If you're happy with that, if you're happy with yourself, because of a grammar mistake I made, congratulations.

 

Here is your certificate. You win the internets. You are still a moron unfortunately. Corrections in grammer does not change you as a person.

Meanwhile, in New York City, Protesters formed a human chain, and came close to delaying the opening of the NYSE. They held a sit-in and stopped traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, making another statement - how we need to invest in our infrastructure, create jobs to do so, and repair our bridges (and the Brooklyn Bridge is one visible example of a bridge which need restoring). The necessity of ending the buying of politics has become amply clear, and Russell Simmons has proposed a Constitutional Amendment calling for campaigns to be exclusively financed publicly, with absolutely no private donations.:

See: Russell Simmons – Constitutional Amendment for the Public Financing of Federal Elections Lyrics | Rap Genius

"Section 1. All elections for President and members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate shall be publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any federal candidate, or in opposition to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

 

Section 2. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this section.

 

Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

 

Section 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it is ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution."

 

>I would add to this the need for an opening up of the airwaves to all registered candidates on an equal basis for candidate announcements and more in-depth debates, as a return from broadcasters for their use of our public commons. No paid political ads, just candidates speaking about their ideas, voting record, position on issues, and why they would be best suited for the position they are running for.

> I am not so sure it's necessary to use 100% public financing to guarantee fair representation - I think if we state our right to Fair Elections, and limit political donations to less than 1/2 of 1% of the median income, parties will again represent their constituents, as will candidates in like kind. No corporate donations either, just real live citizens allowed to donate. And to state our right to fair elections, our right to regulate campaigns and campaign expenditures, as the right to fair elections is essential before all other rights can be guaranteed and protected by our government.

 

Idoits saying the wall street movement was coppied over the world.

 

It started in Madrid and Barcelona .. ! then it went viral here... and then went the states..

 

A lot of people did not even know it was going on !

Well I think "Los Indignatos" (not sure of the spelling) was a reaction to government spending cuts on welfare, not corporatism.

 

OWS is more a reaction to corporatism and job losses, as well as inflation. But it will soon be exacerbated once politicians are forced to cut spending here in the US.

 

It was not just about the Government, most of it was about the mess we are in though corporate greed.

 

I am sure you made a very positive contribution to that thread.

 

BTW it’s all very wrong what is happening over there.. I think it will take around 10 - 20 years now and the world will be a different place.

 

The revolution is in full swing now.

I think it will take around 10 - 20 years now and the world will be a different place.

 

I'm more optimistic long-term, I think things will be much better in 6 years or so.

 

In the short-term I'm more pessimistic than most people, though. I think there will be a total economic collapse.

It was not just about the Government, most of it was about the mess we are in though corporate greed.

 

I am sure you made a very positive contribution to that thread.

 

BTW it’s all very wrong what is happening over there.. I think it will take around 10 - 20 years now and the world will be a different place.

 

The revolution is in full swing now.

Hola Bart!

Viva La Revolution! :builder2::sombrero::sunny:

We the 99.9 % approve of it. ;)

> Interesting, so corporate greed is responsible in Spain too?! How coincidental.. I believe too, we are in the midst of some big changes, changes where citizen's are regaining their rights and their governments. Trying to pinpoint a "where it all began" point seems difficult considering the various interconnected events which took place affecting billions of us. Will it take 10 or 20 years, or will it happen much sooner? I would hope sooner, I don't know if the ecology of the planet and the working classes can wait much longer; for many reasons there is no time but the present.

 

 

It all boils down to who buys the ads and writes the campaign checks, and what they want in return; our political process is corrupted in a manner which is pivotal on the central axis of the buying of elections.

We could solve this problem any number of ways, from the most austere and absolute (a complete publicly funded campaign process, banning all private donations) to setting limits on donations and declaring that only real human beings can donate (end corporate person-hood), to declaring that money is not free speech and thus allowing Congress to regulate campaign expenditures and donation levels, to voting in candidates who earnestly campaign on reforming the system and take mostly small donations, eschewing the larger sums.

But to set the ground work for all this we must, I believe, state our rights in order for reforms beyond to be possible and for their to be no conflict with existing penned rights.

The Simmons amendment does state that "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press," but is this iron-clad enough against those who would argue that inherent natural rights or stated freedoms of the press and of speech directly conflict with this and then it is left up to interpretation? Since the Constitution says, "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."

But since this proposed amendment does exempt itself from inclusion under the First Amendment insofar as to infringe on freedom of the press, it may survive some scrutiny. However, there is the argument that our Natural Rights are as they are, that we retain them regardless of what any law says, since they are inherent in our nature and cannot be restricted.

This is why I am suggesting that we state clearly we have a right to fair elections and to fair campaigns, and for all candidates to have equal access to the media of the day for their candidate messages and debates, as without fair elections, all the rights that follow cannot be protected, so the first and most essential right after the right to life and liberty comes the right to fair elections. The rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential, but when these rights meet the right to fair elections and the right to fair campaigns, the latter has the right-of-way.

It is the perverse influence of large moneyed interests in our political process that has created such absurdities as "corporate personhood" and "money as free speech". The one place where all should have an equal voice is in the candidate races and the elections process, a voice to be heard by all citizens without the attachment of IOU's to that voice or to the time and space allotted to that voice.

Chuck, if you have a choice, which would you choose:

 

1. Get corporate money out of politics.

 

2. Set strict term limits for all politicians.

Quote from the video:

 

"...because whoever grew my food or made my clothes or built my house, well, if they died, or I alienate them, they don't like me. That's okay. I can just pay somebody else to do it. It's really hard to create community if the underlying knowledge is 'we don't need each other'."

 

Let's think about this.

 

If I don't need someone, I have a choice - I can either be friendly to them or mean to them.

 

If I do need someone, I have no choice - I must pretend to be friendly to them, even if I can't stand them.

 

Capitalism is choice. When you have choice, all of your relationships are real. They are what you want them to be. People shouldn't love you because of what you can give them, they should love you because of who you are as a person.

 

"An economist says that, essentially more for you is less for me."

 

He's never studied economics. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Wealth increases with each trade, because trades don't occur unless both people benefit from them in some way.

 

"There's no evil to fight."

 

Whoa. Who made this video, the central banks?

Just some examples of where to look for the money trail, and you can guess what it's buying!:

Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System

And an example of a familiar politician and where his campaign money comes from (and notice the amount clearly not disclosed, listed as "uncoded," Is this the result of the "money is free speech" ruling by the 5-4 conservative majority supreme court)?:

 

Scott Walker Summary - Project Vote Smart

 

But for every dollar that is disclosed as a direction contribution, just imagine how much money isn't being disclosed; since the court's ruling, TV ads are thus unaccounted for, unless by voluntary action.

 

All the hoopla aside, this is the crux of the matter. If we as citizens wish to have a representative democracy, then we need to either equalize or eliminate the effects from those with huge sums of money in our democratic process. Since publicly funded campaigns touches a raw nerve with the cost conscious, though it would save us all in the end by ending much of the corruption, it may not sell well. If an amendment were successful stating our right to fair elections and an opening up of the media landscape for all candidates to be heard equally and equally well, and a stating that money is not free speech, then pressure applied to candidates running for office should yield a law regulating the amount any one real citizen can donate, and I thought 1/2 of 1% of the median income sounded fair. In today's terms, this would cap the allowable donation level to roughly $225 per citizen to candidate of choice. We would then see aggregate power hold sway, not the plutocrats ruling over candidate and country. Any thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15809742

 

A US university says it is launching an investigation into the use of pepper spray by riot police trying to clear a demonstration.

 

Video of the incident at the University of California, Davis, shows officers blasting seated protesters in the face with the chemical at close range.

 

The university chancellor, who had called in the police, described the pepper spray incident as "chilling".

 

The protest, on Friday, was in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

 

It was intended to show solidarity with protesters at another branch of the University of California, in Berkeley, who were hit with batons by police on 9 November.

 

The footage of the pepper spray incident, which has been circulated widely on the internet, has caused outrage among students.

 

The protesters are seen sitting in a line on the floor with their arms interlocked, refusing to move.

 

They try to cover their faces as officers in riot gear walk along emptying canisters of the spray onto them.

 

'Excessive force'

 

Linda Katehi, Chancellor of the University of California, Davis, near Sacramento, says she is forming a task force to investigate what happened.

 

"The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this," she said in a message on the university's website.

 

The Davis Faculty Association, which represents academic staff, has condemned the University of California's approach to protests on several different campuses.

 

"This week, we have seen excessive force used against non-violent protesters," said a statement on the association's website.

 

"Student, faculty and staff protesters have been pepper-sprayed directly in the eyes and mouth, beaten and shoved by batons, dragged by the arms while handcuffed, and submitted to other forms of excessive force."

 

"The violence was unprovoked, disproportional and excessive," it said.

 

"We demand that the Chancellors of the University of California cease using police violence to repress non-violent political protests."

 

The Association said Ms Katehi should resign, a call she rejected.

 

"I do not think that I have violated the policies of the institution," she said.

 

"I have worked personally very hard to make the campus a safe campus for all."

 

The Occupy Wall Street protest began in New York more than two months ago against perceived corporate greed and economic inequality.

 

Similar protests have since sprung up in other places around the United States and elsewhere in the world.

 

-------------------------------------

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15779008

 

20 November 2011 Last updated at 00:17 GMT

 

Occupy Wall Street: The story of the first night

 

By Brian Wheeler / BBC News, Washington

 

The Occupy Wall Street camp in New York spawned others across the world before it was broken up this week, just short of its two-month anniversary. But, as those who bedded down in Zuccotti Park on the first night explain, it very nearly didn't happen.

 

There was much excited talk on Twitter and Facebook in the weeks leading up to Saturday 17 September.

 

Plans were being hatched for an "extraordinary uprising", a Day of Rage, a tented city to rank alongside that seen in Egypt's Tahrir Square.

 

But direct democracy campaigners responsible for organising the Occupy Wall Street protest, going under the name of the New York General Assembly, were secretly worried it could turn out to be a flop.

 

Their attempt in June to set up a similar protest against Mayor Michael Bloomberg's budget cuts, the so-called "Bloombergville" camp, had failed due to lack of support.

 

And there were signs, as the first placard-wielding activists began to gather in the parks and plazas around the New York Stock Exchange, that their latest protest might be going the same way.

 

'On the fly'

 

Canadian anti-capitalist campaign Adbusters, another of the prime movers behind Occupy Wall Street, had called for 20,000 people to take to the streets. In the event, there were probably no more than 3,000.

 

Police had also blocked off much of the area around the New York Stock Exchange, forcing them to abandon their original plan to "occupy" Wall Street itself.

 

They began gathering in nearby Bull Ring Green Park instead, where they spent the early afternoon holding "teach-ins" and discussion groups in the autumn sunshine.

 

The decision to relocate to Zuccotti Park was made "on the fly" according to Justin Wedes, a member of the New York General Assembly, because of fears that they were about to be "kettled" by police.

 

Zuccotti Park was simply the nearest of the five back-up locations the Assembly's "tactics team" had picked out, although there was concern that it would not be big enough.

 

Once the protesters had "flooded" into the park, says Mr Wedes, he grabbed a megaphone and asked everyone to sit down in what he describes now as the "first act of occupation" but there were still fears among the crowd that they would be evicted before they had a chance to pitch their tents.

 

"The first day was just exhilarating. We didn't know how many people would show up. We didn't even know if we would be able to hold the park and stay there," Mr Wedes tells BBC News.

 

But seasoned veterans of anti-globalisation rallies were not particularly impressed by what they saw.

 

"I basically thought it was a shallow imitation of what had been happening in Europe and elsewhere," says Mark Bray, who is now a press spokesman for Occupy Wall Street.

 

"I thought the idea of sleeping outside was pretty pointless. I listened to some of the speeches and took part in the march, but then I went to get some Chinese food and went home."

 

He could not understand why many of the younger people at the demonstration - he is 29 - were so excited.

 

"My impression was that they didn't have a whole lot of political organising experience," he says.

 

"A lot of people ended up going home and a bunch of people stayed.

 

"I didn't really rate their chances - but I have never been more happy to be proven wrong about something."

 

'Cliched' protest

 

The New York Times reported that the demonstrators had been blocked by police.

 

Tim Eastman, a photographer who took part largely out of curiosity but left at about 23:00, says he was wary of becoming involved in yet another "cliched" protest.

 

"It didn't seem at first like it would become the sort of monster it became. It looked like it might peter out after a few days."

 

Like Mr Bray, he returned to the camp when it became clear it was taking off, and is still involved with the Occupy movement.

 

Jason Ahmadi, a 26-year-old anti-war campaigner from California, was among those who decided to remain in Zuccotti Park overnight, but he says he was convinced the police would raid the camp before dawn.

 

Unable to sleep, he decided to do a headcount at 04:00, concluding that just 290 people had opted to pitch their tents in the park, many of whom were new to the demonstration game.

 

"There were a lot of young people in that first week," he says.

 

"Then more seasoned, career activists started to come by. But that first night was a lot of young people who hadn't really been involved in actions before."

 

Justin Wedes says the youthful energy and enthusiasm of that first group, many of whom were secondary school and college students in their teens, was a key factor in the camp's longevity.

 

"It was a young group, a fierce group. People were daring. They were looking to go out on a limb and get arrested for things they believe are true and right."

 

They were initially unaware that Occupy protests had begun to spring up in other cities, and found it hard to believe that it had "sparked a global movement" in such a short space of time.

 

Self-indulgence?

 

But as the movement grew, so did the criticism.

 

There were complaints about public urination and criminality at some of the camps - and the constant noise from their "drumming circles" reportedly drove nearby workers and residents to distraction.

 

Some commentators began to accuse the Occupiers of self-indulgence and of lacking any real goals, beyond erecting tents in public spaces and making "banal complaints about corporate greed".

 

Public sympathy also began to wane. In an opinion poll of US voters taken between 10 and 13 November, 33% of respondents said they supported the protesters, while 45% said they were against them.

 

Last month, meanwhile, 35% of US voters said they supported the Occupiers, while 26% said they opposed the movement.

 

But the Occupy movement remains unrepentant about its rather broad and vague set of political objectives.

 

"We have been able to change the dialogue in our country, from 'Where are we going to cut our budget and spending?' to creating jobs and seriously looking at economic inequalities," claims Justin Wedes.

 

The fact that the Zuccotti Park camp, like many others across the US, has been broken up and many protesters arrested, does not mean it's over, he says.

 

Some of the "first nighters" are already plotting their next move.

>Never underestimate what a small group of dedicated individuals can accomplish.

 

Or, in Margaret Mead's words,

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does”

 

 

 

>290 people stayed the night and the winds of change shifted, as thousands more joined in. Imagine how one seed of imagination, planted in fertile ground, can sprout into a movement, and spread far and wide... But for that seed we owe the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, and many many others, a kernel of truth be told.

Chuck, would you approve of this amendment to the Constitution?:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of commerce, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of trade; or the right of the people peaceably to exchange goods and services for remuneration. All laws, regulations, and taxes which presently interfere with peaceful and honest commerce, or otherwise disturb the creation and use of money, shall be null and void."

Chuck, would you approve of this amendment to the Constitution?:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of commerce, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of trade; or the right of the people peaceably to exchange goods and services for remuneration. All laws, regulations, and taxes which presently interfere with peaceful and honest commerce, or otherwise disturb the creation and use of money, shall be null and void."

I would have to say that I disapprove of it.

 

 

But this thread would not be complete with a mention of Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for World Revolution

 

A drum circle at the Bloomberg Mansion - right to the doorstep of the rich and powerful!;)

The Answer to Pepperspray and the Blue Meanies:whip: is :

:sunny:(Pepperland):sunny:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgJlCsTaMyY&feature=related]"Yellow Submarine" - Part 14/17 - All You Need is Love - YouTube[/ame]

"Yellow Submarine" - Part 15/17 - Freeing the Band and Hey Bulldog - YouTube

 

Fight blueness with music, foolery, speeches, solidarity, and love!:joker::drummer::guitarist::flutterby::flutterby::heart:

Hey Hey Bulldog!

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for World Revolution

Hola Bart!

Viva La Revolution! :builder2::sombrero::sunny:

We the 99.9 % approve of it. ;)

> Interesting, so corporate greed is responsible in Spain too?! How coincidental.. I believe too, we are in the midst of some big changes, changes where citizen's are regaining their rights and their governments. Trying to pinpoint a "where it all began" point seems difficult considering the various interconnected events which took place affecting billions of us. Will it take 10 or 20 years, or will it happen much sooner? I would hope sooner, I don't know if the ecology of the planet and the working classes can wait much longer; for many reasons there is no time but the present.

 

 

 

I though before it would take 30 - 40 years. I went to a few asemblys when we had the camp in Placa Catalyuna. I see these people in the end being all the ones in charge, most of these people and I guess around the world are socalists, but now a new form of socalisim will spread around the world.

 

Beleive it or not Hugo Chavez has a good model of how it may work, but I hear most people now saying and screaming no ..!

I though before it would take 30 - 40 years. I went to a few asemblys when we had the camp in Placa Catalyuna. I see these people in the end being all the ones in charge, most of these people and I guess around the world are socalists, but now a new form of socalisim will spread around the world.

 

Beleive it or not Hugo Chavez has a good model of how it may work, but I hear most people now saying and screaming no ..!

 

> Hm, Bart, that's interesting! Yes, it makes sense to me too that the group you were with in Placa Catalyuna were Socialists, because most social equity movements grow out of Socialism, and a new form of Socialism based on common sense and wellness I can see becoming the new social contract globally as well. The path we're on right now is not tenable nor sustainable, and is unstable, leading towards top-heavy power relationships which necessitates the revolutions we're in. Not the path to repeat, that's for sure!

I'm not so sure Hugo Chavez's leadership is ideal, but I believe he has greatly increased the social equity in Venezuela, and ensures a fairer deal for the citizens with the nation's wealth. I think most of South America actually is on the right track, and we need to model more of our system and ethos here in the US based on what they have done.

The pressure for real change though comes mainly from a country's economic situation, and perhaps we have seen enough of the instability and inequity allowed by the current system to want real reforms and greater social goods. How is Spain as far as the process of funding candidates for office goes?

but now a new form of socalisim will spread around the world.

 

Humanity will try every last iteration of mass-extortion, fractional-slavery, and threats of violence before they finally realize that peaceful sharing and trading is the only way forward.

The protestors were told repeatedly to move or they would be peppersprayed

They didn't move, so they were peppersprayed.

Seems reasonable to me

Humanity will try every last iteration of mass-extortion, fractional-slavery, and threats of violence before they finally realize that peaceful sharing and trading is the only way forward.

We're all in this boat together, or submarine rather, and while we're each an individual on board, it takes togetherness to move the ship forward. :P

It is a better thing to have our collective will overseeing, for the sake of fairness and the externalities otherwise unaccounted for, the making, marketing, and trading of goods and services. Humanity moves forward when our social fabric is strong and growing stronger.

Where there is graft and corruption, and governments fail to function either separately or together for the common good and with respect for protection of the equal rights of all, it is then that we see forms of usury, slavery, extortion, and gross inequity around the world. But to nurture and promote the blessings of liberty, the well being of all citizens must be a matter of paramount importance.

All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The concentration of power in the hands of a few today has led to a level of corruption and a need for reform away from systems that lead readily towards concentrated power, and to systems that promote diversity and place power in the hands of the citizenry writ large.

The protestors were told repeatedly to move or they would be peppersprayed

They didn't move, so they were peppersprayed.

Seems reasonable to me

 

What I see troubling about the whole matter is the premise that harsh actions are justified in dealing with non-violent protesters. Simply lifting them up and tugging them apart would have sufficed, but instead the decision was made to inflict pain upon these university students, and send the message of fear to all others.

If we allow the inequities to grow as they are (tuition hikes at the University of California schools are projected to rise 8 to 16% per year, and may rise up to $22,068 per year by 2015), the burden becomes unbearable and is placed upon the poorest in our communities, since all those with positions of power and privilege can vote themselves raises and cut themselves huge tax breaks, inevitably then the burden is shifted to those who have little to no power and influence, and are asked to shoulder more than they can bear. We ought to be making college more affordable, not less affordable, if we want an advanced, educated society, freer to make choices without excessive economic constraints.

^Great way to NOT respond to what he wrote.

 

And I don't even agree with what he wrote, I don't believe they should have been told to move or get pepper sprayed, they legally have every right to sit there and it was a very odd decision to pick on that handful of people, and very stupid.

The protestors were told repeatedly to move or they would be peppersprayed

They didn't move, so they were peppersprayed.

Seems reasonable to me

Maybe so, but I think it was the WAY that the protestors were peppersprayed that is just &*@#$&*&*(@*&$#(*&^!!. Typically that method is reserved for people who are directly attacking the police; otherwise, SOP is that pepper spray should be sprayed in their general area to disperse them (not directly in their face).