all glamourous.

I’m not suggesting that the OWS streets should give up their protests—far from it. Were I advising them, I would urge them to continue over the long haul taking their protests to every corner of America, but especially the political power center, Washington, D.C. If they could get a million people to turn out simultaneously on the Mall, that would be impressive—particularly if they continued protesting afterwards (though a million people wouldn’t likely be able to commit to longer than a single day, maybe two, at least at any one time).

While we’re still over a year away from the general election, I also urge people to inundate people in government with e-mails, phone calls, letters, faxes, and even office visits. While I obviously mean Congress and the White House in particular, I also have in mind people in appointed positions—relevant Cabinet members, the heads of various regulatory agencies, etc, *plus* state governors and legislatures, county governments, and municipal ones.

Central to such communications should be, IMHO, the threat of withholding one’s vote for elected officials. And to *mean* it: if they don’t respond, then vote against them next time they stand. And let appointed officials know you’ll urge they be removed if they remain part of the problem. Volunteer for election campaigns, or, if you can’t find any suitable candidate for a given office, campaign against the candidates there are via letters-to-the-editor, personal websites and blogs, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Comment sections such as this one, etc. Finally, *talk* with people you know, being ever-mindful to remain polite, courteous, and willing to listen to contrary views with respect.

Perhaps I’m being a Pollyanna, but I truly believe that if a critical electoral mass is reached, we *can* force change—WITHOUT violence.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 15, 2011 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

Ozark Michael— I believe the restrictions on anti-abortion protests came about because of actual physical interference with persons seeking abortions, such as blocking them physically from moving forward, grabbing their arms or clothes, and so on.  As I recall, at first the distances were much smaller, like ten feet, but it turned out that anti-abortion protesters could throw things (like paint or rubber fetuses) at their targets, and use heavy-duty sound systems.  These practices could be brought before a court as evidence that the required distances should be increased.  Anti-abortionists have, as well, a considerable history of more serious forms of violence, like bombings and shootings, which may not apply to the majority, but can be used in court to argue persuasively that they are a potential threat to their targets and bystanders. 

One should also note that the anti-abortion protesters were generally involved in actions against persons as individuals with whom they otherwise had no business.  The situation with governments and large corporations is somewhat different for most people; these impose their will, influence and interests on the general public, which gives any member of the public some standing to engage them in various actions which otherwise might be seen as harassment.

Needless to say, there are ambiguous cases.  Many years ago, the Supreme Court, including the civil libertarian Douglas, found that long-term picketing of the residence of a certain allegedly corrupt politician was outside the boundaries of public discourse and allowed the politician to have the police suppress it.

Report this

By ardee, October 15, 2011 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

Ah. But when when conservatives do those things we are called a fascist mob and you are happy if the law is called to arrest us. I will take protesting around the doorway of a Planned Parenthood as an obvious example. Currently we have to stay 300 feet away from the building or something absurd like that. We cant make the noise or cause any inconvenience that we think is necessary.

This comment cannot pass sans noting the increasing instability of this particular poster. Offer one such example of what you claim as fact, Michael, but actually is a fiction you believe to be otherwise.

Was it not under your boy Shrubya that so-called “free speech zones” were created, effectively herding protests to areas where they would not be seen or heard? The Tea Party has, to my knowledge, never had a single instance of arrest or even experienced any slight form of police powers or intimidation.

Your attempt to offer as proof the enforced policy of allowing free and unobstructed entrance to a building is simply a symptom of your abysmal failure to make a valid point.

The simple fact remains, Ozark, that your attempts to portray you and your political leanings as victim falls very flat and you ,yourself, become an absurdity.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 15, 2011 at 2:35 am Link to this comment

Article quote:

“This is powerful stuff. American stuff. Steve
Lopez, a Los Angeles Times columnist who stayed in
the Occupy tent city around Los Angeles City Hall,
recorded the messages on some of the placards around him.

“We Are Not Overthrowing a Democracy, We Are
Restoring One,” said one.”

These powerful words will be spoken AGAIN and AGAIN in our democracy.  And these words are everything. “They are the dreams stuff is made of.” (to steal a quote,.... more or less)

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 15, 2011 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

Krazo - I forgot to request - a quote please of said gathering of peacefully demonstrating conservatives being branded as “a fascist mob”?

Please and thanks.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 14, 2011 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment

“But when when conservatives do those things we are called a fascist mob and you are happy if the law is called to arrest us.”

- OzarkM.

Please Krazo, just for once, some justification please?  Please provide an example of a recent event, attended by large numbers of persons, persons who can clearly be identified as conservative, whe the law came and swept through with pepper spray and batons and arrested “us”.  Your planned parenthood examples are late ‘80’s and small scale and don’t make for adequate comparison.

And one more thing; if you can point to some example, please quote appropriately to prove that this made Anarcissie happy?

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 14, 2011 at 11:48 pm Link to this comment

“This may be a momentary thing, a flash in the pan, but the pan is hot, people are hurting, and they do believe they are being robbed by the top 1 percent. The income of the middle class is falling as a few bankers and such are making more than ever—even though they were a big cause of the collapse of the national economy.”

- from article

A big cause of the collapse?  Forgivable journalistic understatement?  Others can address this more readily and forcfully so I won’t go any further than simply calling Bollocks!

Is anyone else bothered by the ongoing refrain about losses of and within the middle class?  Dog forbid the middle class suffer because they are the fountain wellspring of wealth and ingenuity and blah blah blah blah?  A strong middle class built America and it is being cut to pieces and we have to defend it and blah blah blah blah?  Anyone else hip to the hypocrisy here?  What are we accepting with this level of discourse?  When did having an elite class and a lower class become acceptable, reality aside?  Ok I hear the arguments about meritocracy coming so hear me out for a moment because I’m not suggesting some utopian horizontal fantasy is the ideal to which we must strive.  But let’s not overlook the fact that meritocracy is, like true democracy, essentially a myth.  If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be anyone on Wall St. camping out and demanding change.  The greed that built a bubble and gleefully popped it hangs out in that camp that is, inarguably, above the middle class.  Does anyone really believe all those people are there because they are better than the rest of us and are making decisions that are for the good of us all and we shouldn’t question their position and privledge?  Bollocks!  And more importantly, those living in tent cities are all clearly lazy and incompetent and should just pull up their socks?

I am the middle class.  But “there but for the grace of dog go I”, as it were.  How terrible that some of us to have fallen from our cherished ‘middle’ to a tent somewhere outside of Anywhere USA, but let’s not overlook those that have been forced to hold the position of keeping us fearful all this time.  If this is the shit hitting the fan then the middle better realise what side it is on.  The middle better pull it’s gaze from it’s own navel for long enough to realise who’s on their back and who might have their back.

We are the 99?  Really?  We.. are.. the 99?

Think about it.

Report this
cpb's avatar

By cpb, October 14, 2011 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

“Basically you want more freedom for yourself and not for me. And if you achieve more success, there is no doubt in my mind that to secure your gains you would limit my freedom even further.”

- Krazo

Yeah right Krazo, that’s exactly what she/he said.  Your honesty in representing what others have claimed/said/implied is living up to your usual standard I see.  How Anarcissie manages to enage you politely is beyond my comprehension, it is certainly an impressive expression of restraint from where I sit.

I’m becoming more convinced that you are in fact a paid shill.  Or perhaps some of the techno-conspiracy-buffs are correct, the technology is sufficiently advanced, and you’re just a highly advanced shill-bot?  Certainly you’re a broken record.  Lather, BS, rinse, repeat, lather, BS, rinse, repeat, lather, BS, rinse repeat, lather, BS, rinse, repeat… 

Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t that you don’t have a point.  It’s that you make the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.  Admire Goebbles much?

Repeating a point may not be a crime, but you cherry pick, twist, obfuscate, distort and present your own convenient interpretations of what others have said and present it back with this never ending high and mightly whoa is me and damn the hypocrisy I’m such an innocent aren’t we all just wanting equal rights bullshit - my dog you are so FOS.

Troll, OzarkMichael, you are hands down the embodiment of a troll on this site.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie: I think going into the streets and making trouble (noise, inconvenience, not bloody destruction) has become an abnormal mode of political action.

Ah. But when when conservatives do those things we are called a fascist mob and you are happy if the law is called to arrest us. I will take protesting around the doorway of a Planned Parenthood as an obvious example. Currently we have to stay 300 feet away from the building or something absurd like that. We cant make the noise or cause any inconvenience that we think is necessary.

Please explain to me why I should accept preferential treatment for your ideology over my own.

I think all freedoms and all rules, (which are the boundaries to freedom) should be equally applied to everyone. You do not.

Basically you want more freedom for yourself and not for me. And if you achieve more success, there is no doubt in my mind that to secure your gains you would limit my freedom even further.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 14, 2011 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

I think going into the streets and making trouble (noise, inconvenience, not bloody destruction) has become an abnormal mode of political action.  During the war in Vietnam, we anti-war people were constantly told to get out of the streets and ‘work within the system’ which meant to engage in ordinary liberal politics (media, elections, judicial procedures, appointments to office, manipulation, horse trading, and so on).  Of course this didn’t work for the anti-war movement, any more than it had worked for Civil Rights, or before that for anarchist or socialist aims.  A minority, especially one without ample funds and powerful connections, is not likely to get anywhere using mainstream methods.  This is why they are advised.

It is quite true that the Constitution states ‘Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’  The 14th Amendment is held to extend this restraint to the governments of the States.  Therefore, going into the streets is legal; but it’s not part of what liberals generally hold to be the normal system for getting laws made in one’s interest or according to one’s desires.  In any case the government obviously does not obey its own laws.

Revolutionary change can occur with or without violence, just as resistance to change can occur with or without violence.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, you said earlier that normal means of redress werent working so revolutionary means were needed and thats what Occupy Wall Street was about.

Now you say that Occupy Wall Street “peaceably assembled and petitioned the government, and everyone else, for redress of their grievances.”

I am confused because ‘peaceably assembled and petitioned’ is good old fashioned civics and not at all revolutionary.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

I’ve posted the URL to ‘Occupy Wall Street and the Abolition of Public Space’ here and there; it is possibly redundant for many of you, but I hope to be forgiven if so.

I find the constant noise about ‘points’ and ‘demands’ awfully tedious.  It is not up to the protesters to supply you or anyone else with points and demands.  They have peaceably assembled and petitioned the government, and everyone else, for redress of their grievances.  Engage the problems they have pointed out and come up with your own points and demands, or dismiss them, as you please.  The underlying conflicts aren’t going to go away, but you can always ignore them and let someone else make the decisions.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

That would be a fools errand. They wouldnt want it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

Maybe Occupy Wall Street should take advice from Ozark Michael, better yet OM, why don’t you OM go down and get the permit for Occupy Wall Street!

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

From the article Richard Reeves:

The United States has followed that line for most of its history, and it has generally worked. Because of Ingersoll’s words, I was chilled a bit by the fact that New York City has denied the Occupy people the liberty of a sound system to allow them to speak to more than just the people within earshot.

I know this will seem irrelevent but the Occupation could have speaks and all sorts of cool stuff for their rally. All they need to do is apply for a permit.

But they like it this way better because it makes it look like the evil system is choking them back, gagging their right to be heard. That is the scenario that the Occupiers want you to see, and you are being manipulated into saying, “Hey! This isnt Syria! We arent getting our rights! Grrrr!”

Which is exactly what you guys are all doing. How does it feel to be Pawns?

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 14, 2011 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Two worthy goals OWS can adopt:

1) Reverse the Citizens United vs. FEC decision and make corporate particpation in the electroral process illegal. 
Only natural US citizens allowed to make political donations.

2) break up the Too-Big-To-Fail banks and insurance companies using existing Anti-trust legislation.

Report this

By gerard, October 14, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

1.  It is not crazy to try to “save the world.”  In solid fact, nothing else is more important.
2.  Saving the world is just about the only “job” available in today’s economic “system.”
3.  All those who are hurting economically know it, and know they are themselves a large part of the 99% - not just those who are protesting.
4.  Any halfway smart “financiers” etc. know what they should do. They have the power; they just don’t want to change to a more just financial system.
5. How to engage them is the main problem, as up to now they seem to prefer inflammatory, teasing, childish theatrics like drinking cocktails while
“looking down on” protesters from balconies, and donating large sums of money to police forces.
6. The imbalance of 99 to 1 is so precarious that change which moves toward more justice is inevitable.
7.  When the demand for justice is great and the supply is short,in market terms it’s time for innovation and investment.  How about “venturing” together toward greater economic “equity?”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 14, 2011 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

Occupy Wall Street seems to be a catalyst for a real populist unwashed masses happening. gymnosophist’s articulate and good read post mentions Mobster Mentality, there is little or no difference from Republican attitude and Democrat enabling from the protection racket.

We as the people see the Repulcians constantly strong arming and demanding we give up our rights to protect the windows of our collective stores. “Nice windows” the Republicans say, “be shame to see them broken” or else! The Democrats appear as the paid off cops, mostly looking the other way!  If it is not the protection racket, how about just plain old blackmail?

Yes, Congress is dominated by money, lots of money this next election will see to that thanks to the integrity of the Supremos!

As for the MIC, Mike Gravel caught the Democratic candidates in the last election with their paints down, but was quickly shown the door.

Occupy Wall Street has forced a calling attention to the blatant inequities by the MSM, even if the elite do not like it. Go Occupy Wall Street!

One person, one dollar, (now thanks to the Republicans much harder for some people to vote.) one vote.

Report this

By Union4All, October 14, 2011 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me remind you all where that reference came from. It was from the
Union movement, during the coal strikes in West Virginia, which lead up to
the Battle of Blair Mountain.

Everyday hardworking coal miners and their families had to loose their lives
in a fight with cordporate bosses and the government.  We, the workers of
the world, have never stood a chance without organizing.

Over all these years the bosses have done a great job of brainwashing you
into thinking that unions are old news, no longer needed, and evil. The
point is that we’ve never been anything but your brothers and sisters and
neighbors.

That is what a local is, and we’ve always been there.  The time has come
again, we all must organize, agitate, and educate. Only by bringing up the
lower, and middle classes can we see a return to elevation in wealth to all.

Report this

By ardee, October 14, 2011 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

Despite the powerful words of Billy Pilgrim, October 13 at 4:31 pm I continue to be hopeful that our coming revolution will be free of violence. As a graduate of the anti Vietnam war protests I am very aware that the violence comes, not from the demonstrators, but from the agents of those in power, the police, the government infiltrators who urge violence from within the movement in order to bring down the full force of the government upon the heads of those protesting.

For violence, from any source, turns the electorate’s barely interested stomach and causes them to avoid the message being offered, both by the protestors and by the violence committed against them. I firmly believe that the protests we are experiencing now, engendered, strangely enough, by the so-called “Arab Spring”, is a true beginning to the awakening of our long needed change.

I am hopeful that our system can be saved, our democracy rescued from the clutches of the fascism of corporate ownership of our politicians we are experiencing currently, and done so peacefully. I cannot wait for my recent hip replacement surgery to heal sufficient for me to join in the movement as it spreads across our nation.

Report this

By bpawk, October 14, 2011 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

I am glad people are protesting however they need to go to Washington to the government buildings i.e. White House, Congress and protest there. There should be one day where millions of people would be gathered - how about the movement sell white t-shirts with 99% in large black letters on the front of it (like a football jersey) to raise some money - or better yet get a sponsor to make the t-shirts and have a printer put on the 99%.  This would make a great statement (who would wear a 1%).  ASk some of the celebrities to throw in the money for the t-shirts (i.e. Michael Moore) as well as get some big names organizing the event.  The international press would be all over it and the government couldn’t ignore it.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, October 14, 2011 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

The Occupiers in New York have swept Liberty Park clean, and their even early morning assembled numbers forced the police to back off.

Onward now, to sweep government clean — to cleanse it of all the (R) & (D) corporate person representatives.

Republicans deserve no respect. Democrats deserve every disrespect. Remove them all!

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Report this
Billy Pilgrim's avatar

By Billy Pilgrim, October 14, 2011 at 5:03 am Link to this comment

Lafayette misses my point entirely. A few words:
Wobblies; Pinkertons; Ludlow; Molly Maguires; Triangle
Shirtwaist Fire;

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 14, 2011 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

skim: I’m more inclined to think the giant house of cards will go down with a whimper, and not a bang.

Me too.

The Senate is not much more than a group of millionaires (40% of them) who, once having made their wealth, did not know what to do with themselves.

So, of course, a Senate stint was just what the doctor ordered. And they orientate that Chamber, despite the Dem majority, very Rightward-looking. 

The problem is, nonetheless, that we voted them into office. Which demonstrates the inculcated awe that Americans have for the rich and their accumulated wealth. This notion is aberrant.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, mind you. It is like going fast in a car. OK, but what is the speed limit? And why are we fined for transgressing the speed limit? Because it can be harmful to not only ourselves but others.

Exaggerated accumulation of wealth carries the same danger - and this menace has been seen time and time again historically. So, it should be Nothing New for the US as well.

I might add: The Robber Barons are back.

So what’s the proper response? Well, Warren and Bill think it is giving it away, which is why they have conceived their Philanthropy Pledge.

But that’s a bit late in the game. Let’s tax excessive income to restrain wealth accumulation - as it was taxed from 1937 to about 1960 at levels between 70 and 90%.

Did America stop making millionaires at that time? Not in the least. But who in hell needs billionaires? It’s like boys in a pissing contest, that’s all - and it does immense harm to the economy. Harm? Hows that?

The money amassed goes where? Into Asset Management Accounts where it is placed in “investments” - that is, Money Markets, Corporate Bonds, Hedge Fund (equities) or just T-notes.

MY POINT

And how much of that money goes towards expanding the economy? Not all that much - maybe some venture capital investments do perform a helpful service to the economy.

Your money, my money, when we spend it, triggers the Multiplier Effect. Each dollar we, as consumers, spend multiplies its value in terms of GDP by about 40%.

Which is why it is FAR, FAR MORE IMPORTANT to stimulus spend our way out of the Deep Doodoo. The Reps say lowering taxes will free money from spending? Not much happens - the “freed money” just goes back into personal Asset Management.

The Replicants are beating a dead horse that aint goin’ nowhere.

Report this
skimohawk's avatar

By skimohawk, October 14, 2011 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

lafayette, your comments immediately below are spot on.
I note that someone finally mentions the MIC, which Eisenhower warned us about in 1961, and which now owns and controls that political class you mention.
I’m not sure I agree with Billy’s take on it: I’m more inclined to think the giant house of cards will go down with a whimper, and not a bang.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 14, 2011 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket – Wed, Oct 12, 2011:

Senate Republicans Tuesday may have blocked President Obama’s jobs bill, but a new poll suggests that’s not what a majority of Americans want.

Senate Republicans Tuesday may have blocked President Obama’s jobs bill, but a new poll suggests that’s not what a majority of Americans want.

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents to a survey from NBC/Wall Street Journal voiced their approval when pollsters were told them the details of the president’s “American Jobs Act”—including that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, and extend unemployment benefits. NBC reports that 63 percent of respondents said they favored the bill, with just 32 percent opposing it.

Only two-thirds? Aint nearly enough to convince Senate Troglodytes that the American people have a voice.

Gotta shout, ladies and gentlemen.

OccupyCapitolHill!

POST SCRIPTUM

Wasn’t only Senate Republicans that voted against it ...

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 14, 2011 at 12:37 am Link to this comment

AN AGENT OF REFORMATION

BP: If anything in this country is to change, if the 99% are to take this country back, it will not be at the ballot box.

I beg to differ with the above nonsense.

It refuses to understand the Progressive movement that rose peacefully in this country at the turn of the Century or, for that matter, in other European countries subsequent to WW2. And to rebut that WW2 was necessary to bring about progressivism in Europe is totally wrong as well. The roots were there well before the war to remove fascism from the face of the earth.

Perhaps it is some sort of super-hero Hollyoodian film that moves you to think that Victory is the hands of the Warriors. (Schwarzy is going to take on the barbarian hordes in Washington? ;^)

Both the original American and French revolutions broad unmeasurable suffering to local populations - most of which harm has long since been forgot.

The great promise of democracy is that change can happen, if we, the sheeple, will vote for it. And that is precisely the problem in the US. The American people are politically apathetic, with barely half bothering to get off their duffs to vote in an election.

MY POINT

If this present movement-of-outrage encourages our electorate into thinking that democratic change can happen, then so much the better. Let’s pray that the movement coalesces around a cogent Progressive Agenda in order to give it a foundational platform upon which it can become an Agent for the Reformation of our Political Class.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 13, 2011 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

A TIME OF RECKONING

joe13: It doesn’t matter about your consumeristic society, what matters is 7 billion people and growing, think about it, and screw the politics…..

Noble thought, but one does have to pay the electricity bill. Yes, that too is part of “consumerism” that you seem to decry.

If you mean, otoh, that Americans went binging on cheap credit - then you’ve put the hammer to the nail’s head. Exaggerated consumerism tends to run amok in America, particularly amongst the younger set with both the media and the Social-Internet telling them what they “absolutely Must Have”.

Every society in history has come to a climax wherever public’s excessiveness has brought it to its knees. Excessive consumerism could well do that trick in the US.

The Toxic Waste Mess was a warning shot across the bow. It is constituted mostly of:
* Realty Bad Debt perpetrated by the connivance of local realtors, their local lending institutions and Wall Street that securitized the debt by selling it forward to investor markets.
* Credit Card debt of a population that was living largely beyond its means.

America cannot expect the world to forever hold its debt-instruments, be they T-notes or Credit-related Debt. That’s just not on anymore.

So a Time of Reckoning is upon us - and the current Political Class deserves a D-minus for its present reaction to the National Debt. It has reacted, but totally wrong.

Austerity never brought one out of a Debt Hole, particularly when that country was in a period of reduced Demand (which also diminishes tax revenues). Rather, it simply digs a country deeper into the hole. Only Stimulus Spending can do that trick.

But why is it that the Troglodyte Replicants are against expanding the Debt momentarily in order to spend? Go figure.

They contributed to this present National Debt Mess with their 1.5 trillion dollar BigSpend over in Iraq and Afghanistan, didn’t they? Not a word from them about austerity as regards the DoD budget and what contraction might mean to their friends over at the M-I-C, right?

MY POINT: Revolution or Renewal?

So we need either a revolution (which would harm more people than it would help) or a renewal of our Political Class along Progressive lines. What are those lines? Read here.

Remember also that at the heart of Progressivism is the need and desire for Social Justice. We cannot have one without the other.

Report this

By joe12345, October 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment

Its not who’s side you are on, the real question is how much longer do you think the human species will keep going on its oath of rape and take. It doesn’t matter about your consumeristic society, what matters is 7 billion people and growing, think about it, and screw the politics…..

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 13, 2011 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Haud: I don’t seen any way to reverse this without a major revolution happening. It’s a revolution that will probably go global with the collapse of the economic system.

Tut tut, let’s not go overboard.

Most of the world no longer gives a damn what is happening in America and Uncle Sam is no longer the only horse pulling the international economic bandwagon.

America is touching bottom in terms of World Opinion, resulting from Dubya’s mindless penchant for warring and prompting a worldwide recession with its Toxic Waste Mess.

Learn Chinese, if you are so worried ;^)

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, October 13, 2011 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

QUO VADIS?

RR: I am all for Occupy Wall Street—and a lot of other places—but I wish I understood where this is going. And why it took so long to get going.

Nobody predicted the Watts Riots in 1965 either, but they happened. And they flamed out after a few weeks.

Where this present ruckus may be going is indeed a good question. Unless the movement coalesces into one promoting a Progressive Agenda then it will dissipate by over-abuse from the national media.

Let’s remember that the bulk of the American electorate is politically apathetic. They can’t even seem to muster the energy to vote more than 50% of the time. So, this present outrage is about a year to early to have any media impact on an election’s outcome. (Like precocious ejaculation, the sperm could well be wasted.)

And towards that end of coalescing into something more permanent, I submit this suggestion for a Progressive Agenda for Political Action as a litmus test for progressive candidates to Congress in next year’s national elections - whether on the Right or the Left. Though, more than likely, with the prevailing Troglodyte Dogma on the Right, any progressive today is more than likely to come from the Center or Left-of-center of our political spectrum.

If they dare, that is ... how many Dennis Kucinichs are there in America? A handful?

There is a lot to be said for Centrism in American politics. But nobody is saying it ...

ABOUT CENTRISM

Since the Rabid Right is pitching its habitual dogma, these remarks in the form of a Reality Check from Robert Reich on the Left are worth bearing in mind.

Robert is, as usual, batting .500. Wouldn’t it be nice if we took notice?

Report this

By Haudenosaun, October 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

@Billy. I believe this also.

The 1% control media, justice system, electoral system, government and religious
and educational institutions. I don’t seen any way to reverse this without a major
revolution happening. It’s a revolution that will probably go global with the
collapse of the economic system.  However, I don’t rule out the 1% creating a false
flag event to circumvent that revolution.

Report this

By gymnosophist, October 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment

Speaking as a former history professor, these few thoughts on the subject, if I may:
Of course we need a new paradigm. Unfortunately, it’s not going to happen until the present one dies. Why? Well, aside from being the way things seem to work, because everyone who’s in charge of trying to fix the mess we’re in (and “fix” may be the real operative word here) are all products of it; they come from the same class mold, went to the same schools, believe (and so see things) the same way, etc. It’s impossible for them to think outside the box. As Einstein well noted: “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” As Darwin observed, that which cannot change-adapt (evolve) becomes extinct.
To make our situation even more absurd, virtually all of those in charge not only do not want to change; they have no genuine intention of changing. They are utterly cynical and disingenuous, and whatever it takes to maintain the status quo will be done, even if it’s ultimately suicidal (the end is still in the future, boys, let’s steal everything we can now). Voltaire was right: “As long as people continue to believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.”
Alas, Machiavelli was right, too. The “Real World Golden Rule” is, those who have the gold make the rule. No secret, money buys power. Our real problem, as Lord Acton famously said: “And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We have perverted our political-economic system into a circus of demagogues paid for by an elite class of criminals who are masters of deception. As Joseph Goebbels said with chilling truth: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

What can be said of these people? Well, this can be said of us all to some extent, but it applies virtually one-hundred percent to all those who really own and run things, notwithstanding their espoused politics, religion, etc.:
“…They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated they are only college passmen. They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly. They are not even vicious: they are only ’frail.’ They are not artistic: they are only lascivious. They are not prosperous: they are only rich. They are not loyal, they are only servile; not dutiful, only sheepish; not public spirited, only patriotic; not courageous, only quarrelsome; not determined, only obstinate; not masterful, only domineering; not self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, only vain; not kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; not considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious; not just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not disciplined, only cowed; and not truthful at all—liars every one of them, to the very backbone of their souls.” [sic] – G.B. Shaw (from Man and Superman)

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi…

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook