This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to…
Put shortly, there is no simple explanation for why they are there, and asking for one is ludicrous. It’s a complicated issue, where everyone has their own stake and their own reason. It’s a combination of dozens of different major problems. Many of them have to do with corporations, many have to…
I’ve been wrestling with this question a lot from people who ask me why the occupation is taking place. This explains it far more eloquently than I have been able to.
And the conclusion I’ve come to is that Occupy Wall Street’s views aren’t fractured, as I and a lot of people have criticized them as being. They’re multi-layered and people aren’t reading into them fully. The views are being intentionally fractured by the media and those who don’t want to commit to understanding something outside the norm.
“We need some people to control the means of production so the rest of us can then beg to use them.”
The rich have job-creator machines right?
In fact, I have photographic evidence of one such machine.
See, the unemployed go in to the confounding contraption (seen here with noted job-creator Richard Branson) and come out the other end with jobs. To make it more clear who has a job and who is a leech to society, the machine places a star marking on their bellies to indicate that they are a “star player” to society.
We should stop taking money from them and in fact, do what these hard-working Americans are and give them more money in order for them to create more jobs.
Now this is a vision of America I can get behind. The rich get rich and the poor get stars and jobs. Fantastic.
you just used the term “american exceptionalism” in what seems to be a serious sentence, which leads me to believe; a) you’re being ~ satirical ~ again; b) you have no idea what that term implies, or; c) you’re fond of joseph stalin. in any case, i am going to proceed as if you’re being entirely serious, and really believe that somehow this fucked up hunk of land is superior to everywhere else on the planet.
“aligning yourselves (progressives) with anarchists and communists is silly, if you have a goal of really changing the system for the better” ah, i see where we butt heads. sorry friend, but i’m not a progressive, i’m an anarchist, and to see this country [which is not quite as great as you’d like to think it is] fall to pieces and be rebuilt by the people that it has oppressed is my fondest dream. my friends who are still on wall street are not necessarily progressives either, many of them are anarchists too, though assign to other ideologies. don’t assume we all adore barack obama. i didn’t vote for him, he doesn’t represent me, and he’s failing many of the folks who blindly put their hope in him. please don’t essentialize, and please do not project your personal politics onto a group that you are clearly not even involved in.
back to this “greatest country” business. please do not explain to me how this country works, i understand how our government runs. do not be fooled, THIS COUNTRY IS NOT FREE. we couldn’t have this conversation in other countries? we can’t have it here!! i am using anonymity programs as we speak, because otherwise my posts on twitter and facebook concerning the protest are edited away without my knowing, not to mention yahoo email censors everything including the words “occupy wall street” and deletes them as spam. everything we do is watched, we are not free. every single person down on wall street is risking their freedom, i just watched several of them being dragged away down the street in handcuffs. if you think you’re free you are deluded in a horrible way. all i can say is that you’re damn lucky your views are not as radical as mine, you will likely live longer, they will let you be, because you are content with you cage.
as far as “comparing” #occupywallstreet to other protests around the world goes, what’s wrong with having role models? recognizing the significance of other movements does nothing to discredit or demean them [if anyone from liberation square in egypt would like to disagree, please do, as your opinion is far more valid than mine].
while i commend you for seeing the merit and charisma of the men you referenced, and while i recognize them as highly influential, they, as well as their methods, are sorely outdated. you say “there is a way to accomplish goals in this country (the greatest country in the world) and that is to work within the system to persuade the masses that your agenda is the way of the now and of the future and that the way we are living now is backward”. that is one of the silliest things i’ve ever heard. there are many ways to make change, and you don’t get to decide which ones work and which ones don’t. we as a society have evolved past JFK and FDR, who’s “change” only favoured a select few. those in power have designed a system to directly sabotage the method of acceptable change you just described, it simply cannot be done, our entire country works against it. if you’re upset or frustrated by this truth, you ought to be.
why is it that the tea party can control congress and we can’t? because the tea party is already part of the “acceptable” system of politics. why? because their ideals support and ensure an unfair and oppressive social and economic structure, which is the kind of structure which keeps people in their place, allowing business as usual to continue. everyday folks who support the tea party are supporting the very people and ideas that keep them from prospering, of course they’re allowed to voice their opinions, what threat are they? those “hippies” on wall street you so despise are an actual threat, they are uninhibited and do not fear the oppressive authority, they are asking for REAL change, not watered-down obama nonsense. if their ideas and demands weren’t dangerous to those in power, why would every cop in new york city be stationed around them?
in closing, this is not “your” movement, oh supporter of progressive politics, it is our movement. who says anyone at the occupation is “dead head”? goodness, one kid was wearing tie dye, god forbid! and of everyone, he gave THE MOST eloquent and moving speech durring the general assembly, praising many of the historical movement you seem to admire. if you’re honestly of the mindset that a person and their beliefs can be discredited simply by what they’re wearing, you have no business being involved in any movement at all. you know what’s demeaning to those who died for the civil rights movement? the racist cops who beat them to death, not us. you know what’s demeaning to organized laborers? the greedy corporations who view them as expendable machines, not us. if you want this movement to be taken more seriously, show up in a suit and get your voice heard, or sit down and let us speak.
you are entitled to your opinion, but parading it about as if it’s the ultimate truth is really not acceptable. we are not misguided, we are simply up against some enormous obstacles. the #occupywallstreet movement has flaws, as does everything and everyone, some that concern me greatly and some that don’t, some that make me fear for our safety and credibility, and some that don’t. basing an opinion on these flaws alone is destructive and ignorant, and backing up such an opinion with assumptions and regurgitated myths is really just awful.
oh, and while we’re quoting ~influential white dudes~, “protest beyond the law is NOT a a departure from democracy, it is ABSOLUTELY essential to it” -howard zinn.
good day c:
Yeah. The paragraph in bold was a point I meant to get to in two of my posts but kept forgetting to.
“I feel like I’m working for myself at this point. If it’s publishable, fine. If not, it makes not too much difference. Because I claim that this time is for me and me alone. I’m 83 years old.”—Maurice Sendak on Fresh Air. (via nprfreshair)
noun1.the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing,denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.2.a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which humanfolly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.3.a literary genre comprising such compositions.
yes, i’m quite clear on the definition of satire. however, that article wasn’t satirical, and if it was meant to be, it was an overwhelming failure [check out orwell, seuss, vonnegut, huxley, or adams if you’re fuzzy on what satire is supposed to look like]. you see, to take a social situation and regurgitate the asinine things ignorant people are actually saying [and what some of the mainstream media is strongly implying] without any clarification isn’t ironic, sarcastic, or funny at all. actually, it’s pretty offensive, totally unhelpful, and dangerous to the movement in question.
anyone who finds the humour in such trash lives under a sad rock indeed, and the author really ought to find another hobby.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I thought when I saw that. A rant is not satire. At least, it’s not particularly good satire. It’s got the derision thing down, certainly, but there’s no irony, no (effective) sarcasm, no wit, just a couple South Park references and cheap shots using hippie clichés.
I understand that that dude does not support the occupation, but it’s still worth mentioning that we responded because we actually believe in some way that, flawed as it is, it is the first action taken towards a reclamation of the country. There are plenty of problems with how it’s run, but that’s where the discussion should begin, not dismissed outright.
I remember listening to a The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe one afternoon. They had a bit about a supposed Chupacabra siting in some small town in Texas. A more curious person would have looked into it farther to see if it actually was a mythic creature or, more likely, a tremendously sick animal, but the guys who spotted it shot it on sight.
That’s what this “satire” is. The original blogger found something that looked a little strange, and rather than find out what it actually was and possibly nurse it back to health, he shot at it. Except in this case, the sick animal survives.
I’ve taken a brief look through the Greatest Blucking Flog Ever, and it seems like he actually has some insight into what’s going on in the world, to which I have to ask (and this is directed squarely at him, if he cares to look): do you really think everything is fine? That no action needs to be taken, that our financial system will be fixed on its own, and that we can just go about our business and things will be okay for the lower 99%? Are you among the top 1%?
If so, then fine. You have nothing to worry about. Go back to ripping off South Park.
It’s class warfare! Yeah right. Three decades of laissez-faire economic polices have allowed the rich to double their share of the national income while paying tax rates a fifth lower than before. The result,notes Kevin Drum, was “wage stagnation for everyone else, a massive financial collapse that ravaged the middle class, an enormous deficits that they’ll be asked to pay off eventually.” If the millionaires tax is the only blowback, the wealthy should count their blessings.
It’s a tax on small business “Don’t forget that most small businesses file taxes as individuals,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Fox News Sunday. “So when you are raising top tax rates, you are raising taxes on these job creators.” Except when you aren’t. ThinkProgress’s Pat Garofalo points out that fewer than 2 percent of the nation’s small businesses fall into either of the top two tax brackets. Plus, many of the small business filers in the upper brackets are merely investors who have nothing to do with running the business. And if small businesses don’t want to pay taxes as individuals, they can file always as corporations.
It reduces incentives to work and invest Experience shows otherwise. As Nancy Folbre points out over at Economix, “average annual rates of growth in gross domestic product in the high tax era between 1950 and 1980 exceeded those of the last 30 years. Increases in the top tax rate under President Bill Clinton were followed by robust economic expansion.”
The rich will leave the country Good riddance, writes Don Peck in a recent Atlantic essay on how to save the middle class: “America remains a magnet for talent, for reasons that go beyond the tax code; and by international standards, none of the tax changes recommended here would create an excessive tax burden on high earners. If a few financiers choose to decamp for some small island-state in search of the smallest possible tax bill, we should wish them good luck.”
I don’t have a lot to say about this latest anti-Wall Street protest movement. Certainly the anger is understandable. The financiers are making huge piles of cash while much of America remains unemployed or underemployed.
The vast wealth of the banking industry stands in stark contrast to the vanishing American middle class. After this latest recession, one really does question whether the investment bankers are adding value to the economy at all or whether it’s become an elaborate shuffling trick, siphoning real value out of the economy and into the very deep pockets of those at the top.
I’m not sure that the protests will have any impact, but it’s good to keep this issue in the spotlight.
Posting this not because it’s particularly revelatory, but because it’s always good to see some level of support from major media outlets. I mean, this isn’t some left-wing fringe blog, it’s freaking Forbes. They publish a yearly issue touting the 400 richest Americans. It literally goes by the moniker “The Capitalist Tool,” and even they feel as though shit’s kind of out of hand.