More Occupation of Wall Street

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Actually, surveys taken of protestors show that the majority are employed. You can follow the links yourself:

http://en.wikipedia....upy_Wall_Street

What happened to them all being unemployed students?

[Inigima]

- What does success for OWS look like?

This is the $64 million question. (Okay, the $75 trillion question.)

Many people, myself included, sympathize with OWS, but aren't in favor of a Robin Hood-esque redistribution of wealth. But solutions aren't clear-cut.

For my part, the thing that galls me isn't that there are winners and losers in the lottery to which you analogize the economic situation. What gets me, and I suspect I'm not alone, is that some people lost the lottery, but appear to be making off with the jackpot anyway.

No one cared when the more affluent members of society were making money hand over fist, even though most people werent among them. People started caring when high rollers' bad bets came home to roost and it fucked up THEIR lives and the high rollers STILL walked away with all the cash.

Now, it's very hard to "fix" that, because the rules say they can do that. The public perception is that the rules say that because those same people WROTE the rules.

So, three broad issues that OWS would like to resolve that I can see.

1. Punish bad behavior. This is really hard to do, as I said, because the rules currently legitimize bad behavior.

2. Avoid future bad behavior. This one seems the easiest to solve, in theory, via regulation. Of course, the people the regulation would be aimed at will scream bloody murder, and since they currently hold most of the cards, it appears to be a difficult environment in which to regulate.

3. No one has any jobs or money. I have absolutely no idea how to solve this. I'm really not on board with taking people's money just because you can. I don't know what an equitable and viable solution to this problem looks like. Hell, forget equitable for a minute -- I don't know what a viable solution to this problem looks like. But I think it is necessary to find one, because otherwise I expect unrest on a massive scale.

[Swordfish]

Yeah, pissing off average people who are just trying to get around never draws attention to a protest and certainly shouldn't be done. They should protest in some small, out of the way area where nobody has to pay attention to them.

http://www.crmvet.or...pics/nashv1.jpg

Well, I don't think the issue is that they need to get attention per se.... .

So i have to walk around you, you got my attention. if i have no idea, even after walking around you for weeks, what it is you are trying to accomplish BESIDES getting attention, then what is the point?

Because you've pretty much squandered your chance to win me over, since I don't know what i'm being asked to pay attention to other than the fact that you're in my way and some vague notion that you might be pissed off about wall street bonuses.

[Crazydog7]

Some asshole decided to throw what police described as a chemical bomb into the protests up in Maine.

Pretty crazy.

Guess we can add Right Wing argument #5 by going to these protests you are "paling around with terrorists"

[CelticBrennus]

Some asshole terrorist decided to throw what police described as a chemical bomb into the protests up in Maine.

Fixed that for you.

[Swordfish]

Have you walked past any of the occupations?

Just about every day actually.

It's pretty obvious that you haven't,

Wrong.

because it's also pretty obvious what individuals are protesting: they're either telling you, holding up a sign about it, or discussing it with others. If you're lucky, you'll see a march, which happens at least once a day.

I mean, this idea could be stupider than the clothes trolling. You'd have to be completely, willfully blind to walk through an encampment and not know what was being protested.

no, you really wouldn't have to be any of those things, but it's clear you're no longer capable of having an objective discussion about this without being overcome by emotion, so i'll let you go back to your ranting uninterrupted.

I'm not particularly interested in the part of the conversation where we just call each other dummies and swing our dicks around..

:dunno:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, that's why they totally aren't gaining support in tons of cities both around the US and around the globe. That's why they totally aren't all over the news. That's totally why politicians aren't talking about it.

The numbers at these protests are much smaller than in anti-war marches, and seem generally limited to the usual hardcore left suspects. Getting 2000 or even 20,000 people in New York City, with a metro area in the tens of millions, isn't impressive.

Please FLOW, your desperate attempts to come up with new excuses why OWS doesn't matter are getting tired.

I don't understand the use of the word "excuses" in that sentence. In any case, I do think they matter. Very much, as a matter of fact. In some respects, they matter in the way they would like to matter. In others, I think they're shooting their cause in the foot. Feel free to disagree.

[Shryke]

The numbers at these protests are much smaller than in anti-war marches, and seem generally limited to the usual hardcore left suspects. Getting 2000 or even 20,000 people in New York City, with a metro area in the tens of millions, isn't impressive.

I see you didn't actual read my post at all. Why is the number of people at the protest in New York the only metric here? How about all the things I actually mentioned?

You are, yet again, reaching for any reason you can find to dismiss OWS. Even when today's reason contradicts yesterday's reason.

It's pathetic and transparent.

[Brienne the Beauty]

How can people be holding down jobs, or even looking for work, when they're living in a park full-time and protesting? A lot of people in that 99% who are going to work every day are going to wonder more and more about that as time goes on. And as winter approaches, the cultural gulf between many of the 99% (who go to work, live in homes, etc.) and those OWS protestors still hanging on in that park will become more and more apparent.

I rather suspect you are right that the protests will fizzle as the harsh New York winter starts to snow on them. However the protests can't go on forever in any case, and they can always start up again in spring.

And much as you wish that the masses will eventually start to be disgusted with the OWS people as "lazy hippies" it doesn't seem to be happening. Conservatives are, but they would be anyway - they have not changed their opinion.

I guess I'm just somewhat flabbergasted at what I see must be an incredibly insular mindset. Any message worth delivering is going to have some controversy, but why deliberately engage in tactics that you have to know are going to cause even more controversy, and may well alienate some folks who might have been more supportive otherwise? The only thing I can think of is that they just don't get that some people may start taking a very dim view of their tactics. It's as if they're really just intent on preaching to the converted -- to like minded people who already agree with their aims.

Why? Because it's getting them listened to.

And are they really trying to persuade conservatives, as you seem to think, or energize the left/moderates? I think it's the latter. After all, were the Tea Party trying to convert liberals, or make it clear that the hard right was a force to be reckoned with? Because I think it was again the latter.

No doubt some were converted by each of the movements but it does not seem to be the primary aim of either, which has to be more about "getting your voice heard."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What happened to them all being unemployed students?

I don't know. Who said they were all unemployed students? I do recall saying that students were disproportionately represented. I've read a few surveys of protestors backing that up, so if you don't believe that to be true, that's okay.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I see you didn't actual read my post at all. Why is the number of people at the protest in New York the only metric here? How about all the things I actually mentioned?

Because they don't matter. Getting the hardcore left out in a bunch of cities isn't any more noteworthy than getting it out in one. They tried it in my city -- overwhelmingly Democratic in an overwhelmingly Democratic County -- and got about 50 people for one day. That's it. I'm sure it's all the rage in the left blogosphere, and it is going to be news because it is/was new, but even that is going to fade.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I rather suspect you are right that the protests will fizzle as the harsh New York winter starts to snow on them. However the protests can't go on forever in any case, and they can always start up again in spring.

You're right. I just think that as a matter of tactics, fizzling out just never looks good. Better to have fewer but larger, more impressive events than much smaller ones that only get the hardcore. IMHO, of course.

And are they really trying to persuade conservatives, as you seem to think, or energize the left/moderates? I think it's the latter.

No, I agree with you here. The conservatives are a lost cause. But there is a great deal of space between "conservatives" and "the left", and that's where elections are won.

Hmm. Come to think of it, that may be the answer. I saw one poll where 31% of the people participating approved of violence to advance their agenda if necessary. I posted a link from occupywallst.org upthread which pretty clearly had a revolutionary bias.

http://occupywallst.org/

So it may be that at least a significant element of the protestors isn't trying to appeal to majoritarian sentiment at all, perhaps believing that to be a lost cause because of alleged perversion of the democratic process. Ala Cocomaan, to some extent. Their goal isn't to persuade the middle. Rather, their goal is to radicalize their end of the spectrum to bring about change outside the political process. It's what Adbusters seems to be aiming for, in any event.

http://www.adbusters.../robinhood.html

So I suppose I should amend my comments in light of this. I think there are many in the OWS movement, or sympathetic to it, who view it as part of a political battle building up to the 2012 election, with OWS playing the role of a leftist tea party. I think a lot of folks here see it that way. But I think there is also a significant element within OWS that sees this more in the anarchist/disruption tradition, and they are pushing in that direction. Because to them, Obama is almost as much of a Wall Street lackey as Republicans, so 2012 is pretty meaningless for them.

To amend my point, then, I'd say that I think the methods and goals of the latter element may hurt the methods and goals of the former. Most political movements have their crazy aunts and uncles they like to keep locked up in the attic. I just think that in the case of OWS, the core of the movement is more radical than most who sympathize with it, and they aren't going to stay in the attic.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Most political movements have their crazy aunts and uncles they like to keep locked up in the attic. I just think that in the case of OWS, the core of the movement is more radical than most who sympathize with it, and they aren't going to stay in the attic.

I think they only look exceptionally radical to you because they are so very far from your own beliefs. The moderate left people I know are pretty sympathetic to the OWS people even if they'd never go and protest themselves.

And it's not as if the Tea Party were short of a "mad uncle" or two.

[Jon Sprunk]

Flow said:

To some extent, each group is almost protesting against the other. Tea partiers, at least in some sense, represent the ultimate in conservatism -- they want to preserve a view of American that they think is being lost. OWS represents a far more progressive element that wants to take the country in a direction it has never been.

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

Wrong. OWS wants to preserve an America that they think is being lost, too -- an America where if you study and work hard, you can have a piece of the Dream. You can buy a car and cable TV, maybe save up for a house and put your kids through college. People are pissed off because that dream is slipping away. It has nothing to do with a new progressive direction (unless you think fairness and equality are progressive).

[Shryke]

Because they don't matter. Getting the hardcore left out in a bunch of cities isn't any more noteworthy than getting it out in one. They tried it in my city -- overwhelmingly Democratic in an overwhelmingly Democratic County -- and got about 50 people for one day. That's it. I'm sure it's all the rage in the left blogosphere, and it is going to be news because it is/was new, but even that is going to fade.

No FLOW, you think they don't matter. There is a large difference. Especially because you've never thought they mattered. You are bound and determined to convince yourself they don't.

Meantime, again, Eric fucking Cantor listened enough to pander to the movement on Fox News.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think they only look exceptionally radical to you because they are so very far from your own beliefs.

Did you take a look at Adbusters and occupywallst.org? The latter are literally calling for revolution.

And it's not as if the Tea Party were short of a "mad uncle" or two.

Absolutely. Which is one reason I didn't go to any of those things. You never know when some nutbag is going to show up next to you holding some kooky sign. However, at least the methods chosen by the tea partiers were uncontroversial and unlikely to offend.

[felice]

Cop: "Hey, you. Wake up and go home."

Sleeper: "I was protesting."

Cop: "You were sleeping. If you want to protest in this park, protest. You wanna sleep in this park, that makes you a hobo. Sleep at home if you're going to sleep. Then come back when you're awake to protest."

Sleeper: "I can't, the bank confiscated my home."

[Crazydog7]

I remember Tea Party signs that stated

"We Came Unarmed (this time)"

So don't start on the "loony left" and the fact that they use violence

So yeah you're main problem with this overweeningly peaceful protest seems to be that these people have the temerity to believe something you do not even if they are going about it in a disorganized way. So only politically conservative people can have beliefs they are willing to fight for everyone else is a nut or clueless dupe of some special interest group.

There is almost no difference in the platforms of the two major political parties in this country when you strip away God, Gays and Guns and the GOPs talking points on family values that they have to say every 4 year or so the best you can say is that they are the party that wants to legislate morals to everyone else. They can no longer make the claim that they are the fiscally conservative party.

The "left" really what the GOP was before religious conservatives got their hands on it is a fine place for business, pharmaceutical lobbyists and insurance companies and and every four years they will talk a good line about the poor.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Did you take a look at Adbusters and occupywallst.org? The latter are literally calling for revolution.

Well, I certainly wouldn't support a revolution if that's true. I *hope* they mean a metaphorical revolution, where the system is radically improved.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

------------------Wrong. OWS wants to preserve an America that they think is being lost, too -- an America where if you study and work hard, you can have a piece of the Dream. You can buy a car and cable TV, maybe save up for a house and put your kids through college.

You can talk about any end product, Jon. The difference is in how you get there. Your argument implies that there is no difference between free market capitalists and socialists, because after all, both want people to have a car, cable tv, have a house, and send kids to college. There have been demands for free healthcare through a government run single-payer system, etc. That is not something that has ever existed in this country at any time.

Now, some of the OWS sympathizers aren't radical. I admit that. My point is that the core of the movement is a lot more radical than just wanting to clean up capitalism a little bit.

It has nothing to do with a new progressive direction (unless you think fairness and equality are progressive).

Fairness is kind of vague. Equality, though, is a core progressive concept.