Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Si modo]

"I want it to go away or stop" is not any sort of idea for a solution.

So, no ideas for solutions.

You still don't get it, and that's probably because you're invested in the existing political system.

A demand for the government to do something is not the point here; the protesters are themselves doing something and they're doing it quite effectively: providing a new narrative.

Never underestimate the power of a narrative. We're in this mess largely because one narrative, the conflict between free enterprise and Communism, has dominated our politics since the late 1940s. It's out of date, of course, the Cold War being over for the past twenty years, but it still dominates just the same. How many times have you seen Obama called a Communist, or for that matter the OWS protesters? That's ridiculous in both cases, but because of the power of that old narrative it still has power.

OWS is presenting a new narrative: that the real conflict is between the very rich and corporations and the people. And it's catching on. It's provoking a response from the right. It's given us a simple idea, the 1% versus the 99%, that has a lot of appeal and that anyone can understand. It's cutting through the Cold War fog and giving us a different way of thinking about our politics. It's also cutting through the partisan fog and letting us see possibilities beyond the current positions of the Democrats and Republicans. This act is itself revolutionary. There's no need to demand that government do anything specific right away; government is too corrupt to be able to do what needs to be done in any case.

You're failing to understand this movement because you're seeing it through the lenses of conventional politics, and don't understand that it is operating on a different, deeper, more revolutionary level than that. Specific changes will grow organically from the changes in our thinking.

This is the antithesis of ignorance. It's brilliant, and it's succeeding brilliantly. You don't see the success because you're looking in the wrong places.

Ah. They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.

Yup, that's constitutional.

But, OK.

Then what?

(I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start. )

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.

Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:

"[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, there should be a public option in banking.

"There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.

"This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business."

The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout

For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.

Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.

Item #6 of the communist manifesto.

Everything the democrats demand can be tied back to the communist manifesto.

Funny that...

or The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

 

[Dragon]

If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."

How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.

This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.

Unkotare, the reason I keep repeating that you're an asshole is not only because you're an asshole but also because you hardly ever say anything beyond an eruption of your assholiness. So there's no response possible except to repeat that you're an asshole.

So again: you're an asshole.

 

[Si modo]

If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."

How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.

This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.

....

As you said above, too - a revolution, a radical one.

And, most of us knew that from the start.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."

How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.

This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.

Unkotare, the reason I keep repeating that you're an asshole is not only because you're an asshole but also because you hardly ever say anything beyond an eruption of your assholiness. So there's no response possible except to repeat that you're an asshole.

So again: you're an asshole.

I don't know of any democrat that isn't corrupt and that includes obama

 

[Dragon]

Ah. They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.

Yup, that's constitutional.

Depends on what kind of "revolution" you're talking about. By the way, I've done some more thinking recently and, although I remain sure that most of the OWS protesters aren't talking about replacing our representative republic with direct democracy, it may be a good idea -- that's my position, not theirs, or not theirs yet.

It could even be done constitutionally, without a "revolution" in the sense of a popular overthrow of the government:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Article V. A constitutional convention could rewrite the Constitution so as to provide for direct democracy, quite legally.

(I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start. )

I know you're pretty sure of that, but you're wrong.

 

[Dragon]

I don't know of any democrat that isn't corrupt and that includes obama

Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as an exception. But you're right about most of them, definitely including Obama.

 

[flacaltenn]

My guess is that "the park" has some public access agreements added to the deed. So that the City has access to utilities, traffic control ect. I'll bet a bundle it's NOT "totally private" property. Maybe even serviced by the City in some regards.

That's correct. It's a public park. Concerns have been raised about the impact of the protesters on the park's cleanliness and safety, and the letter addresses some of those concerns. They were being used as a pretext to request that the police forcibly clear out the protesters. The police can't simply move in and do that on, say, trespassing charges.

Not true. The park is owned by Brookfield Office Properties.

We don't know what covenants are in the deed. Obviously it's recognized as public access and a park.. Just look at a map and you can see that. This happens all the time when properties are zoned. In exchange for permission to build somewhere else, the Management team will sweeten the deal by putting aside "public access" land and facilities to bribe the counsel into permitting the deal..

Dragon --

Even if it's not trespassing, I'm sure that CAMPING or PROTESTING or OPERATING A BUSINESS without permits give plenty of justification for law enforcement.

If the HOMELESS or that crazy Church Group attempted this -- you KNOW what the result would be..

 

[Dragon]

Even if it's not trespassing, I'm sure that CAMPING or PROTESTING or OPERATING A BUSINESS without permits give plenty of justification for law enforcement.

If the HOMELESS or that crazy Church Group attempted this -- you KNOW what the result would be..

You may be right. I'm pretty sure there is some pretext that could be advanced or they wouldn't even be discussing the possibility. It will be very interesting to see what goes down in the near future. The problem for the city is not lack of a pretext for police action but rather the likely political fallout. It could come off like a replay of MacArthur's attack on the Bonus Army in 1932. The mayor wouldn't like that one bit.

One strategy that might make sense from Bloomberg's POV is to stand down for the moment and wait for winter weather, when the number of people in the park on a daily basis is likely to decline. Clearing them out would make less of a splash, and reduce the likelihood that a huge influx of people would happen to face off against the cops.

 

[Si modo]

Ah. They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.

Yup, that's constitutional.

Depends on what kind of "revolution" you're talking about. By the way, I've done some more thinking recently and, although I remain sure that most of the OWS protesters aren't talking about replacing our representative republic with direct democracy, it may be a good idea -- that's my position, not theirs, or not theirs yet.

It could even be done constitutionally, without a "revolution" in the sense of a popular overthrow of the government:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Article V. A constitutional convention could rewrite the Constitution so as to provide for direct democracy, quite legally.

(I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start. )

I know you're pretty sure of that, but you're wrong.

No, I'm pretty sure I knew from the start.

As did you.

A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.

Yup. I knew, and so did many others.

So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?

 

[georgephillip]

Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.

Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:

"[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, there should be a public option in banking.

"There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.

"This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business."

The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout

For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.

Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.

Item #6 of the communist manifesto.

Everything the democrats demand can be tied back to the communist manifesto.

Funny that...

Funnier how many communists live in North Dakota.

The only state in this union that's reported a budget surplus every year since 2008; with an unemployment rate between 3% and 4%, and with the lowest foreclosure rate in the USofA.

Now tell us why you think all of those occupying Wall Street are stupid enough to believe there's a dime's worth of difference between Republican AND Democrat when it comes to prosecuting control accounting fraud?

 

[Dragon]

A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.

Not in the sense you mean. Remember, what I said above is me, not them.

So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?

A revolution may be had within the confines of the Constitution; we have already had several in our history.

Besides, as I pointed out the Constitution contains provisions for amending it that could be used, if the people want it enough.

One way or another, though, this situation in which a wealthy few control the government through campaign donations has to go. And lest we get too sentimental about the Constitution, I'm going to repeat some important words from the Crisis era that gave us that document, although these were penned fairly early on before the Constitution itself existed:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There is little doubt that our current form of government has become destructive to the ends it is supposed to serve, in that it actually serves the private greed of a privileged few, and tramples all over the people's rights.

Now, Jefferson does go on to say something else, and I agree with him here, too:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So: let's not be hasty, and let's pursue if we can ways to correct the usurpation of our government by means short of an overthrow.

But if it comes down to that, let us remember that the government -- including the Constitution itself -- exists to serve the people, and not the other way around.

Occupy Wall Street is not -- yet -- revolutionary in the conventional sense. But it is most certainly revolutionary in that it aims a very deep transformation in our society and the way our society is governed. It may become revolutionary in the conventional sense if that is the only way to right the wrongs in the current system, but only once it's generally agreed that there is no other way. And if it does, then that, too, is a proper expression of the American spirit, which does not easily suffer tyranny.

 

[Si modo]

A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.

Not in the sense you mean. Remember, what I said above is me, not them.

So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?

A revolution may be had within the confines of the Constitution; we have already had several in our history.

Besides, as I pointed out the Constitution contains provisions for amending it that could be used, if the people want it enough.

One way or another, though, this situation in which a wealthy few control the government through campaign donations has to go. And lest we get too sentimental about the Constitution, I'm going to repeat some important words from the Crisis era that gave us that document, although these were penned fairly early on before the Constitution itself existed:

....

Yes. Violence is part of revolution *cue redefinition of revolution*.

So, if you plan on using the Constitution to change our entire way of government (*snicker*), why the revolution?

It's a pretty clear question.

 

[Synthaholic]

Sorry, the Tea Party stands for personal liberties and freedoms and detests government intrusion. OWS does not.

Good luck convincing America otherwise.

The public does not in fact stand with you on this, Si modo. It already supports OWS more than it supports the Tea Party. And that is going to increase, just as the movement will increase.

....

Maybe.

It's too bad that Americans are against personal liberties and freedoms and are for government intrusion, for government oppression.

Or, just as bad, and more likely, it's too bad that the protestors are supporting the state-ist system that did not educate them enough and now they are just tools. Useful Idiots.



And, that is exactly why those behind the OWS organization will not articulate what they want.

Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.

Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?

Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!

 

[Dragon]

Yes. Violence is part of revolution *cue redefinition of revolution*.

I disagree. Violence is not at all necessary to revolution. Even when there is violence accompanying a revolution, the overthrow of the government itself is always nonviolent. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991. There was hardly any bloodshed at all. The people withdrew their support from the system, and the system came tumbling down. The troops refused to fire on the protesters. Something similar happened in several Middle Eastern countries more recently, and years ago in the Philippines when Marcos fell.

The only time a revolutionary movement needs to engage in violence is when it does not yet command the support of enough of the people to succeed, and the government attempts to destroy it by force. In that case, as in China for many years, the movement arms itself in order to survive and continue working towards gaining the people's support. It's not to overthrow the government by force of arms. That is either impossible or unnecessary, depending on how much support the movement has. When Mao finally did overthrow the Kuomintang and take over the government in 1949, there was very little fighting, because there was hardly anyone left willing to support the other side.

In the U.S. at this time, it's not likely the government will attempt to wipe out this movement by force of arms, so no resort to violence is necessary for self-defense; in fact that would be counterproductive. The movement can go on making its case, and drawing in more and more supporters, and building to the point when the people overthrow the system, one way or another.

Assuming it's found necessary to radically change the Constitution, which I'm coming to believe but which, so far, I don't believe most of the OWS participants do, the reason to use the Constitution's own mechanism for accomplishing this is because it would put the new form of government on an unassailable legal basis. If the government is overthrown without recourse to such legal means, it endures a period of dubious legitimacy until the people become completely accustomed to it. Thus our current Constitution began as an attempt to amend the Articles of Confederation through a mechanism that was written into those articles.

I would prefer to do something similar if possible.

 

[Unkotare]

If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."

How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems..

So these unwashed, mouth-breathing idiots (and of course YOU as a representative example) demand that we jettison our democratic republic and disregard our electoral process and the rule of law as well as the choices and interests of all other citizens in order to accomodate you mewling, unworthy children? Fat-fucking-chance Cheech. You and the rest of your self-obsessed, moronic public defecators can scoop that shit up off a police car and eat it. As soon as the "Weeeee! We're like Woodstock!" wears off and y'all start dropping from disease, stealing from and otherwise harming one another, and pissing off too many normal, employed citizens you'll get the terrorist PR you are hoping for, but you won't enjoy the process.

 

[Dragon]

So [you] demand that we jettison our democratic republic

No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic. That's the point.

[The remainder of your post snipped because it was content-empty garbage posted by an asshole.]

 

[Unkotare]

So [you] demand that we jettison our democratic republic

No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic. That's the point.

[The remainder of your post snipped because it was content-empty garbage posted by an asshole.]

You're just another irrelevant, hysterical, hyperbolic moron wallowing in your emotions and hoping that will cover your stupidity.

 

[Dragon]

You're just another irrelevant, hysterical, hyperbolic moron wallowing in your emotions and hoping that will cover your stupidity.

That was completely content-free, nonthinking garbage that you essentially vomited into the Internet, and you're still an asshole.

 

[Unkotare]

That was completely content-free, nonthinking garbage that you essentially vomited into the Internet.

Oh really? Non-thinking, content free vomit like this?

No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic.

For the third time, lay off the pot you little turd.