• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yves Smith on Jason Barker, New York Fed bank examiner, who posted a comment on a news article that NY cops should crack the skulls of protesters from an account openly associated with his Fed job:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/22811.html

I like this. It irritates me that corporate entities are able to break major crimes, yet can come to these no-fault admission settlements. IMO, it's akin to allowing an individual skip jail time so long as they are rich enough to pay a huge fine.

As the article points out, by not having to admit fault, it not only shields them from investor suits, but essentially makes breaking the law a purely economic analysis for a corporation, which is ethically wrong, IMO.

I agree. The question remains whether it will have the effect of making the severely resource-deprived SEC even less effective. Still, what's right is right. The solution is clearly to give the SEC the resources it needs.
 
Occupy Should Stay Unattached to Political Parties
November 28, 2011 By Mark Naison
Why Occupy Movements Unattached to Any Political Party Are the Only Hope for Real Change in a Frozen Social Order

Now that Occupy Movements are being evicted from public parks in cities throughout the country, almost invariably by Democratic mayors, many Democratic Party organizes and some labor activists are hoping the movement will fade away and concentrate its energies on electing progressive candidates for office and putting forth a progressive political agenda.

In my opinion, that would be a grave mistake. There are a bevy of important issues that given current political alignments, and the power of money in American politics, cannot be translated into a viable legislative agenda. It will take years of disruptive protest — strikes, boycotts, walkouts, sit ins and occupations — to place them on the national agenda and the only force in American society capable of employing those tactics for a sustained period is the Occupy movement.

Here are some key issues that neither party is willing to take on that the Occupy movement can influence if it keeps growing and becoming more diverse in the next five years.

* The student loan crisis and the escalating cost of a college education. There is no way, without major disruptions of university life, and pressure on the banks, that student loan debt can be erased, or significantly reduced, and tuition at public colleges frozen or lowered. Until universities cannot carry on their normal business without making dramatic changes in looan collections and tuition charges, you can be sure elected officials won’t touch these issues with a ten foot pole.

* The legalization of drugs and the release of non-violent drug offenders from the nation’s prisons. Given the powerful interests fighting any dismantling of the prison industrial complex-ranging from prison guards unions, to elected officials in communities where prisons are located, to corporations who benefit from cheap prison labor, it will require massive social movements, to force states, localities, and eventually the federal government, to end the irrational arrest and imprisonment of people who sell drugs no more dangerous than alcohol or prescription medications.

* Occupy Should Stay Unattached to Political Parties. The dismantling of a domestic police state apparatus which uses advanced weaponry and intrusive surveillance technology to suppress dissent and control and intimidate minority and working class youth. The weapons that were used against Occupy demonstrators in Oakland, at Zuccotti Park and at UC Davis have been used for many years against minority youth to prevent them from inhibiting the gentrification and re-segregation of American societies and to assure order in schools and communities stripped of resources. Libertarians, civil rights organizations, and a growing Occupy movement can create an alliance to undermine the domestic police state. The two major parties will never do it without immense outside pressure.

* A moratorium on foreclosures and the passage of legislation to allow arts groups, youth groups, affordable housing organizations and advocates for the homeless to occupy abandoned commercial and residential space in America’s towns and cities. Such actions will only be taken if Occupy groups and their allies make foreclosures difficult, and begin occupying abovementioned properties in such numbers that it will be counterproductive for authorities to evict them. There is no way elected officials will take such steps without being presented with a “fait accompli” by protesters.

* A radical reformation of the tax system that places the burden of taxation on the 1 Percent and reduces taxes on individuals and small businesses. There is no way, given current political alignments, and the vast power of corporate and Wall Street lobbies, that that such a revolution in the tax code could be legislated. But five more years of disruptive protest could change that Occupy movements have to create a scenario where the only path to restoring social order would be a revision of the tax burden to benefit ordinary citizens

These five policy areas are hardly the only ones which would require years of protest to attain — I am sure people reading this could identify issues in education, environmental protection, job creation and US military policy that would require movements of equal force to implement

But I have identified these five areas to show have far away we are from any real political change in this country through the two major parties. We need grassroots social movements of such force that it will reinvent what is possible in mainstream American politics. The Occupy movements have started such a process. It would be a shame if they prematurely embraced the electoral process rather than pushing protests activity to much higher levels

http://www.laprogressive.com/progressive-issues/occupy-parties/
 

Bealost

Member

I don't like that article. It makes the occupy movement seem like it has irrational motives.

There is no way, without major disruptions of university life, and pressure on the banks, that student loan debt can be erased, or significantly reduced, and tuition at public colleges frozen or lowered.

While I agree with the tuition is way to high part of this, we all knew what we were getting ourselves into when we took our student loans. I don't think it is really fair (the easier it is for people to get loans for something, the easier it is for that industry to set its own price ignoring its impact on consumer well being). No one should be calling for the erasure of student loans.



The legalization of drugs and the release of non-violent drug offenders from the nation’s prisons.

The only drug that should be reasonably even discussed as being legal would be marijuana. Although I'm not sure it would be the moral thing to do (Kinda like cigarettes being legal is amoral). Fact is the country would be better of legalizing it, and taxing it (Like cigarettes). Anything harder/more addictive than that has downsides far to great to involve the government "endorsing" it. And for the same reason that student loans shouldn't just be erased, the people in jail broke the law as it was stated at the time and still is. They shouldn't just be released.


A moratorium on foreclosures and the passage of legislation to allow arts groups, youth groups, affordable housing organizations and advocates for the homeless to occupy abandoned commercial and residential space in America’s towns and cities.

Am I reading this wrong or is he saying that he wants to basically give people permission to default on their home loans? Is he also basically encouraging squatting? While I agree that vacant property is a wasted resource for a community, I don't think the best use of that space would be squatting. Surely we can find a better way to go about this.



A radical reformation of the tax system that places the burden of taxation on the 1 Percent and reduces taxes on individuals and small businesses.

We don't want the "burden of taxation" to fall on only the 1%. We just want the richest people in America to pay their fair share. Multi-generational families that never have to go to work because their family already has an estate worth a billion dollars is ridiculous. People cry about the top 1% paying more than their fair share of taxes. The top 20% of the population currently controls, what, 80% of the wealth? Sounds to me like they aren't paying their fair share currently. Never mind the largest corporations paying no taxes at all because of egregious corporate tax loopholes. Phrasing it like he did makes it sound like we want the top 1% to pay all the taxes while the rest of us get a free ride.


We need grassroots social movements of such force that it will reinvent what is possible in mainstream American politics. The Occupy movements have started such a process. It would be a shame if they prematurely embraced the electoral process rather than pushing protests activity to much higher levels

Now there is something I can agree with.
 

sans_pants

avec_pénis
student loan debt is going to be a huge problem. in fact, it already is and its only going to get worse.

and what is immoral about legalizing weed? why not legalize harder drugs(used by a very small fraction of the population) and save that drug war money, putting it back into user education and rehab?
 

Bealost

Member
There are some things that just aren't healthy. A government explicitly legalizing (Giving its endorsement) to those things is not in the best interest of its people.

Alcohol for instance, causes way more problems for society than it solves. Obviously we can't just go make it illegal (we already tried that). Alcohol is not nearly as addictive as say, heroine is. Can you imagine the problems something like heroine would cause if it was made legal given that it is much more likely to be abused than alcohol?

Don't we (the more educated) have a responsibility to help the "small fraction" of people who can't or won't understand what they are doing is not in their best interest?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like giving people permission to do something that is very likely to have a negative impact on them and society as a whole is immoral. I understand that it is a very slippery slope leading towards a "nanny state", but that's just how I feel.

Also, I have a feeling that a lot of that war on drug money is being paid to people, and is thus creating jobs. Just cutting programs because you don't agree with the point of the program can have other consequences.
 

Bealost

Member
I've been reading tons of links off of occupy's reddit page. Lots of it seems pretty hyperbolic to me, but I really am questioning some of the things I thought I knew at this point. Here is an article that I found particularly hyperbolic but has caused me to question myself the most. I'd appreciate it if some people could read it (it's long) and discuss some of the material within it.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=25234
 

Jenga

Banned
student loan debt is going to be a huge problem. in fact, it already is and its only going to get worse.

and what is immoral about legalizing weed? why not legalize harder drugs(used by a very small fraction of the population) and save that drug war money, putting it back into user education and rehab?
because anyone who actually has experience dealing with addicted friends and family members know that is complete fucking bullshit

weed should be legalized

harder drugs nuh uh
 

sans_pants

avec_pénis
because anyone who actually has experience dealing with addicted friends and family members know that is complete fucking bullshit

weed should be legalized

harder drugs nuh uh

you don't think things would be better for addicts if they could seek treatment without fear of persecution? hell, they might have never tried hard drugs if they didn't have to buy their weed from a drug dealer.

giving people education and resources to fight addiction is better than allowing the current black market to thrive
 
you don't think things would be better for addicts if they could seek treatment without fear of persecution? hell, they might have never tried hard drugs if they didn't have to buy their weed from a drug dealer.

giving people education and resources to fight addiction is better than allowing the current black market to thrive

I would just criminalize the selling of harder drugs but decriminalize their usage. It's not legal, but they don't have anything to fear by seeking rehab.
 

JambiBum

Member
thats Oakland not L.A.

As RPS already said he moved down into LA to cover everything. Probably the best coverage you are going to find.

He just walked by a swat truck with two officers sitting inside the front. Asked what they were doing there and they said that they couldn't say. One had what looked to be a grenade launcher in his lap. Broadcaster asked if the officer could tell him what kind of gun it was and the officer said no.
 

sangreal

Member
Definitely going down now

One second the dude was interviewing some protester and the next the place was swarming with police. Crazy

What's with the Karate looking dudes?

ecjYL.png


Apparently they're hazmat suits
 

Jenga

Banned
you don't think things would be better for addicts if they could seek treatment without fear of persecution? hell, they might have never tried hard drugs if they didn't have to buy their weed from a drug dealer.

giving people education and resources to fight addiction is better than allowing the current black market to thrive
no that still sucks

only instead of the black market profiting off people ruining their lives it's the government
 

sangreal

Member
One of the cops just pointed his gun at the guy doing the live stream.

Technically, but not really. He had it pointed in the air (at the people in the trees?) and then lowered it which caused it to pass in front of the camera. It looked like he was pointing it at other protesters before he raised it in the air for whatever reason though.
 

JDeluis

Member
Technically, but not really. He had it pointed in the air (at the people in the trees?) and then lowered it which caused it to pass in front of the camera. It looked like he was pointing it at other protesters before he raised it in the air for whatever reason though.

Most likely using the light on the weapon to see the people on the trees.
 

Slavik81

Member
because anyone who actually has experience dealing with addicted friends and family members know that is complete fucking bullshit

weed should be legalized

harder drugs nuh uh

How does it help them to have it illegal?

Personally, part I dislike the most about the whole thing are the drug dealers. Legalization would get rid of them, and a lot of dangers stemming from them would evaporate. It would no longer be a completely unregulated industry that exists outside the law, as it is now.

There are, of course, other dangers. But as a non-user, those are the ones I'm most concerned about.
 

maharg

idspispopd
The two most disturbing things Occupy has exposed to me are:
- The fact that media blackouts of goverment police actions are a thing that can happen in the US without any outcry. US press is regularly in war zones in other countries, but clearing a park of unarmed hippies and homeless people with tear gas, armed helicopters, and some rather hardcore military weaponry is apparently too risky to have them around for.
- Kind of following on the other point, the militarization of US police forces has gotten to a frightening point. The line seems to be getting disturbingly blurry. Back in the rash of protests in the 60s and 70s, to get this kind of police response the national guard had to be called in.
 
The two most disturbing things Occupy has exposed to me are:
- The fact that media blackouts of goverment police actions are a thing that can happen in the US without any outcry. US press is regularly in war zones in other countries, but clearing a park of unarmed hippies and homeless people with tear gas, armed helicopters, and some rather hardcore military weaponry is apparently too risky to have them around for.
- Kind of following on the other point, the militarization of US police forces has gotten to a frightening point. The line seems to be getting disturbingly blurry. Back in the rash of protests in the 60s and 70s, to get this kind of police response the national guard had to be called in.

Unfortunately, it's just the beginning. We are in for rough times, but eventually the tide will turn. Oppression only works for so long until something breaks.
 
Too bad. The whole obsession with badge numbers and names is so stupid. The dude that was just on didn't even do anything... He was just informing them of what was exactly going on. Why would you even want his number and name come on...

edit: Thanks!

edit 2: God the second stream is boring....
 

Terrell

Member
I've been reading tons of links off of occupy's reddit page. Lots of it seems pretty hyperbolic to me, but I really am questioning some of the things I thought I knew at this point. Here is an article that I found particularly hyperbolic but has caused me to question myself the most. I'd appreciate it if some people could read it (it's long) and discuss some of the material within it.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=25234

You're right, it IS long. And while it goes on tangents and plays the blame game, it ultimately says the same thing:

We as a species perpetuate our society in all aspects and in all ways. Young adults and the elderly both see the same thing from different aspects, which explains why they are the loudest and most consistent supporters.

The elderly look at the world today and think "this isn't what I wanted when I embraced capitalism, this isn't what I was promised would happen to the world I left for the generations after me, this is fucking terrible".
And young adults are going "my parents made it sound like all you needed was to get an education and get a job and life would be your oyster... what a load of bullshit, I'm fighting for minimum wage jobs with people in university!"
It's that generation in between that got everything they ever wanted from society that have all the shit to say about how useless and tiresome the Occupy Movement is, the same generation that currently holds all the keys to power.

Yes, baby boomers, I'm taking a shit all over you right now.

But how can you blame them? From how they were raised to their current place in the world, it really IS theirs. Why would they have any reason to doubt that things will work out for them? They've been fed their free-market-or-bust pablum since birth.

The Occupy Movement and how it's structured is flawed. As is some of the ideas within it (that corporations, banks and government are ruining the world, etc.) are flawed as well.

We haven't been deceived, the information was right there for anyone to plainly see. We may be "numb" as the writer suggests, but it's no one's fault but OURS.

If you don't like the way things are, don't rabble about it in angry finger-pointing protests while openly supporting what you hate... change yourself to reflect your beliefs.

Think banks are greedy motherfuckers? Don't use one. Credit unions are a good in-between solution, but I'm actually going back to a money-under-mattress solution. Money in banks and credit unions is money in the investment ecosystem which fuels the banks. Even credit unions invest your money into businesses that benefit the big banks. If I don't like how banks do business, instead of hating them, just stop giving them what they want - nay, what they NEED - to survive: MONEY.

Think corporations are ruining the world with pollution and wasteful behavior and a callous disregard for workers and the society they provide to? Re-think what you spend your money on recreationally and for necessity. I've stopped buying clothes, I have enough already. My toiletries (shampoo, toothpaste, etc) are all produced naturally and without by-products. No more cigarettes and booze, because they support the idea that business can separate itself from moral responsibility to society. I'm not buying games that don't offer full digital distribution (why the hell do we still need discs other than to placate retailers with better sales margins than console sales offer?)... so the next run of consoles better give me that option in lieu of a disc... if I even BUY any of the new consoles that are sure to come out in the next few years. No more new gadgets until something breaks completely. I don't need the newest and greatest thing, and when I bought my most recent computer, I bought it with longevity in mind, not just what I need right now at the cheapest price only to be rid of it later. Very simple things. And as many have pointed out, people in the Occupy movement sometimes fall into supporting these "evil" corporations that they lambast. Because we're indoctrinated into that type of culture. If you don't like what they're doing, don't give in to conspicuous consumption. Simple. Don't rant about it to Wall Street men who don't care what you say... they only care what you buy. And what you don't.

Don't like what government is doing? Vote for a 3rd-party. What the rest of the country you're in does is irrelevant. For Americans, we can now see that neither Democrats or Republicans want to change anything about the way the world works now, they just work within it ever so slightly different. For Canadians, neither Liberals or Conservatives really want to change things either, so stop making it a back-and-forth between them; let's see what an NDP government looks like, and if they don't want to change things, either, then find a different party to vote for. Partisanship is poison and just shows government that society WANTS the status quo, just merely in different varieties and shades of it.

You can never expect things to be better when we unknowingly feed into a broken system. So don't hate the people running the system as it is... your votes and your dollars gave them the impression that business as usual is A-OK. So no more protests, just be conscious.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Don't like what government is doing? Vote for a 3rd-party.

There's a lot in this post, but I'd just like to point out that as far as I can tell, in the US this is much harder said than done. At least at the federal level. The two party system isn't just entrenched in tradition, it's practically entrenched in law through the primary system and national voter registration by party. And the Democrat and Republican parties are guaranteed a slot on every ballot across the country, but afaik third parties have to individually campaign to be on the ballot for each state individually.

The barrier to entry for a third party is so massive that anyone who can afford to, or is charismatic enough to, do it is probably better off just trying to buy their way into influencing or dominating one of the existing parties, but that means they have to deal with the party's entrenched ideologies and bureaucracy so real change is unlikely (cf. Obama).

What this amounts to is not a lot of actual democracy at the federal level in the US, and I think that's one of the things Occupy is aimed at changing. Unfortunately, because of the above, trying to push in a third party is almost certainly the least effective method possible of doing this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom