The "Occupy" Movement

[vonGarvin]

What colour is the sky in your world?

Aquamarine, but what's that have to do with the Occupy xxx movement?  ;D


As for the 'heavy-handed' reaction, there are rules about blocking roads, etc, and the reality is that most (99%) of the protestors haven't a real clue why they are there.  For example, listening to the news radio from Fredericton on Thursday or Friday, they mentioned that there are a few down by City Hall.  They interviewed "the leader" and she was asked about the general reaction.  She said that some were negative, but that they "didn't understand the issues", but most people were positive.

I found this to be a load of horse-hooey.  "They don't agree with me, therefore, they don't understand".  I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement, other than the perception that "life isn't fair".  You know what?  You're right, it isn't.  Now go get a job and take care of supplying yourself and your family with the lower end of the Maslow Heirarchy, and worry about "Self Actualisation" in your spare time.

 

[aesop081]

  I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement,

Don't worry, neither does the "movement" itself.

 

[Timmy!]

Not to throw this off track any part what so ever.. but here is link to the Halifax issue. Hope you can join us on the movement.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103169.0.html

 

[Jed]

>the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters...

The broken record continues.

It is clear that the TP'ers are exactly the sort of irresponsible, wastrel, vandalism-prone, slovenly, freeloading parasites that will not bother to show up at the ballot box.  Progressive-minding, forward-thinking, compassionate, industrious, fastidious Democrats and other members of the political left in America will show up; the policies of the Obama administration will be given a resounding mandate and increased threefold and there will be prosperity unto the end of time.  Every year, as many bonds will be "sold" as necessary to sustain public spending at 110% of the highest revenue watermark, understanding that they will be redeemed tomorrow, and that tomorrow never comes.

And we will all be "drinking free bubble up and eating rainbow stew"

 

[Redeye]

As for the 'heavy-handed' reaction, there are rules about blocking roads, etc, and the reality is that most (99%) of the protestors haven't a real clue why they are there.  For example, listening to the news radio from Fredericton on Thursday or Friday, they mentioned that there are a few down by City Hall.  They interviewed "the leader" and she was asked about the general reaction.  She said that some were negative, but that they "didn't understand the issues", but most people were positive.

Whether they have a clue or not "why" they are there isn't relevant to determining the reaction. In particular, I'm troubled by the fact that in Oakland there's a guy with a TBI on life support because he was shot in the head some sort of "less than lethal" ammunition by an Oakland cop.

I found this to be a load of horse-hooey.  "They don't agree with me, therefore, they don't understand".  I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement, other than the perception that "life isn't fair".  You know what?  You're right, it isn't.  Now go get a job and take care of supplying yourself and your family with the lower end of the Maslow Heirarchy, and worry about "Self Actualisation" in your spare time.

I know several "99%ers" who'd like nothing more than to have a decent job - who've spent months hunting for one, and who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth. When there's so much BS about job creation and economic recovery being spouted by corporatist tea partiers (and I'm restraining my self by not using the term I normally reserve for them and the accompanying contempt) while they have literally done nothing, and several have said they won't because they're more interested in trying to dethrone President Obama, something it appears they have zero chance of doing in 2012.

I wish there was a clearer message, a platform, a strategy to fix the mess that the USA has gotten themselves into, but alas, as yet, there isn't. There's just anger that's trying to channel itself into something.

 

[vonGarvin]

Whether they have a clue or not "why" they are there isn't relevant to determining the reaction. In particular, I'm troubled by the fact that in Oakland there's a guy with a TBI on life support because he was shot in the head some sort of "less than lethal" ammunition by an Oakland cop.

This guy is doing relatively well and not on life support. 

What hit him?

The article above makes no claim that the police fired at or upon by the Oakland police.

Here is the relevant part of the article, with all emphasis added by me for, well, emphasis:

The something was a projectile that apparently came from police lines, fractured Olsen's skull and put him in Highland General Hospital. Doctors upgraded his condition Thursday from critical to fair, and said they expect him to make a full recovery

If you want to read more on this guy, go to the website he created.

 

[Redeye]

That's an improvement over the last thing I read - there is apparently video of OPD shooting him, but I've not read that much into it - the fact that any of this has happened at all is more than enough to suggest there is something seriously wrong.

As for the site, I will direct you to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

This guy is doing relatively well and not on life support. 

What hit him?

The article above makes no claim that the police fired at or upon by the Oakland police.

Here is the relevant part of the article, with all emphasis added by me for, well, emphasis:


If you want to read more on this guy, go to the website he created.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

and who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth.

Redeye-

I have watched this with patience but can watch no more.  Your above statement is, to put it charitably, Horse pucky.  You of all people, given where you work in your day job, should know that the supply of wealth in the world is not finite. 

Where was the wealth created by Bill Gates, before he had the idea of Microsoft?  It wasn't anywhere- he created that wealth, literally out of thin air.  The same as when Google was invented. And Facebook.  And Netflix (ok- bad example. That wealth probably came from Blockbuster...).

The point is- when people have good ideas, invent new companies and change paridigms, they get wealthy beyond belief.  And their shareholders (which is you and me, thru mutual and pension funds) get wealthy, too.

What do I care how much money Steve Jobs had or Bill Gates does?  And why should you?  Go friggin invent something, get fabulously wealthy and then give all your money away to the poor.  Or burn it.  Who cares- it will be your money.  Earned legally, fair and square.

 

[a_majoor]

who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth.

And you identify the entire mindset with one magic phrase. Horde the wealth? From whom?

The "wealth" isn't yours or theirs to dispose of, it belongs to the people who earned it. If wealth holders have decided individually that they no longer wish to put their wealth at the disposal of bureaucrats and politicians to dispose of as they see fit (and with little regard to any effective use of the wealth they so freely spend) then more power to them. if they choose not to share their wealth with freeloaders and moochers, then they have made a choice (and a rational one as well). If these OWS freeloaders, their political patrons and the crony capitalists who want to seize my wealth think they are entitled to it, then they can come with guns in hand and try to take it; my property and what wealth I have accumulated is mine by right, and I am willing to defend it.

If they are wondering why they can't get a good job despite "trying", consider that I am close to leaving the Armed Forces and starting my own business. Anyone who shows up with a resume with "Theater Arts" or "Gender Studies" had better be prepared to work for minimum wage as a labourer, since I will have no other use for such a person in a business setting (assuming I have any general unskilled labour positions at all). A business "rule of thumb" suggests that sales should be $200,000/employee, so anyone who wants to work in a highly renumerative job had better have some real skils to take to the table, or be willing to work long, hard hours in uncomfortable settings (like an Infantry soldier) to get there.

Reality is hitting everyone a hard blow, but the decades of out of control spending for special interests at the expense of everyone else is going to stop one way or another. IF *we* get it right, there will be a controlled drawdown, wrapping up of programs and stoppage of entitlements and benefits that are far beyond market rates. If we don't,....the "Man on the white horse" awaits at the end of the road.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Nuff said,

dileas

tess

 

[Redeye]

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is a problem when money buys governments. There's a problem when economic growth has been stagnant for a long time. There's a problem when there's a perception (even if not necessarily true) that the losses of a certain set of actors are socialized, but the profits remain private. I don't agree, necessarily, with what the Occupy folks say, but they have a point and it's one worth exploring, IMHO. When that's being abetted by governments, that's a problem.

Anyhow, I think I'm done here, there's no point.

Redeye-

I have watched this with patience but can watch no more.  Your above statement is, to put it charitably, Horse pucky.  You of all people, given where you work in your day job, should know that the supply of wealth in the world is not finite. 

Where was the wealth created by Bill Gates, before he had the idea of Microsoft?  It wasn't anywhere- he created that wealth, literally out of thin air.  The same as when Google was invented. And Facebook.  And Netflix (ok- bad example. That wealth probably came from Blockbuster...).

The point is- when people have good ideas, invent new companies and change paridigms, they get wealthy beyond belief.  And their shareholders (which is you and me, thru mutual and pension funds) get wealthy, too.

What do I care how much money Steve Jobs had or Bill Gates does?  And why should you?  Go friggin invent something, get fabulously wealthy and then give all your money away to the poor.  Or burn it.  Who cares- it will be your money.  Earned legally, fair and square.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And I will stipulate that-

1. Wealth should not buy governments.  Opportunity (but not outcomes) should be guaranteed to everyone.

2. The TARP and GM (etc) bailouts should never have happened.  Had the big US companies failed, there would have been serious, short-term hurt as a lot of people would have lost jobs and savings.  Then, somebody would have come along, picked the bones of the bankrupt companies and filled their business niches. In all likelihood the US would now be firing on all cylinders, wondering what to do with all the cash, instead of what is currently the case.

 

[the 48th regulator]

My status on Facebook;

To the remaining "Occupy Protesters"....

Today, two jobs opened up for you to apply this week in Canada. Two warriors did their duty to allow you to play with your iPad in the middle of some lone park in your local city.

If you are quick enough, and got the intestinal fortitude to uphold your views of your protest, you can trundle along to the nearest Recruiting centre, not far from where your MTEC tent is pitched, and offer to fill the lofty boots of these two warriors.

Master Cpl. Byron Greff
Sgt. Janick Gilbert

Otherwise in the vain of all the rest of us, that find you lazy asses as crass, STFU.

Your Friend

tess

dileas

tess

 

[Redeye]

And I will stipulate that-

1. Wealth should not buy governments.  Opportunity (but not outcomes) should be guaranteed to everyone.

And that I agree with - and that - in spite of a lot of strawmen, is what most of the discussion generated by "Occupy" has been about. Of course, they don't have a particularly clear message, and there's been a lot of noise that takes away from that.

2. The TARP and GM (etc) bailouts should never have happened.  Had the big US companies failed, there would have been serious, short-term hurt as a lot of people would have lost jobs and savings.  Then, somebody would have come along, picked the bones of the bankrupt companies and filled their business niches. In all likelihood the US would now be firing on all cylinders, wondering what to do with all the cash, instead of what is currently the case.

The situations that created the need to respond in those ways should never have happened. That said, the cold reality is that the US Treasury made money off of TARP, and that was what was expected, since the idea was nothing new, and that was the outcome the last time such a strategy was used. I fail to see how an orderly liquidation of GM would have been possible - the parts GM spun out haven't been picked up, and I would expect that had the company been liquidated, those auto workers who are still working in the restructured GM would instead be unemployed.

Interesting piece from the always brilliant Matt Taibbi here, definitely worth a read: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025 - I can't find a lot to argue in this piece.
[/quote]

 

[SeaKingTacco]

the parts GM spun out haven't been picked up, and I would expect that had the company been liquidated, those auto workers who are still working in the restructured GM would instead be unemployed.

Debatable point- and largely a personal choice, if true.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13308

Have a look at the unemployment rate in North Dakota.  3.5%.  They are screaming for labour in that state.  But, people don't want to move...which is a personal choice.

 

[Scott]

That's an improvement over the last thing I read - there is apparently video of OPD shooting him, but I've not read that much into it - the fact that any of this has happened at all is more than enough to suggest there is something seriously wrong.

In Oakland. Right? It appears to be an isolated incident to me. Let's not draw conclusions about the rest.

Personally speaking, I am one of the 99% that would choose to be elsewhere so as not to get hit with a projectile that apparently came from police lines.

 

[Journeyman]

Anyhow, I think I'm done here, there's no point.

And that...

Well, that radio silence lasted for all of about 45 minutes.

 

[Redeye]

In Oakland. Right? It appears to be an isolated incident to me. Let's not draw conclusions about the rest.

Denver was also the scene of a pretty heavy-handed response. I think Dallas as well.

Personally speaking, I am one of the 99% that would choose to be elsewhere so as not to get hit with a projectile that apparently came from police lines.

As am I - but that's not the issue. The issue is, why was that level of force necessary against people occupying a public space doing exactly what their fundamental freedoms should allow them to do?

 

[Redeye]

Well, that radio silence lasted for all of about 45 minutes.

Yep. SeaKingTacco posted something interesting and worthy of a response.  The other interesting point was in his original post about how Bill Gates got rich by creating something (he incidentally also supports a lot of "progressive" cauuses and plans to donate much of his wealth when he dies to his foundation rather than passing it on. That got me thinking about the nature of the problem, and the Taibbi piece too. Gates created something of value - a product, which had a market because he saw demand. Ditto Google, Netflix, Facebook, whatever else. The difference when the financial mess happened is that derivatives were engineered as a form of gambling, but it was all basically fixed because the financial "engineers" who dreamed them up knew what they were doing and knew their losses would be socialized. They didn't actually add any value, they didn't see a market opportunity in quite the same way. They gamed a system in a way few could, and I understand the outrage at that.

 

[vonGarvin]

The issue is, why was that level of force necessary against people occupying a public space doing exactly what their fundamental freedoms should allow them to do?

That's an interesting way to say it.  Although right to assembly, free speech, etc all apply, but it's not exclusive to those protesting.  Others (including the average work-a-day Joe) may wish to use roads for their intended purpose: transportation to and from work.  Just because one has the right to assemble and stuff, there are places for that.  But not being privy to the entire episode (including the mood of the crowd, etc), I can't comment beyond stating that I'm fairly confident that the use of tear gas, bean bag rounds or whatever isn't the issue.  The issue is that dude had his melon messed up.  (and of course, even the riot police aren't trained to shoot for the head: they shoot for centre of mass).  And gas rounds (if that's what it was) are shot to skip on the ground.  Who knows, maybe it skipped up after hitting a rock and got him in the melon.  And who knows?  Maybe he was bending down to pick up a rock when it skipped up?

My point is this: the "protestors" were in all likelyhood not saints, and I highly doubt that the Oakland Police are the Gestapo reincarnated.  I just believe that there's more than what that one video shows.  That's all.