Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[RandFan]

[/list]
Good ideas, all of them. OWS won't fight for any of them. OWS is about resistance, not about fighting the power. Read their website, they want a better society from the bottom up.

I don't accept that there is a monolithic "OWS" and wouldn't accept that any single entity or mouthpiece speaks for them.

I've seen dozens of interviews, some I've posted in this thread, that call for the things I've listed. These aren't my ideas that I've assigned to them. These are ideas I've culled from the protestors.

 

[RandFan]

It may be a minority of the protesters but there certainly is a lot more sexual assault, theft, and raw sewage associated with this movement as a whole than most protests even if it is a minority causing the problems.

A.) I need to see your data. B) I need to know how you control for bias in drawing your conclusions.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't accept that there is a monolithic "OWS" and wouldn't accept that any single entity or mouthpiece speaks for them.

I've seen dozens of interviews, some I've posted in this thread, that call for the things I've listed. These aren't my ideas that I've assigned to them. These are ideas I've culled from the protestors.

Are the people that called for these things the same people that attend and facilitate their general assemblies? I don't think so. Their meetings are about community building and continuing to get more people mad in order to join their cause. There is no call for lobbying lawmakers, proposing legislation and/or regulation, or voter registration. They don't want to change anything, they want to replace everything. Rand, this is not like the protest movements you remember, where people saw a wrong in society and worked together to correct it.

 

[Stout]

I'll watch his movies, quite often I fancy myself running down some of his claims the next day just to see if he's making things up but I rarely do, I usually get distracted by something else.

Thank you. Seriously thank you. This is a very valid and reasonable question. One I am concerned about. It's too easy to simply blame all of our problems on the lending practices of our financial institutions. There does need to be responsibility on the part of those who borrow and invest.

However, we understand human nature and we understand that we as humans can be manipulated. I don't for one moment advocate govt attempting to remove any and all risk from consumers. I don't want a govt that is strictly paternal. However, we can, like the Canadians implement common sense policies to protect consumers and protect the economy. When the Banks gamble with deposits and financial institutions make bad loans to people with bad credit then that puts us all at risk. Especially when these banks are "too big to fail". That means that you and I must bail them out while we hold the individuals responsible for their mistakes. Uh-uh. That's got to stop.

Look, many conservatives get this. Folks like Paul Volker and David Stockman. We can have risk and let people make mistakes and suffer the consequences of their actions without bringing the entire system to the brink of disaster. It's really doable. Hell, we learned our lessons from The Great Depression.

Funny thing, that human nature. Heck I once ran up all my credit cards, in the 1980s and used imminent destruction by a Russian nuke as justification. Remember that doomsday clock that was one minute to midnight ? I figured if i was going to die, I might as well die in debt. Needless to say the missile never happened and I was faced with either bankruptcy or austerity. Bankruptcy wasn't all that appealing as I had a decent job so austerity seemed like the best bet.

Then I got hit by a car while riding my bicycle, the insurance settlement went directly into paying off those cards and I've been scared of credit ever since. I call it life.....plus 18% and only use them when absolutely necessary.

I fully agree with your post, I just don't think OWS and their tactics of not making any demands or having a focus is going to be effective. Were they focusing on policy reforms or consumer education ( credit is not income, that sort of thing ) I'd sympathise with them, however this rag tag band of "the usual suspects" painting themselves as perpetual victims of capitalism just isn't cutting it.

So...what's going to happen on Nov 5, bank transfer day ? is the 99% meaning all of us, going to flock to the credit unions ? I won't be because I already have my money in a credit union and have had for years.

 

[RandFan]

Are the people that called for these things the same people that attend and facilitate their general assemblies? I don't think so. Their meetings are about community building and continuing to get more people mad in order to join their cause. There is no call for lobbying lawmakers, proposing legislation and/or regulation, or voter registration. They don't want to change anything, they want to replace everything. Rand, this is not like the protest movements you remember, where people saw a wrong in society and worked together to correct it.

I've no idea how you presume to know all of this. "Their meetings"? All of the people from across the US or even all of the people in NY york attend these meetings?

Look, when you are being reasonable I can sympathize with your complaints and I think you have some valid points. However, when you presume to know what they are all doing and thinking I can't take you seriously. That kind of rhetoric doesn't advance the discussion and doesn't appear to be in good faith. How do you expect me to respond? Seriously? "Oh, okay, well, if you say it and you can read everyone's mind and or you attend every meeting of every protestor"...

Could we stick to what you know and what you think? Let me give you an example, if you think something is true then say "It seems to me...". That way I'll give what you say some serious considerations. Otherwise, what's the point? I could claim that all of the OWS protestors travel to Mars on Sunday nights to be educated by Xenu and therefore their purpose is righteous. Are you going to take THAT seriously?

I just ask that you at least treat me without contempt and consider that I might actually have the ability to judge things skeptically and critically and that I might enjoy conversing with like minded people in order to advance the dialectic. I'm here to defend what I perceive of OWS not to convert everyone to my POV.

 

[RandFan]

I'll watch his movies, quite often I fancy myself running down some of his claims the next day just to see if he's making things up but I rarely do, I usually get distracted by something else.

Funny thing, that human nature. Heck I once ran up all my credit cards, in the 1980s and used imminent destruction by a Russian nuke as justification. Remember that doomsday clock that was one minute to midnight ? I figured if i was going to die, I might as well die in debt. Needless to say the missile never happened and I was faced with either bankruptcy or austerity. Bankruptcy wasn't all that appealing as I had a decent job so austerity seemed like the best bet.

Then I got hit by a car while riding my bicycle, the insurance settlement went directly into paying off those cards and I've been scared of credit ever since. I call it life.....plus 18% and only use them when absolutely necessary.

I fully agree with your post, I just don't think OWS and their tactics of not making any demands or having a focus is going to be effective. Were they focusing on policy reforms or consumer education ( credit is not income, that sort of thing ) I'd sympathise with them, however this rag tag band of "the usual suspects" painting themselves as perpetual victims of capitalism just isn't cutting it.

So...what's going to happen on Nov 5, bank transfer day ? is the 99% meaning all of us, going to flock to the credit unions ? I won't be because I already have my money in a credit union and have had for years.

Great post. I can live with that and you may very well be right. Heck, I'm willing to consider that though I started out skeptical of the movement I've been drawn in for reasons more emotional thank intellectual.

Fair enough. Thanks.

As for the Nov 5, I've no idea. I've spent a lot of energy debating some OWS types who subscribe to a Fight Club mentality and who would like to see the powers that be crash and burn and anarchy reign supreme. I liked the movie but... I don't want that.

 

[Alt+F4]

I've no idea how you presume to know all of this. "Their meetings"? All of the people from across the US or even all of the people in NY york attend these meetings?

When I say "their meetings" I mean those persons who do attend the meetings, are involved in the working groups, including handling the finances. These are the people who aren't just holding signs, they are the folks providing the food, the sleeping bags, the internet. I know this because OWS is transparent (except for the finances), it's not difficult to find out what is going on there....from them.

I just ask that you at least treat me without contempt

I haven't treated you with contempt at all, I just disagree with your assumptions regarding OWS.

I might actually have the ability to judge things skeptically and critically and that I might enjoy conversing with like minded people in order to advance the dialectic. I'm here to defend what I perceive of OWS not to convert everyone to my POV.

Several NYC posters have said the same thing as me regarding what's going on in Zuccotti Park.

 

[RandFan]

When I say "their meetings" I mean those persons who do attend the meetings, are involved in the working groups, including handling the finances. These are the people who aren't just holding signs, they are the folks providing the food, the sleeping bags, the internet. I know this because OWS is transparent (except for the finances), it's not difficult to find out what is going on there....from them.

But that means little to nothing. You've no idea if "these...people" represent the sentiments of some or most. Who really gives a flying @#$% about "these...people"? That you would think their opinion demonstrates something beyond the opinion of some people is frustrating to me. I see no evidence that this is a monolithic group or the people you reference are elected or have the ability to control the message and thoughts and feelings of the protestors. And if they did, so what? They have the right to protest and seek redress. I support that even when I disagree. I didn't like the Tea Party but I supported their right to protest.

I haven't treated you with contempt at all, I just disagree with your assumptions regarding OWS.

If you aren't treating me with contempt then one of us isn't applying skepticism and critical thinking to OWS.

Several NYC posters have said the same thing as me regarding what's going on in Zuccotti Park.

Let me take it for granted that you are just asserting this. So what? A.) I never said that everything was fine. I've conceded that there is has been violence and inappropriate behavior. B.) If they are protestors obviously they agree that there is value to OWS, right? It sounds like they support my position and I've never claimed that OWS was without problems.

 

[Alt+F4]

But that means little to nothing. You've no idea if "these...people" represent the sentiments of some or most. Who really gives a flying @#$% about "these...people"? That you would think their opinion demonstrates something beyond the opinion of some people is frustrating to me.

They control the estimated $400,000 of donations gathered so far. I think that means something. Anyone else living in the park, holding a sign can of course take concrete action for change, have they?

They have the right to protest and seek redress. I support that even when I disagree. I didn't like the Tea Party but I supported their right to protest.

Again, of course they do. None of the criticism of OWS has to to with free speech or redress.

If you aren't treating me with contempt then one of us isn't applying skepticism and critical thinking to OWS.

You get your information from the media, whether mainstream or independent. I live in NYC and get my information from what I see and from people I trust. And no, I'm not treating you with contempt, I just think you are misinformed. There is a difference.

 

[Checkmite]

The problem is that this fight is unfairly defined. Its supporters can say "I like OWS because they blank". But whenever anybody deigns to say "Well, I do not like OWS because they blank", we get stuff like

But that means little to nothing. You've no idea if "these...people" represent the sentiments of some or most. Who really gives a flying @#$% about "these...people"? That you would think their opinion demonstrates something beyond the opinion of some people is frustrating to me. I see no evidence that this is a monolithic group or the people you reference are elected or have the ability to control the message and thoughts and feelings of the protestors.

You've given a list of suggestions you say have been gleaned from different members of the movement; and you say that these things convince you that OWS is a great thing. But you can't honestly claim that your list of well-reasoned "suggestions" represents even the bulk of the feelings and thoughts of OWS, any more than we can claim that a need to provoke violent police confrontation is a need shared by all of OWS. The most you can say is "a few people seem to think blank".

...which is one of my big problems with the "movement". Usually a movement stands for something; OWS doesn't stand together about anything save a few vague platitudes, because they'd rather not risk the loss of support that taking a specific stand would create.

 

[RandFan]

They control the estimated $400,000 of donations gathered so far. I think that means something. Anyone else living in the park, holding a sign can of course take concrete action for change, have they?

Please to provide evidence. And FWIW: I'm honestly not sure how much it does mean. Honestly.

Again, of course they do. None of the criticism of OWS has to to with free speech or redress.

Unless I'm wrong you want them to go away or go where they can't be seen. Just like protests at presidential events. Put the free speech where it can't be heard. Little zones to keep the public from having to be bothered by that, right?

You get your information from the media, whether mainstream or independent.

And they are all, except FOX news, incapable of objective reporting?

I live in NYC and get my information from what I see and from people I trust.

See, that's a problem. I get this almost daily from theist friends who want me to trust them. They have first hand knowledge of god. With that in mind, why should I trust the people you trust? Because you live in NY? That makes your appeal to authority authentic and credible. You don't see why this is a problem?

I just think you are misinformed.

And you assert so on your own authority (but I appreciate that you said "think".... In any event, I'm supposed to ignore everything I've seen to date? The interviews with protestors. The reporters who have covered the protests. It's all lies and you, you alone are my source of truth. I'm sorry but I really fail to understand why you don't grasp how that's a problem for me. It's like the 9/11 truthers I battled for 3 years and gave up on. Don't trust the media. They are all in on it. It's one great big conspiracy and they have misinformed you.

There is a difference.

Really? Cause I sure don't see it.

 

[jhunter1163]

How many of the Zuccotti Park people even know what the Volcker Rule is, much less why it should be passed? I'm not saying that it's an unreasonable demand; I'm all for it. But I am saying that the OWS man-on-the-street probably has no clue. They might even think "Volcker = former Fed chief = 1%er = BAD!!!!1111!!eleventy!!!!" even though the Volcker Rule is a damn fine idea (and is going to be enacted anyway in the summer, but the sooner the better IMO.)

 

[Alt+F4]

I get this almost daily from theist friends who want me to trust them. They have first hand knowledge of god. With that in mind, why should I trust the people you trust? Because you live in NY? That makes your appeal to authority authentic and credible. You don't see why this is a problem?

Wow, just wow. You want to compare people who say they have first hand knowledge of god with those who say they have first hand knowledge of garbage and drug dealing? Really?

 

[Brainster]

I don't accept that there is a monolithic "OWS" and wouldn't accept that any single entity or mouthpiece speaks for them.

You say that like it's a good thing. In fact, it's a quite notable weakness of the protests that they don't have any one issue that galvanizes them (and no, "we hate the rich" doesn't qualify). I have criticized the antiwar protestors in the 1960s and recently, but at least they had a recognizable objective.

I have chatted with the local protestors online and tried to draw them into discussions about specific issues. Their response is always the same, "Come downtown and join us!" To a large extent the impression I get is that it's all about rebelling, Marlon Brando-style:

 

[RandFan]

Wow, just wow. You want to compare people who say they have first hand knowledge of god with those who say they have first hand knowledge of garbage and drug dealing? Really?

(edited to remove personal post) Alt, give me some data I can confirm. Your testimony is not something I can verify. Sorry for getting into the personal.

 

[RandFan]

You say that like it's a good thing.

Yeah, I do. Hell, not just a good thing but a great thing. I think the odds of any success are less than 50% but if they are successful it will be because it's a grass roots movement about principles. I laid out the list of things I think many stand for. I think that will be clear to the politicians. We'll see.

Did I say it was a good thing? Yes, a very good thing.

 

[jhunter1163]

Folks, let's keep it civil and polite here. Don't make me put on my mod hat, mmmmkay?

 

[Virus]

Occupy London is a Potemkin protest:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nts-St-Pauls-protest-camp-left-overnight.html

Put up empty tents to make it look bigger.

 

[RandFan]

Folks, let's keep it civil and polite here. Don't make me put on my mod hat, mmmmkay?

Fair enough. And I apologize because this isn't about the posters and I shouldn't have responded by questing the bona fides of anyone. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

New data to justify demands for change.

The CBO takes on income inequality

The chart on the right sets the scene. The after-tax incomes of the middle class (the 21st to 80th percentiles) have grown at about 1 percent per year since 1979, adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the wealthies 1 percent, meanwhile, have zoomed upward at a consderably faster pace.

I don't want to make everyone equal. I don't mind that rich people are rich. Good for them. I want my govt not to give every advantage to the wealthy. I don't want my govt contributing to the ever increasing disparity between the rich and poor.

And I'm sick and tired that the only thing the GOP can respond with is the rhetoric of "class warfare". To accuse those who point out the facts as being divisive. Increase tax rates on the rich and incentivize corporations to invest in domestic labor.

Do something other than attacking women's reproductive health.