Big man on campus, eh?

 

Perhaps one day I'll be lucky enough to experience the trials and tribulations of a uniformed officer "on the front lines" at a makeshift hippie commune in a city park. I at least hope I get dental and health insurance. Oh and that $15,000,000,000,000? See, that's practical in the real world. Nevermind the $65 trillion that isn't included, you know, the stuff like Medicare and Social Security.

 

If you think these cops have it bad today... wait six months to a year. They'll be dealing with a lot more than hippies and 20-year-olds.

 

Obviously, in any protest situation today there are those who use violence against what they perceive to be the enforcers of the state machine, that machine being controlled by the elite. Which I have to say backfires in public opinion, which is where protesters are really vying for - the hearts and minds of the citizens, so I generally don't like to see the radicals who act violently as they sometimes do in the "peaceably assembled" bodies of citizens.

But I do think it's quite possible that there are those agent provocateurs within the protesters who act as instigators so police brutality seems justifiable, as though it ever is to this extreme..? But the use of such injurious weapons against a minority of bottle throwing anarchists, often hitting the other innocent protesters, this seems like clear-cut brutality to me. One Iraq veteran is in the hospital for a head injury sustained in Oakland, he's in critical condition - how can this be justified? What sort of riot control equipment are we allowing?

I speak as someone who is a friend of a police officer who is disabled from an almost severed spinal nerve cord, a man who was knocked down in the riots in Milwaukee in the 60's. I think there are cases when to keep order one has no choice, but to me, it looks like top-down orders to attack and remove the protesters, and yes, those very officer's livelihoods are threatened by the economic downturn, since tight budgets mean cutting department personnel, pressuring public employee unions for concessions.

I think something else to consider is how the nonviolent protesters have been trying to corral the (small number of) violent types, so as to prevent their provocation attempts from happening.

But we also need to consider that this is a right, the right to "peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances" - this is exactly what is happening.

On the matter of the "right to keep and bear arms" I think this was intended primarily for ensuring state militias, at a time when the US was a frontier nation, for better or for worse, this was probably what the framers had in mind. It also assumed States may provide the ultimate check on authoritarian centralized power. Those were different times - many rural citizens had guns, most were automatically inducted into the state militias, so it was a mute point back then.

Today it makes sense for certain jurisdictions to pass laws to determine the types of allowable guns and ammunition, and other factors relating to lethal weapons. That is a decision for the citizens within each jurisdiction to make - a place like rural Wyoming may decide differently from Downtown Boston, MA, for example.

But at protest rallies, I think better to go the non-violent route - it sways far more to the side of the protesters to gather peacefully and ask for accountability and reform for the crimes that have been committed at the highest levels of finance and government.

those very officer's livelihoods are threatened by the economic downturn, since tight budgets mean cutting department personnel, pressuring public employee unions for concessions.

 

This would definitely be an area worth researching - the number of police on payrolls nationally since 2007. Has it declined much? Increased? I'm too tired to look into it now, but I definitely will tomorrow. I'll make a wild guess that it's increased, but I may have to eat my shoe tomorrow.

 

Which I have to say backfires in public opinion, which is where protesters are really vying for

 

I think what happens in situations like this, leading up to a revolution, is that eventually you reach a "critical mass" of people who are negatively affected by the police, either directly or indirectly.

 

So eventually most Americans will remember their previous interaction with a cop being a traffic ticket, a rude shout-down, or a pat-down before a ball game. Some people may have friends or family who are currently in jail for non-violent "offenses", or may know people who were treated unfairly in the court system.

 

When they share their stories and videos, it creates a snowball effect. This is why you may see sites like "copblock.org" shut down in the near future. Google was already asked by the government to take down police brutality videos from YouTube, and they (thankfully) refused.

 

I do expect a revolution to happen in America. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it feels like it's sooner and sooner. I've been linking to videos on this forum and talking about it for several years now. Hopefully the police do the honorable and intelligent thing, and lay down their weapons before it gets too bad. Also, I have a feeling the guys in the US military are slightly less likely to harass American citizens than their blue-costumed counterparts...but it all depends on how effective we are at propagandizing in favor of freedom, and against authoritarianism.

 

This is why I have a problem with socialism and progressivism - it is exceedingly dangerous to advocate solutions that expand government power, in a time where government is already too powerful and already abusing its power. There's a time and a place for everything. Now's the time to be talking about freedom.

 

EDIT: Chuck, if I were a Prince, I'd love to have you as the "voice of reason" for the youth in my country! "Keep calm and carry on", as they say...

In terms of why I think it can work, that these protests will make real change, is from this personal experience:

Here we had the problems faced by a possible sulfide ore mine opening up in the state near where I live. Knowing the industry's history, and it's offloading of responsibility on past mistakes, it seemed quite risky to allow the opening of a sulfide ore body mine in areas of pristine waters, running huge risks, and knowing the industry's track record of abandoning it's past mistakes.

So a group coalesced to educate the public on the risks of sulfide ore mining, and a law was pressed for setting a moratorium on sulfide ore mining, until the said industry could show one example mine that was operational for 10 yrs. and closed for 10 yrs., whereupon it did not show a contamination problem.

By informing the electorate, most of the politicians got on board with the proposed law, even though they stood to loose significant revenues from campaign contributions and lobbying jobs, yet none of the politicians wanted the bad press that would result had they voted against the proposed law, so it passed against the wishes of the big corporate money. That's a rare thing to find happen these days in government - actual laws passed that the citizens wanted passed!

So here is an opportunity to press for real reform, nothing watered down, nothing left to chance, and several amendments - because if public sentiment is running so strong that it cannot be ignored, then people power will trump corporate greed and gambling chips from the Wall Street casinos.

Power to the People!:sunny:

Q: Saffire "So eventually most Americans will remember their previous interaction with a cop being a traffic ticket, a rude shout-down, or a pat-down before a ball game. Some people may have friends or family who are currently in jail for non-violent "offenses", or may know people who were treated unfairly in the court system.

 

When they share their stories and videos, it creates a snowball effect. This is why you may see sites like "copblock.org" shut down in the near future. Google was already asked by the government to take down police brutality videos from YouTube, and they (thankfully) refused."

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

>> Yes, we do have the highest incarceration rate in the world, something telling of either a dysfunctional society, or an excessively punishing system, or some of each. No doubt the system is broken. True, the more the word gets out the harder it is to hide the excesses of a police state. Interesting they would pressure Google, after all, Google stands for " do only good!?".

 

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

Q: Saffire:"I do expect a revolution to happen in America. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it feels like it's sooner and sooner. I've been linking to videos on this forum and talking about it for several years now. Hopefully the police do the honorable and intelligent thing, and lay down their weapons before it gets too bad. Also, I have a feeling the guys in the US military are slightly less likely to harass American citizens than their blue-costumed counterparts...but it all depends on how effective we are at propagandizing in favor of freedom, and against authoritarianism."

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

>> In the 60's it looked like a revolution, I suppose it was a revolution to some extent, but the task wasn't completed. I think non-violent revolutions are the way of the future - really, a restoration of rights, a redress of grievances, a government accountable to the citizenry - that is what we're asking for. It looks like things vary - in some places, the police allow the gatherings, other places they have orders to break up the protests - depending on top-down orders and who in which jurisdiction is willing to do what and either cave in or push back. I am not sure how the military personnel feel about this whole thing, I am sure it's a mixed response, but for the enlisted men, I would bet they're with the protesters on the whole. Good thought though - comparing those who see first-hand our policy in action, vs. the loyalists who take orders and believe the commands coming for police captains via mayors, who are pressured by governors and so forth. But it does vary a lot - some jurisdictions are quite supportive of the protesters and their right to protest.

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

Q:Saffire: "This is why I have a problem with socialism and progressivism - it is exceedingly dangerous to advocate solutions that expand government power, in a time where government is already too powerful and already abusing its power. There's a time and a place for everything. Now's the time to be talking about freedom."

>> I disagree in part. I believe it is dangerous to have such a large military-industrial-complex, the 59% of the budget when you sort out the details in full. Yes, that needs to be cut way back, replaced with more peace initiatives and peace corps. But to curtail the abuses of government, one needs to look at the plutocrats who control it all upon high, with their tons of lobbying cash, campaign cash, and plants in agencies. Therein lies the dysfunction in my mind - we've let a minority of powerful individuals co-opt our government, with obvious results. Returning to a government of, by, and for we the people is the answer. To end the abuses, one needs to remove the wizards behind the curtain, and let the people run the government.

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

Q:Saffire: "EDIT: Chuck, if I were a Prince, I'd love to have you as the "voice of reason" for the youth in my country! "Keep calm and carry on", as they say...

>> That's most kind of you Jay, if only I had the "keep calm" part down pat! I am afraid that I tend to fly off the handle at times, though thanks for your most generous words and offer.

And if I were President, Jay, I would appoint you as supreme budget overseer, for I know you would watch the expenditures more carefully than anyone else I know!;)

3 million US citizens lost their homes, the result of poor economic planning, a system that favors exporting jobs and damping down working wages, and the un-payable liars loans (as William Black among others terms them), set up by the biggest investment firms and their entourage of mortgage lending companies, posing as banks on the street.

 

Today's response was in Jamaica Queens, first settled by the Dutch, now an ethnically diverse mix, and presently the foreclosure capitol of New York.

Q: from occupywallst.com“According to the Mortgage Bankers Association and the FDIC, one child in every classroom in America is losing their home because banks are foreclosing on their parents. In Queens, the reality is even worse,” said Michael Premo, a volunteer who is helping with Saturday's event.

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution

 

I think we need, in addition to amendments, a clear priority that any elected official who wants to be re-elected sign on to a reform bill, unambiguously written and un-tampered with. Make it clear to all, fair and exact in wording, and publicize it far and wide, so either they sign on or face poor election or re-election prospects.

I would like to see us gain the right for direct proposal and direct popular vote on legislation, to be one more check on concentrated power, so that anyone trying to weaken or de-regulate laws intended to protect the public from harm can be blocked by the will of the public directly, and protections put in place.

Direct Democracy.

Chuck, what if a large corporation like GM or Netflix or Bank of America were about to go bankrupt... and thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of people might lose their money/jobs.

 

Would you be okay with a bailout in that case?

Personally I don't think companies should be ever be bailed out from the government. It doesn't make any sense. When you think about it, why should anyone get bailed out and what makes them more deserving than other companies or organizations?

 

If you cannot run your business properly or run it into the ground then you deserve to fail and shouldn't be bailed out. If I as a person (for an example) made bad decisions completely ignoring the warnings to my bad practices or not even caring about eventual consequences then why should I be allowed to be helped out?

 

As cruel or as cynical as it sounds I think you have to follow this, because if you put the option on the table of a bail out it opens the door for companies to be easily careless.

Hey "the_gloaming09" (I'm not sure what your name is),

 

One interesting analogy I've read elsewhere on the 'net is newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. Nobody asked the question, "But where will the black people work now?" Granted, back then the economy was much more primitive - many people were still largely agrarian living a subsistence lifestyle and only saving a bit of money. Nobody expected retirement. But the point still stands. Look around you. There is always work to be done. There is always the possibility of demand, if the price is low enough.

 

Americans have largely priced themselves out of the global labor market. They must accept pay cuts, and get back to work. They must work on things that people actually desire - not on things the government desires.

 

If this happens, the country's "chains of production" will be geared toward maximizing an increase in our quality-of-life. We'll have more cars, more boats, more homes, more TVs, more clothes, etc. And when we have more of this stuff, suddenly it won't really matter that we're making less money than we made in the past - because the price of everything will be lower. Economics for me is utterly harmonious, like a sunrise or classical music.

Chuck, what if a large corporation like GM or Netflix or Bank of America were about to go bankrupt... and thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of people might lose their money/jobs.

 

Would you be okay with a bailout in that case?

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

A loan and a demand for restructuring of their business after a complete auditing and examining of their activities which led to their bankruptcy, if and only if their size were such that a collapse of that magnitude would cause a panic, or a prolonged recession. And I would insist that, given the nature of "too big to fail" I would want the ownership to become diversified elsewhere in the markets, and break up the behemoth into small, more competitive units. Corporate charters are granted by the people for the purpose of the improvement of society, and when they and their ownership become a burden or hazard writ large, they need to be re-examined and restructured. We need to learn from the lessons of history, apply the understanding of what happens when too much power is amassed in the hands of too few.

I would say as well, an investigation would be in order, one not tainted by insiders and by the ownership's money and influence.

Yes, save the jobs, save the company, but break it up, make sure no one individual or family has controlling shares in the company; democracy in the marketplace requires that companies as well have a real democratic structure, and include the interests of all stakeholders.

What are your thoughts about this matter Jay?

One of the best commentaries I have ever heard on the current events and the global situation as a whole (posted just today). Really gets right to the very core of why we're in this mess and what people need to do to begin improving our predicament. I highly recommend listening to all four parts if you have the time.

 

[ame=

&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP91FABF31A3F769F3]

[/ame]

 

I'm sure at least a couple of people who frequent this section will appreciate the depth and directness of the perspective presented here :wink:

I think shareholders should lose 100% of their investment, and bondholders are left with the remaining money the company can raise from selling off its assets. In a free market, other investors/companies will make offers on the productive assets the company has (like factories, land, inventory, etc). The price of labor will drop in that area (given the influx of jobless) and this leads to an incentive for former workers to move to other towns where they can get higher pay. (This is, of course, assuming there's no "minimum wage".)

 

Let's say it's a car company. As there are now fewer car companies in existence, there is generally less competition in this field, which drives car prices higher (even if only slightly). The higher profit margins in that industry lead to greater incentive for investors to start a new car company. Or it's entirely possible the car industry was already saturated, so prices won't significantly rise (there's already enough competition). In this case, the labor will flow toward another industry that's not as competitive. Maybe the manufacture of cell phones or bicycles!

Hey "the_gloaming09" (I'm not sure what your name is),

 

One interesting analogy I've read elsewhere on the 'net is newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. Nobody asked the question, "But where will the black people work now?" Granted, back then the economy was much more primitive - many people were still largely agrarian living a subsistence lifestyle and only saving a bit of money. Nobody expected retirement. But the point still stands. Look around you. There is always work to be done. There is always the possibility of demand, if the price is low enough.

 

Americans have largely priced themselves out of the global labor market. They must accept pay cuts, and get back to work. They must work on things that people actually desire - not on things the government desires.

 

If this happens, the country's "chains of production" will be geared toward maximizing an increase in our quality-of-life. We'll have more cars, more boats, more homes, more TVs, more clothes, etc. And when we have more of this stuff, suddenly it won't really matter that we're making less money than we made in the past - because the price of everything will be lower. Economics for me is utterly harmonious, like a sunrise or classical music.

I'm Mike btw.

 

You make a good point. Back then things were simpler and people didn't expect any sort of retirement. I think many Americans are going to have to come to realize that they will need to take a big cut in their pay. The days of getting things like pensions are over. People just need to be careful with their money, but at the same time as you mentioned what is really stopping people from working? I mean of course you get older, but that doesn't stop you from getting a part time job

 

To be honest I feel that Americans should do the following... Obviously they will get unemployment for an amount of time. I say you limit the amount of time you get unemployment. Let's face it. If you get a government handout it lowers the amount of incentive to get an actual job. I mean if you have the government paying for things why push yourself? I say limit the government incentives, and it will push people to want to look for work.

 

On a personal level if I got laid off from a job I would take unemployment, but wouldn't feel extremely great about it. And I would try to find any job ASAP. That's the thing with jobs... you can always take a lower pay and work a "shitty" job while waiting and applying for work.

 

 

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

A loan and a demand for restructuring of their business after a complete auditing and examining of their activities which led to their bankruptcy, if and only if their size were such that a collapse of that magnitude would cause a panic, or a prolonged recession. And I would insist that, given the nature of "too big to fail" I would want the ownership to become diversified elsewhere in the markets, and break up the behemoth into small, more competitive units. Corporate charters are granted by the people for the purpose of the improvement of society, and when they and their ownership become a burden or hazard writ large, they need to be re-examined and restructured. We need to learn from the lessons of history, apply the understanding of what happens when too much power is amassed in the hands of too few.

I would say as well, an investigation would be in order, one not tainted by insiders and by the ownership's money and influence.

Yes, save the jobs, save the company, but break it up, make sure no one individual or family has controlling shares in the company; democracy in the marketplace requires that companies as well have a real democratic structure, and include the interests of all stakeholders.

What are your thoughts about this matter Jay?

I think an investigation should be in order, but there needs to be consequences.

 

If you fuck up that badly, knowing your practices are wrong, then why should you be allowed to essentially just get a slap on the wrist and get bailed out?

 

I don't think that you should save the company to be honest. The way I see it is that it comes to personal responsibility. If you can legitimately run a business well, then why should you be helped out?

 

Not to sound harsh or cynical, but people bought homes that they could not afford. I understand that people want a house, but if you know you cannot afford a house then why buy it?

 

 

Maybe I'm just naiive, but I feel when it comes to money or running a company or purchasing things that you need to be extremely responsible. And if you throw that out the window you should be punished and fail.

RunForTheHills, seems like a good video so far.

 

Anybody who's anti-Central Bank is a friend of mine! All other political positions are secondary, in my view.

RunForTheHills, seems like a good video so far.

 

Anybody who's anti-Central Bank is a friend of mine! All other political positions are secondary, in my view.

Completely agree. :thumbsup:

If the world was perfect, people weren't so greedy and everyone treated each other honestly and the same then maybe a Central Bank would be a good idea. HOWEVER...

If the world was perfect, people weren't so greedy and everyone treated each other honestly and the same then maybe a Central Bank would be a good idea. HOWEVER...

 

Haha, well before you make a statement like this, I'd ask you to study Austrian economics. Printing money is never necessary, in the same way taxation isn't necessary. If there's a demand for something, the money will flow there.

 

Money is a form of communication, it shows us where demand is. So if you print it or steal it, it's communicating lies.

Haha, well before you make a statement like this, I'd ask you to study Austrian economics. Printing money is never necessary, in the same way taxation isn't necessary. If there's a demand for something, the money will flow there.

 

Money is a form of communication, it shows us where demand is. So if you print it or steal it, it's communicating lies.

 

I'd have to read about it (although I post here I'm definitely not nearly as informed as either you or Chuck).

 

I guess my whole statement before was sort of supposed to be a joke, but basically if the world was perfect with no greed or taking advantage and everyone was honest then maybe it could work, but that's impossible since the human race would rather destroy itself than work together.

 

 

Seriously though the idea of a central bank is a bad idea. It's better to have competition between banks rather than everyone fall under one bank. It to me just seems like another way to control people and make everyone conform.

 

I do find it funny the Vatican brings it up. I mean they do know all about raking in money... but they wouldn't be the first group of people I'd imagine bring up that idea.

Jay, I know you're aiming this response towards the_gloaming09, but I would like to respond from what I see happening in the world, from the average worker's end of the equation:

 

Hey "the_gloaming09" (I'm not sure what your name is),

 

One interesting analogy I've read elsewhere on the 'net is newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. Nobody asked the question, "But where will the black people work now?" Granted, back then the economy was much more primitive - many people were still largely agrarian living a subsistence lifestyle and only saving a bit of money. Nobody expected retirement. But the point still stands. Look around you. There is always work to be done. There is always the possibility of demand, if the price is low enough.

>> Well, it seems to me we were promised a mule and 40 acres, which would have allowed at least the prospects of good food from an honest day's work, if the economy would have been fair enough to pay equitably the small farmer for his products (then and now). No doubt, worker-owned companies would have been a great improvement, if there had been a Jubilee, a restoration of equity in the means of production, that is to say, worker owned companies. There is always work being done, but if one is not compensated fairly for work, and if work is not done utilizing the more efficient means of the day, then work in this form amounts to nothing more than a new form of indentured servitude in my mind. Why on earth should anyone pick cotton by hand, or heads of lettuce for that matter, when there are efficient machines that do it quickly en mass? I think often when laborers are made to compete with each other, the tendency is for there to be little change for menial task jobs, since labor is cheaper than the labor-saving device plus operator.

Americans have largely priced themselves out of the global labor market. They must accept pay cuts, and get back to work. They must work on things that people actually desire - not on things the government desires.

> I believe we haven't, and perhaps the fact that the lower wage earners today have only seen an 18% increase in wages over the past 30 years, while the top wage earners have seen an increase in wages over 275%. According to Wolff, what has driven down working class wages in the US is, in part, the wage competition globally, which is unfair for all the workers here who now work longer hours, work harder with immense productivity gains, and have seen only a marginal increase in wages, while an elite has profited handsomely from the increase in productivity. I think it is those top .1%, the prolific super-rich, who have skewered the tax system so far in their favor that the rest of us shoulder the burden, and they simply profit more and more from the society that pays for the schools, roads, bridges, and other societal needs, while they pay less and less back into it. So who should take a cut? The men and women down in the trenches, shoveling coke and iron ore into the furnaces and grinding those castings for our cars?? The example is outdated, but today's working world is still quite a hard slog for many; I think it's time for a rethinking of things.

If this happens, the country's "chains of production" will be geared toward maximizing an increase in our quality-of-life. We'll have more cars, more boats, more homes, more TVs, more clothes, etc. And when we have more of this stuff, suddenly it won't really matter that we're making less money than we made in the past - because the price of everything will be lower. Economics for me is utterly harmonious, like a sunrise or classical music.

 

> Accepting pay cuts is about all we've been doing for the last 30 years, and loosing manufacturing jobs - have you seen our manufacturing cities here? The boats go to the well-paid and the super-well heeled. And without decently paid workers, there are no consumers to buy these things, aside from Thirston Howell the iii, if and when he decides to but a new flotilla of yachts.

The price of everything becoming lower is a wonderful fiction, if that would only happen, but it hasn't yet. So workers can buy the coconuts they grow on Howell's plantation, whoopee! I highly doubt that goods and services will come down in price as our wages decline from competition - history suggests just the opposite.

I think an investigation should be in order, but there needs to be consequences.

 

If you fuck up that badly, knowing your practices are wrong, then why should you be allowed to essentially just get a slap on the wrist and get bailed out?

 

I don't think that you should save the company to be honest. The way I see it is that it comes to personal responsibility. If you can legitimately run a business well, then why should you be helped out?

 

Not to sound harsh or cynical, but people bought homes that they could not afford. I understand that people want a house, but if you know you cannot afford a house then why buy it?

 

 

Maybe I'm just naiive, but I feel when it comes to money or running a company or purchasing things that you need to be extremely responsible. And if you throw that out the window you should be punished and fail.

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

Hello Mike! Sorry for forgetting your name, my apologies. Good points, I agree, an investigation into the truth, and consequences for the injustices. But when a firm that enormous fails, it causes a panic in the markets, and sends the whole economy into a tail spin; so I think then the answer is to break up the company into smaller competitive units of diverse ownership, restructured so that all stakeholders have equal say in the company, and so the new ownership is diverse, so no small group or one individual controls the company - hence, a real democracy; preferably worker-owned.

I understand what you are saying about the people who bought homes and didn't quite have the means for the payments or collateral, that was in part their fault for buying those homes, but it's clear that when we deregulated and allowed for no background checks on the facts of the buyers at these banks, and offers that were too good to be true, it's inevitable and actually designed to pull people in; and the incentive for the so-called Wall Street banks to do this was that they could take and bundle these loan assets, have them rated as AAA investments, and sell them on the global markets as super-safe investments. So the "bankers" that engaged in this practice were well aware of how to lure people in, and then use those loans as investment opportunities to sell to other unsuspecting buyers. And a lot of people who bought homes were not aware of how the mortgages worked - in fact, few people anywhere could adequately explain the variable rates; it was the case with many home buyers that initially they were earning plenty enough to make the payments, then suddenly the rates jumped and then could not, and instantly had their homes foreclosed on - not everyone was buying homes without the means to make the payments, until the rigged loan system kicked in.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlHiNEZ1wA]Occupy Oakland Protester admits bottles were thrown at Police BEFORE police responded - YouTube[/ame]

 

Local reaction in the San Francisco Bay Area is quickly souring against the protestors, similar to the situations in New York City, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and St. Louis (I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple of Occupy protests but the ones I listed are the ones that's definitely seen a substantial decline in public support).

 

The owner of Sankofa African Arts and Jewelry said that on the two mornings since protesters returned, her front doorway has reeked of urine.

 

She said her business has declined by 80 percent since Occupy Oakland began.

"I really, really want them to leave," said the owner, who gave only her first name, Ellen. She has owned her business for 17 years. "What they are doing is making business worse."

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/29/MN951LNTGB.DTL

Inevitably, some anarchists or agent provocateurs will do these sorts of things - whichever the case may be, the vast majority of protesters are there peaceably assembled, demanding reform and accountability.

But doesn't it just serve the commercial press to highlight the acts of a few to justify harsh police tactics against protesters who just want justice in this nation? When the ownership of the press has their lapdogs bark, they do just that.

Remember what Dan Rather said? "We all knew what we could and could not say, what the bosses wanted."

I think it's instructive to look at how the mainstream media has covered the protests thus far, focusing on interviews with the least informed members of the protests, and highlighting clashes over the real central issues driving people to protest - it's ignoring the elephant in the room, that's what it is.

But don't take my word for it - just read what MacArthur has to say about what the press has become:

Q:" MacArthur: Well, I, I merely have to quote Dan Rather who says that “suck up journalism is in today,” and by that he means that the reporter, the editor, the producer, the media executive who goes along with power, goes along with government, has a better chance of getting ahead in the business than the obstreperous independent, trouble-making reporter. Rather is himself viewing his career and remembering that when he came into the business reporters were “rewarded” he says for asking the tough question, for making trouble and so on and so forth. And that nowadays a trouble making reporter is more likely to be told to “shut up” or to “calm down”, and to act more like, as he says, “that anchor man in California on whatever local affiliate, who makes people feel good.” And he’s very upset about it. Other reporters I talked to are also cognizant of this trend in journalism."

Excerpted from :[/url]The Press, Propaganda, And Censorship | Richard Heffner's Open Mind | THIRTEEN

So to respond to bottle throwers yes, but to what extent is force necessary to handle a few hoodlums, and why is this the main press focus on the matter?

And then, the response - to use tear gas, shot bags, and flash grenades against a few marchers throwing bottles? The excessive use of force is simply unwarranted in this situation, and the use of tear gas should be banned.

I have to wonder, for the few outbursts during the civil right's movement in the 50's and 60's, did that diminish the justness of the cause or the urgent need for reform? And the labor struggle before then, when a few acts of violence were committed, did that make null and void the need for change?

See the higher calling, keep your eyes on the prize.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocqRooE_79Q]A Question for Occupy Wall Street: What is Government? - YouTube[/ame]

I have to wonder, for the few outbursts during the civil right's movement in the 50's and 60's, did that diminish the justness of the cause or the urgent need for reform?

 

The difference is the Civil Rights protestors didn't throw rocks, bottles, chemicals and other things at the police, even when they were being beaten to the point of death - that was the whole point of the nonviolent resistance (at least until Stokely Carmichael started the whole "Black Power" Black Panther movement). The Civil Rights movement also had strong leaders who were able to articulate their goals and explain why change was urgent - the obvious example is MLK, but also leaders like Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette, James Bevel, John Lewis, etc. Finally, the Civil Rights movement had public support on their side and as any Poli Sci 101 professor will tell you, you can't have change without the support of the public.

 

Occupy Wall Street is just a mess. Still no leaders who can step up and articulate their views. Even when liberal networks like MSNBC try to help out the protestors, they have a hard time picking someone who doesn't appear ignorant. They're hurting small business owners with their antics (and that's putting it lightly), the very 99% they claim to represent. Public support in cities is drastically going down the longer these protests go on without achieving anything substantial. I flew in to St. Louis the other weekend to visit my friend at Wash U Med School and I was shocked to see the majority of the liberal Wash U community against OWS. Same thing with the small business owners in St. Louis.

 

Again, to all the protestors claiming that the "banks" represent "corporate greed" and are the reason why they don't have jobs - have one of you even worked at an investment bank? Do you understand what investment banks do? Do you know how to use the Bloomberg terminal? Because I do - after I graduated from Yale, I worked as an investment banking analyst at Morgan Stanley for 3 years. From my experience, I can tell you that the protestors' claims (ironically enough, 99%) are not the faults of investment banks.

 

Banks aren't the reason why there's no universal health care. Banks aren't the reason why colleges are so expensive. Banks aren't the reason why there are no guaranteed living wages, even if you are unemployed. Banks aren't the reason why marijuana is not legal (wait what? why is this even a "demand" at these protests?)

 

As much as I despise the Tea Party and what they stand for, at least they had the right idea - if you actually want change, you go through elected legislators. Start voter registration drives, hold town hall meetings/panel discussions, bring in famous speakers to educate locals, etc. Let the incumbents know their seat is in danger unless they start doing what the people want. Pretty much anything at this point is better than what OWS protestors are actually doing. But hey, if you want to keep pounding away in your little drum circles for hours, thinking it will actually bring change, go right ahead.