Wall Street Protests

[yeshaberto]

be careful of the tone this thread is taking.   

[Super Dude]

Isn't it harmful to a person's livelihood to prevent them from working?

You know, this is a totally valid point. But my natural reaction is to compare this damage to the damage done by the institutions actually occupying Wall Street with their towers and their backdoor connection with the government. In comparison, the little racket the occupiers is NOTHING.

This whole thread consists of people arguing about whether the protesters are good guys or bad guys. Seriously, who gives a fucking shit? A small group of people planned a little gig in Wall Street as a response to a severe threat posed to the general population which is becoming ever clearer since the beginning of the financial crisis (people in Europe are definitely feeling this stronger than ever right now). Not everyone understands the entire picture. I sure don't, and I try to learn more every day. The gig turned out to attract a variety of people. Everybody has a different response to the felt threat. Some feel that simply taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth will fix their problems. Others see our economic system as being unsustainable and participate in discussion groups to exchange ideas. Still others just show up because they want to do something even though they don't have a clue what's going on.

OWS and especially the occupiers camping out are symptoms of America's current social and economic condition. People are fed up with the political system since wherever they try to place their hope and allegiance they end up being disappointed. Skepticism runs deep, and that's one thing that's interesting about OWS. The movement as a whole isn't ready to let a single person or single idea take over.

From what I've seen, though, the "elites" of the movement seem to hold faith in one ideal; democracy (calling it faith may be going too far). They vehemently reject there ever being an unchecked center in the movement. The question is how long this can last, especially with the occupiers being in a chaotic state, having the rug pulled from under them. 

If you want to critique this group of people loosely tied together with some catch phrases and  a sense of community, critique what is being applied to this symptom; democracy or the ideology of consensus building. There are no good guys or bad guys, just a swing of the pendulum and your emotions.

Rathma's got a point. An Occupier can disrupt someone's commute, and make a person late for a few days or something. Someone on Wall Street with their hands in government institutions can ruin many people's lives and livelihoods on a much grander scale and with much greater severity. Not that I'm trying to play a game of "Who's causing more harm than whom," but I see it as a good reason OWS shouldn't let up. And hey, this is coming from someone who's been alienated by some of the finer details of their agenda.

[Scheavo]

What rights do you keep bringing up? I'm pretty sure the right to assembly is against the government and while the message is anti-policy those being directly affected are not associated with the government. Blocking traffic/streets/bridges turns into individual on individual instead of individual vs government.

Our rights are agreements between fellow people though. As a society, we give people the right to protest, in return for being given the right to protest. Don't like this movement? Form a counter-protest movement.

I really don't see how you're going to effect the government without effecting individuals, especially in a democracy. Those individuals are voters, voters who determine the government.

[orcus116]

Fair enough, though I don't see how the actions today would really help their cause.

[Chino]

I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.

[Scheavo]

Fair enough, though I don't see how the actions today would really help their cause.

In some of their actions today, I agree with you.  I generally think a lot of protests don't do anything. I thought the occupy idea was a much better way to get their message out, much more potent.

Honestly, I'm starting to have suspicions that the people who forced out the occupation wanted this to happen. What they were doing was less offensive to people than what they figured they would force the demonstrators to do. It's fucking coninvingly brilliant, in an evil, undemocratic, authoritarian way. But this is just me being conspiratorially, ironically, so even I don't really believe it.

I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.

If it veered of course, that's because they were forced that way.

[chknptpie]

I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.

How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things,  to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?

[Super Dude]

I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.

How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things,  to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?

That's a fair point. And the OWS experience so far has been one or the other, if you look at the news media. It's only politico-nerds like us that give them legitimate attention.

[Scheavo]

I think the movement veered far off course today, I'm starting to disagree with a lot of their actions. Even if they aren't breaking any laws, they are still being assholes. There's a lot of circumstance where I find an asshole harder to tolerate and a law breaker.

How long does it take for a person, trying to be nice and diplomatic about things,  to get tired of being ignored or laughed at?

That's a fair point. And the OWS experience so far has been one or the other, if you look at the news media. It's only politico-nerds like us that give them legitimate attention.

I was gonna ask: has not listening to a bunch of disenchanted young people ever been a good thing?

[faemir]

Well this looks fun:

[ClairvoyantCat]

Well this looks fun:

Video of the same incident: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

Apparently it was forced "out of concern for [the officers'] own safety after they were surrounded by students."  What a load of shit.  There's clearly no harm being presented by the protesters, they're sitting on the ground for fuck's sake. 

This is actually pretty hard to watch. 

[Implode]

I came here to post that. Does anyone know more about the situation?

[jsem]

That's horrible.

[antigoon]

Protect and Serve!!

Check this out:

Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street

By Jonathan Larsen and Ken Olshansky, MSNBC TV
A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”
The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

[...]

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment on the memo. But he responded to its characterization of Republicans as defenders of Wall Street by saying, “My understanding is that President Obama is the single largest recipient of donations from Wall Street.”
On “Up” Saturday, Obama campaign adviser Anita Dunn responded by saying that the majority of the president’s re-election campaign is fueled by small donors. She rejected the suggestion that the president himself is too close to Wall Street, saying “If that’s the case, why were tough financial reforms passed over party line Republican opposition?”

The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo.  “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.” 

The memo indicates that CLGC would research who has contributed financial backing to OWS, noting that, “Media reports have speculated about associations with George Soros and others.”
"It will be vital,” the memo says, “to understand who is funding it and what their backgrounds and motives are. If we can show that they have the same cynical motivation as a political opponent it will undermine their credibility in a profound way.”

That bolded part is hilarious. Tough financial reforms, my ass

[Super Dude]

They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :

[antigoon]

Well, anyway, that wasn't the point of the article I just couldn't resist the easy jab. On one hand I'm glad OWS has got these people worried enough to try to start this "campaign", but on the other hand I'm concerned about what something like that might do.


Edit: I think the President should address the public about these police abuses. There's seriously something new every day.

[Super Dude]

What could it do? It's out in the open now, isn't it?

[antigoon]

What could it do? It's out in the open now, isn't it?

Yeah, but everyone's not going to know about it, and people are susceptible to propaganda. I think it's unwise to underestimate what large lobbying and PR firms can do to mold public opinion.

Chris Hedges always seems to have a flair for the dramatic in his writing, but I liked this piece on OWS.

Edit: Okay, one more link.

Here's an Open Letter to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, written by an assistant professor at the school.

[Rathma]

They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :

Who exactly?

[Super Dude]

They would've been tough had a certain MA senator not killed it... :

Who exactly?

Scott Brown. He took out all the stuff that actually limited what Wall Street bankers could do with the money that came into the bank's hands, such as hedge funds. I remember because I was following the bill intensely.

[Chino]

Well this looks fun:

Video of the same incident: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

Apparently it was forced "out of concern for [the officers'] own safety after they were surrounded by students."  What a load of shit.  There's clearly no harm being presented by the protesters, they're sitting on the ground for fuck's sake. 

This is actually pretty hard to watch.

That's insane.

I'm waiting for some group to just snap... A couple hundred students bum rushing a few dozen offers and kicking the ever living shit out of them. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

[ClairvoyantCat]

That's insane.

I'm waiting for some group to just snap... A couple hundred students bum rushing a few dozen offers and kicking the ever living shit out of them. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

I can understand why they didn't, though.  The cops are well armed and prepared for a fight, and if students merely encircling them gave them the excuse to pepper spray at will, things could ended up being really nasty for any students who tried to start a brawl. 

[Super Dude]

Not to mention terrible P/R for OWS. Those lobbyists would have a field day.

[orcus116]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

[Chino]

[ddtonfire]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

[antigoon]

Decide for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BjnR7xET7Uo

[ClairvoyantCat]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety.  From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all.  What else do you need to draw a conclusion?

[Scheavo]

Not to mention terrible P/R for OWS. Those lobbyists would have a field day.

And the opposite is good PR for OWS.

[ehra]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety.  From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all.  What else do you need to draw a conclusion?

Something to blame on the protesters.

[orcus116]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety.  From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all.  What else do you need to draw a conclusion?

Just wondering if there was any provocation, which seems to be left out of a lot of news stories regarding these "police bruality" incidents. This one does look pretty terrible for the cops, though.

[Chino]

So is there the cop's side of the story? No need to get up in arms with only one viewpoint available.

As previously mentioned, the defense given by the Chancellor who apparently authorized the use of pepper spray, (no word from the actual cop himself, for obvious reasons) was that the students had encircled the officers and were threatening their safety.  From there, I think you can look at the video and see if there is any real safety threat to the cops at all.  What else do you need to draw a conclusion?

Just wondering if there was any provocation, which seems to be left out of a lot of news stories regarding these "police bruality" incidents. This one does look pretty terrible for the cops, though.

The point of a protest (not just this one) is to let the man know that you want/need positive change. Throughout history, if protesters left every time police asked them to move, nothing would ever had been accomplished. It's not like these kids were rioting and destroying campus property, I find it hard to believe they were "threatening" a group of armed cops in riot gear. The police define the chanting of things like "we will not give up" as if they were saying "we have knives and guns that we plan on using". Of course the cops felt threatened... I would be too if I were standing in the middle of a few hundred pissed off young adults. Shooting a pepper spray at point blank range in the faces of student who were SITTING DOWN and not being a threat to anything other than a campus golf cart that may have needed to get by is not only unprofessional, but completely uncalled for. I'm asking this hypothetically, say the officers used tasers instead of spray, would your opinion be any different?

[orcus116]

Huh? I just said this was a terrible move by the cops, why throw hypotheticals out there?

[Super Dude]

So according to an expert on American politics I overheard at the Cheesecake Factory tonight, the Jews are behind OWS. Also legalize everything.

[orcus116]

You should've gotten their attention and then: