Occupy Wall Street: New York police clear protest campAdvertisement
There were chaotic scenes as protesters resisted police
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Occupy police 'used pepper spray'
In pictures: Police clear NYC camp
An American Dream deferred
New York police have dismantled the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park and arrested more than 70 people following a late-night raid.
Protesters were ordered to leave at about 01:00 (06:00 GMT), before police began removing tents and property.
The New York camp was set up in September to protest against economic inequality - it inspired dozens of similar camps around the world.
A camp in Oakland, California was cleared overnight on Monday.
Police in New York gave an announcement as their operation began, telling protesters: "The city has determined that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office released a message on Twitter saying protesters should "temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps" but could return once the park was clear.
For the city of New York, this has been a balancing act all along between the constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression and the right of people in the city to get on with their lives.
City officials tried to walk that tightrope, but in the end the park's owners said the conditions there were disgusting and asked for police to clear it.
The message here is that income inequality is widening in America and that the banks received a bailout after the financial crisis which protesters feel they were responsible for causing.
And that message does resonate in America, where people are still struggling with a fragile economy, but equally here in New York, there has been a division.
Leaflets were handed out telling occupants to "immediately remove all private property" and warning they would be arrested if they interfered with the operation.
Any belongings left behind would be put into storage, said the notice, and protesters would not be allowed to bring camping equipment back if they returned.
The protesters' live web stream from the park showed crowds chanting "all day, all week, Occupy Wall Street" and "the whole world is watching" as police moved into the camp, close to New York's financial district.
"They gave us about 20 minutes to get our things together," protester Sam Wood told Reuters. "It's a painful process to watch, they are sweeping through the park."
The area around the park was sealed off and journalists were prevented from entering. Some of the protesters said police had used pepper spray and accused them of using excessive force.
Police spokesman Paul Browne said most people left the park when told to, but that a small group of people had refused to leave.
He said 70 people were arrested in the park itself and several more nearby. Some protesters who had chained themselves to trees were reportedly cut free by police.
Business pressure
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan, near the park, said the overnight action clearly took the camp by surprise.
Police said most protesters left the park once the order was given But the protesters have been discussing regrouping at other sites around the city and believe the manner of the clearance will only amplify their message, our correspondent adds.
Hundreds of people are reported to have moved to nearby Foley Square to continue their protest. A message was sent from a Twitter account, OccupyFoleySq, set up on Tuesday morning, saying: "We are here and growing."
The city authorities and Mayor Bloomberg have come under pressure from residents and local businesses to shut down the camp, which has numbered about 200 occupants as it nears its two-month anniversary.
Plans had been in place for an escalation of the protest on Thursday, marking the two-month anniversary, with a street carnival scheduled to descend on Wall Street in an attempt to shut it down.
Protest organisers released a statement saying that while they may have been physically removed, "you can't evict an idea whose time has come".
"Our idea is that our political structures should serve us, the people - all of us, not just those who have amassed great wealth and power," they said.
The Occupy movement, inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings and economic protest camps in Spain, is calling for a more equal distribution of the world's wealth and a fairer response to the global economic crisis.
Continue reading the main story
US
The most high profile protest has been Occupy Wall Street in New York, which began on 17 September. The protesters call themselves "the 99%" and are demanding major reforms of the global financial system by curbing the power of banks and corporations. Protests have also taken place in cities across the US, including Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Houston and Boston. On 15 November, police moved in to clear the Occupy Wall Street protest, earlier they had cleared camps in Portland, Oregon and Oakland, California.
Europe
A protest in Madrid's Sol Square began in May and turned into a week-long sit in. Renewed protests in Europe started on 15 October with demonstrations in Rome, Berlin, Frankfurt, Leipzig, Hamburg, Dublin, Bucharest, Zurich and other cities. Demonstrations were largely peaceful, but around 70 people were injured when violence broke out in Rome.
UK
Protests at the London Stock Exchange in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street began on 15 October. After being denied access to Paternoster Square in front of the stock exchange, demonstrators organised a camp of around 150 tents outside St Paul's Cathedral. Protesters have been told their camp can remain until the new year, after plans to legally evict them were abandoned.
Canada
Demonstrations and protest camps began on 15 October in major cities, including Calgary, Halifax, Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria. Police have cleared protesters from sites in Halifax and Ontario but campaigners at the biggest camp, in Toronto, have been allowed to remain.
Australia
Protests began in Sydney and Melbourne on 15 October. Police forcibly removed around 100 demonstrators from the Melbourne camp on 21 October.
Organisers in the US say most of the country's money is held by the richest 1% of the population and that they represent the other 99%.
They have received widespread support, including from many authority figures, but there have been concerns about safety and hygiene.
They have also been criticised for being a distraction from authorities trying to find a solution to the financial crisis, and for failing to suggest a viable alternative economic system.
The New York action comes after police arrested 33 people in Oakland, California as they raided the protest camp in Frank Ogawa Plaza early on Monday morning.
That camp had been marred by recent outbreaks of violence in and around it, including a fatal shooting last week. However, camp residents had said the killing was unconnected to their protest.
Officials said the Oakland camp was cleared amid fears of violence Police had declared the plaza a "crime scene" shortly before they entered.
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said she had to act to end the camp "before someone else got hurt".
The city's police had said they sympathised with the protesters' cause, but urged them to "leave peacefully, with your heads held high, so we can get police officers back to work fighting crime in Oakland neighbourhoods".
A similar raid ended with police in riot gear arresting 50 people in Portland, Oregon on Sunday evening.
Police in a Vermont city have also evicted protesters after a man fatally shot himself last week inside a tent.
A number of other US cities have seen protests camps spring up in the past two months, and the Occupy movement has also spread to Europe, South America and Asia.
Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.
No, but protests generally are.
Right, but when the police come to take down an illegal shanty town and you lock arms in their way, you are not protesting, you are obstructing an officer.
Unless you are protesting that you should be able to make shanty towns, then you should do it on purpose to get arrested and make your point. But if you do that, don't pretend like you weren't breaking the law. You were. You can choose to get arrested on purpose and that can be VERY effective as a protest tool, but don't break the law, get arrested and then whine about it. That makes you look weak and unprincipled. A protest should either break no laws or break laws on purpose and say so.
But see that's the whole problem, OWS has nothing to do with shanty towns. They're making this big thing about the tent cities and that has NOTHING to do with their position. If you are trying to protest about one thing and everyone is talking about and getting arrested over your tent cities, maybe get rid of the tent cities since they are interfering with your message.
Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.
But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.
I don't agree with everything the Occupy Whatever movement has done, but blocking reporters and journalists from being able to watch and then going in and beating/spraying/etc protesters and forcing them to leave at the behest of businesses is suspicious to me, and that's exactly what the police did.
Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.
But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.
er...whatever. Thats not free speech though. So shut yer hole about 1st Amendment issues.
Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.
But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.
They can believe that removing tent cities violates their constitutional rights all they want, they're wrong. Building tent cities is not protected speech full stop.
And again, it's HORRIBLE protest planning. OWS is NOT about tent cities. When you lock arms to defend your tent cities, you are no longer protesting about wall street, now you're protesting about tent cities and the police. Who the hell outside of OWS cares about your stupid tent city. Lots of people care about wall street.
Stay on message. This isn't difficult. If tent cities are distracting from your message, get rid of your tent cities. Why would you purposefully pick a fight and dig in over something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your protest? It's gotten so meta that now they're protesting for the right to protest and not even TALKING about wall street any more.
I mean come on, 5 minutes on the wiki pages for Mandela or Gandhi and you'll know more about how to protest than these idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Right now a visitor from another world would see this and conclude that OWS is protesting about their right to camp out in the park, because they sure as hell aren't talking about wall street right now except to vaguely blame them for the enforcement of city code.
Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities
... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.
Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.
Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities
... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.
Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.
The sit ins were protesting actual laws. The sit ins to defend the parks are protesting to protect their Obbamavilles. Thats fully two steps removed from any issue anyone who bathes cares about.
Rented Tritium wrote:When you lock arms to defend your tent cities
... they're locking arms to defend their protest site. For a historical (albeit much more extreme) example, I can apply your argument to the civil rights protests too, because they kept at their sit-ins and marches despite police breaking the protests up, often violently.
Apparently they too forgot to stay on message because they didn't want to let the police bully them around.
No no no no no. Locking arms to defend your illegal tent city is NOTHING like the civil rights movement's sit-ins. Oh my god you should feel HORRIBLE for saying that.
No, when the civil rights movement did it, they went to a place and said "we will sit here until you fix this SINGLE THING WE WANT or arrest us" then they sat down and peacefully resisted until they were arrested. They KNEW they were breaking the law and they KNEW they'd be arrested and that was the ENTIRE POINT.
Occupy is building stupid tent cities and defending their right to build stupid tent cities. They're going on the news and talking about tent cities. Then when they get arrested for blocking the police from taking down their stupid tent cities, they're whining that the arrests were illegal.
No either you break no laws, or you break laws and SAY SO. Defending your tent city by saying that the tent city represents your right to protest wall street is such a stretch that you lose ALL coherent message. That's AWFUL protesting.
Kilkrazy wrote:Apparently there is a court order against the Mayor et al breaking up the camp.
If confirmed this would show that the camp was a legal protest, and presumably they will go back in.
A camp is not a protest.
A camp is a camp.
An order not to break it up does not make it a protest, it makes it a camp that wasn't supposed to be broken up. But it's still just a camp. Camps aren't speech.
They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...
A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.
... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest in this instance, breaking it up was an illegal act on the part of the cops.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest
I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.
If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.
They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...
A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.
You're entirely right. They should not have even been protesting in the park at all. They should have protested directly on Wall Street. It's public property, so then people couldn't complain about the crowd squatting on semi-private land, right?
They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...
A protest can also be in a building. That doesn't make buildings protected speech. I never said they were mutually exclusive, just that they were not the same thing. A protest can be at a camp and that PROTEST might be protected, but the camp is not. The camp is just a camp.
You're entirely right. They should not have even been protesting in the park at all. They should have protested directly on Wall Street. It's public property, so then people couldn't complain about the crowd squatting on semi-private land, right?
I wonder why the protestors didn't think of that.
Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.
There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest
I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.
If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.
The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest
I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.
If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.
The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.
Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.
Yeah, it's dumb.
HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one, assuming this isn't rumor.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest
I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.
If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.
The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.
Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.
Yeah, it's dumb.
HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one.
Actually they didn't. The order (IIRC) came after. Activist judges tend to sleep in.
Now the rule is in place for any new Obamavilles so can be fully enforced.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest
I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but a camp is not a form of speech. It is legally IMPOSSIBLE for a camp to count as speech, be protest and be protected. People protesting counts as a form of protest. A camp is not a form of protest.
If there is an order not to break down the camp, it has NOTHING to do with the first amendment and everything to do with a mayor's discretion as chief official. If said order exists, I PROMISE you it's just a temporary stay while they listen to arguments.
The judge's arguments were that the no tent rules were not in place before the protest. Sophistic nonsense. There were already rules about being their overnight - its a freaking private city park - they could kick them out at any time. Activist judge rightly ignored.
Unless the tent rules grandfathered in existing tents, it makes no difference when the rules went into effect, they were in effect when the action was taken and they were warned loudly on megaphones repeatedly that the tents were not allowed.
Yeah, it's dumb.
HOWEVER, we have the judicial branch for a reason. The mayor's office is gonna be in trouble for knowingly violating a court order, even a bad one.
Actually they didn't. The order (IIRC) came after. Activist judges tend to sleep in.
Now the rule is in place for any new Obamavilles so can be fully enforced.
Oh ok. If the order came after then it's a non-issue. They acted in good faith and it'll all shake out properly in a higher court later.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.
There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.
No intended strawman, just trying to extrapolate upon why you feel it's 'wrong', based upon other, similar arguments I'd seen elsewhere. Apparently I was wrong. Unlike a lot of OT, I rather enjoy it when I'm wrong. That means things are less fethed than I think.
Let's do this bit by bit then. What makes the 'shanty town' illegal? Your use of the word 'shanty'? The presence of tents? Why are tents illegal? If they did not have tents and stayed in sleeping bags, would it have been more illegal or less illegal?
Let's also ask a side question at this point: Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.
I gotta say, I think the shanty town thing if anything impressed more upon me than the protests do, which is actually saying quite a bit. Here were a bunch of people, in spite of inclement weather, who spent weeks living out of tents to stay in NYC in the name of showing off just how pissed they were. Think about it, I mean, while I enjoy it, the majority of people don't normally go camping in November, because it's so god awful cold outside. These people were pissed off enough to do it.
Rented Tritium wrote:Melissa, I say this with all due respect, and we agree on like 90% of everything else, but shanty towns are not protected speech.
No, but protests generally are.
Melissia wrote:A protest can be at a camp.
They are not mutually exclusive no matter how much you might want them to be...
You wrongly assume that the protestors have all the permits and permissions needed to make their gathering legal, and that the shanty town was raised and occupied legally. Legal protests require permits (ask a Tea Party member how that works).
Any one wanna make guesses as to how many health code violations that a business would get shut down for were rampant in the shanty towns?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.
I suspect if you want to NOT pay to rent land (be it a hotel room or a legal camp site) then you are restricted. The 1st Ammendment protects political speech, not squatter's rights to land. No one has been guaranteed the 'right' to take what is not theirs as part of a legal protest.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Don't strawman me, dude. They can protest in the park all they want. What they can't do is pitch a shanty town there.
There are two actions here, camping and protesting. You guys keep trying to equate them and that's simply nonsense.
No intended strawman, just trying to extrapolate upon why you feel it's 'wrong', based upon other, similar arguments I'd seen elsewhere. Apparently I was wrong. Unlike a lot of OT, I rather enjoy it when I'm wrong. That means things are less fethed than I think.
Let's do this bit by bit then. What makes the 'shanty town' illegal? Your use of the word 'shanty'? The presence of tents? Why are tents illegal? If they did not have tents and stayed in sleeping bags, would it have been more illegal or less illegal?
Let's also ask a side question at this point: Assuming you're attempting to stage a prolonged protest; that is, one that lasts multiple weeks, how are you supposed to manifest the protest from one day to the next, in particular, if you traveled from somewhere to actually get to the protest? You can't exactly go back to the comfort of your own home, and I'd imagine staying in hotels gets prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that the hotel idea sends the message that "the ability to protest is directly linked to your income". I gotta say though, anymore I'd believe it if people tried to convince me of it.
I gotta say, I think the shanty town thing if anything impressed more upon me than the protests do, which is actually saying quite a bit. Here were a bunch of people, in spite of inclement weather, who spent weeks living out of tents to stay in NYC in the name of showing off just how pissed they were. Think about it, I mean, while I enjoy it, the majority of people don't normally go camping in November, because it's so god awful cold outside. These people were pissed off enough to do it.
I'm definitely not going to get into "right" or "wrong". Just "legal" and "illegal".
Their tent camps are illegal by city policy and ordinance. I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of their local ordinances, but I know enough about local law to know that it's almost always illegal to pitch camp in a park. In some places, it's even illegal to stay overnight. The intricacies of what they could do to make their "settlement" legal are not something I want to get into, but I am sure there's some way to make some semblance of what they have legal.
And yes, if you have a large protest where tents are not allowed, the correct play is to commute and have people there in shifts. I live in a capital city and I've seen DOZENS of protests with continuous presence for months with no tents. They do it by working shifts or just all going home over night, depending on the location. And in this particular case, we're talking about NEW YORK CITY, a place with PHENOMENAL public transportation. There's no reason they can't commute to the protest and run shifts.
Now the beautiful thing about protests is that they don't actually HAVE to be legal! It's great, you can just break the law on purpose and go to jail on principle. It makes you look super srs and everything! It's worked WONDERS for some very famous people. The problem is that the OWS guys are breaking the law and claiming they aren't, then whining when they get arrested a handful at a time.
And again, all this defense of the tent cities is hugely distracting to what OWS is actually about, but if they REALLY wanted to fight the city over this tent issue, they would have gotten in their tents and sat there, saying "we want this one thing to happen or we want to be arrested" and MADE THEM arrest EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM and it makes the police look TERRIBLE even when they're following the law. This business where people are claiming the cops are in the wrong is stupid and counterproductive. The cops are following the law to the letter.
I mean OWS is CONSISTENTLY making classic protest blunders and allowing the message to get lost. They're not serious enough to get themselves arrested. They just want to live in tent cities and complain that everyone doesn't love them for it.
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So OWS has to right to protest
1. I see no right to "camp" over night in the parks.
2. State parks has hours of operation and I'm sure they're not 24/7 unless in a camping area
3. Local gov't gave leeway to stay and protest but it becomes a safety issue
Guidelines for obtainnig a permit to protest
Gather the appropriate information for getting the permit to protest. You will need an estimate of how many people are going to show up. You need to know the area you will be in or the route you are walking. You will need a time frame, though most jurisdictions have this already established.
Call your city offices with the details of your protest including the date and start time. You will have to fill out an application ahead of time and pay a fee.
Inform those involved in the protest of the city ordinances and laws surrounding a demonstration. Most cities do not allow you to block traffic, doorways and other areas that interrupt business or the general flow of the public moving around your city.
Carry a copy of your permit on you the day of the protest. Call the city the day before to ask about any last minute changes or requirements to make sure you are in full compliance
OWS made their point (whateverthefukkitwas). Time to move on.
It looks like the ruling was just a temporary "hey wait stop, lets actually have some arguments first since everyone is freaking out"
Which seems pretty sensible to me.
Also don't get so down on the ACLU, they take tons of insane cases, bear the weight of ridicule, all for FREE just because they feel like someone should. I admire that.
Frazzled wrote:The mayor wiped his butt with the court order
Then let the courts gak on him and put him in jail.
Good luck with that. However, as noted above the order was issued after the action occurred. However the NYC has since stated it will not permit tents etc back into the park.
Rented Tritium wrote:The court order was issued AFTER the police went in, so nobody will get in trouble. They all acted in good faith.
I think we're not on the same page. The police acted in good faith when they were removed at approximately 4am. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]The order was given to allow them back in at 6:30AM, and they are refusing to due to EDIT, nevermind, you already saw this while I got distracted posting this.
That being said, I do think their right to protest probably does not cover erecting semipermanent campgrounds.
I really wish these guys would get their act together and go after the real villains. None of these banks they hate for being so greedy took what they have by gunpoint. Our government did that. None of these super unpopular bailouts were stolen from the US treasury. They were given to the banks freely by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Rented Tritium wrote:The court order was issued AFTER the police went in, so nobody will get in trouble. They all acted in good faith.
I think we're not on the same page. The police acted in good faith when they were removed at approximately 4am. [url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]The order was given to allow them back in at 6:30AM, and they are refusing to due to EDIT, nevermind, you already saw this while I got distracted posting this.
That being said, I do think their right to protest probably does not cover erecting semipermanent campgrounds.
I really wish these guys would get their act together and go after the real villains. None of these banks they hate for being so greedy took what they have by gunpoint. Our government did that. None of these super unpopular bailouts were stolen from the US treasury. They were given to the banks freely by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Go fight the real enemy.
I think the bailouts aren't even far back enough to locate the real problem. If the congress hadn't spent the past 10 years giving them everything they wanted, they wouldn't have even been in a position to NEED a bailout. They were allowed to get so big and so entangled because they asked for it and nobody was responsible enough to say no.
Business is like a wild animal, you can't really get mad at it for doing what it views as in its best interest, but you can blame the person who was like "sure, I'll let you out of the pen"
That and of course, the real reason. Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
People just want justice for the wrongs inflicted on them. In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed. If a gambler goes to a Casino and bets the farm and loses it, no one will bail the gambler out. But when Wall Street gambles and loses, the Government bails them out with OUR money. This is the fundamental reason people are pissed off. it is a damn shame that this whole tent business has diluted the real wrongdoing here.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...
... our old friend, deregulation!
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dsteingass wrote:People just want justice for the wrongs inflicted on them. In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed. If a gambler goes to a Casino and bets the farm and loses it, no one will bail the gambler out. But when Wall Street gambles and loses, the Government bails them out with OUR money. This is the fundamental reason people are pissed off. it is a damn shame that this whole tent business has diluted the real wrongdoing here.
You think the economy is in the toilet because of housing?
" In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed"
Should be
In this case the deregulation unchecked the greed.
The greed was always there, it powers our entire economy. We couldn't exist without it. The problem is the "unchecked" not the "greed"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
This is a bit of a myth. The banks weren't forced to do anything. They did it because they thought it would be profitable and they were wrong, but they were never forced to loan to anyone. Bad policy WAS involved, but it's not a mandate for loans.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...
... our old friend, deregulation!
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".
" In this case the deregulation directly caused the unchecked greed"
Should be
In this case the deregulation unchecked the greed.
The greed was always there, it powers our entire economy. We couldn't exist without it. The problem is the "unchecked" not the "greed"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
This is a bit of a myth. The banks weren't forced to do anything. They did it because they thought it would be profitable and they were wrong, but they were never forced to loan to anyone. Bad policy WAS involved, but it's not a mandate for loans.
I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).
Frazzled wrote:
I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).
Prove me wrong, find one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You'll find PLENTY that are encouraging crappy loans, but none "forcing" them. At the end of the day, a bank still had to look at the loan and decide if the person plus the government encouragements were enough to make it profitable.
Not saying it wasn't bad policy to encourage it, it was horrible policy, but the bank still had to make a risk analysis and pull the trigger. It's on them.
I mean unless you think the banks are so stupid they'd just give out loans without checking just because the government said it was cool, in which case that says a lot more bad things about the banks than obama.
Frazzled wrote:
You think the economy is in the toilet because of housing?
I'm not following here? Why did you ask this?
Because thats only the housing bubble. If there weren't over speculation it wouldn't have been a bubble to begin with.
The fact we don't make anything has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact China is a massive manufacturer has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact Detroit is has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact our steel industry is almost nonexistent has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact, to buy US made union clothing you have to go on special websites has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact you can’t find an electronic device outside of the military made in the USA has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The fact that TVs, stereos, PDAs, computers, all are made in Asia has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
The crap related to Europe has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...
... our old friend, deregulation!
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".
George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I guess all those laws mandating it were just figments of everyone's imagination. I guess all those times I had to fill out "race " by law even if they refused to do it were just figments of my imagination too. (well maybe, the job did indeed suck balls).
Prove me wrong, find one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You'll find PLENTY that are encouraging crappy loans, but none "forcing" them. At the end of the day, a bank still had to look at the loan and decide if the person plus the government encouragements were enough to make it profitable.
Not saying it wasn't bad policy to encourage it, it was horrible policy, but the bank still had to make a risk analysis and pull the trigger. It's on them.
I mean unless you think the banks are so stupid they'd just give out loans without checking just because the government said it was cool, in which case that says a lot more bad things about the banks than obama.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...
... our old friend, deregulation!
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".
George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.
I didn't know that single members of the house of representatives had such amazing unstoppable power to force entire industries to do things against their will.
Surely, the communist revolution hid itself very well. I did not even notice.
Frazzled wrote:That and of course, the real reason.
Citi was on the edge of collapse. AIG and Lehman collapses effectively froze the secondary markets. If Citi went the international financial system would potentially have fallen. That was the argument anyway.
The bailouts for the other institutions was a cover.
Most o which was caused byyyyyyyyyy...
... our old friend, deregulation!
And our old friend - LAW mandating loans to persons who did not meet traditional lending criteria. Spread the blame correctly. There's more than enough to go around. Thank you Frank.
Common mistake, Frazzled. George W. Bush's nickname was "Dubya", not "Frank".
George Bush didn't put the pressure on Freddie/Fannie. Barney Frank did.
I didn't know that single members of the house of representatives had such amazing unstoppable power to force entire industries to do things against their will.
Surely, the communist revolution hid itself very well. I did not even notice.
You're right. Its all the evil Bankers fault. Once we exterminate them, er put them in camps, then Detroit will hum with manufacturing, HP will make computers in Alabama, and the economy will boom. Every man will have his correct portion of prosperity and freedom.
Considering the bankers were lobbying congress to do this very thing, I hardly find it surprising that the majority of the blame lay on bankers, as opposed to you whom seems to think they are completely blameless.
Rented Tritium wrote:They're not serious enough to get themselves arrested. They just want to live in tent cities and complain that everyone doesn't love them for it.
Apart from maybe the protesters that got... you know... Arrested?
I think they might've been serious enough to get themselves arrested.
Melissia wrote:Considering the bankers were lobbying congress to do this very thing, I hardly find it surprising that the majority of the blame lay on bankers, as opposed to you whom seems to think they are completely blameless.
I didn't say that. I said there's more than enough blame to go around. You're putting it all on the bankers.
Frazzled wrote:
You're right. Its all the evil Bankers fault. Once we exterminate them, er put them in camps, then Detroit will hum with manufacturing, HP will make computers in Alabama, and the economy will boom. Every man will have his correct portion of prosperity and freedom.
Nuts.
Melissia wrote:Considering the bankers were lobbying congress to do this very thing, I hardly find it surprising that the majority of the blame lay on bankers, as opposed to you whom seems to think they are completely blameless.
Arggg, it is so frustrating being right between you guys.
I don't want to blame the banks, the banks are just doing what comes naturally, but we didn't FORCE them to make bad calls, they contorted themselves into business arrangements that made detecting bad calls impossible. The repeal of GS is the PRIMARY issue here and you know what? Both parties participated in that little gem.
Melissia wrote:Well yeah, but a serial murderer is also only doing what comes natural to him, but we punish them for it despite that.
Certainly boundless greed combined with zero responsibility is less punish-worthy than murder, but the copmarison is still apt.
It's not, even a little. Serial murder is unlawful. The dangerous banking practices that partially are responsible for our current situation were not only lawful, but strongly encouraged by both congress and the executive, Democratic and Republican administrations.
Ouze wrote:It's not, even a little. Serial murder is unlawful. The dangerous banking practices that partially are responsible for our current situation were not only lawful, but strongly encouraged by both congress and the executive, Democratic and Republican administrations.
Oh yes quite a bit in fact. The fact that the government encourages the latter only means the government itself is fethed up, like a serial murderer's parents if they decided they wanted to give them the tools they needed to apply their trade out of a misplaced sense of familial love.
Melissia wrote:Well yeah, but a serial murderer is also only doing what comes natural to him, but we punish them for it despite that.
Certainly boundless greed combined with zero responsibility is less punish-worthy than murder, but the copmarison is still apt.
What? No. Businesses are greedy by design. That's how capitalism works. We WANT them to be. A CEO actually has a LEGAL responsibility to maximize shareholder value. They can be SUED if they sandbag performance. A world where private companies hold back on profit is a world FULL of collusion and laziness. Innovation grinds to a halt when companies aren't battling it out on the burning edge of design.
The government is supposed to just be a sheepdog here. Keep certain very specific types of thing from happening. See, certain business behaviors appear to be in the short term interest of the player, but are awful for the market and we NEVER want to tell a business that they're responsible for babysitting the whole market. That's why we regulate those few key things.
The issue is that the banks asked to be let off that hook and in 1999 congress was like "sure". Congress should have known better and said "no, that has market consequences, we're sorry"
Thus, it is almost entirely the fault of the 1999 congress.
The title of the thread threw me off... I thought people were getting evicted from their apartments because instead of working for money to pay rent they were protesting... but I think I understand the title now...
...also I read the whole thread so far. I don't normally read threads like this. I deserve a cookie... or maybe a bailout.
I thought we were talking about the OWS protests and the tent-cities. I didn't even mention housing.
But since you mentioned it... The deregulation of the "banking industry" directly allowed the unchecked (unrestrained free, loose, rampant, unbounded, unbridled, uncurbed, unhampered, untamed, untrammeled, wild) greed of the banks. The housing crisis is a byproduct of the banking industry since mortgages (loans) were given to people who really couldn't afford them at high interest rates for the greedy purpose of collecting those interest dollars from those loans. It was an unsustainable short-term boom in business, with total disregard for the possible repercussions. It had no "insurance policy" just in case it failed (which it did). That is not opinion, that is fact.
There was never a "law" that banks HAD to provide those unsustainable loans, I'm not sure where that idea came from. the Banks did what they did because deregulation came in the form of payback from politicians who took the bank's campaign money.
dsteingass wrote:I thought we were talking about the OWS protests and the tent-cities. I didn't even mention housing.
But since you mentioned it... The deregulation of the "banking industry" directly allowed the unchecked (unrestrained free, loose, rampant, unbounded, unbridled, uncurbed, unhampered, untamed, untrammeled, wild) greed of the banks. The housing crisis is a byproduct of the banking industry since mortgages (loans) were given to people who really couldn't afford them at high interest rates for the greedy purpose of collecting those interest dollars from those loans. It was an unsustainable short-term boom in business, with total disregard for the possible repercussions. It had no "insurance policy" just in case it failed (which it did). That is not opinion, that is fact.
There was never a "law" that banks HAD to provide those unsustainable loans, I'm not sure where that idea came from. the Banks did what they did because deregulation came in the form of payback from politicians who took the bank's campaign money.
So the Banks, in addition to being just like serial killers, are the only greedy parties here, and not the people trying to get the loasn in the first place. Gotcha
Again, please explain how this relates to over 9% unemployment?
dsteingass wrote:mortgages (loans) were given to people who really couldn't afford them at high interest rates for the greedy purpose of collecting those interest dollars from those loans.
That's not quite right.
What actually happened was one unit of a (now combined) bank would make a mortgage, then they'd package up a whole ton of them to sell as one unit. See when you take a bunch of individual investments and package them like that, the final product can be a lot more consistent. 1000 mortgages can provide a reasonable average return even though 50% of them lose money.
Well the thing is, the guys packaging it were selling them to the other half of their same bank. Since they were in the same company, the other half was just buying them without really checking things. They would just trust the self-reported rating.
Now if it had been ANOTHER BANK selling them, the buyer would be suspicious and dig into the product before dropping cash, but they trusted it because they were in the same company.
So fast forward a bit, the half making the mortgages sees the value of their packages increasing because the bubble is making them pretty profitable, so they start REALLY cranking them out. The buyer is like "oh man sweet, gotta get more of those sweet packages, they did GREAT last time" and this cycle is so strong that the guys making the mortgages stop checking so well. The ones they've done so far were SO AWESOME that it almost doesn't MATTER what they do, SOMEONE will buy the crap out of them.
So they continue like this until the bottom falls out and everyone is stuck sitting on these packages that have all lost HUGE megatons of value.
No single person in there was like "lets make crappy mortgages and get interest off poor people, hooray", it was a series of very small miscalculations stemming from the fact that there was no longer a wall between the guys making the mortgages and the guys buying the packages. If each one being bought had been fully researched (and it would have been if they were buying from another bank), they would not have paid as much for the packages and the market would have stayed rational.
So as you can see, dsteingass, it's a LOT more complicated than "banks greedy, make bad loan"
dsteingass wrote:mortgages (loans) were given to people who really couldn't afford them at high interest rates for the greedy purpose of collecting those interest dollars from those loans.
That's not quite right.
What actually happened was one unit of a (now combined) bank would make a mortgage, then they'd package up a whole ton of them to sell as one unit. See when you take a bunch of individual investments and package them like that, the final product can be a lot more consistent. 1000 mortgages can provide a reasonable average return even though 50% of them lose money.
Well the thing is, the guys packaging it were selling them to the other half of their same bank. Since they were in the same company, the other half was just buying them without really checking things. They would just trust the self-reported rating.
Now if it had been ANOTHER BANK selling them, the buyer would be suspicious and dig into the product before dropping cash, but they trusted it because they were in the same company.
So fast forward a bit, the half making the mortgages sees the value of their packages increasing because the bubble is making them pretty profitable, so they start REALLY cranking them out. The buyer is like "oh man sweet, gotta get more of those sweet packages, they did GREAT last time" and this cycle is so strong that the guys making the mortgages stop checking so well. The ones they've done so far were SO AWESOME that it almost doesn't MATTER what they do, SOMEONE will buy the crap out of them.
So they continue like this until the bottom falls out and everyone is stuck sitting on these packages that have all lost HUGE megatons of value.
No single person in there was like "lets make crappy mortgages and get interest off poor people, hooray", it was a series of very small miscalculations stemming from the fact that there was no longer a wall between the guys making the mortgages and the guys buying the packages. If each one being bought had been fully researched (and it would have been if they were buying from another bank), they would not have paid as much for the packages and the market would have stayed rational.
So as you can see, dsteingass, it's a LOT more complicated than "banks greedy, make bad loan"
Don't forget the bundled mortgages, after warehousing, were then sold to other financial institutions, insurance companies, and investors (including you and me).
Frazzled wrote:
So the Banks, in addition to being just like serial killers, are the only greedy parties here, and not the people trying to get the loasn in the first place. Gotcha
Again, please explain how this relates to over 9% unemployment?
Are you even making an argument here? I didn't pipe in at all about serial killers or unemployment.
Economics 101 teaches us that there are always unemployed, even in strong economic times. This is known as Structural Unemployment and always present due to inefficiencies inherent in labor markets including a mismatch between the supply and demand of laborers with necessary skill sets. 10% unemployment is considered part of the "normal" threshold at any given time. You are forgetting that the economy is Globalizing all the time. Looking at US Unemployment rates since 1945 doesn't apply to a 2011 economy, it is like comparing apples to oranges, literally. There is no stopping Globalization whether you like it or not.
dsteingass wrote:mortgages (loans) were given to people who really couldn't afford them at high interest rates for the greedy purpose of collecting those interest dollars from those loans.
That's not quite right.
What actually happened was one unit of a (now combined) bank would make a mortgage, then they'd package up a whole ton of them to sell as one unit. See when you take a bunch of individual investments and package them like that, the final product can be a lot more consistent. 1000 mortgages can provide a reasonable average return even though 50% of them lose money.
Well the thing is, the guys packaging it were selling them to the other half of their same bank. Since they were in the same company, the other half was just buying them without really checking things. They would just trust the self-reported rating.
Now if it had been ANOTHER BANK selling them, the buyer would be suspicious and dig into the product before dropping cash, but they trusted it because they were in the same company.
So fast forward a bit, the half making the mortgages sees the value of their packages increasing because the bubble is making them pretty profitable, so they start REALLY cranking them out. The buyer is like "oh man sweet, gotta get more of those sweet packages, they did GREAT last time" and this cycle is so strong that the guys making the mortgages stop checking so well. The ones they've done so far were SO AWESOME that it almost doesn't MATTER what they do, SOMEONE will buy the crap out of them.
So they continue like this until the bottom falls out and everyone is stuck sitting on these packages that have all lost HUGE megatons of value.
No single person in there was like "lets make crappy mortgages and get interest off poor people, hooray", it was a series of very small miscalculations stemming from the fact that there was no longer a wall between the guys making the mortgages and the guys buying the packages. If each one being bought had been fully researched (and it would have been if they were buying from another bank), they would not have paid as much for the packages and the market would have stayed rational.
So as you can see, dsteingass, it's a LOT more complicated than "banks greedy, make bad loan"
Don't forget the bundled mortgages, after warehousing, were then sold to other financial institutions, insurance companies, and investors (including you and me).
Yep, they went EVERYWHERE.
And the rules you were talking about earlier, that encouraged them to give out more crappier mortgages? They sucked. They sped this up a LOT. We might have had another couple years before the burst if it wasn't for them, but the crash was inevitable as soon as glass-steagall was repealed.
Details, shmetails...Everything is more complicated when you look at the details. You might see a Leman Russ as just a tank, I see a Leman Russ as an artistic collection of pointless rivets, it's still a tank! lol From a high-level view though, everything you said still fits into "banks greedy, make bad loan" statement, you just expanded on my simplistic description with correct details. It is still a bad loan.
Frazzled wrote:
So the Banks, in addition to being just like serial killers, are the only greedy parties here, and not the people trying to get the loasn in the first place. Gotcha
Again, please explain how this relates to over 9% unemployment?
Are you even making an argument here? I didn't pipe in at all about serial killers or unemployment.
Frazzled wrote:
So the Banks, in addition to being just like serial killers, are the only greedy parties here, and not the people trying to get the loasn in the first place. Gotcha
Again, please explain how this relates to over 9% unemployment?
Are you even making an argument here? I didn't pipe in at all about serial killers or unemployment.
Economics 101 teaches us that there are always unemployed, even in strong economic times. This is known as Structural Unemployment and always present due to inefficiencies inherent in labor markets including a mismatch between the supply and demand of laborers with necessary skill sets. 10% unemployment is considered part of the "normal" threshold at any given time. You are forgetting that the economy is Globalizing all the time. Looking at US Unemployment rates since 1945 doesn't apply to a 2011 economy, it is like comparing apples to oranges, literally. There is no stopping Globalization whether you like it or not.
Find the economist that thinks 10% unemployment is normal and I will show you an economist that needs to go back to stripping.
Well yeah, but a serial murderer is also only doing what comes natural to him, but we punish them for it despite that
A serial killer though knows right from wrong though
I don't want to argue about serial killers, but honestly one may or may not know right from wrong.
It's a lot more like a wild animal than a serial killer. It's not that a bear "doesn't know" right from wrong, it's that "right" and "wrong" don't really exist for bears if that distinction makes any sense.
Normal in the US is between 5% and 6.7%. The economy is now GLOBAL. That means there are now much bigger piles of everything. Normal for the GLOBAL economy is 10%
Believing that we are still in our little postwar US-only economy is like believing in the Easter Bunny.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html
dsteingass wrote: Normal in the US is between 5% and 6.7%. The economy is now GLOBAL. That means there are now much bigger piles of everything. Normal for the GLOBAL economy is 10%
Believing that we are still in our little postwar US-only economy is like believing in the Easter Bunny.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html
The global economy is counting some horrible places though. While GLOBAL unemployment may be normal at 10, AMERICAN unemployment IN a global economy is not normal at 10. Globalization doesn't mean that geographical areas suddenly merge and stop having local economies, dude.
And man, I looove me some globalization. I believe globalization is the perfect realization of capitalism.
No it doesn't, but once you include places other than the US, you cannot compare past US-only numbers with new Global numbers. It is a different game from that point on, the local economies no longer exist in their previous isolated states. And as we all saw, once the US economy tanked, soon followed the rest of the world's economies.
It is a new way of thinking, and all the more reason that as a civilized people, we have to be more responsible than we ever have before with our US economy. That means we need regulation. You said it yourself, greed is a fundamental driving force of Capitalism. But if it isn't regulated, we will not be able to sustain it.
Melissia wrote:... no, but it does mean that since the camp was (possibly) a legally allowed form of protest in this instance, breaking it up was an illegal act on the part of the cops.
A camp can have a protest inside and people can protest inside buildings. Civil Rights sit-ins were protesting disparaging treatment from certain businesses thanks to Jim-Crow laws.
Building a camp goes against building and zoning permits for certain areas, especially when it comes down to the fact that some of the land is privately owned.
dsteingass wrote:It is a new way of thinking, and all the more reason that as a civilized people, we have to be more responsible than we ever have before with our US economy. That means we need regulation. You said it yourself, greed is a fundamental driving force of Capitalism. But if it isn't regulated, we will not be able to sustain it.
I'm comfortable just being as responsible as we were in 1998, lol.
In my opinion, clearing the camps is only going to strengthen the movement. Major strategic mistake. They would have been better off hoping for a long cold winter. Not that that will help either - this is just the latest in a long string of nonviolent movements, going back decades, that have overturned old orders around the globe. The wool has been removed, the curtains pulled back, the game is up! Democracy is on the march, people, and you may as well jump on the bandwagon now! This isn't just about America, it's about the entire planet and human civilization! Isn't that clear for all to see?
What's with the constant references on this forum to people at these occupations as scum, unwashed, etc. etc.? I've been following this closely from the start, and it looks to me like there are thousands of 'normal' people involved. Is the New York City Council member who got arrested last night 'unwashed scum'? How about the legal advisor to the Mayor of Oakland who resigned in protest of the crackdown? http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/15/top_aide_to_oakland_mayor_resigns
Unwashed scum? Get real. These shrill insults merely highlight the ignorance and apathy running rampant here. At first I was a little shocked at the lack of support on this forums, certainly shocked at the naked hostility, edging right up to the actual incitement of violence. I've avoided OT for a few weeks now because of it. I guess I'm a sucker for punishment, or just feel like talking to the walls or something. Seriously, what do any of you have so invested in the current order that so many of you are against this? I'm sure when a small number of individuals and corporations no longer control the vast majority of wealth and power on the planet we'll still be able to push little soldiers around a table.
Sorry, but the 99% doesn't represent me. I find it absolutely disgusting that they decided to throw me in with their lot by saying that I am part of their 99%.
I am not one of those whining 99%ers nor am I like Scott Olsen. I don't use drugs and run websites about hating the marine corps even though I was only an IT guy for the USMC and had a cushy job.
Sorry, but I don't accept payments from the NYCC(former ACORN) to protest.
Sorry, but I am not a communist, a nazi, or whatever other groups are joining the protest. The 99% movements have been filled with hatred and just because you agree with the direction of their hatred doesn't mean they aren't hateful. The 99% crowd is being violent and so are the police, however "cop beats college kid" makes more headlines than "college kid beats cop". Why is this so? This happens because there are so many people who love to criticize authority should they do something as minimal as forgetting to use a turn signal.
i was hoping some of them would clash with the police....wanted to see them get gak kicked. if things are so bad and you hate living under this repressive big brother government move to canada.
Thats exactly the kind of post I'm talking about, halo. How can we have a conversation if that is what you believe this to be about? In your opinion, the people there are all whining communists, nazis, drug addicts and cop-haters who run anti-military websites and are getting paid to protest? Yikes! Where do you get your information? Please show me where to find out about all the cop-beating college kids.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but they do represent you, you just don't realize it. Unless of course you are part of the one percent that control most of the wealth and power in the world, and then, would you really be posting on Dakka Dakka?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yet another post hoping for violence... what's up with that?
astrolux444 wrote:i was hoping some of them would clash with the police....wanted to see them get gak kicked. if things are so bad and you hate living under this repressive big brother government move to canada.
I love it when "If you don't like the way things are, then use the freedoms given to you via the constitutions to change the way things are going. Use your freedom of speech to make your problems know, use your freedom to assemble to find likeminded people, use the democratic process to make changes and lobby your legislature to change the laws" becomes "if you don't like it, then don't use any of the freedoms quaranteed to you and move somewhere else"
astrolux444 wrote:i was hoping some of them would clash with the police....wanted to see them get gak kicked. if things are so bad and you hate living under this repressive big brother government move to canada.
I love it when "If you don't like the way things are, then use the freedoms given to you via the constitutions to change the way things are going. Use your freedom of speech to make your problems know, use your freedom to assemble to find likeminded people, use the democratic process to make changes and lobby your legislature to change the laws" becomes "if you don't like it, then don't use any of the freedoms quaranteed to you and move somewhere else"
The fun bit being that for some reason, both the former and the later are called "Land of the Free". Go figure
astrolux444 wrote:i was hoping some of them would clash with the police....wanted to see them get gak kicked. if things are so bad and you hate living under this repressive big brother government move to canada.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. I know he is a troll, but I think I fear an uneducated youth more than the old rich white guys who think they need my hobby money more than I do.
murdog wrote:In my opinion, clearing the camps is only going to strengthen the movement. Major strategic mistake.
Major strategic mistake?
Do you actually think the city is trying to put down the movement? The city is trying to clear the tent camps out of the park. Mission effing accomplished, dude.
You're falling into the classic hippie trap of making everything about you vs THE MAN instead of actually thinking about the motivations of the different players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
murdog wrote: Seriously, what do any of you have so invested in the current order that so many of you are against this?
current "order"?
You'd win more people over if you dropped the dogwhistle conspiracy language.
murdog wrote:In my opinion, clearing the camps is only going to strengthen the movement. Major strategic mistake.
Major strategic mistake?
Do you actually think the city is trying to put down the movement? The city is trying to clear the tent camps out of the park. Mission effing accomplished, dude.
You're falling into the classic hippie trap of making everything about you vs THE MAN instead of actually thinking about the motivations of the different players.
So all major "Occupy" cities just happened to decide on the same day that tonight is going to be the night?
They have begun to realize that while they are able to remove the traditional media from the area before they attack to make sure that no news coverage of their actions exist, they cannot stop the technology that the occupy peeps possess. Every raid has been broadcast live via more cameras than all the news on site had to begin with. Ustream, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, all the police actions are broadcast live around the country.
So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have. Clear 3 cities out on three different nights and you are faced with 3 days worth of footage and pictures of cops shooting people in the head with less lethal rounds and then flash banging the folks trying to save the victims life. By coordinating these actions they get to dilute the impact by keeping the coverage to one night.
CptJake wrote:How many folks were shot in the head by cops during the clearing out of NY? How many flashbangs were thrown by cops during the clearing?
That event happened during an earlier raid at the Occupy Oakland camp, but I think you missed the reason why I brought it up.
It is a good example why I do not find it hard to believe that this was a coordinated effort between major cities to attack all camps at the same time to keep the negative exposure down to one night.
Before the Occupy Oakland raid that resulted in the injury of the vet, media was removed as per the current protocol. But the cops did not count on having their actions streamed live on the internet anyway and now we have lots of lovely footage of their actions. The police learned that they can no longer silence the media and cover up their tactics by asking the traditional outlets to just leave. So instead of having to deal with the following program:
Monday night: Cops beating civilians in NYC
Tuesday night: Cops beating civilians in Oakland
They coordinate their efforts and raid both at the same time, making sure that their actions only get one night in the spotlight.
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
Dude, you think all the police departments got together to conspire against a protest that's not even aimed at them and you're face palming ME for not wanting to talk to you anymore? You have straight up hopped the train to crazytown.
Dude, A hippie doesn't care about politics, or the man. I think you either have your history mixed-up, or are using a conservative generalization you don't understand.
Hippie is a term given to people who created their own societies and lived on communes, as far away from the tumultuous political climate of the 1960s as they could get. They were mostly pacifists more interested in free love, drugs, and music. The term "hippie" comes from the term "hipster" which was given to the Beat generation of the late 1940s-1950s, who were also de-humanized by "the man" because they didn't want to "fit in" with Mainstream USA.
What you are generically grouping into the "hippie" category is the various political counter-culture that normal, everyday American youths participated in, frustrated with their government including the Civil Rights Movement, Marches on Washington D.C., Draft Card burnings, and Anti-Vietnam protests. A small minority of the people who participated in these "Commie" activities as "the Man" called them at the time were Hippies.
However, your statement about thinking about the motivations of the players is a good one, but that just doesn't happen man. No one gave a flying crap what the Government's motivations for Vietnam were after the draft was initiated and American boys were forced to go to Vietnam and the death toll rose.
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
Dude, you think all the police departments got together to conspire against a protest that's not even aimed at them and you're face palming ME for not wanting to talk to you anymore? You have straight up hopped the train to crazytown.
They are not conspiring against a protest that is aimed against them, they could care less WHY the people are camping out there. They are told to remove them, and that is what they are doing.
What they are trying to do is force the media (both traditional and the news coverage via live footage from the protesters) to cover two raids in the same night, splitting their resources, and only having to face one day worth of negative PR.
That is not even major conspiracy theory stuff, that is basic PR that any Public Information Officer worth their salt would think about.
Why have two raids on two nights and give the protesters two days to play the victim if you can plan it out to get the job done in one night?
CptJake wrote:How many folks were shot in the head by cops during the clearing out of NY? How many flashbangs were thrown by cops during the clearing?
That event happened during an earlier raid at the Occupy Oakland camp, but I think you missed the reason why I brought it up.
It is a good example why I do not find it hard to believe that this was a coordinated effort between major cities to attack all camps at the same time to keep the negative exposure down to one night.
Before the Occupy Oakland raid that resulted in the injury of the vet, media was removed as per the current protocol. But the cops did not count on having their actions streamed live on the internet anyway and now we have lots of lovely footage of their actions. The police learned that they can no longer silence the media and cover up their tactics by asking the traditional outlets to just leave. So instead of having to deal with the following program:
Monday night: Cops beating civilians in NYC
Tuesday night: Cops beating civilians in Oakland
They coordinate their efforts and raid both at the same time, making sure that their actions only get one night in the spotlight.
I didn't miss your reason. You missed the fact that the cops have not used undue violence against the law breakers. In your Oakland example the occupiers were chucking rocks and bottles and looking for a fight with the cops.
d-usa wrote:
They are not conspiring against a protest that is aimed against them, they could care less WHY the people are camping out there. They are told to remove them, and that is what they are doing.
Ok, so you aren't trying to say that they're "putting down" the protest etc? Ok, we're cool. Did you see the post I was replying to when you got into this, though? He really thinks the GOAL of the police is to end occupy and called their decision to break down the camp a "strategic mistake" since it gave occupy more protest power.
So when you replied that way, it really looked like you were agreeing with him on that.
Now, on your actual point, I think it's way more likely that one of them was clear about when they were going in and the other, for the reasons you described, decided to go with the same night. I don't think they got together and planned it though. One department just matched the other.
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
Dude, you think all the police departments got together to conspire against a protest that's not even aimed at them and you're face palming ME for not wanting to talk to you anymore? You have straight up hopped the train to crazytown.
They are not conspiring against a protest that is aimed against them, they could care less WHY the people are camping out there. They are told to remove them, and that is what they are doing.
What they are trying to do is force the media (both traditional and the news coverage via live footage from the protesters) to cover two raids in the same night, splitting their resources, and only having to face one day worth of negative PR.That is not even major conspiracy theory stuff, that is basic PR that any Public Information Officer worth their salt would think about.
Why have two raids on two nights and give the protesters two days to play the victim if you can plan it out to get the job done in one night?
What I bolded is an unsupportable assertion. Local news coverage (which the networks use) in NY is not affected by local news coverage in Oakland or any other city. With a 24/7 news cycle the netowrks could EASILY handle feeds of violence from more than one city at a time.
What is happening is cops remove anyone not actually involved in a situation before trying to break it up, you get the media and other rubberneckers outta the way to brevent them getting hurt or getting a cop hurt. Kind of like they clear an area for a couple of blocks before they take down a drug house for example.
CptJake wrote:
What is happening is cops remove anyone not actually involved in a situation before trying to break it up, you get the media and other rubberneckers outta the way to brevent them getting hurt or getting a cop hurt. Kind of like they clear an area for a couple of blocks before they take down a drug house for example.
This is a BIG part of it. When they clear a large area, they can't be checking press passes or what have you, they need to actually CLEAR the park. They cleared the airspace over the park, but that's probably because they wanted to be able to bring a police helicopter if they HAD to.
And since the park is actually private property, run by a private company in contract with the parks department, the "right" to be there freely is a lot less clear than some people like implying.
But Rented Tritum, please use your own stated logic, "thinking about the motivations of the different players". WHY do you think people have a knee-jerk reaction to distrust authority figures like the police? WHY do people immediately assume that the police are trying to "put down" the protesters a-la the Kent State Massacre? History is full of precedence for this sort of thing, it's only natural to distrust "them" whenever we are put into an "us vs. them" situation.
now, before you flame, I'm not arguing that I agree with any of this, we have a Constitutional right to assemble 'peacefully" once you throw rocks, it changes to "violently" don't whine to me when you get clubbed.
But this Occupy situation isn't as cut and dried or black and white like some people want it to be.
d-usa wrote:They are not conspiring against a protest that is aimed against them, they could care less WHY the people are camping out there. They are told to remove them, and that is what they are doing.
What they are trying to do is force the media (both traditional and the news coverage via live footage from the protesters) to cover two raids in the same night, splitting their resources, and only having to face one day worth of negative PR.That is not even major conspiracy theory stuff, that is basic PR that any Public Information Officer worth their salt would think about.
Why have two raids on two nights and give the protesters two days to play the victim if you can plan it out to get the job done in one night?
What I bolded is an unsupportable assertion. Local news coverage (which the networks use) in NY is not affected by local news coverage in Oakland or any other city.
Local news coverage in NY is not affected by the local news coverage in Oakland. But local news coverage in NY is affected by the decision of the police to ask the local news media to leave prior to the raid, and by the decision of the news media to comply with that request. So that means that actually no local news media coverage exists and that the only footage is the live footage available from the protesters. They have taken the lead in covering the raids, not the local affiliates.
CptJake wrote:With a 24/7 news cycle the netowrks could EASILY handle feeds of violence from more than one city at a time.
They can, and they did. But again, my point is not that they are trying to sweep the raids under the table, but that they are minimizing the amount of time devoted to the backlash. It is a 24/7 news cycle, and after 24 hours the news cycle has moved on to the next story and coverage will already be reduced.
By having both raids on the same day you don't prevent one or the other being covered, but you prevent two days worth of coverage by forcing both raids to be covered on the same day. That was the objective IMO. You don't have to believe it, but I think that that was a factor in determining the timing of the two raids.
CptJake wrote:What is happening is cops remove anyone not actually involved in a situation before trying to break it up, you get the media and other rubberneckers outta the way to brevent them getting hurt or getting a cop hurt. Kind of like they clear an area for a couple of blocks before they take down a drug house for example.
"We are going to clear up a shanty-town and tear down these camps, if your cameras can see us you are not safe." Sorry, our news can cover wars from the front lines, they can hande the breaking up of a 'hippie shanty town". Supresion of the media in the name of safety, they are quickly learning that this tactic no longer works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
d-usa wrote:
They are not conspiring against a protest that is aimed against them, they could care less WHY the people are camping out there. They are told to remove them, and that is what they are doing.
Ok, so you aren't trying to say that they're "putting down" the protest etc? Ok, we're cool. Did you see the post I was replying to when you got into this, though? He really thinks the GOAL of the police is to end occupy and called their decision to break down the camp a "strategic mistake" since it gave occupy more protest power.
So when you replied that way, it really looked like you were agreeing with him on that.
Now, on your actual point, I think it's way more likely that one of them was clear about when they were going in and the other, for the reasons you described, decided to go with the same night. I don't think they got together and planned it though. One department just matched the other.
Yeah, I am not trying to approach it from a "the man keeping the protest down" viewpoint.
I am trying to see the "how can we keep down the amount of negative PR from this" viewpoint.
dsteingass wrote:But Rented Tritum, please use your own stated logic, "thinking about the motivations of the different players". WHY do you think people have a knee-jerk reaction to distrust authority figures like the police? WHY do people immediately assume that the police are trying to "put down" the protesters a-la the Kent State Massacre? History is full of precedence for this sort of thing, it's only natural to distrust "them" whenever we are put into an "us vs. them" situation.
It gets passed down through misinformation. The problem is that people who are taught not to trust the police absolutely 100% refuse to learn anything about how police force actually works. So ONCE someone is indoctrinated with anti-police paranoia, either through actual bad experiences with police or just from their parents or what have you, it's nearly impossible for them to understand anything else.
But then police, knowing this, stop being willing to try to explain things. The attitude is "I don't have time for this" and they just do things.
Why are they being so decisive about the tent cities? It's because for weeks people have been spouting nonsense about them. There's no evidence anyone will listen to an explanation, so they don't get into the dialogue at all. Unfortunately that actually worsens the anti-police sentiment.
That's not counting that bad cops actually DO exist and when people get anti-cop, THOSE guys actually get aggressive. Oh boy, that sure helps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
"We are going to clear up a shanty-town and tear down these camps, if your cameras can see us you are not safe." Sorry, our news can cover wars from the front lines, they can hande the breaking up of a 'hippie shanty town". Supresion of the media in the name of safety, they are quickly learning that this tactic no longer works.
It's actually private property being cleared of ALL people. The press doesn't have unhindered right to private property.
I don't think as many people are "anti-cop" in that strict sense as you may think. You know the old saying "it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole cart". It is purely a perception thing.
Where I live, the Police force has real crime to fight, so they aren't as oppressive on things like traffic or speeding violations. If you are caught speeding, they give you a ticket, and you pay it and move on. Now, where I grew up, the Ohio State Highway Patrol was a different story! If you got caught speeding there, it feels like you are getting a Gestapo shakedown!
"do you know how fast you were going? Where were you going?, why were you in a hurry to get there?
Well, for one thing it's none of their damn business where I was going! Give me my punishment for breaking the law and move along! That sort of thing doesn't make people violently anti-cop, but it doesn't make them trust them either.
dsteingass wrote:I don't think as many people are "anti-cop" in that strict sense as you may think. You know the old saying "it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole cart". It is purely a perception thing.
Where I live, the Police force has real crime to fight, so they aren't as oppressive on things like traffic or speeding violations. If you are caught speeding, they give you a ticket, and you pay it and move on. Now, where I grew up, the Ohio State Highway Patrol was a different story! If you got caught speeding there, it feels like you are getting a Gestapo shakedown!
"do you know how fast you were going? Where were you going?, why were you in a hurry to get there?
Well, for one thing it's none of their damn business where I was going! Give me my punishment for breaking the law and move along! That sort of thing doesn't make people violently anti-cop, but it doesn't make them trust them either.
Your first encounter with the cops locks in your view of them. Unfortunately a lot of older cops feel like they need to scare kids into respecting them or some crap. That's strongly discouraged now, but there are 40 years of cops on the street that still think that way.
But really there's another thread for that, let's not get sidetracked.
CptJake wrote:What is happening is cops remove anyone not actually involved in a situation before trying to break it up, you get the media and other rubberneckers outta the way to brevent them getting hurt or getting a cop hurt. Kind of like they clear an area for a couple of blocks before they take down a drug house for example.
"We are going to clear up a shanty-town and tear down these camps, if your cameras can see us you are not safe." Sorry, our news can cover wars from the front lines, they can hande the breaking up of a 'hippie shanty town". Supresion of the media in the name of safety, they are quickly learning that this tactic no longer works.
You are either willfully ignorant, or trying to misrepresent what is going on. Either way, you are wrong.
Embedded reporters in a combat zone sign a crap ton of waivers, are there in small numbers, get some basic training and equipment to keep them safe and so on. And they do not go on building clearing missions, which this action is close to in terms of risk to everyone involved.
Cameras up close and on site do a few things. They get in the way of legitimate law enforcement actions, they encourage the occupiers to do very dumb things that escalate an already tense situation, putting occupiers and cops and the reporters in danger. If you have ever worked crowd control or better yet a riot you would have an inkling of what I am trying to get at. The cops know the occupiers have cameras, those are not an issue because they are not adding extra/neitral bodies in the way and don't have the same encouraging effect a media camera does.
Look at when a camera pans the crowd at a football game. People act like fools. LE don't need that extra hassle when doing an already tense job. Again, media cameras up close and on site, or ANY neutral presence, present a danger to everyone involved.
The park is private property, but the sidewalks and streets around the park are public, and the press should have access to it.
By trying to keep the media away, they try to prevent exposure of stuff like this:
84 year old woman pepper sprayed during a march in Occupy Seattle. You can report that an old lady was pepper sprayed, but without footage it just does not have the same effect.
This is a great example that it does not have to be about "what is the motivation of the cops" or "what is the motivation of the protesters", but about minimizing fallout.
When I was talking about the different police departments coordinating the raids in Oakland and NY I was talking about keeping the bad PR down to one day. If this would have happened on the same day as Oakland and NY then the news would already be covering something else. But it is a new day, a fresh protest, and a fresh crackdown. And this event gets its own day in the news.
I'm not trying to talk about who is right or wrong, I just don't think that both raids happening on the same day was a coincidence.
(Edited to remove continuous argument that is just going to go around in circles, so no point in keeping it going.)
murdog wrote:Thats exactly the kind of post I'm talking about, halo. How can we have a conversation if that is what you believe this to be about? In your opinion, the people there are all whining communists, nazis, drug addicts and cop-haters who run anti-military websites and are getting paid to protest? Yikes! Where do you get your information? Please show me where to find out about all the cop-beating college kids.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but they do represent you, you just don't realize it. Unless of course you are part of the one percent that control most of the wealth and power in the world, and then, would you really be posting on Dakka Dakka?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yet another post hoping for violence... what's up with that?
No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices. They don't represent me at all and anyone who says that they represent them or says that they are Scott Olsen are just d-riding this whole protest because they want to feel like they're part of something.
I would certainly come to the same conclusion! That kind of picture should NEVER be censored from the public view! Knowing that the press was told to leave just prior, smells like a cover-up to me. It has nothing to do with the wishes of the cops though, they are just doing their jobs, following orders. It's the principal behind it that pisses me off. You don't get to cancel freedom of the press under any damn circumstances whatsoever! No matter how you want to spin it, this is just WRONG.
dsteingass wrote:I would certainly come to the same conclusion! That kind of picture should NEVER be censored from the public view! Knowing that the press was told to leave just prior, smells like a cover-up to me.
Then get your nose checked.
It has nothing to do with the wishes of the cops though, they are just doing their jobs, following orders. It's the principal behind it that pisses me off. You don't get to cancel freedom of the press under any damn circumstances whatsoever! No matter how you want to spin it, this is just WRONG.
You're aware that "freedom of the press" has nothing to do with this, right?
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.
As for the 84 year old being pepper sprayed...
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap at this point. If you're at these marches--you know what is likely going to happen. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the police get on edge because of working long hours before having to be pulled in on overtime to stand out in the cold listening to some smartmouth college kid running through the checklist of Anti-Authoritianism Insults. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the normal "anarchists" show up trying to get the situation going overboard.
It's a powderkeg with a lit fuse, don't be surprised when it blows.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.
Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?
And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.
Why was this time different?
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.
The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.
The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the police get on edge because of working long hours before having to be pulled in on overtime to stand out in the cold listening to some smartmouth college kid running through the checklist of Anti-Authoritianism Insults. The longer these protests go on, the more likely it is that the normal "anarchists" show up trying to get the situation going overboard.
Fantastic. I occasionally work overtime and in many stressful situations. I also have to work holidays on occasion. Screwing up my job can have the impact of someone losing potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. They'd probably claim more. I would be fired if I screwed up, even in the aforementioned situations. Often times, clients exacerbate the situation, piling on more stress with either unreasonable expectations or considering it my fault they gave me bad information to do my job with.
If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?
dsteingass wrote:
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.
There don't need to be because the freedom of the press was not infringed upon here.
The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time. They are still people and they are still bound by regular rules. The movies make it look like a press pass can just get you in any door, but that's nonsense. Everyone is legally a "reporter" as far as freedom of the press is concerned because the government isn't in the business of deciding who is a reporter and who is not.
Freedom of the press does NOT mean you are free to just walk anywhere you want. A reporter can't just cross a police line like they always do in the movies.
Yeah, that's not good. I'll be the first to say that if he attempts to commit arson, then he should be arrested and tried to the fullest extent of the law.
Your empathy for the situation that the police are in is understandable, that evidently means a lot to you. There is nothing wrong with that. However I think you are arguing essentially that people shouldn't protest because it causes more work and stress on the cops. But we all have our own jobs to do that we voluntarily took on to support families and such.
If they REALLY want to make their point, they need to go to wall street and really shut things down. They'll be arrested by the busload. It'll be the best thing that happened to their message.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.
Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?
How was it censorship? You can't say it's censorship, except in the most obscure and grasping manner of "But they didn't let them film it!".
If you want to keep crying "censorship! censorship! fascism!" go right ahead. It doesn't mean you're in any way, shape, or form correct.
And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.
No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.
Why was this time different?
Already been addressed. I'll reiterate CptJake's statement here though:
News crews filming the police doing these kinds of actions are not the same as "embedded camera crews". Embedded camera crews have all sorts of waivers going on, meaning that they acknowledge the danger of the situation. They also usually are trained to basic combat standards, and are wearing protective equipment. In many cases, they're also told that if their presence will endanger the troops--they will not be allowed to continue with said troops.
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.
No, they're not. If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.
The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.
No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.
daedalus wrote:If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?
Does your job involve people throwing bricks at you in an attempt to cause you physical harm?
Rented Tritium wrote:The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time.
I really want to understand where you are coming from, but where is this written?
It doesn't need to be written, it's not a negative right, it's a lack of a positive right.
It's not written anywhere that the press CAN go anywhere they want. If it's not granted to them, then they are just like anyone else.
Read the first amendment carefully. There's nothing in there about press going anywhere they want, just that congress can't make laws abridging their freedoms. It doesn't grant any special freedoms, it just says that their speech is protected.
The only way to assume it does is if you interpret "freedom" in the amendment to completely unrestricted movement, which is silly because the press can't come into your house either.
Rented Tritium wrote:The press do not have the right to be anywhere at any time.
I really want to understand where you are coming from, but where is this written?
Why does it need to be written?
The framework of the Constitution was established when "freedom of speech" was concerned with the freedom of individuals to criticize their governing body without having to worry about reprisals.
It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.
The press is free to report on and print ANYTHING they want and it's 100% protected (except like libel etc)
But the constitution doesn't give them any special powers with regard to GATHERING that information. They are still subject to all the same laws as everyone else.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.
Sorry dude, but this is just rhetroric and a hasty generalization.
Kanluwen wrote:
If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.
Possibly, but not every time, another hasty generalization.
Kanluwen wrote:
No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.
I'd like to see the numbers on this subject. Usually implies more than half of the time.
I'm not trying to be a total jerk here, but you are expressing your opinions as if they were facts. You should try to avoid logical fallacies when making a valid argument for debate. Opinions are strong, and you have every right to have opinions and share them but it isn't arguable.
Yeah Kanluwen, I don't think that's actually very common.
More often it happens by chance or someone just being an old fashioned hot-head with the cops and then LATER they decide to really run with it for the cause.
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
Dude, you think all the police departments got together to conspire against a protest that's not even aimed at them and you're face palming ME for not wanting to talk to you anymore? You have straight up hopped the train to crazytown.
Just to add relevance to this post, it appears the train to crazytown has more riders than me:
examiner wrote:Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.
.....
According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.
Las Vegas Sun wrote:As concerns over safety and sanitation grew at the encampments over the last month, officials from nearly 40 cities turned to each other on conference calls, sharing what worked and what hasn't as they grappled with the leaderless movement.
In one case, the calls became group therapy sessions.
While riot police sweeping through tent cities in Portland, Ore., Oakland, Calif. and New York City over the last several days may suggest a coordinated effort, authorities and a group that organized the calls say they were a coincidence......
So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...
(and again, not talking about the right/wrong reasons for the protests and the right/wrong reasons for the crackdowns. Just talking about how it appeared to me that this was a coordinated effort (and I will admit that I am speculating on the reason as to why) to shut it down.)
Kanluwen wrote:
It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.
Um...no, the First Amendment (freedom of the press and all of it) is part of the Bill Of Rights and has been official since December 15, 1791 by ratification of 3/4 of the States.
You should really look up your facts man. the press "doing" anything they want is not the same as the press "being" anywhere they want.
There are stipulations against the press "doing" anything they want, many have already been mentioned, libel, defamation of character, National Security, etc.
Kanluwen wrote:
"Freedom of the press" is the freedom to report upon whatever you can, with no worry of censorship or retaliation for your reporting. There's nothing in there about "freedom to be present whenever the police are doing their job"--and quite frankly, there actually are protections against people utilizing the cover of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as a means to incite violence or inflame situations.
Sorry, I don't follow.
How was telling the media to leave NOT censorship?
How was it censorship? You can't say it's censorship, except in the most obscure and grasping manner of "But they didn't let them film it!".
If you want to keep crying "censorship! censorship! fascism!" go right ahead. It doesn't mean you're in any way, shape, or form correct.
And why couldn't the media cover the policework on camera? News cameras are present and rolling at any given time while police are doing their job anywhere in the world.
No, they're not. They're not rolling when SWAT are breaching drug-dens in downtown Raleigh. They're only rolling at high profile events, where tension has already been shown to get ratings.
Why was this time different?
Already been addressed. I'll reiterate CptJake's statement here though:
News crews filming the police doing these kinds of actions are not the same as "embedded camera crews". Embedded camera crews have all sorts of waivers going on, meaning that they acknowledge the danger of the situation. They also usually are trained to basic combat standards, and are wearing protective equipment. In many cases, they're also told that if their presence will endanger the troops--they will not be allowed to continue with said troops.
There are no stipulations in the First Amendment about police, or any other government organization with regards to freedom of the press. Secondary stipulations do exist of course in regard to things like National Security, defamation of character, etc. But those are irrelevant here.
No, they're not. If cameras rolling means that a police officer will potentially be injured or the protesters are going to get violent--then guess what? That's "incitement". It wouldn't hold up in any court of law, naturally--but cops aren't stupid and they know that is the case.
The violence by the protestors is a different thing all-together, once the violence starts, the protest ceases to be peaceful, but that is not the same issue as telling the press to leave and cease coverage of the event.
No, it's not. The violence by protesters can usually be traced back to the fact that news cameras are rolling and one idiotic protester gets it into his head that he can do more for "The Cause" by provoking a cop into beating him upside the head.
daedalus wrote:If I complained about my situation, I'd be told that the best thing for me would be to look for a less stressful job, or seek counseling for the stress that I'm getting on the job. Why do cops get a pass?
Does your job involve people throwing bricks at you in an attempt to cause you physical harm?
No?
Now you know why cops get a pass.
Wells from what you are saying the american police force consist of a bunch of pussies(no offence). The protesters are teens, seniors and adults that lost thier jobs due to greed. The italian police face real protesters. They have to face molotovs, violent gangs and rocks. The american ones get called pigs and hit old ladies because of that. Many are fat to.
d-usa wrote:
So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...
d-usa wrote:
So while they deny that the big crackdown was coordinated, it does appear that (using your own words) all the police department got together (on conference calls) to conspire against a protest (on how to shut down the #occupy campsites, protests, etc....)that's not even aimed at them. The mayors of these cities also have been in conference calls regarding the same situation. They must all have straight up hopped the train to crazytown...
Ahhh! My noncognitive dissidence! Nooooooo!
I didn't mean to inflict mental and/or physical suffering, I shall offer my sincere apology over tea and crumpets.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's also worth noting that "freedom of the press" wasn't really established until much later--and even then, it's still accepted that the press isn't necessarily free to do whatever they want. It's why if a press agency were to write something that amounted to encouragement to kill another individual--they'd be able to be held accountable.
Um...no, the First Amendment (freedom of the press and all of it) is part of the Bill Of Rights and has been official since December 15, 1791 by ratification of 3/4 of the States.
You should really look up your facts man. the press "doing" anything they want is not the same as the press "being" anywhere they want.
There are stipulations against the press "doing" anything they want, many have already been mentioned, libel, defamation of character, National Security, etc.
You'll notice the bolded part.
When the First Amendment was established, the "press" was part of the upper crust of society and consisted of individuals who were reputed to be of high integrity. The "press" was also consisting of nothing but persons who had access to printing presses: which were relatively expensive to maintain and use.
So please. Continue telling me to "look up my facts", when in fact "the press doing anything they want" is the same as the "press being anywhere they want".
Sorry dude, but this is just rhetroric and a hasty generalization.
Negative. When the Raleigh Police Department rolled a SWAT team on a crackdown against several drug dens at the same time as the Duke Lacrosse case, guess which one the press were at?
Hint: It wasn't the one that would net ideas of "So what?".
Possibly, but not every time, another hasty generalization.
Again, no. Cameras make protesters stupid. Look at what happened in Vancouver.
I'd like to see the numbers on this subject. Usually implies more than half of the time. I'm not trying to be a total jerk here, but you are expressing your opinions as if they were facts.
They are facts. I suggest you look into the behavior of these diehards for "causes". They have no problem taking one for the team.
You should try to avoid logical fallacies when making a valid argument for debate.
You should also have some clue when talking about things, rather than talking about how something "smells like a cover-up".
Opinions are strong, and you have every right to have opinions and share them but it isn't arguable.
Except when I have knowledge of these kinds of situations, huh?
I've been to several protests over the years. Almost every time I've seen the police "get violent", it's because a protester starts throwing crap at them or attacks them. Police strike back--and the cops get called on it as the aggressors.
Space Crusader wrote:
Wells from what you are saying the american police force consist of a bunch of pussies(no offence).
Yes...because that's not offensive?
I'd suggest you have a fething clue before running your mouth off again.
The protesters are teens, seniors and adults that lost thier jobs due to greed.
Not every single one of them. Most of "the protesters" are teens and young adults who are in college and running with ideas they have no clue about.
The italian police face real protesters. They have to face molotovs, violent gangs and rocks.
Because that's totally not what happened in Oakland, right? Or the threats being leveled by a "spokesperson" for Occupy Wall Street?
The american ones get called pigs and hit old ladies because of that.
You really don't know a thing, do you?
Many are fat to.
Fat to what? Fat to slim?
The stereotypical "fat American police officer" is bs. There's some that are overweight yeah, but not to the comedic excess you see in film or television. Most are ex-military or obsessive athletes.
halonachos wrote:No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices. They don't represent me at all and anyone who says that they represent them or says that they are Scott Olsen are just d-riding this whole protest because they want to feel like they're part of something.
Hey look, I can do the same thing! One sided stories are the best!
Protests are a power of the people, regardless of who you are. If it weren't for protests against established laws, in America, the Consitution would still only be protecting land owning White Males.
I support protesting in all it's forms. People generally only protest when something is inherently wrong with the system, whether legal or morally. People just don't form mobs and protest something for no good reason.
Was gonna post a response, but...then I read the thread again.
This thread is starting to make my brain hurt. Or possibly that's a developing aneurysm from the sheer number of "wtf" moments from all sides of the argument...
I think I'm gonna go play Arkham asylum instead. Maybe we should all cool down in the mean time and stop just making excuses to attack anyone who dares disagree with us?
When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
Really? Really?
Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?
Your first link is biased trash and the second is worse. From the NPR version of your second link:
Deputy NYPD Inspector Kim Royster said that four journalists were among those arrested at the church-owned park and that protesters clipped a chain-link fence to get in. "It was private property and there was signage that said no trespassing," Royster said.
A protester at the site confirmed the account, saying protesters tore a hole in a chain-link fence to get into the park after the Zuccotti encampment was cleared.
TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
Really? Really?
Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?
C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.
Quote from the 1st Amendment of the Constitutuion of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
Really? Really?
Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?
C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.
Yep, and the protestors can accept the consequences that go with their actions... Protected speech does not imply immunity from breaking laws and/or infringing on others' rights.
Easy E wrote:I believe the Constitution covers this:
Quote from the 1st Amendment of the Constitutuion of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Text italicized for clarity.
It says right to assemble
not right to assemble tents
and it CERTAINLY doesn't say right to actively prevent a legal police action.
The right to peacefully assemble was not violated in this case. Note that the right to peacefully assemble does not imply immunity from breaking laws or infringing on others' rights.
Also note that having protests file the proper paperwork, pay required fees, and otherwise obey the law has been upheld many times in many courts. I probably should italicize that for clarity, but suspect it wouldn't help.
TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
Really? Really?
Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?
C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.
Fitzz, of course it is still a protest, and can be very effective. But the protesters know they face consequences such as arrest. Everyone hase freedom of choice, no one as freedom from consequences.
During the RNC in my town, lot's of people had the proper permits, that were then yanked at the last minute. That's why a free Rage Against the Machine concert ended up getting shut down.
Easy E wrote:Well, I'm sure the courts will get it sorted out sometime in the next decade to a century.
Just remember in the short term kids;
$$$= Speech
Tents and signs= Non-speech.
Simple really.
Yeah, a shanty town is not speech. Sorry dude, it's just not. The protest is speech, but the camp is not speech. The camp is a camp. You don't have a right to squat anywhere you want. You still have to follow the normal park rules while you are there. You can't just do whatever and hide behind the "oh but speech" shield. The park still has rules.
Easy E wrote:Tell that to the predatory lenders who still haven't been punished.
I don't care.
Protesting against something bad doesn't mean your protest doesn't have to follow the rules. You can be protesting against literal baby killing, you still have to follow the rules, dude. Don't try to change the subject.
Mention before. There's protestors and there's protesters with intent. I rather deal with protestors. A protestor will use common sense and play within the rules IE leave the park at closing time and be first in line at opening to continue protest. Does not impede foot/vehicle traffic, Does not impede private business, Does not escalate a situation. and Does not abuse the situation. Simple enough isn't it. MLK pulled it off quite well.
OWS well.There were protestors ,yes, were there protestors with intent, yes. When the situation becomes tense your going to have someone martry themselves for the "cause" knowing he/she going to get their "5 minute" of prime time. Yes the media will up the notch on the tension when law enforcement is present. Either way someone going to get to get a brain fart and do something stupid. Its human nature.
Embed reporters for the military and news team at a protest rally is way different animal. Cptjake nailed it on his clarification. I see a lot of people just see the "protest" itself and not the ordinance/law thats has been in place way before OWS started up.
Easy E wrote:It's nice when the rules and their enforcement only apply to 'some' people. Provided you aren't "some" people.
Please lose the angst and actually argue some points. Saying you can't have a shanty town on quasi-public land does not mean we love wall street.
Just because I have a position you disagree with doesn't mean I'm against you in all other areas. Please don't turn my position into a big evil "they" and please don't try to steer the conversation into a pet subject that has nothing to do with the incident we're talking about.
Jihadin wrote:Mention before. There's protestors and there's protesters with intent. I rather deal with protestors. A protestor will use common sense and play within the rules IE leave the park at closing time and be first in line at opening to continue protest. Does not impede foot/vehicle traffic, Does not impede private business, Does not escalate a situation. and Does not abuse the situation. Simple enough isn't it. MLK pulled it off quite well.
Alternately, a protest can purposefully break the law through civil disobedience. For instance, if they wanted to go actually block a road on purpose so that they would all get arrested to make a point, I am actually ok with that. That's just another tool in the protest playbook.
But don't break the law and pretend you didn't. Don't block a street and claim you were totally in the right. That just makes you look silly.
TheHammer wrote:When corporations spend money on elections it is protected under the 1st Amendment but when actual people (you know, those living and breathing bags of flesh?) do an actual demonstration it is not protected?
Really? Really?
Really, you cannot accept a difference between protected (and legal/permits filled out/rents and fees paid) protest and a group camping out illegally?
C'mon Cap, just because a protest might take place outside of a bought and payed for " legal play pen" doesn't make it any less of a protest.
Fitzz, of course it is still a protest, and can be very effective. But the protesters know they face consequences such as arrest. Everyone hase freedom of choice, no one as freedom from consequences.
I agree with what your saying man, simply pointing out that the " legality" of the protest doesn't minamilize it's validity...through out the world and throughout history many " illegal" protest have effected change.
FITZZ wrote:
I agree with what your saying man, simply pointing out that the " legality" of the protest doesn't minamilize it's validity...through out the world and throughout history many " illegal" protest have effected change.
And the police breakup had nothing to do with the legality of the protest, but the legality of the squatting in a private park.
Yeah, illegal protests are on average way more useful than legal ones. I admire anyone who is willing to go to jail over something, but don't make it about you vs the cops or whatever. The correct response is not being an unruly mob, the correct response is "we understand, you're going to have to arrest us, we are not moving"
Locking arms and making it difficult to pull them apart is what got the nightsticks out, though. Generally, you want to comply as soon as an officer actually grabs you. The level of force where they use open hands to pull you apart is the highest you actually WANT to go here. If you keep resisting there, worse things are going to happen and nobody actually WANTS that.
Ahtman wrote:Stupid illegal Tea Party didn't get permits to dress like local natives or to dump tea in the harbor. Buncha criminals don't know how to protest.
...Odd how those many now venerate as "hero's" were, at the time, seen as criminals and radicals.
I will not argue that the police had every legal right to clear out the park if the owner's asked them to. Which they did.
However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?
Did the Founding Fathers get permits for the Boston Tea Party? How about the Continental Congress? Were they not breaking the law in pursuit of unalienable rights? So, were they in the right or in the wrong?
The real question isn't whether Mayor Bloomberg legally had the right to clear the park. The question is does he have the moral right and was it the right decision based on our founding principles as a nation?
I don't know the answer to the question. I know how I feel about it, but that's it. That feeling is not rational. Not everything in this world is rational.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just an impassioned fool with an overdeveloped sense of empathy for others. A liability in our world, and one I am seeking to correct with counselling. I'm also a poor typer.
Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?
I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.
The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Intent has legal precedence.
Easy E wrote:Did the Founding Fathers get permits for the Boston Tea Party? How about the Continental Congress? Were they not breaking the law in pursuit of unalienable rights? So, were they in the right or in the wrong?
Legal wrong, morally neutral.
When you break the law on purpose, you have to decide what's right or wrong for yourself. When you go against the grain, you are by nature charting your own moral course.
Civil disobedience is a lot like revolution. Revolution is legal if you win, illegal if you lose. Leaking the pentagon papers, similarly, was illegal, but it was important enough that they decided it was worth it and they were RIGHT! They won the fight and the pentagon papers are out of the bag.
Easy E wrote:The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.
Intent plays no part here. They likely assumed that because it's a park, it's "public property". It's not--and even if it were, you'd need permits to camp out there.
This isn't actually difficult to comprehend.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Intent has legal precedence.
Intent has legal precedence--however ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?
I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.
If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.
I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!
Also, can you explain "morally nuetral" to me? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at? When you chart your own course their is no morals? I don't think that is what you are tryign to say, but I want to understand.
Edit: Yeah, I know there was no Constitution. However, they were still breaking the King's law.
Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?
I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.
If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.
Ahtman...if it were in anyway possible to leap through my monitor and hug you... I believe I would.
Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?
I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.
If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.
But that was ordained by God. This is entirely different. Entirely.
Jihadin wrote:Tea Party 1767 in Boston prior to the revolution was part of the escalation to the Revolution War. Constitution was not implemented till 1787
That's really besides the point...individules had gathered to " protest" unjust actions in an " illegal" manner and in part effected change.
Step 1: Argue for the rule of law.
Step 2: Back track when that is demonstrated to not be enough.
Step 3: Misunderstand history.
Step 4: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!
Easy E wrote:I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!
In essence, yes. I mean there's plenty of nuance depending on what you're doing and what your actual goal is, but you can totally go to jail and "win" if your goal was to get a message out. I just depends on your victory conditions.
Also, can you explain "morally nuetral" to me? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at? When you chart your own course their is no morals? I don't think that is what you are tryign to say, but I want to understand.
Morality is entirely subjective. An action is just an action. It can be moral to me or immoral to someone else. The boston tea party was moral to me personally, but I am not comfortable calling it an inherently moral or immoral act. What's important is that the people DOING IT viewed it as such and a big enough segment of the population agreed with them that it became an understood truth.
Out at the philosophical edges of a representative government, there is a grey area where it no longer matters if it's moral or immoral, what matters is that you achieve your goal or not. Sort of like how we believe we have inherent human rights, but those rights are only manifested because we gathered together with people who believed the same thing. While I believe in inherent human rights, I don't actually believe they exist without us. We created them and keep them alive ourselves. There's nothing magical or special about humans, we just decided the world would be better with basic human rights and it sure is.
It's a lot like international law. Once you get to the highest level of government, the gaps between jurisdictions end up kind of fuzzy and things just happen because of consensus. It's both a horrible and great expression of the deeper essence of democracy. International law is fascinating that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Argue for the rule of law.
Step 2: Back track when that is demonstrated to not be enough.
Step 3: Misunderstand history.
Step 4: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!
I don't use the term fascism loosely.
You know, the rest of us are having a really great conversation right now. Please don't screw it up.
TheHammer wrote:
I don't use the term fascism loosely.
Yeah you do. You also use it incorrectly.
These aren't "jackbooted thugs" breaking heads open left and right. If this was a fascist action and "comparable to Tianamen Square", then the streets would be overflowing with bodies and there would be no records of official arrests.
Since it's not a "fascist action", the most these protesters are going to face is whatever injuries they get during the course of police calming things down. And there's already the typical response of the ACLU and other anti-establishment law nonprofits lining up to sue on their behalf.
Easy E wrote:The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.
My copy of the Declaration lists:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Just out of curiosity, which of those do you feel had been violated for the OWS folks which would then validate their illiegal actions?
I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!
Hhmmmm when the Tea Party happen British Parlimant (in England mind you) passed the "Coercive Act" in 1774 which pretty much closed Boston Port down.
The First Continental Congress gathered and petition the Monarchy to repeal the act.
(Wiki)
Shot heard around the World kicked that off
What I'm getting at is the comparison using the Boston Tea Party as an example before the Constitution was implemented as if the constitution was before the Tea Party.
Since we fell under british law at that time (notice wiki is horrid on dates) this pretty much lead up to Revolution War
The colonists' disappointment began shortly after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, when the British government tried to reduce the debt incurred during the war by collecting additional taxes and gaining more control over the colonies. The Stamp Act of 1765 was one such measure. It created an excise tax on newspapers, customs documents, licenses, college diplomas, and most legal documents.
Although the Stamp Act was widely popular in England where taxes were far higher than they were in the colonies, it was uniformly resented in the colonies. Nine colonial legislatures officially expressed their objections to this British tax, and civil disobedience to this Act was rampant throughout the colonies. The Stamp Act became increasingly unenforceable, and in March 1766 Parliament revoked it.
The colonists were grateful for the repeal of the Stamp Act and were eager to mend their relations with the mother country. At this point, a complete break from England remained unimaginable, but a precedent for colonial defiance had been created.
Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, underlying philosophical differences remained. The British wanted the colonists to pay the greater part of the cost of royal government in the colonies, whereas the colonists resisted imperial taxation and limits on self-government.
A series of incidents that took place between 1765 and 1775 emphasized these differences. For example, the Townshend Duties of 1767, which taxed imports, led to nonimportation agreements (boycotts of British goods) that injured the British economy and caused the repeal of the Townshend Duties in 1770. Customs racketeering, in which greedy customs officials seized ships and their goods whether or not evidence of smuggling existed, led to widespread violence and to the British occupation of Boston in 1768. The British occupation itself led indirectly to the Boston Massacre of 1770, when an angry mob incited a soldier to fire into the crowd. The ensuing mayhem caused five deaths.
The Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the punitive British response solidified colonial fears that the Crown was attempting to limit traditional English liberties throughout North America. In response to these events, the first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in 1774. (Virginia's representatives to the Continental Congress included two of the original opponents of the Stamp Act, Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry. George Washington was the third Virginia representative.) The delegates summarized their principles and demands in the Declaration of Rights, which conceded to Parliament the power to regulate colonial commerce, but argued that parliamentary efforts to impose taxes, enforce laws through admiralty courts, suspend assemblies, and unilaterally revoke charters were unconstitutional.
After these incidents, a break from England had become a distinct possibility (although still not a certainty.)
In Williamsburg in April 1775, on orders from the British ministry, Governor Dunmore directed British marines to remove guns and powder stored at the Magazine. A violent clash between the alarmed city residents and the British almost erupted. Dunmore soon fled to a British ship in the York River. Determined to regain control of the colony, the governor threatened to offer freedom to all slaves who ran away to the British side.
By July 1775, battles in what eventually became known as the American Revolution had already taken place in Massachusetts: Concord and Lexington in April, Bunker Hill in June. Despite this ominous turn of events, not all parties saw the Revolution as inevitable. For example, a majority of the second Continental Congress, which began meeting in May 1775, still opposed independence. Even Samuel Adams, among the most radical of the colonists, described himself as "fond of reconciliation."
In July 1775 the colonists' opinions were divided. Most colonists had hoped that their resistance would either convince the king to dismiss the ministers responsible for the repressive legislation or would jolt Parliament into renouncing its authority over all matters in the colonies except trade regulation. As it became clear that neither course would occur, some loyalist colonists accused their contemporaries of creating a rift, or at least inflaming existing problems. Their Revolutionary counterparts often browbeat clergymen who preached pro-British sermons, pressured their countrymen to boycott British goods, and coerced merchants to burn British imports.
King George III declared the colonies in rebellion on August 23, 1775. In November, Governor Dunmore signed his Emancipation Proclamation placing Virginia under martial law and granting freedom to all slaves and indentured servants who would bear arms for the king. Excerpts from Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which influenced many a fence-sitter, were published in the Virginia Gazette in February 1776, and the Declaration of Independence followed a few months later.
A rebellion against a establish government so throwing in the Boston Tea Party doesn't TO ME equate with what OWS is trying to do...what are they doing actually doing?
The protests have focused on social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
Thats what they are protesting. Can it become a revolution for 2012ish? Mind you. I'm sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from both foreign and domestic
got way off topic.....so hows the BBQ going for you all this weekend?
Rented Tritium wrote:It makes me sad when people are harsh on the ACLU like that. I really like them. They're misunderstood.
I'm not trying to be harsh on the ACLU. They're an organization that has a reputation for being muckrakers, but they're not necessarily a bad group. They do take the idea of civil liberties seriously, and that is important.
However I feel it also lessens the impact of many protests in that when they get broken up if even the slightest whiff of impropriety is present---it's very likely that some some members of the ACLU will come running like a deer to a salt lick.
I want to volunteer to man the water cannons when OWS gets out of hand...I really really do...really...traverse the water cannon left and right holding a Extra Large Duncun Donut Coffee with cream sugar in it...smoking....I'm all in
I'm Equal Oppurtunity to...so whoever is in front...is getting nailed
Yeah, it's true. The ACLU ends up defending a lot of scumbags, but I'm mostly ok with that. Even scumbags deserve a good lawyer and they have some dang good ones working for free.
@Auston - I know it was only like 15 real minutes ago, but it was 2 pages ago that you asked me about the links. I wasn't making a point there, I was just sharing right and left news stories about the topic
Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, it's true. The ACLU ends up defending a lot of scumbags, but I'm mostly ok with that. Even scumbags deserve a good lawyer and they have some dang good ones working for free.
Again: I have no problems with that part. In some cases, it's very good that the ACLU exists as it insures that there will in fact be someone who can be considered of "moral fiber" and will take their job seriously due to their own code of morals.
I just don't think it's good for them to be taking the case of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who is at a protest which is shut down for having improper permits while clamoring that Constitutional rights are being infringed.
@Jihadin
To be fair high unemployment, economic and social inequality, and greed were large contributing factors to the dissidence that lead to our rebellion against the establishment (George III and friends). So there are similarities, but drawing a line between revolutionary protests which could be violent and frequently illegal, to squatters is a long stretch. For one revolutionary era protestors returned home afterward. They city is not cracking down on the protests, they are cracking down on the encampments. They are separate, the protestors could have packed up thier gak carried thier signs and squatted on the sidewalks and in the alleys, but they chose a public park. I'm sure if they "camped" on the streets they'd be swept up twice as fast but hey, you cant win em all. They could also sleep in cardboard mansions like the much older "occupy any street" folks.
I know Aht. I just dislike the protestors with intent knowing they have the local law enforcement and gov't by the short hair and willing to exploit it.
Well, I'd bet there are a fair number of the protestors just along for the chance at mayhem, but some who really would have rather kept it peaceful but I think they fethed it up from both sides.
I wouldn't say disenfranchised...venting out their fustration, maybe a misguided few, or thinking they can make the U.S. a better place . I'm sure quite a lot of them are for them to say "I was there when it all started" status. Before I squeeze the trigger on the water cannon I make sure there were enough warning's given to the protesters. After the release orders are giving I start targeting the ones who has a possibility of a weapon on them.....signs make good weapons.
Yeah, I mean, I'm just as mad about what's happening to the middle class as the next guy, but camping out in a park yelling about police is about 5 steps removed from anything to do with the problem.
Yeah, I don't get why they did the park thing either. The should have used some organization, standing right in front of Wall Street, 24/7, respectfully, lawfully, in shifts. You know, like a union strike in a factory.
I highly doubt that the one's that are 18-35 have fully exhaust their means to get a job or whatever. Its the job they want that is not there...you know...do little but get paid a whole crap load of money? I'm going to say the high end peeps that are paid in the corperation started from the ground up to get where they are. I do resent bad decisions making and axing them.
Jihadin wrote:I wouldn't say disenfranchised...venting out their fustration, maybe a misguided few, or thinking they can make the U.S. a better place . I'm sure quite a lot of them are for them to say "I was there when it all started" status. Before I squeeze the trigger on the water cannon I make sure there were enough warning's given to the protesters. After the release orders are giving I start targeting the ones who has a possibility of a weapon on them.....signs make good weapons.
The biggest success in which I participated in this area though was using about $400 bucks worth of hot dogs and kool aid to defuse a demonstration before it could start. Of course out of sight of the demonstration was a company of hard core steely eyed guys in darth vader looking riot gear, and another a 6 minute UH60 flight away (birds already spun up at the PZ).
Who can argue over free food and kool aid? Even I would pause to holding down the trigger to the water cannon as someone pass up a free hot dog with the works loaded on it.
CptJake wrote:How the heck are they disenfranchised?
Because they aren't allowed to vote or voice dissent or write their senators and peaceably assemble...
Wait a second.
You know disenfranchised doesn't just have to do with voting right? It also has to do with feeling disconnected from power or to be marginalized. Considering the number of times people on this very board have talked about not voting becuase they think it is a waste and that citizens don't have much control over the process of governing I don't think it is a stretch to imagine others would feel that way as well. If you have been shown that writing a Senator has zero effect, why would you bother? They are disenfranchised becuase they feel that they are being pushed aside to cater to the 1% (as they put it) and corporations. There standard of living is stagnant, or going in reverse and the government seems to not care.
CptJake wrote:How the heck are they disenfranchised?
Because they aren't allowed to vote or voice dissent or write their senators and peaceably assemble...
Wait a second.
You know disenfranchised doesn't just have to do with voting right? It also has to do with feeling disconnected from power or to be marginalized. Considering the number of times people on this very board have talked about not voting becuase they think it is a waste and that citizens don't have much control over the process of governing I don't think it is a stretch to imagine others would feel that way as well. If you have been shown that writing a Senator has zero effect, why would you bother? They are disenfranchised becuase they feel that they are being pushed aside to cater to the 1% (as they put it) and corporations. There standard of living is stagnant, or going in reverse and the government seems to not care.
Why SHOULD the Gov't give a rat's patootie about their standard of living? Where does the Constitution mention a guaranteed standard of living? Even the Declaration says you have a right to Pursue Happiness, and I'm pretty sure the Founders intended that to mean get off your ass and make something of yourself vice whine that 'It Isn't Fair Someone Else Has More Than Me'.
Ahtman wrote:You know disenfranchised doesn't just have to do with voting right?
It actually has a lot to do with voting, though.
Considering we live in a representative republic, the fact that we have the ability to do all of these things that I mentioned kind of means that we haven't been disenfranchised. I still think that the system works, and that you need to work within the system to effect change.
If the system is truly as broken as OWS says it is, it makes the protests even more pointless.
Ahtman wrote:You know disenfranchised doesn't just have to do with voting right?
It actually has a lot to do with voting, though.
Are you changing what you mean now or are you just being facetious? The word isn't solely tied to voting rights. The wieght of how much it refers to voting will depend on the context of its use, as with any word. You act as if it only can be about voting, which is not true.
Monster Rain wrote:If the system is truly as broken as OWS says it is, it makes the protests even more pointless.
And this is just a flat out False Choice fallacy. The options aren't solely between a government that is extremely receptive to letter writing and a government that ignores protests all together. It could be as such that one can feel that their normal means of addressing their government are having litte effect while believing that mass protest can make an impact.
Monster Rain wrote:If the system is truly as broken as OWS says it is, it makes the protests even more pointless.
And this is just a flat out False Choice fallacy.
No it isn't.
Ahtman wrote:he options aren't solely between a government that is extremely receptive to letter writing and a government that ignores protests all together. It could be as such that one can feel that their normal means of addressing their government are having litte effect while believing that mass protest can make an impact.
I shouldn't have assumed that people would apply more to the context of this conversation, such as OWS rhetoric and the news from the last month or so, than the last 4 posts. My bad.
Monster Rain wrote:If the system is truly as broken as OWS says it is, it makes the protests even more pointless.
And this is just a flat out False Choice fallacy.
No it isn't.
Of course it is. You present the issue as only having two options (either the government is corrupt to the point where protest doesn't matter or good enough that you don't need to protest) when there are in reality a multitude of degrees in between. Creating the illusion of only two options is pretty much textbook false dilemma.
Monster Rain wrote:Saying that protesting a government that one believes a puppet for soulless and evil corporations is pointless isn't a false dilemma.
Except that isn't how you phrased it or the point you were making (though you might have edited it by now). I can't tell if you are backpedaling and doing a "well what I was really trying to say was", or you made your point so badly it came off as something else, or you did exactly what I said you did.
CptJake wrote:
Why SHOULD the Gov't give a rat's patootie about their standard of living? Where does the Constitution mention a guaranteed standard of living?
Because places in which the general standard of living either stagnates or regresses tend to produce significant changes in government, at least where the government doesn't take extraordinary measures to secure its position.
CptJake wrote:
Even the Declaration says you have a right to Pursue Happiness, and I'm pretty sure the Founders intended that to mean get off your ass and make something of yourself vice whine that 'It Isn't Fair Someone Else Has More Than Me'.
I don't see why having the right to pursue happiness doesn't entail a right to petition the state to take measures in order to make that pursuit easier.
halonachos wrote:No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices. They don't represent me at all and anyone who says that they represent them or says that they are Scott Olsen are just d-riding this whole protest because they want to feel like they're part of something.
Hey look, I can do the same thing! One sided stories are the best!
Protests are a power of the people, regardless of who you are. If it weren't for protests against established laws, in America, the Consitution would still only be protecting land owning White Males.
I support protesting in all it's forms. People generally only protest when something is inherently wrong with the system, whether legal or morally. People just don't form mobs and protest something for no good reason.
Wow, something on the John Stewart show. Apparantly in Zucati Park the OWS broke into two segments of upper class protestors and lower class protestors. The upper class protestors do things against the will of the others, seems like such a nice organized protest.
The occupy crowd has NAZI and Communist party support, the last time these two groups agreed with each other Poland was split into two. As to people forming mobs and protesting for no good reason, I know a few women from Salem who would like to have a word for you. The term is "mass hysteria", kind of like what happened when "War of the Worlds" was broadcast over the radio. People do stupid gak for stupid reasons and before you're 25 your precognitive center hasn't fully developed and your emotions reign control until then. That's psychology so when I look at this crowd I don't see a group of well reasoned individuals, I see a mass of emotions that are misdirected. GE and the poor have one thing in common, they don't pay taxes or get enough tax deductions that they actually get paid. That means there is something wrong with the tax code, there's nothing wrong with the corporations because they're doing what they're supposed to do. We need to reform the hell out of the current tax code but we have people in this crowd that support Obama who hasn't done anything to change the tax system, in fact he was one of them who supported the bailouts. I want Herman Cain because he would set a tax limit on them that would not be reduced, 9% for their business investments, 9% for their income, and 9% of whatever they spend. The rich will still be paying more in taxes thanks to 9% of 1,000 being more than 9% of 10, if they make more and get taxed the same percentage they still pay more.
They have degrees in heavily populated areas, you chose a CS major and learned IT. That's awesome because so did 1,000,000 others and they're all competing for 100 jobs. Why did they choose Computer Science, was it because it was their passion or did they choose it because they wanted money? If you chose to do it for money then you screwed up and are just as greedy as the 1%, you're just more of an idiot than them.
This movement is a failure, they're setting up ghettos in public and even private areas. The Boston Tea Party was a crime and guess what happened afterwards, people were punished. The OWS crowd is setting up shanties in private areas, that would be like the Tea Party going to your lawn and living there. They aren't just protesting, they're living on this land. That means they throw their garbage there, defecate and urinate there, and do whatever else there.
dsteingass wrote:@Auston - I know it was only like 15 real minutes ago, but it was 2 pages ago that you asked me about the links. I wasn't making a point there, I was just sharing right and left news stories about the topic
I'm not even sure either one of those was from the right, and I'm almost convinced the second one was artful fiction.
But ok I get it, no point just links. I was actually more confused by the first one, maybe I didn't get it but it seemed like screen shots of new reports?
Jihadin wrote:I'm sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from both foreign and domestic
Hypothetically speaking if a war broke out between two groups over weather the current government threatened the constitution, who would you wide with? The people claiming to want to restore and protect the Constitution or the POTUS and Congress?
dsteingass wrote:@Auston - I know it was only like 15 real minutes ago, but it was 2 pages ago that you asked me about the links. I wasn't making a point there, I was just sharing right and left news stories about the topic
I'm not even sure either one of those was from the right, and I'm almost convinced the second one was artful fiction. But ok I get it, no point just links. I was actually more confused by the first one, maybe I didn't get it but it seemed like screen shots of new reports?
Jihadin wrote:I'm sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from both foreign and domestic
Hypothetically speaking if a war broke out between two groups over weather the current government threatened the constitution, who would you wide with? The people claiming to want to restore and protect the Constitution or the POTUS and Congress?
He's bound by the government to serve the government, but Robert E. Lee fought for the south only because his family lived in the South and he didn't want to hurt them, in fact Robert E. Lee was partially punished for this reason when they seized his house in Arlington along with a lot of his land to create Arlington National Cemetery. To ask a soldier now and days which sides they would choose is stupid and can actually get them into trouble should the wrong person see it.
Also its supposed to be "whether" and not "weather".
halonachos wrote:No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices.
I'm guessing, being as you're a college student, that you aren't actually paying taxes (per the definition of "paying taxes" that is relevant); meaning that you aren't part of the 53%. Though, quite honestly, based on some "I am the 53%" signs, its likely that many of the people in question are not either.
halonachos wrote:
The upper class protestors do things against the will of the others, seems like such a nice organized protest.
Protesting has to be organized in order to be for a good cause?
halonachos wrote:
The occupy crowd has NAZI and Communist party support, the last time these two groups agreed with each other Poland was split into two.
You're really comparing the presence of two, generally opposing, groups at a single protest to the partition of Poland by nation-states? That's more than a little bit of a stretch.
halonachos wrote:
People do stupid gak for stupid reasons and before you're 25 your precognitive center hasn't fully developed and your emotions reign control until then.
I was unaware that, after age 25, people obtained some form of ESP.
That aside, and assuming you're talking about cognitive development and, more specifically Piagetian theories of it, there is little distinction made between emotional and logical thought processes. Rather, the question regards how, and to what degree, logic is employed; with emotion held as an effective constant.
halonachos wrote:
If you chose to do it for money then you screwed up and are just as greedy as the 1%, you're just more of an idiot than them.
More likely, he simply started without the same degree of wealth. I don't have hard numbers, but I would imagine that very few members of the 1% started out either outside it, or particularly far below it.
dogma wrote:More likely, he simply started without the same degree of wealth. I don't have hard numbers, but I would imagine that very few members of the 1% started out either outside it, or particularly far below it.
I guess that depends where the 1% starts, I don't really know. IIRC 80% of millionaires in the US are the first generation of thier family to be rich. I'd have to search for a source though. Where does the 1% start is it an accumulated wealth number or by yearly income?
halonachos wrote:No, I'm part of the 53% that's actually going out and working instead of being a BMW because I made some bad choices.
I'm guessing, being as you're a college student, that you aren't actually paying taxes (per the definition of "paying taxes" that is relevant); meaning that you aren't part of the 53%. Though, quite honestly, based on some "I am the 53%" signs, its likely that many of the people in question are not either.
Actually I do pay taxes. I owed $500 to federal and $100 to state for some odd reason after taxes. Seriously, I'm a full-time college student who is a dependent and I still pay taxes. That $600 is not including the taxes I had already paid.
dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote: People do stupid gak for stupid reasons and before you're 25 your precognitive center hasn't fully developed and your emotions reign control until then.
I was unaware that, after age 25, people obtained some form of ESP.
That aside, and assuming you're talking about cognitive development and, more specifically Piagetian theories of it, there is little distinction made between emotional and logical thought processes. Rather, the question regards how, and to what degree, logic is employed; with emotion held as an effective constant.
Its actually biology affecting psychology, the amygdala matures before the pre-frontal cortex does. The amygdala controls the emotions that a person experiences so that means emotions control the reasoning of the person until the pre-frontal cortex develops. The pre-frontal cortex matures until about 20 years of age, but doesn't finish maturation until closer to 25 to 28 years of age. (From "Adolescence", Santrock, John. Thirteenth Edition.)
If you do want to include Piaget, it could be close to his Formal Operational stage which is characterized by abstract, idealistic, and logical. Note that it says idealistic.
halonachos wrote:
Wow, something on the John Stewart show. Apparantly in Zucati Park the OWS broke into two segments of upper class protestors and lower class protestors. The upper class protestors do things against the will of the others, seems like such a nice organized protest.
Yup. A comedy show is now the best source of unbiased news. Shows just how far we've fallen.
The occupy crowd has NAZI and Communist party support, the last time these two groups agreed with each other Poland was split into two.
You've not read anything beyond what Foxnewz has told you to have you? The question was rhetorical. I know the answer.
As to people forming mobs and protesting for no good reason, I know a few women from Salem who would like to have a word for you. The term is "mass hysteria", kind of like what happened when "War of the Worlds" was broadcast over the radio. People do stupid gak for stupid reasons and before you're 25 your precognitive center hasn't fully developed and your emotions reign control until then. That's psychology so when I look at this crowd I don't see a group of well reasoned individuals, I see a mass of emotions that are misdirected.
Is this really the stance you want to make? Think wisely about it. Look at all the veterans who support the movement; all the elderly who support the movement, and all the obviously 25+ people involved, and then come back here and tell me that they're just 'precognitively underdeveloped'. God, I wish I had your kind of precognitive prowess. I might have kept Kennedy alive.
GE and the poor have one thing in common, they don't pay taxes or get enough tax deductions that they actually get paid. That means there is something wrong with the tax code, there's nothing wrong with the corporations because they're doing what they're supposed to do. We need to reform the hell out of the current tax code but we have people in this crowd that support Obama who hasn't done anything to change the tax system, in fact he was one of them who supported the bailouts. I want Herman Cain because he would set a tax limit on them that would not be reduced, 9% for their business investments, 9% for their income, and 9% of whatever they spend. The rich will still be paying more in taxes thanks to 9% of 1,000 being more than 9% of 10, if they make more and get taxed the same percentage they still pay more.
Okay, and what does this have to do with the protesters?
They have degrees in heavily populated areas, you chose a CS major and learned IT. That's awesome because so did 1,000,000 others and they're all competing for 100 jobs. Why did they choose Computer Science, was it because it was their passion or did they choose it because they wanted money? If you chose to do it for money then you screwed up and are just as greedy as the 1%, you're just more of an idiot than them.
"Haha, you picked a job that, while at the time of you being interested, there was demand and promise of a fair wage, but in the meantime, we found a way to tell you to feth off. Now you have to go do skilled labour at the rate of 1000 grains of rice per day or flip burgers. I find no problem with this because this is not my form of employment." Again, come talk to us when you've tasted of the real world.
This movement is a failure, they're setting up ghettos in public and even private areas. The Boston Tea Party was a crime and guess what happened afterwards, people were punished.
And?
The OWS crowd is setting up shanties in private areas, that would be like the Tea Party going to your lawn and living there. They aren't just protesting, they're living on this land. That means they throw their garbage there, defecate and urinate there, and do whatever else there.
Perhaps I'd let them. The moment I can reasonably afford a lawn, I'll let you know. Until then, I'll continue to rent and hope in the meantime.
AustonT wrote:
I guess that depends where the 1% starts, I don't really know. IIRC 80% of millionaires in the US are the first generation of thier family to be rich. I'd have to search for a source though. Where does the 1% start is it an accumulated wealth number or by yearly income?
Theoretically there should be a great deal of overlap between the two, though wealth is probably the better measure given that, as income increases, the amount which is sourced from wealth (as opposed to work) tends to increase.
I'm not sure where the exact cut-off is either though, in terms of net worth, but I imagine its in the tens of millions.
Edit: According to this WSJ article to be a part of the 99th percentile (they refer to it as the 1st percentile, for some reason) you must be worth at least 6 million USD (2004).
As to people forming mobs and protesting for no good reason, I know a few women from Salem who would like to have a word for you. The term is "mass hysteria", kind of like what happened when "War of the Worlds" was broadcast over the radio. People do stupid gak for stupid reasons and before you're 25 your precognitive center hasn't fully developed and your emotions reign control until then. That's psychology so when I look at this crowd I don't see a group of well reasoned individuals, I see a mass of emotions that are misdirected.
Is this really the stance you want to make? Think wisely about it. Look at all the veterans who support the movement; all the elderly who support the movement, and all the obviously 25+ people involved, and then come back here and tell me that they're just 'precognitively underdeveloped'. God, I wish I had your kind of precognitive prowess. I might have kept Kennedy alive.
And what about the hundreds of vets and current serving members of the military who counter the movement?
@daedalus, I've tasted the real world and I realize that it sucks. I'm passionate about helping people, but there are two constants in this world, death and taxes. I chose medical because I can help people and I will always have a job. I've been screwed over by a system and I plan to screw the system back should I need to, its all about playing it smart.
I look at medical school and I see that I need a 3.4 to look good. My GPA is a 2.7, but in my psychology classes I have a 3.3 and my GPA is determined by major, minor, and GER classes. So if I change my major before I send in my transcript I will have a nifty little 3.3. The system screwed me over by making it harder for me to get A's and B's compared to the rest of the country(we didn't use the 10 point scale in highschool, 94 was cutoff for an A, 86 was a B, 78 was a C.). The world is full of people screwing people over, but it won't stop me and if I have to I will respond in kind.
halonachos wrote:
Actually I do pay taxes. I owed $500 to federal and $100 to state for some odd reason after taxes. Seriously, I'm a full-time college student who is a dependent and I still pay taxes. That $600 is not including the taxes I had already paid.
Ah, you're still a dependent, that explains it.
halonachos wrote:
Its actually biology affecting psychology, the amygdala matures before the pre-frontal cortex does. The amygdala controls the emotions that a person experiences so that means emotions control the reasoning of the person until the pre-frontal cortex develops. The pre-frontal cortex matures until about 20 years of age, but doesn't finish maturation until closer to 25 to 28 years of age. (From "Adolescence", Santrock, John. Thirteenth Edition.)
I would dispute that. Emotion is always important to cognition, its simply that the development of the prefrontal cortex increases the ability of any given person to parse emotional attachment according to a hierarchy of value.
halonachos wrote:
If you do want to include Piaget, it could be close to his Formal Operational stage which is characterized by abstract, idealistic, and logical. Note that it says idealistic.
Idealism is no more deeply connected to emotion than logic is, and neither is entirely divorced from it. Logic can bring you to a conclusion given an initial set of premises (in the case of cognition, these are basically just emotional preferences). The dominance of emotion may make one more likely to hold a conviction, but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not that conviction is based on logical processes.
AustonT wrote:I guess that depends where the 1% starts, I don't really know. IIRC 80% of millionaires in the US are the first generation of thier family to be rich. I'd have to search for a source though. Where does the 1% start is it an accumulated wealth number or by yearly income?
Related, Upward mobility does still exist for the lowest earners, and contrary to what many believe, downward mobility for the 1% is almost a given.
about 60 percent of households that were in the lowest income quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile in 2007, and about a third of those in the lowest quintile moved to the middle quintile or higher. In other words, while it is difficult for one to rise from rags to riches, and while it may be harder now than it was in the past, there is still real upward economic mobility in the United States.
And what about the hundreds of vets and current serving members of the military who counter the movement?
I would say maturity have a role in my/theirs view point. Most of our early adult life is regimentize. We learn that for something needs to happen one has to make happen. Also pride is another. Very few once leaving active duty service file for unemployment for up to a year and ride it out.
The other reason to counter is "whining". Whining loses you a bit of credibility. Yes I know OWS is a protest but its not organize as like a Tea Party Protest as a comparison.
Organization is another. Some serious lack of it and eventually the unions and what have you are trying to guide them into something they're not really conforming to. With organization one would at least know how to actualy protest, knowing the ordinance/law concerning the area they're protesting in (knowing that they cannot build a tent city and living there 24/7 is against the law) Its their responsibility to know the law and what they can and cannot do while they protest.
Responsibility of one actions. If one instigate a law enforcement officer then one should know the peril he/she going to get into. If one is being instigated by a law enforcement officer then one needs to step behind the line to defuse the escalation. Example be US troops approaching a mosque to get the shooters from there which drew a lot of attention and a riot almost insued cause of their action. Command was giving to take knee and smile at the locals. Tension level dropped. Responsibility also let one know where to urinate and defecate in a facility then instead of on the ground in a public place.
well...to name a few.
Hypothetically speaking if a war broke out between two groups over weather the current government threatened the constitution, who would you wide with? The people claiming to want to restore and protect the Constitution or the POTUS and Congress?
halonachos cover that quite well for me. The military takes it commands from the PROTUS who is our Commander in Chief who was duly elected by the people..well...electoral. Before I go further I want to clarify a lawful order to an unlawful order:
If I'm order to maintain a line to keep the protest from spreading I will hold the line. I will not advance the line nor withdraw the line. If my line is pressed then I've no issue for my soldiers to zipcuff an individual who's trying to instigate a altercation with my soldier. I lot of us wear combat gloves that have hardened plastic knuckles to put someone in the right frame of mind after two hits. Thats a lawful order being carried out. If my soldier commits to repeatedly beat a insurg...eerrrr protestor beyond reasonable then he took it upon himself to break a lawful order and he better be willing to face remaficatin of the action he took.
If I'm called upon to fire into the crowd without being fired upon then thats an unlawful order and will not be followed. Unless some idiot has a weapon in the crowd and willing to use it. There be so many flashbangs thrown to take down the "Hero" it would not be funny. I will advance my line pass the main line of resistence to secure the protestors and shooter (everyone gets zippedcuff). If someone pulls a assualt rifle out from the protestor side so be it. One can wave it around and what not but unless he points the weapon at us then I'm sure the police sniper will take care of him for us if not then I will give the order to take him out with my designated shooter. Its still a lawful order since now we're at deadly force level.
If orders came down to secure the leaders of the protest its unlawful. I have to wait for the leaders to instigate against my soldiers. I will not order my troops to go in to get a leader.
I would add ability to define a problem and come up with a course of action (or multiple COAs) geared towards achieving a defined objective and target the right target.
As for responsibility for one's actions, I would argue that the OWS crowd is protesting in part to avoid just that. One of the major issues they brought up early was forgiveness of debt/student loans. Loans they applied for, accepted, and spent but now feel they shouldn't have to pay back... Typical trooper understands when you sign you commit.
murdog wrote:Thats exactly the kind of post I'm talking about, halo. How can we have a conversation if that is what you believe this to be about? In your opinion, the people there are all whining communists, nazis, drug addicts and cop-haters who run anti-military websites and are getting paid to protest? Yikes! Where do you get your information? Please show me where to find out about all the cop-beating college kids.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but they do represent you, you just don't realize it. Unless of course you are part of the one percent that control most of the wealth and power in the world, and then, would you really be posting on Dakka Dakka?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yet another post hoping for violence... what's up with that?
No those pieces of filth don't represent me. Statements like that just make me hate them. I represent me, not vermin who forgot how to bathe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
d-usa wrote:So you might call me paranoid, but I fully believe that the police department in these cities coordinated a mass raid against #occupy in order to dilute the negative impact these actions would have.
Ignore list achieved
Behold the power of having your world view challenged
Not quite Zippy. What are you fifteen? If it was coordinated, it would have been coordinated. There are other cities in the US besides NY and Oakland. Pro-tip, read a ing map.
I would so love to roll up on OWS with that Fraz. I stencil "Motivation" on one tube and "Dedication" on the other tube. I see two pressure setting I think. So above the first trigger I stamp in "God" and over the other button "Better then God".....evil evil fun thoughts
To be really honest. If there were um...alcohol flowing freely thoughout the protest....and the Mother of All Water Guns is unleashed. As my troops advance to make the protestors disengage. Alcohol will be confiscated as evidence. Afterwards I will say "What alcohol" on somewhat steady feet...
So what you're saying is that, in spite of press showing them to be crackpots and reporting on only the fringe of the group, OWS's approval rating is still somehow only over three times that of congress? Perhaps we should demand OWS for congress.
So what you're saying is that, in spite of press showing them to be crackpots and reporting on only the fringe of the group, OWS's approval rating is still somehow only over three times that of congress? Perhaps we should demand OWS for congress.
Bragging they have higher approval than Congress is like saying they have higher approval than a gang of criminals, but I repeat myself.
I wonder about these so-called scientific approval rating numbers. In order to use the Scientific Method you need to have a sample from the population to poll, where do they get their samples? Who are the samples?
dsteingass wrote:I wonder about these so-called scientific approval rating numbers. In order to use the Scientific Method you need to have a sample from the population to poll, where do they get their samples? Who are the samples?
dsteingass wrote:I wonder about these so-called scientific approval rating numbers. In order to use the Scientific Method you need to have a sample from the population to poll, where do they get their samples? Who are the samples?
So, it looks like there are new tactics for OWS today...
Perhaps they are going to switch to the 9 to 5 method of only protesting during business hours now? Would that make them "legitimate" enough?
Of course not. They could create an official OWS party, participate in local and national elections, have a congressional caucus, and still be branded as crazy, dirty hippies.... So why go through those traditional routes. if the rules don't work for you, why bother following them?
After all, if you "win" then it was all legitimate anyway. If you lose, who cares you were losing in the first place right?
Easy E wrote:So, it looks like there are new tactics for OWS today...
Perhaps they are going to switch to the 9 to 5 method of only protesting during business hours now? Would that make them "legitimate" enough?
Of course not. They could create an official OWS party, participate in local and national elections, have a congressional caucus, and still be branded as crazy, dirty hippies.... So why go through those traditional routes. if the rules don't work for you, why bother following them?
After all, if you "win" then it was all legitimate anyway. If you lose, who cares you were losing in the first place right?
Just out of curiosity, if these OWS folks disrupt the exchange (which is their stated intent), who does it really hurt? I bet my 401k, my IRAs, and the investments of any of the "99%" that have investments (i.e. most of the middle class) get hurt a LOT more than the "1%".
Easy E wrote:So, it looks like there are new tactics for OWS today...
Perhaps they are going to switch to the 9 to 5 method of only protesting during business hours now? Would that make them "legitimate" enough?
It makes me like them a lot more. Think about it, for the last full week, they haven't been talking about wall street at all. It's been about police and tents. Now that we've gotten this tent business out of the way, they can work on choosing a consistent core message and short set of demands.
Of course not. They could create an official OWS party, participate in local and national elections, have a congressional caucus, and still be branded as crazy, dirty hippies.... So why go through those traditional routes. if the rules don't work for you, why bother following them?
Because being called crazy dirty hippies doesn't actually hurt you in any way. Why go through traditional routes if you're going to be called hippies? Wah wah wah. Everyone in politics gets called things. Democrats get called commies, republicans get called nazis, libertarians get called anarchists. Welcome to the club.
After all, if you "win" then it was all legitimate anyway. If you lose, who cares you were losing in the first place right?
Um, yes, but doesn't this sentiment detract from the point immediately before it?
Honestly though I really can't even begin to comment on what they SHOULD be doing until I actually know their goal.
They need to pick 3 or less things that they want accomplished. Once they do that, I can comment on the correct play for accomplishing them through protest.
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down. Finally we might be able to get something done around here. I mean the greatest generation gave us a whole new generation of money grubbers set to bleed the system dry. All in an effort to willfully vote against their own self intrest cause someday they too may be "rich".
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down. Finally we might be able to get something done around here. I mean the greatest generation gave us a whole new generation of money grubbers set to bleed the system dry. All in an effort to willfully vote against their own self intrest cause someday they too may be "rich".
dsteingass wrote:I wonder about these so-called scientific approval rating numbers. In order to use the Scientific Method you need to have a sample from the population to poll, where do they get their samples? Who are the samples?
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down
Are we not a product from those generations?
Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of people I thought I'd give it a go as well.
@Frazzled no I don't think you're a baby Boomer (actually I hadn't considered it). I don't wish you would die of old age really. I was trying to find the silliest comparison generalization that I could. Not to say that I think you should die of old age.
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down
Are we not a product from those generations?
Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of poeple I thought I'd give it a go as well.
Baby boomers are mostly what's wrong with this country because the baby boomers are in charge now. The hippies and riot police are leading the country now, too bad its mostly the hippies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You think I'm a baby boomer?
Actually I could kind of see that too. To be fair, you do perpetuate the belief that you were old.
Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.
Frazzled fights his own war, The War of Dachshund Oppression is a constant war that Frazzled bravely faces so that we don't have to.
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down
Are we not a product from those generations?
Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of poeple I thought I'd give it a go as well.
Baby boomers are mostly what's wrong with this country because the baby boomers are in charge now. The hippies and riot police are leading the country now, too bad its mostly the hippies.
I actually believe money leads our country and that generally if you've somehow attained the millions upon millions in corporate donations required to run for and win office...you've already b een bought be you R or D.
We haven't had any crazy news out of our local Occupy Oklahoma City protest. But of course this being Oklahoma we don't protest as "hardcore" as others.
Every march and protest has permits, and activities are coordinated with OKC PD to make sure everyone involved is safe.
I also highly credit the Oklahoma City Police with being a decent group of folks.
The Oklahoman wrote:It is against city ordinances to stay overnight in the park and use tents, but the city and local Occupy leadership reached an agreement to let the protesters stay there around the clock as long as they pay permit fees, keep the park clean and follow other rules, Assistant Oklahoma City Manager M.T. Berry said Wednesday.
.........
Oklahoma City police Master Sgt. Gary Knight said officers have no plans to move protesters out of the park.
An 18-year-old man was found dead in the park on Oct. 31. His cause of death remains under investigation, but no foul play is suspected. A friend of his was arrested on drug possession charges.
“It's important to note that the Occupy OKC movement has been a peaceful one,” Knight said.
“We have maintained an open avenue of communication with the group, and they have done a good job ensuring that their demonstration has remained peaceful. And to their credit, they have kept the park clean.”
AustonT wrote:Wait the OKC protest follows the law? Is there no shanty town? mellisa told us that the shanty town is essential to protest! HOW CAN IT BE SO?!
Well, I guess there technically could be, unless being there 'illegally" is an integral part of being a shanty town. But they have set up a permanent campsite in the park, porta-poties were delivered, and so forth.
AustonT wrote:Wait the OKC protest follows the law? Is there no shanty town? mellisa told us that the shanty town is essential to protest! HOW CAN IT BE SO?!
They negotiated a special exception to the tent rule with the city in advance. So it's as good as legal.
In all fairness, I think operating a water cannon against rioters would be pretty fun too.
Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people. You lose a base of support because you just narrowed your own focus.
Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?
You see, if OWS goes mainstream and creates their own party, etc. they are just buying into the same-old-same old status quo process. If you believe that system is corrupted by the top 1% why would you use the system your opponent created to attack them? You are playing to their strenghts and not yours. That is never a good idea. If the playing field you are on is not level, you have to change the playing field.
That's what OWS effectively did. Notice, the media is actually giving a bit of lip service to income inequality and the hourglass economy, and the focus isn't all ont he super comittee and deficits anymore. The SuperComittee itself is just a hang-over from the summer of deficeit talk, before OWS came about. The narratives in Washington and the Media are beginning to change.
The narratives in Washington and the Media are beginning to change.
Think so. Quite a few politician verbaly support the move at the beginning before it self inflected itself. Good idea, good move, and good enthausiasm. Piss poor planning, lack of organization, lack of maturity, lack of common F'ing sense....woops...um....Was a good protest at first..now a majority of everyone waiting for the hammer to drop. Like watching a NASCAR race. Waiting to see a good accident
Easy E wrote:
Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people.
Problem?
No dude, that's the GOAL. NOTHING hurts a protest more than being a vague conglomerate of random anger. You DO NOT WANT to be a big tent.
Easy E wrote:
Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?
What? No that's ridiculous. You need to stand your ground and talk about your position. What you are basically saying is "but when we choose one thing, we can't be evasive about our positions anymore :( "
Complaining that you don't want to actually have a public position because people will attack it makes it sound like you KNOW your position is wrong.
Actually I could kind of see that too. To be fair, you do perpetuate the belief that you were old.
Prior to this comment, I kind of just pictured you being some infirm guy in nursing home somewhere, convinced that "the War" never ended.
You're making it worse when you think baby boomers are old.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Here's the problem with picking three key issues and sticking with them. Then, you are no longer a cipher, a big tent with all things for all people.
Problem?
No dude, that's the GOAL. NOTHING hurts a protest more than being a vague conglomerate of random anger. You DO NOT WANT to be a big tent.
Easy E wrote:
Secondly, once you have 3 key points, everybody has an easy ability to attack you. By simply having an anti-corruption theme, you keep a wide tent and keep the focus on corruption instead of constantly defending your position. Is anyone really out there Pro-corruption?
What? No that's ridiculous. You need to stand your ground and talk about your position. What you are basically saying is "but when we choose one thing, we can't be evasive about our positions anymore :( "
Complaining that you don't want to actually have a public position because people will attack it makes it sound like you KNOW your position is wrong.
This stuff is like protesting 101.
Indeed, if you can't pick a few key points, then you're just a street festival. An angry, smelly street festival.
You're making it worse when you think baby boomers are old.
On the assumption that I was likely wrong, I looked it up:
Wikipedia wrote:A baby boomer is a person who was born during the demographic Post-World War II baby boom and who grew up during the period between 1946 and 1964.
So between the age of 47-65? Maybe not THAT old at the lower end of the band, but the upper, certainly.
Let's see, the TEA party just didn't want their taxes spent to bail out other homeowners. That's what the CNBC guy (who's name escapes me) was ranting about, the rant heard around the world. Now let's look at the Tea Parties positions. Huh, I guess they didn't stick with their core issues either and broadened out to be a big tent too.
If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid. I think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you. Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.
The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in. They have provided insight to people who follow political issues, now they have to inspire commitment from large numbers of largely non-political people. Building a plan is still a long way off. If you jump past providing insight and gaining commitment too early, you will fail to make change.
If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid.
***Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?
think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you.
***Its just that angry college kids who don't bathe don't inspire me to do anything except demand they shut up or get a job.
Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.
***No, OWS just never expressed a clear point other than Bankers ...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! and something about tents.
The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.
***Good luck with that. Ancient Buddha say if you don't bathe they won't follow you.
They have provided insight to people who follow political issues,
***No they haven't. They're aq polyglot of causes. Its like going to a combination of mazi/commie/militia/hippy free love convention. That aint inspiring. that aint .
Frazzled wrote:If you don't know what OWS stands for now, you are willfully being ignorant or stupid.
***Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?
That main street is hurting and the current system isn't doing much to help. When Wall Street was hurting, the current system did a LOT to help. The current system is not working for them, so they want to change it.
Frazzled wrote:think you all know exactly what the issue is, but you are actually okay with the current system because it benefits you.
***Its just that angry college kids who don't bathe don't inspire me to do anything except demand they shut up or get a job.
Fine. To bad they aren't all college kids, just like the TEA party isn't all old white guys.
Frazzled wrote:Fine, and I can understand that. You have a vested interest in things staying the way they are now. Cool. I should too, but I'm just stupid and empathetic.
***No, OWS just never expressed a clear point other than Bankers ...EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL! and something about tents.
They expressed the idea that somethign isn't right in the system. Therefore, they want to change the system.
Frazzled wrote:The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.
***Good luck with that. Ancient Buddha say if you don't bathe they won't follow you.
If you are concerned about their welfare and hygiene there are plenty of places you can go to donate water, food, toothbrushes, etc to the cause. I appreciate your concern for the protesters welfare.
Frazzled wrote:They have provided insight to people who follow political issues,
***No they haven't. They're aq polyglot of causes. Its like going to a combination of mazi/commie/militia/hippy free love convention. That aint inspiring. that aint .
Yes they are a polygot, because they are a group of people, not cloned idealogues. However, what one thing unites them all? The system is not working for them, so they want to change it.
Easy E wrote:
The first two steps of change management (101 if you will ) are to generate insight and inspire commitment. That's where OWS is now. You don't jump to building the plan until you have completed the first two steps of change. That's the stage OWS is still in.
That's not strictly true. Effective initiatives for political change (protests, revolutions, whatever) generally start with a core group of people who have a specific agenda in mind. There people then work to communicate their agenda to more people, hopefully motivating them to action. You don't simply stir up resentment with respect to the system without first presenting a coherent, alternative vision. If you do you run the risk having your work co-opted by political opportunists (this happened, to some extent, with the Tea Party, and is happening to OWS), which ultimately leads to, at best, a broken political movement and at worst an especially messy transition.
Easy E wrote:
They have provided insight to people who follow political issues, now they have to inspire commitment from large numbers of largely non-political people.
I've not seen much insight in anything done by any member of OWS. Its anti-corporatist, which is nice, but no more insightful (or important) than the Adbusters magazine that initially inspired the movement. In fact, I would argue that OWS has largely failed to communicate a message of any significance to people that follow political issues, and has instead skipped straight to what you call the "inspire commitment" phase; which is largely why its such a mess.
Frazzled wrote:Enlighten us progs, what do they stand for?
Easy E wrote:
That main street is hurting and the current system isn't doing much to help. When Wall Street was hurting, the current system did a LOT to help. The current system is not working for them, so they want to change it.
Actually, and herein lies part of the problem, it seems that the current system is working for the majority of people in OWS; it simply isn't working as well as it is for the especially wealthy. The people that really get screwed by the system, the working poor, don't seem to be a major component of the movement.
To some extent that's alright, as the majority of political movements are predicated on disenfranchisement among the less wealthy, as opposed to the poor. But its a difficult sell in the United States, for a number of reasons.
has nothing to do with the housing crisis.
