Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear teacheratlarge,

"Massive? I think small would be a better description. They were hoping for 10000 to come and block the Wall street buildings after they were evicted from the park, but only got about a hundred or so."

I think "massive" was referring to the police response rather than to (as you seem to be saying) the Occupy protestors.


"I have hardly seen any report of no message,"

Let me assist (and I hope you won't mind my pointing out that the "hardly" is misplaced in your sentence.)

"Occupy Wall Street Has No 'Message', But It Has A Reason"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-fitzgerald/mission-of-occupy-wall-street_b_998913.html

"When the occupation of Wall Street began a few weeks ago, any acknowledgment in the mainstream media was plagued with refrains designed to suggest that they were a motley crew of 21st-century hippies: What's the message? What are they fighting for? Do they not know that the computers and mobile phones they're using spreading their message are owned by corporations?"

http://www.indiewire.com/article/and_they_say_occupywallst_has_no_message_10_docs_that_address_the_ows_griev#

"Occupy protesters have no message"

http://www.prescottaz.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubsectionID=73&ArticleID=100496

A google search will lead to more - "but rather one that wasn't clear with many members giving different messages (see above, 100 answers, and that from the people the reporter talked to)."

That's quite an assumption - namely that 100 answers has to mean 100 different messages. Hmm, if I were to ask 100 people, "Does the sun rise in the east" and I got 100 "Yes" answers, would getting 100 answers mean I was getting "different messages?

"As to 3#, legislators often have interests in things they pass laws for, nothing new or terribly horrifying in that. Having conflicts of interests is not always avoidable . . . "

True, there's "nothing new" in corruption and graft, but, for me, at least, that doesn't make it "right." Conflicts of interest are a matter of ethics.

" . . . I could see some other laws that would probably have a bigger impact on turning things around, economically though."

Would you share? Also, "turning things around economically" is not the ONLY concern. But having politicians bought and paid for can and does have very far-reaching effect on every aspect of our lives. In fact, the current economic distress was in no small measure caused by the connivance of politicians in bed with corporate interests (i.e. Wall Street, big banks, mortgage companies, etc.)

Regards,
John

Dear Captain_Fil,

"In 2010, Philadelphia police officers made some spectacularly bad headlines for acts of corruption, prompting Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey to warn that "it could get worse before it gets better."

That trend will continue into the new year, with several more corruption cases "coming to a head in 2011," Ramsey said in an interview this week.

"Irrespective of the embarrassment it may cause, it's worth it if we can get rid of people," he said. "In the long term, we'll be a much better, much stronger department."

I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I find the stench of corruption far more offensive than that produced by human waste.

[johnslat]

Ann Coulter's words of wisdom:

"Not everyone agrees with the Occupy Wall Street movement, nor do they have to. Many might not even sympathize with the protesters when they are shot with tear gas cannisters, beaten with nightsticks, or sprayed with pepper spray. But it takes a special breed of *sshole to publicly wish for a repeat of the Kent State shootings. As it turns out, Ann Coulter is that kind of *sshole.

In case you don't want to listen to the whole spiel, here's the relevant quote from Coulter: "So at the moment anyway, I mean I don't know what's going to happen in New York today, but at the moment I'm not really worried of a movement like SDS which really swept a lot of the college campuses... taking over. Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good." And here's another, just in case you weren't convinced: "This is the first time they got bullets back... and that put an end to the protests pretty quickly." If you'd like to read the full transcript, MediaMatters has it here.

Let's ignore her "creative" interpretation of the Vietnam era and the aftershocks of the Kent State shootings. This is a media figure publicly endorsing that we repeat a national tragedy by firing upon the Occupy protesters. Not with riot control methods, but with actual, lethal bullets. It's mind boggling that this woman continues to get public appearances and book deals, because she is the absolute worst face of partisan politics. "

http://www.ology.com/politics/ann-coulter-advocates-shooting-occupy-protesters

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

For years I didn't believe she was a real person. I thought she was a parody. In fact, I thought some American artists created her by ripping off Soviet Anti-American caricatures... : )

[jaydizzle]

I'm still not sure she is. Jeeeeeeeez...

[johnslat]

What's Next: Occupy Elections:

"What's next? That's the question being asked as cities close down Occupy encampments and winter approaches.

The answer is simple. Just as the Tea Party gained power, the Occupy Movement can. The Occupy movement has raised awareness of a great many of America's real issues and has organized supporters across the country. Next comes electoral power. Wall Street exerts its force through the money that buys elections and elected officials. But ultimately, the outcome of elections depends on people willing to take to the streets - registering voters, knocking on doors, distributing information, speaking in local venues. The way to change the nation is to occupy elections.

Whatever Occupiers may think of the Democrats, they can gain power within the Democratic Party and hence in election contests all over America. All they have to do is join Democratic Clubs, stick to their values, speak out very loudly, and work in campaigns for candidates at every level who agree with their values. If Occupiers can run tent camps, organize food kitchens and clean-up brigades, run general assemblies, and use social media, they can take over and run a significant part of the Democratic Party.

To what end? All the hundreds of the occupiers' legitimate complaints and important policy suggestions follow from a simple general moral principle: American democracy is about citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that care.

The idea is simple but a lot follows from it: a government that protects and empowers everyone equally, a government of the Public - public roads and buildings, school and universities, research and innovation, public health and health care, safety nets, access to justice in the courts, enforcement of worker rights, and practical necessities like sewers, power grids, clean air and water, public safety including safe food, drugs, and other products, public parks and recreational facilities, public oversight of the economy - fiscal and trade policy, banking, the stock market - and especially the preservation of nature in the interest of all.

The Public has been what has made Americans free - and has underwritten American wealth. No one makes it on his or her own. Private success depends on a robust Public.

The rationale for the Occupy movement is that all of this has been under successful attack by the right wing, which has an opposing principle, that democracy is about citizens only taking care of themselves, about personal and not social responsibility. According to right-wing morality, the successful are by definition the moral; the one percent are taken to be the most moral. The country and the world should be ruled by such a "moral" hierarchy. Except for national security, the Public should disappear through lack of funding. The nation and the world should be ruled for private profit alone - and by force.

That idea is what is destroying American democracy, and America with it. That idea is what is behind everything the Occupy Movement opposes - and everything that is going wrong with America today.

Not only is America divided between two opposing principles, but a great many individuals are of those two minds at once: progressive on some matters, conservative on others - with all sorts of variations. They are called variously independents, moderates, or the center. They are mostly the population that elections depend on. They have not one fundamental principle, but are split between two.

What makes one of these ascendant in the individual brain is the language one hears most. That is why the domination of public discourse is so important. It is why advertising in the media is important, why talk radio and tv and social media matter. Elections are what focus attention on public discourse. That is why the next step for the Occupy Movement should be to occupy elections.

The way to begin any discussion should be: Do you care about your fellow citizens? If so, do you take responsibility to act on that care?

The next question is: Do you realize how much every American, no matter how rich or poor, depends upon The Public?

Only when those questions are answered can detailed policy questions make sense.

Those are the questions that should be dominating our public discourse. They are the implicit questions asked by the Occupy movement. It is time to make them explicit, and to do so where it counts: in occupying elections."

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/441-occupy/8670-focus-occupy-elections-with-a-simple-message

Regards,
John

[teacheratlarge]

johslat posted

[teacheratlarge]

johnslat posted

[teacheratlarge]

Reader supported news? I am just wondering, how many truthers are lurking about? One source in Japan is The Corbett Report (published by a Canadian who lives in Japan).

[johnslat]

Dear teacheratlarge,

"The nation and the world should be ruled for private profit alone - and by force."

Case in point: Iraq.

Regards,
John

[teacheratlarge]

We should occupy Iraq Now?

Wait a minute, you're not military are you ?

I'm not sure what Iraq demonstrates. Taking down corrupt leaders does consume a lot of time (the Arab spring is still going on, and on), or is it better just to occupy?

I think the Iraq 'invasion' (for lack of a better word) was/is a misguided attempt to influence Middle Eastern policy. I think the occupy movement is similar (good intentions with misguided goals), though at least my tax dollars aren't funding it.

[johnslat]

Dear teacheratlarge,

The Iraqi invasion was a corporate enterprise, inspired wholly by the profit motive (ANybody find those mythical WMDs yet?) And, if we're in the business of removing brutal dictators, Kim Jong-il should have been at the TOP of the list. After all, we KNOW he has nuclear bombs, Oh, sorry - I forgot: no oil in North Korea.

No, I'm not military, but I was: USMC 1963 -1967; Chu Lai, Vietnam 1965 - 1966.

"I think the occupy movement is similar (good intentions with misguided goals)"

I thought that, according to you,, their problem was not having any goals - or maybe too many?

Which of their "goals" do you see as "misguided?"

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

[johnslat]

Dear teacheratlarge,

"From what I have seen from looking at NYC population figures, less than 100 people would fall short of 99% of all New Yorkers."

May I direct your attention to the verb in this clause?

"we represent the 99%"

"I have hardly seen any report of no message,"

should be

I have seen hardly any reports of no message.

Google is not - in my opinion - a guide to correct grammar. Your sentence means that you have almost not seen any report.


You've lost me here:

"I would look at that a little differently, in other words getting 100 yes answers (the same answers) from a hundred different people. That is not quite what the Guardian reporter said."

"Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act � the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create fake derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors."

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the reporter is saying that these were the top three (most often mentioned) responses.

Could you elaborate on how you "look at it a little differently," please.

Regards,
John

[geaaronson]

[geaaronson]