Occupy Wall Street - Winter is Coming Edition

[Verboten]

Also: "A spokeswoman for the Oakland Police Department confirmed in a email that Sabeghi was arrested Thursday, and said the department is conducting an investigation into the circumstances leading to the arrest." From here http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-oakland-.html

[awesome possum]

Another of the 1% sides with the 99.

Mike Fox Sr. is a prominent San Jose businessman and philanthropist who is pulling his money out of Bank of America. He says the bank can and should do more when it comes to loan modifications and the foreclosure crisis.

"We're not out to topple Bank of America, I don't think we could, but we are out to get their attention and I think we are getting there," said Father George Wanser from Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church.

The Credit Union National Association says 650,000 people switched to credit unions last month, but not everyone is ready for change.

I can't find the link right now, but 600,000 credit union accounts were opened during all of last year.

[sologdin]

clearly was a product of an underlying belief that, in general, government inaction is preferable to government action.

funny how different political assumptions produce different readings. my impression, e.g., runs the opposite way.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also: "A spokeswoman for the Oakland Police Department confirmed in a email that Sabeghi was arrested Thursday, and said the department is conducting an investigation into the circumstances leading to the arrest." From here http://latimesblogs....y-oakland-.html

I don't doubt that he was injured/arrested. The question is whether is the self-serving account of his friend/fellow protestor as to how it occured is accurate. Folks here have dismissed out of hand reports from the police and the city as a matter of course. Why then accept the unverified account of a self-interested protestor?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

If the men who wrote and then ratified the Constitution were keen for an active centeralized government why did they not eliminate the States or make them administrative districts under the direct control of the National government?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sologdin,

If the men who wrote and then ratified the Constitution were keen for an active centeralized government why did they not eliminate the States or make them administrative districts under the direct control of the National government?

Or have a parliamentary system rather than one focuses on checks and balances that make passage of legislation more difficult?

[sologdin]

why abolish the aricles of confederation, if they liked a do-nothing gubmint?

the ennumerated powers and reservation of rights to the states indicates to me an impulse against totalitarianism, but not that federal action is in itself a bad thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

I think they wanted limited but effective government. I don't believe they wanted a particulartly active government. That's why they limited the power of all branches and did not eliminate the several States.

[Relic]

. Why then accept the unverified account of a self-interested protestor?

Lol, you aren't joking, huh? "self-interested".

[Aemon Stark]

Women died at Occupy Vancouver:

The death of a woman taking part in the Occupy Vancouver protest at the city's art gallery has led the city's mayor to announce the protest movement's tent city will be cleared.

"I have directed the city manager to expedite the appropriate steps to end the encampment as soon as possible with a safe resolution being absolutely critical to that," Mayor Gregor Robertson said Saturday night.

Police said a woman in her 20s was found unresponsive inside a tent at the encampment at about 4:30 p.m. PT Saturday.

"Tragically, she could not be revived," Vancouver police Const. Jana McGuinness told reporters. "She was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased at hospital."

Police said the cause of death has not been determined and would not confirm reports the woman died of a drug overdose.

However, Lauren Gill, an organizer at the camp, said that was apparently the case. She said the death highlights the need for more addiction services because drugs are such a big issue in the city.

Anyway, subsequently the surviving protesters are saying they won't go peacefully.

You know, when this "movement" was about inequality and promoting social change, I was quite encouraged, but it seems that - at least for the Canadian "occupiers" - it's become more of a moronic anarchist fantasy without any substance or message. It seems that this woman died of an overdose (unconfirmed) while only a few days earlier another "occupier" experienced a non-fatal overdose. They have thoroughly lost the right to any kind of indulgence of the general fouling and "occupation" of public property. I'm all in favour of protests but they do not have any kind of right to squat on public property that belongs to all of us. How many more people have to die or overdose in Vancouver in particular?

[Shryke]

Sologdin,

I think they wanted limited but effective government. I don't believe they wanted a particulartly active government. That's why they limited the power of all branches and did not eliminate the several States.

Whatever they wanted, it often appears that the demands of both the people and modern governance run counter to large parts of this philosophy, hence the gathering of power to the executive branch.

[sologdin]

relic--

wealth and power is of course never self-interested, but only unselfishly concerned for the general welfare. that's why power politely houses discontents in secluded ghettos or sets them aside them in their own 6x6 cells--free of charge, mind you--and with cable television, air conditioning, medical care--things that taxpayinghardworkingredbloodedgodfearingtroopssupportingamericans don't always have. that's why wealth spends so much moneys on advertising its benevolence, lest someone, like you, apparently, you surly radical, misunderstand its good intentions.

on the other hand, people who risk death from exposure to protect rights generally enunciated but ignored in practice or who agitate on behalf of the impoverished or who protest abuses of persons in the third world are plainly only interested in their narrow ideology.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

You could also say "the usurpation of power by the executive".

[davos]

I think they wanted limited but effective government. I don't believe they wanted a particulartly active government. That's why they limited the power of all branches and did not eliminate the several States.

I have several responses to this.

First, in that time and place the role for a central government that would actually be a benefit to the people was far more limited. Consider the demands of maintaining a modern army that would be effective to defend the nation in 1790 compared with today. Or consider the greater infrastructure needed to keep a modern, industrialized society running today compared with when the constitution was written. I would also mention ideas such as socialism (among others) that are part of the dialog regarding the role of central government simply didn't exist back then. Not being aware either of modern realities or modern concepts of how society could be structured these factors simply would not have been under consideration.

Two, the political reality forced a less centralized system. The young United States did not have a established central government that they were reforming. England had not rule the colonies as a single unit with a single administration center and subordinate regional centers.. They were thirteen separate colonies, each with a central administration that was responsible to London. While they had joined together to over thrown British rule they had maintained their own identity. This was not something they wanted to surrender. So while recognizing the need for a Federal government, each of the 13 original states wanted to maintain as much of its own sovereignty as possible. When the constitution was written it had to be such that it could be ratified in this environment. Even if Madison and the others who wrote it had wished to turn the states into simply administration units they would not have gone that route because such a constitution simply would have never been ratified.

What always amazes me about it though, that despite these limitations that they crafted a document that has managed to be so flexible and malleable to address changing circumstances. I have some concerns with how well it can bend to meet our current needs. I also think that due to my comments above falling back on the intent of the framers is of limited value and has become something of a crutch to those who wish to support certain political views.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

You could also say "the usurpation of power by the executive".

Does it count as usurpation when the populace is cheering you on?

Just look at the recent bullshit in Congress and what you see alot of is people wondering why Obama doesn't just bust heads and get shit done.

People don't like their governments bickery and ineffective. Nor does it tend to work well that way either.

Of course, as an addition to this, large parts of what makes the US government less effective weren't explicitly designed into the system anyway and are just crazy immergent properties no one thought would need to exist (*cough*filibuster*cough*)

[Shryke]

I have several responses to this.

First, in that time and place the role for a central government that would actually be a benefit to the people was far more limited. Consider the demands of maintaining a modern army that would be effective to defend the nation in 1790 compared with today. Or consider the greater infrastructure needed to keep a modern, industrialized society running today compared with when the constitution was written. I would also mention ideas such as socialism (among others) that are part of the dialog regarding the role of central government simply didn't exist back then. Not being aware either of modern realities or modern concepts of how society could be structured these factors simply would not have been under consideration.

Two, the political reality forced a less centralized system. The young United States did not have a established central government that they were reforming. England had not rule the colonies as a single unit with a single administration center and subordinate regional centers.. They were thirteen separate colonies, each with a central administration that was responsible to London. While they had joined together to over thrown British rule they had maintained their own identity. This was not something they wanted to surrender. So while recognizing the need for a Federal government, each of the 13 original states wanted to maintain as much of its own sovereignty as possible. When the constitution was written it had to be such that it could be ratified in this environment. Even if Madison and the others who wrote it had wished to turn the states into simply administration units they would not have gone that route because such a constitution simply would have never been ratified.

What always amazes me about it though, that despite these limitations that they crafted a document that has managed to be so flexible and malleable to address changing circumstances. I have some concerns with how well it can bend to meet our current needs. I also think that due to my comments above falling back on the intent of the framers is of limited value and has become something of a crutch to those who wish to support certain political views.

It should also be said, in addition to all these good points, that technology (especially travel and communication technology) has had a HUGE impact on the nature of politics over the past few hundred years. This has had a profound effect on the way people view themselves and the way things are organized and so on. Political orginization is very much a product of it's time (and the technology available at that time)

And the times, and political orginization itself, have drastically changed over the past few hundred years. Nationalism itself is a crazy new concept.

[tzanth]

How many more people have to die or overdose in Vancouver in particular?

Tragic as it may be, how exactly is this woman's overdose -or drug problems in Vancouver more generally- in any way tied to the occupy protest? People will do drugs, whether it be in the comfort of their homes, a occupy tent, or behind your local KFC.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Yes. Usurpation of power is usurpation of power even when the population is cheering on the usurpation.

Davos,

Then it is time for a Constitutional convention or subdivison of the nation into smaller units where it is easier to find concensus regarding the nation's political direction.

[Aemon Stark]

Tragic as it may be, how exactly is this woman's overdose -or drug problems in Vancouver more generally- in any way tied to the occupy protest? People will do drugs, whether it be in the comfort of their homes, a occupy tent, or behind your local KFC.

It's not tied to it, but this kind of thing absolutely overshadows whatever point they were trying to make. Are they just protesting for the right to OD in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery? And at least part of the problem has been that the tightly-packed nature of the camp made it hard for paramedics to get to not only this woman but to the guy who had the nonfatal OD earlier in the week. They are further occupying a public space that belongs no less to anyone else and have no right to create a drug-ridden unsanitary and ultimately dangerous environment for others.

[davos]

Then it is time for a Constitutional convention or subdivison of the nation into smaller units where it is easier to find concensus regarding the nation's political direction.

Or to recognize that we have adapted the constitution by expedience and mutual unspoken agreement at many points in history and stop falling back on the intent of the framers as if it were some mythical font of all truth for American government when it suits some people's purposes. While either of alternatives you suggest might actually be better ways to solve our long term problems neither of them are going to happen. I think we would do a lot better if we treated the constitution as it really is, a human document, created by intelligent thoughtful humans to best address their needs and the needs of future generations as best they could foresee them and not as holy writ.