Forum Post: OWS people-- STOP antagonizing the 99%!
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 4:25 a.m. EST by beamerbikeclub
(414)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Stop calling our fellow concerned citizens "trolls" and "stupid" and bringing up their mothers, which is completely rude. If someone is posting or responding on this site that's your opportunity to engage him/her. So far I haven't met a single "troll". I have found people who are indeed disgusted with OWS, but when you actually talk tho them, they agree with the main issues! At least there is common ground. So people... pleez!
And to any real "trolls" out there... okay fine, bring it on. I'm a radical revolutionary anarchist and I don't believe in Jesus and I smoke pot and don't shower and like bongo drums. What say ye?
Beamer...so far you and I have had some discussions and you know basically I am against MOST of the nonsense going on with this disorganized mess they call OWS, you know how I feel nobody can explain even KNOWS WHY this even got started, to me its nothing to do withthe originally issue,BUT you are right you want to debate over something,voice your opinions you do that, there is no need to get nasty,insultive or anything else to that effect...Beamer than again you know what they say: Those who resort to insults and curses are people that can not form an intelligent thought on that subject/issue so they cover their ineptitude with insults and curses
Excuse me but, please point out the insult. I will be happy to clarify or to take it back. I'm confused. Who did I insult and how?
And I am also happy to address your other concerns or shoot some more breeze over what this whole OWS thing means to me and why I support it.
Beamer I did not say you did... your post says: Stop calling our fellow concerned citizens "trolls" and "stupid" and bringing up their mothers, which is completely rude...thats what I meant when I said " Those who resort to insults and curses are people that can not form an intelligent thought on that subject/issue so they cover their ineptitude with insults and curses" those not YOU
my bad! thanks.
btw just sent you an answer to the challenge we were discussing in the pvt messages.
I agree we have to have a conversation, and it's difficult when for years we've been encouraged by our culture to shut up and turn on the TV. Keep trying.
I think its part of the hypocrisy that comes when a group believes it has the moral high ground and perceives itself as somehow 'pure', saying on one hand how 'inclusive' the movement is but then reacting harshly to any perceived or actual criticism from anyone trying to understand it or anyone who challenges OWS tactics. For everyone who is supposed to be the 99% which is basically everyone there is a lot of us vs them divisions going around. I experience it every time I suggest that OWS would benefit from focusing on one issue or a tighter agenda, or if I say the movement risks losing ground with mainstream america which isn't radical and doesn't identify with the extreme right or extreme left.
and I say guilty as charged... but let's keep trying.
Here's the best idea I've heard and I just heard it (in response to a despairing post about the 99% who are Shopping! today)... A public screening of the Charlie Brown Christmas special in Zucotti park!
what do you say?
shit i'm an idiot... sorry for that last one duh confused sorry
anyway... continuing below... yeah but a theatrical version is way more ambitious and also perhaps potentially a flow... whereas the original is Pure Happiness and done!
LOL! Well sure, Charlie Brown is as mainstream as apple pie. Who gets to play Lucy?
oh snap... that's even better... a theatrical version. we were just thinking about screening the video and having a little Christmas party (or 2 or 3 or 12!) in Zucotti park
No way its got to be a theatrical version. This way you can have funny skits that highlight some of the problems going on in the US, the irony being that its wrapped in a Charlie Brown world. You can have people who represent politicians and every time they try and say something it comes out as Wah Wah Wah. A kind of the world look at the economic chaos through the eyes of innocence...BUT it can't lose its sense of humor you know. I mean you want it to have spirit & hope, you don't want to drag people down with a too heavy message. I think it would be a great idea.
Protestors who carry signs that create feelings of anxiety in the public are alienating the public from the movement.and it's main goal. That goal is to pry the hands of the mega wealthy collective off of our law making bodies. From this can follow the re democratization of congress and state government.. This is what the public wants.The counter movement seeks to defame the real movement with lies,misinterpretations of events and the declarations of tangential groups which create negative reactions in the public whose support the re democratization of congress desperately needs.
What signs did you see that were in poor taste?
See my blog for some of the signs found here in Paris, where I am hanging out for a while until I can make my way back home and join the American Occupation!
http://beamerbikeclub.blogspot.com/
Any of OWS official posters with the violent war-like imagery is off-putting to the mainstream. OWS will be shoved aside as nutbags if that keeps up.
agreed.
the famous one with the tanks... yeah... poor choice. especially with the red. I appreciate the reference to Tiananmen Square, but... no... let's no go there.
This one http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-philly-facing-eviction-today/ When the news article first went up, the poster accompanying it was peaceful (liberty bell in a field of yellow and red sun rays) even though the colors were socialist symbolic. It was changed within an hour to the militant fist. I know the feeling is growing that OWS is being led to violence and the official imagery of the movement is helping do that.
The Confederate flag, the swastika; symbols and colors mean things. OWS official imagery means violence. How can it be in keeping with the 'message'?
OWS is not a peaceful movement. It should be. It would be moving toward peaceful if it used peace in its message (not 'non-violence' but PEACE) and its imagery. A peace sign would be better than a militant raised fist, tanks, hands dripping blood, tanks.
OWS is looking to provoke violence based on all its official imagery and official messages such as the port shut down.
oh that reminds me... i need to go read the post about how maybe OWS should be Violent...?!?
The trouble is, there are plenty of those. What's baffling is that 'officially' OWS calls itself a non-violent protest (rather than a peaceful protest) while using violent message official posters and headlines. Its saying one thing, but showing the exact opposite, plus not doing enough to distance itself from the violent factions. Which are^ plenty. So OWS says it is non-violent, but allows violent factions in its memberships and participations and puts out official violent imagery and messages.
yeah... i'm not getting worked up about images circulating on the internet. if i go and see them at a protest or camp... then maybe.
I think Oligarchophobe may be referring to signs that blame jews. There were a few people who had signs that said “the Jews control Wall Street.” Or referred to "Hitler's Bankers". You can check that out how it all went down in this video: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-blame-the-jews-hitlers-bankers-wall-street.html
Needless to say OWS managed to not be completely tainted by that. What does create feelings of anxiety in the general public though is this call for 'revolution' and then having an OWS member say how they are communist or an anarchist. In Europe there is a better understanding of anarchism and communism not to mention how socialist democracies function but this isn't the case in the US. Most americans would vehemently oppose anything associated with anarchism or communism, so it makes people wonder what it is the movement is really all about. Most americans sympathize with the movement because they do think government has been corrupted by financial power elites, they do see the effects of foreclosures, unemployment and dwindling social services, they are angry about bailouts. They also see how completely corrupt Washington has become and the revolving door between the financial sector and the halls of government but what they are looking for is repair of structural damage, not a dismantling of the system.
thanks... are you in NYC?
Yes I am
are you "in deep"? : ) do you go to GA's and participate?
I am considering coming to NYC. If there was a general spirit that the next 5 weeks should be about celebrating an alternative (true) spirit of Christmas (while of course standing firm on the issues)... well that would be a) powerful and b) something I would want to join
I did in the very beginning but then there were other things in my life that didn't allow me to spend as much time. I was planning on going on to a part-time OWS volunteer meeting which I think is tomorrow. To tell you the truth sometimes I get frustrated with OWS because I believe the potential to be huge. The movement has so much going for it in terms of general popularity and hitting the right cord in addressing long buried issues but I'm beginning to wonder if it all won't amount to people just protesting here and protesting there on every issue under the sun and losing its focus. The system in in dire need of a complete overhaul and we should begin in Washington. You should go to a GA, there are lots of interesting people you will meet and there are loads of projects and committees you can involve yourself with not to mention just being another body in a march. Its an important movement I just hope it doesn't lose its momentum and focus.
Have you read the 99% Declaration? I believe OWS/99% can get what we want one way or the other. http://occupywallst.org/forum/update-on-the-99-declaration-and-the-national-gene/
Sure I've seen it. I'm not doubting the agenda but the focus. In other words to get even one of those changes met is going to take a lot of hard work. So instead of trying to change it all we need to be decisive on what we focus on being changed first, like election finance reform for example. And then work on tackling the next issue etc. I guess what I was saying is I believe that OWS may be spreading itself too thin by trying to address all of those issues at once.
Then you've also seen how everyone has there own ideas about what's on The List of Grievances. The agenda (organizing the electing of delegates and preparing for Philadelphia) requires a lot of work today, the LOG will come into focus at the National General Assembly, no?
Yes I know that but there has to be one definite goal, a first goal, so that mainstream americans who sympathize with the movement but do not participate can rally around something. At the moment the movement seems to be protesting everything and anything, hence the lack of focus and lack of political weight.
The one definite goal is Philadelphia. That is the only one thing everyone can clearly understand. It is the responsibility of the NYCGA to explain this in no uncertain terms:
1)immediately set up a general assembly for every congressional district
2)each DGA must elect two delegates
3)each DGA must produce it's own List Of Grievances
4) All delegates must attend the National General Assembly (NGA)
OWS exercised it's 1st Amendment right to Peaceably assemble OWS must exercise it's 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I know the feeling. After "we" totally won in Seattle in 1999 and kicked the WTO out of town there was tremendous energy and hope. Then I went to meeting after meeting and the whole entire thing "died in committee".
Did I mention this to you... someone posted a Great idea on a despairing thread about how everyone (the 99%) is shopping today. Here's the idea: hold a public screening of the Charlie Brown Christmas special in Zucotti park!! OWS needs to be joyful and fun (as well as serious and determined). What do you think?
Well I didn't shop today. Yeah I was discussing the Charlie Brown screening. I think it should be a theatrical event but either way I would show up for it.
What was awesome about Seattle is that it made the WTO issue mainstream. I know a lot of people who didn't know anything about WTO until Seattle and then they wondered what it was that drew such a reaction from the public.
I'm a man - a deeply religious. I am an Orthodox Christian. And I believe - the proclamation of the truth - there is God's will. It's, and i want to do. ... This is - just my favorite music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qWDm5NIoQ
Thank you for sharing and engaging.
I say there is merit in what you say - antagonizing the 99 is not the way to go.
I say I myself, am a Free Radical.
I say if you smoke pot, that is your decision.
I say that if anyone would smoke pot and oppose economic injustice, then perhaps they would benefit from some deep self examination and introspection.
Over 40,000 people lie dead beyond our southern border.
All of this murder is as a direct result of American Consumer Demand.
I say, as I have said, We must either enforce the law, or we must change the law.
http://zendogblog.net/poems/cusee.htm
http://zendogblog.net/poems/crime_war.htm
I say it is up to each of us as individuals to examine the depths of our own hypocrisy.
.
z
Yes we need to change the laws and end the disastrous drug war. I would feel horrible if I thought my $ was going to violent criminals. I rationalize it because I live in Seattle and it's being grown all over the place up there and especially in BC.
I also feel bad when I get in my car and destroy the planet. I also feel bad when I by clothes made in sweatshops. I also feel bad when I buy coffee or burgers that are destroying the rainforest.
It's almost impossible to live in this world without being guilty! But I'm doing what I can.
Thanks for the response.
so you are a radical who enjoys his conveniences.
The weed I smoke is grown in Napa, but I must correct you, since you are laying the blame on the wrong doorstep here. It is not American demand that harms a single one of our neighbors below the border, it is the criminalization of that demand despite all evidence that it does nothing to avert harm that couldn't be better averted using other tactics, and instead causes a whole range of additional damage to citizens in this country and countries to the south. So over 40,000 people are dead beyond our southern border because of a Drug War that profits many in the power structure and has created the largest police enforcement and prison industry on the planet. In the process, the propaganda upholding it has been as big a bogey-man as "The War on Terror" has been for frightening the population into silence as they chip away at our civil liberties one piece of legislation at a time, only unlike the newer threat which has really sped up the creation of our current police state, the lies told about the drug war, the civil liberties lost, and the public safety net squandered in the name of winning this illusionary war with no end, all of this has been chugging along for a long while now.
Both shadow wars handily have also provided the excuse to meddle in the affairs of other countries-- insert law enforcement and monitor their activities, profit by selling them weapons, and even set up puppet dictators. The only difference here is which region they claim they are excused to meddle in, the first one south of the border, the second in the Middle East. Shit I'd say they dreamed up the War on Terror using the Drug war as the perfect model for a shadow war without end to allow them to crush freedoms here and abroad, and siphon money that might otherwise pay for social infrastructure and the public good and divert it to feed a military machine.
And there have been far more than 40,000 lives lost and ruined here by it. (and I think more than that down south too, that number seems very low). And the lives ruined are not just thugs. The bulk of drug users are casual, not addicts or dealers, and the bulk of addicts (who need health insurance and treatment, not jail time) and dealers (the majority of which are low level sell from their home to a small group of individuals and are non-violent. Thugs of course go anywhere where there is a blackmarket service or good to exploit, but these are the actually the smallest group hurt by the drug war. And of course, even non drug using citizens are hurt, from the integrity lost as they hand over their rights in exchange for protection from an imaginary foe, the laying of the groundwork of all that was to come, including the recent uber-militarization of our police forces, the massive siphoning of funds from basic public healthcare and services that comprise the sane way of managing societal drug consumption
Addiction is caused by societal factors, including criminalization, poverty and social stratification, and a society that glorifies unfettered consumption in all its facets. Drugs are no more the cause of drug addiction than stores cause shopaholiks, or food causes over-eating. So shaking your finger at casual users, who are more likely to be the ones actively involved in the fight against this sham, rather than laying the blame where it belongs, the government who inflicts it, the media who propagandizes it with lise and omissions, and the alcohol drinking Americans who support it, is bogus. Unless you never indulge your own human desires, you have no business shaming someone else for theirs because the whims of a corrupt system have targeted theirs. Intoxicants have been part of human culture since we came out of the trees, if not before then. Demand for them will no more disappear than the demand for sex.
You can not legislate desire, you can only teach people the healthy expression of it. And when you criminalize it, you criminalize people, since the thugs are attracted by the profit, not because drugs per se are more attractive to criminals than to ordinary people. Americans who drink or accept alcohol use but support the drug war and have no sympathy for the false imprisonment of many of their fellow Americans, often imagine they are superior because their drug of choice is not the one targeted by the police state, or refuse to accept what any encyclopedia will note, that alcohol is a psychoactive drug. These people are the hypocrites, for acting in complicity with a corrupt government to perpetuate a scam that hurts millions here and abroad. Pot smokers, not so much.
Yes, you are right American consumer demand is high. But all that does is provide more proof the laws do not work and never did. And the motive for keeping them (and public opinion is not the motive, public opinion is manufactured by ongoing propaganda, and nurtured by smug hypocrisy, and not the facts) certainly isn't for the safety or welfare of American citizens or the people south of the border. Therefor the laws are unjust and the law makers the real criminals.
I have been saying we must either enforce the law, or we must change the law and I've been saying just that for some time.
There are economic interests who oppose this idea. They like things just the way they are, and do not see the new economic opportunities available in the event of change.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry. the most efficient means of effecting change may be a boycott. Has anyone who smokes pot suggested such a course?
Has anyone who smokes pot suggested mass demonstrations, to include gathering at the local PD station, with substance in hand, to demand processing?
Only now does a portion of the party crowd rise up - almost too late it seems, to demand corrective measures that are so long overdue.
Therefore I repeat:
it is up to each of us as individuals to examine the depths of our own hypocrisy.
z
"I say that if anyone would smoke pot and oppose economic injustice, then perhaps they would benefit from some deep self examination and introspection." I'd like to clarify this statement are you suggesting if someone smokes pot they have no right to oppose economic injustice? To put it another way; are you suggesting that someone who has a debilitating condition, and is using medical marijuana, has no right to oppose economic injustice? I happen to know a bright young girl 28 years old, with MS, who is now in a wheel chair, wearing diapers, dying not only from the disease but from the pharmaceuticals they poured down her throat, who uses Medical Marijuana (which I have witnessed alleviating the violent shakes she suffers). So are you saying she has no right to oppose economic injustice and she needs deep self examination and introspection?
did I, or did I not, qualify that statement with a perhaps . . .
I say it is up to each of us as individuals to examine the depths of our own hypocrisy.
No you did not qualify your statement, if you qualify your statement, you add some information, evidence, or phrase to make it less strong or less generalized. You made a closing statement, your previous statements where not from a hypocritical position they were from a position of opinion, making your final statement just that, a statement. For example your statement "I say if you smoke pot, that is your decision.", this is not from a hypocritical position it is your opinion, therefore cannot be qualified by your final statement.
You quoted me thus:
"I say that if anyone would smoke pot and oppose economic injustice, then perhaps they would benefit from some deep self examination and introspection."
I replied thus:
did I, or did I not, qualify that statement with a perhaps . . .
And I concluded so:
I say it is up to each of us as individuals to examine the depths of our own hypocrisy.
You apparently got lost in the white space.
z
No, I do not see what smoking pot has to do with an individuals right to oppose economic injustice. It's like saying if you drink alcohol you have no right to complain about economic injustice, or if you eat cheese you have no right to complain about economic injustice. What I'm asking is why you feel that someone who smokes pot, and at the same time objects to economic injustice, needs self examination and introspection as if something is wrong with them on some deep personal level. Using the word perhaps does not qualify your statement it just shows you want to put your opinion out there, but in a way that does not commit you to it.
I said:
That is what I said. You have taken an adversarial position with respect to what I said. That is your right.
How did it happen?
It happened because of your experience, which has shaped an opinion, allowing my statement to hook into your emotion.
Does this process and its result invalidate what I have said?
I think not. I think that over 40,000 dead beyond our southern border since 2006 beg otherwise.
Recreational use of substances is in no way related to the consumption of cheese precisely because the U.S. demand for cheese does not result in an underground economy where children may purchase guns, or where people die as a direct demonstration of will, and of cruelty.
I never did say that because an individual chooses to smoke pot they have no rights. I never would say such a thing. This is an assumption you have made based on insufficient information - were I to give you the benefit of the doubt, I might acknowledge that I have just done the same thing - in that all I have to go on is the statement you posted, which may or may not reflect what you actually believe.
It is possible you have an entirely open mind - and have constructed an argument in an effort to get me to quantify what I was saying in more precision. If you are that conscious, congratulations. You have been successful.
I did not say that someone who smokes pot has no rights. I did imply that, perhaps, they have an obligation - to themselves, to society, and to those whose lives were taken that they might more fully recreate to their own satisfaction.
The plain fact is that the bulk of pot heads tend, and that is an important word, tend toward a state of inaction, a state of passivity, a state of not doing - and this may in fact help explain in some way the prevalence of such substances in our society despite the fact of prohibition.
If I am wise, I will not judge them so much as prod them.
And so to you, whose case, as you have stated, is representative of another group of pot users, a group who imbibes on the premise of medical necessity. The suggestion is that because of medical necessity such individuals should receive blanket exemption from such considerations.
Yet their behavior is itself a form of advocacy, and as such a thing used by others who in various ways use the black market economy or seek to alter it.
They have, like it or not, chosen a path of advocacy. If I chose not to judge those who use pot recreationally, should I now judge someone else who engages in similar behavior, though they do so for entirely different reasons?
You may think on this.
z
It is possible you have an entirely open mind - and have constructed an argument in an effort to get me to quantify what I was saying in more precision. If you are that conscious, congratulations. You have been successful. Yes this is me and I thank you for finally answering my question. I will simply tell you that your comment "The plain fact is that the bulk of pot heads tend, and that is an important word, tend toward a state of inaction, a state of passivity, a state of not doing " is not in keeping with my experiences growing up and living within an area full of "potheads". It's a stereotype that has no real validity. In fact "potheads" seem less engaged because they do not stress over the insignificant and mundane. But I appreciate you sharing your view and I will think on it. Here's a little food for your thought, are you honestly open minded if you engage in the judgement of others? Or to put it another way, how can we be open minded while at the same time judging someone else based on our own values and morals? The only thing I'm hearing from you here is your disapproval of others life choices. You ask "If I chose not to judge those who use pot recreationally, should I now judge someone else who engages in similar behavior, though they do so for entirely different reasons?" My answer is if you are truly open minded don't judge at all.
and if those 40,000 plus were U.S. citizens, as opposed to Mexican citizens, would the public response be the same, or different, than it has been?
I will have to concede this topic to you since it has become clear to me your focus is not on open minded honest exchange but instead on the atrocities propelled by a failed war on drugs. I cannot have an honest open debate of issues with someone using their personal contempt as an argument. Thank you for the conversation, I will leave you to it now.
Again, you have gotten lost in the white space.
White space is that space that is void, it is a void that invites your input. What you use to fill that void is entirely up to you.
Nope just trying to climb out of the black space between your ears to get some fresh air.
When you block parks/ports/roads/bridges/subways/sidewalks/stores that takes away the rights of the real 99% to pass through or use those spaces. And that means cops can come in and take back the rights for those people that OWS stole. OWS is getting further and further from its original message, and now seems just to want to blockade for blockading's sake.
No where near the mythical 1%, not anything that will affect the '1%'. Just affecting the little guy...keeping him from using the park, the sidewalk, the road, the bridge, the subway, and keeping him from getting to work or going home. Stop making war on America, OWS. Go after the 1% if you must, but please stop hurting the real 99.
The point of peaceful protest is still a kind of disruption. Do you really think the OWS would have any influence or coverage in the media if it was just a facebook page? And when thousands of people are unhappy about something in society and congregate together to register that protest, it will inevitably affect walkways and roads. But that is the right of protest. Is there another way? Well, there are always other walkways, but not really any other way to register a protest effectively. So please, while you are inconvenienced, it would be good to recognise that the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy, and you are endorsing that democracy by showing some tolerance of this right to protest.
Its not a matter of having or not having the right to protest. Listen to what ramous was saying, he/she pointed out that these events are not affecting the 1%, just everyone else. In other words you are not disrupting the status quo if its financial corruption you are trying to fight. You are not changing the status quo in government through reinstalling financial regulations etc. This was the original goal of the movement was it not? To affect change on the highest level of government and change the destructive financial culture? Cleveland.com reported two days ago that OWS has cost the nation's cities $13 million in police overtime and municipal services. This kind of news only pisses off the taxpayer because this is coming out of working folks' taxes. This is exactly the kind of press this movement needs to avoid. I think there should be a more strategic approach to OWS tactics instead of all the disparate protests that take place addressing every injustice under the sun.
Political change takes time and yes the 1% is being affected. As for the police overtime expense that is entirely the city officials fault. They should not be wasting taxpayer money sending riot cops to peaceful protests to begin with. A great example would be Kansas City. KC did not send in the troops, but as a consequence the movement did not get any exposure, essentially the protestors were ignored. But my point is the city did not over react, the protestor have no claims of mistreatment, and the cities taxpayers did not have to foot a bill for police overtime. Don't blame the protestors for the ignorance of city officials.
Then why are they not going where the 1% are? why are they hurting the regular people 'to make a point'. Until you make your point on the 1% they could care less. Blockade a yacht club for crying out loud, or a tennis club a country club. It would make more sense than blockading a subway, when the people who ride the subway are those who can't afford to take a taxi.
Blockade a corporation's gates, invade the Trump Tower.
No I am not endorsing this nor showing any tolerance for this, because it makes no sense to blockade ME.
Nobody is "hurting" regular people. Being inconvenienced or even late for work is not "hurting" regular people. I get irritated when held up or inconvenienced but I cannot agree with the over dramatic use of the word "hurting". The 1% is getting the message that is why Speaker of the House John Boehner has gathered deep pockets to fund a $850,000 smear campaign against OWS. The Speaker of the House people, really?? Our own elected government official is collecting money to war with the American public. This in my opinion is a clear sign the 1% is listening.
YOU may not mind being inconvenienced for your cause, Crystal. But don't presume to say its not hurting regular people. It sure is, and dismissing that as if you don't care is making it worse. Care about the 99 like you say you do. Next time OWS blocks something, don't blockade the subway that the 99 uses, blockade the yacht club that the 1% uses. Its making no sense to go on making war on real Americans...go after the 1%.
Better yet smother the gates of Washington.
I agree that a subway would be an incredibly poor choice for a blockade.
But I agree above and call for more tolerance for the inconvenience protests inevitably cause. It's giving up a little to protect something that I hope all Americans would hold sacred. (that is, the 1st Amendment, not the sale at Macy's! ; p
Take the example of "Critical Mass" (are you familiar?) Bikes fill the streets and block traffic once a month. But 1) Bikes ARE traffic, so we too have the right to the roads, and 2) CM is trying to move society to a condition of less dependence on cars and thus a future of Fewer traffic jams and Better transportation for everyone (as well as better air!). So it's a pain-in-the-ass inconvenience if you are stuck behind the bike ride in your car, but it's an effort for the greater good, and I think you can handle it, can't you? Please?
If you say we must use discretion in our direct action, I would agree.
If you say we must create high profile actions that generate favorable media attention, I would agree.
I am a pragmatist. I would bring down the house of cards in the most expedient means possible.
I think time is short.
well, until you take the message to the mythical 1%, they aren't going to notice you. In the meantime, you're messing with the 99% for no reason at all except to be noticed by people who won't do that until you mess with them.
We do need to improve our messaging, I agree.
Yet I say, the one has heard us, and now they know a cold finger of doubt.
We will nurture that doubt, feed it, and in time it will grow. It will become a thing of most terrible beauty -
that of abject terror in the heart of evil men.
. z
I'm wondering if you agree with the message or any of the messagES of OWS.
You are the 99%... do you support OWS? at least in theory or principle?
There is so much outrage around this idea of the protest being such a nuisance. I'm trying to understand it... it feels like "road rage" at a traffic jam only it's much worse. Where you personally inconvenienced or blocked or otherwise put out? I'm just wondering... I don't dispute that many people probably were.
Do you really think OWS is blockading just for the fun of it? This would be a problem and would suggest that OWS is not at all serious. I also don't dispute that some (especially younger, less employed) OWS-ers might indeed "enjoy the fun" of these street battles. I don't grudge them that, but it's easy for me because I support the cause.
Really I mostly think it's over-reaction on all sides. There's enough room for protests and people to go to & from work and stores, etc. I guess I don't see the problem. Except for that I see the problem that Americans (police, news media, citizens) don't seem to know how to share public space.
p.s. I've been hagning out in France. You would laugh... (I do)... there are protests every other day (some months)! It's so common the news media doesn't even cover them. As for blocking traffic... Paris is a 24/7 traffic snarl, and yes, the protest make that worse. And the protests are largely ignored and ineffective, I might add.
When people start to wake from their ideological slumber, it can be anxiety producing. We cannot stay on a FB page and get anything done. Of course the main stream media will highlight anything they can in a bad light concerning OWS. They read whatever the slavers put on the teleprompt. We apologize for the inconvenience while our government is under reconstruction.
" I'm a radical revolutionary anarchist and I don't believe in Jesus and I smoke pot and don't shower and like bongo drums."-- well that's enuf to turn off 99% of the 99%. But I agree, leave mom out of it. I'm not sure I support your struggle against the soap and shampoo cartel as it might bring the broader movement against Wall Street and the banks into malodour.
well... when you make up your mind or have a question or a point, feel free to post it.
My kinda guy! Welcome to my world . . .
thanks. uh welcome to mine. (it's not really mine, I'm just passing through)
: )
the left always resorts to name calling & censorship because they can't win the debate. That is their M.O.. Just contrast the Tea Party and OWS - it's night & day !
I can win a debate. or at least lose one gracefully.
and whatever the differences between OWS and Tea Party are, I think the 2 groups need to get together. I have been calling out OWS to do a better job reaching out to the Tea Party.
So if you are a Tea Partier...
1) Welcome to OWS! 2) How can "we" help you? 3) Will you join us and if not, why not?!?
you can help by directing your energy to the right cause of the problem namely the government. hold your representative accountable & vote them out if necessary
I must admit that I need to check up on my Rep., though my chances of voting him out aren't so good.
so you want to blame "the government"...? I certainly don't want to defend what is passing for a government today. But I do believe in the theory! I especially believe in the American idea of a limited, democratic, 3-branches, federal Republic bound by our wonderful Constitution.
my contention is that OUR government has been bought and paid for, and now is a wholly owned subsidiary of a handful of banks and corporations and industry lobbies. our elected representatives don't represent us. they don't really care what we think... nor are they capable of caring and remaining in, or even running for, office. they care what their donors think. the people financing their election campaigns and the people offering them lucrative jobs once they get out of office.
so on the one hand i agree, the fault is our government. on the other hand i think it's not really "our" government anymore. Obama is a good example of this. Yes, I voted for him... on the HOPE he would clean this mess up. He can't. Or he hasn't. Instead he turned to Wall St. and started listening to them. now he's accumulating a billion dollars for his re-election campaign. I'm not going to vote for him again, but that's not really going to solve anything because look at my choices on the other side?! (sorry! and btw... do you like any of the Republican candidates? or Obama?)
if the problem is that your teeth are rotting, having the choice between Coke OR Pepsi isn't really a solution... to use an analogy.
but it's a good question. why Aren't Americans throwing these people out of office "en masse"??
It is not a choice berween Coke and Pepsi-- It is a choice between doing nothing to treat your teeth or taking some baby steps to slow down the rot--that gives the 99% more time to organize and build a movement to get rid of both capitalist parties. No Republican president would have postponed that pipeline from the Canadian tar sands for a review (it may still go through)--but that postponement creates space to build a bigger movement-- this country is heading towards fascism and fascism can be prevented if we build a bigger movement and the more people wake up to what is going on-- both parties are moving along the fascist road-- the Republicans openly and speeding up, the Democrats slowly and haltingly-- until we are big enough to win elections we are stuck with the Democrats-- they represent our stay of execution.
"Thanks, but I'd rather be shot behind the chemical depot." --Evey Hammond.
Can't bring myself to "go along". I agree the Republicans are horribly worse. But I cannot support the complicit Democrats. I have made myself a promise: I will NEVER vote for ANYONE who takes corporate money. If that means writing in "Bugs Bunny"... so be it.
If that means the Republicans win and we head into fascism. Well, then I will prepare for that fight too. But I'm not going to feed the machine anymore.
"The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast..."
The tea party caused a lot of turnover in 2010. We'll be back next year to see how the freshmen did & if not to our liking - get them out as well. vote the bums out !
Right on! but please also don't vote the wack-jobs in!
I do have to hand it to y'all. You carved out a chunk of power pretty quickly and impressively. But what say you to the accusation that your movement has been co-opted? That you are doing the bidding of the corporations (e.g. the famous Koch bros.)?
for example... on that dirty little question of "regulations". It seems the Tea Party has been drinking the Cool-Aid on this issue. The corporations would love to get rid of Even more regulations so they can continue to wreak havoc on both the planet and it inhabitants. They'll create jobs all right... in China!
this circles back to placing the blame on-- not only our current set of disappointing politicians-- but on the idea of government in general. Government is not perfect, but at least we can vote it out of power.
if the tea party freshmen are unsatisfactory we'll route them out next year. Nothing scares politicians more than losing their power. we have to pay attention though & do our part to hold their feet to the fire.
Right on! but please also don't vote the wack-jobs in!
I do have to hand it to y'all. You carved out a chunk of power pretty quickly and impressively. But what say you to the accusation that your movement has been co-opted? That you are doing the bidding of the corporations (e.g. the famous Koch bros.)?
for example... on that dirty little question of "regulations". It seems the Tea Party has been drinking the Cool-Aid on this issue. The corporations would love to get rid of Even more regulations so they can continue to wreak havoc both the planet and the populations. They'll create jobs all right... in China!
A lot of people are scared and insecure ... they believe the answer is to get angry. However, anger only hurts yourself.
avoid using the word you
You have a point. You are right to point out that you might have a tendency to take personal offense where none is intended. you are probably like a lot of people in this regard. thank you for sharing.
good point
people often take unintended offense when the word "you" is used
many agree
thanks for sharing
thanks in the direction of your person as well!
Beamer you sound like a productive american. while you enjoy your pot and bongo drums do you enjoy work as well? do you save money? do you live within your means? what do you good for the good of this country besides shit on it and complain?
yes, i do enjoy work. thanks for asking. i love my job. i'm a public high school English teacher. i do hope it is for the good of this country that young people are trained to read, write and think critically, and that they develop their minds along with their personalities and bodies. but whether it does this country much good or not, i enjoy it and since i find it extremely rewarding and valuable to have these intellectual skills and experiences, i want my students to have that richness-- or at least the chance of it-- too. otherwise, i suppose their ability to read the marketing report and write the corporation's mission statement will at least help them "rent a living" and pay their taxes and car insurance.
I am a very proud American patriot, who has spent a lot of time studying as well as celebrating all the things that make America great. it's quite a long list, but i'm sorry to say that Goldman Sachs is not on it.
what is it that you accuse me of "complaining" about and in what way have I offended your vision of the country?
When you block parks/ports/roads/bridges/subways/sidewalks/stores that takes away the rights of the real 99% to pass through or use those spaces. And that means cops can come in and take back the rights for those people that OWS stole. OWS is getting further and further from its original message, and now seems just to want to blockade for blockading's sake. Why isn't OWS blockading near the mythical 1%, why are they not doing anything that will -directly- affect the '1%'? Just affecting the little guy...keeping him from using the park, the sidewalk, the road, the bridge, the subway, and keeping him from getting to work or going home. Block the yacht club, take over a country club. You think that blocking a subway gets a 1% to hear you or care? You're not inconveniencing them, you're inconveniencing the 99%, the real 99%.
I know, many times OWS members say, the people should be glad they are being inconvenienced by OWS because its 'for the cause'. That's a false and hypocritical argument when OWS doesn't want to be inconvenienced and forces the blockades on the 99%. You can't decide that its acceptable for anyone else but your own person to be blockaded or invaded.
Stop making war on America, OWS. Go after the 1% if you must, but please stop hurting the real 99.
One thing is for sure... if OWS cannot (or does not?) address the concerns of the so-called 99% it will fail. OWS does need to figure out how to address people like you regarding this concern that we are "blockading" ordinary citizens.
And I'm trying... but I don't know what to tell you. I've been in Paris the whole time, following from a distance though there is also an OWS camp here.
I guess I don't believe that the OWS camps are blocking anyone. In NYC for example, it seemed obvious that people could come down to the park and leave it again. Marches block the streets, yes... for a "minute".
I guess it boils down to if Americans are not willing to be inconvenienced then... yeah... I suppose we let those in Power continue to run the show to the bitter end. There is going to be much more "inconvenience" if OWS succeeds, but I would prefer it to the all-to convenient raiding of public resources and running up public debt for private (1%) gain.
I will also suggest to you that much of the "inconvenience" comes from the reactions and strategies of the police. That's when things get really inconvenient and blocked. I am not buying these lame excuses about "safety" and "cleanliness".
However, one thing that might help you and others in the 99% is if OWS would do a better job Willingly SUBMITTING to arrest. I have been saying and arguing this all along. OWS is guilty (in enough highly publicized instances) of resisting arrest. I fault them for this. If you are engaged in Civil Disobedience (for a Just cause, which I believe this is) you must willing submit to arrest. Dr. King wrote about this in his famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
Would it help you if you felt confident that the OWS folks were cooperating-- not with police orders-- but at least with police that can (and should!) arrest Anyone for breaking laws?
I agree beamer. Submit to the arrest, because they're having the right and responsibility to arrest you. Fighting it is an escalation that provokes and requires increased response from police.
oh thank you. this is important and I'm trying to promote it. of course it's easy for me to say from the safety of Paris!
I've been arrested in protests though. I've also been pepper-sprayed while I was lying on the ground in a fetal position yelling "Please arrest me!". And it wasn't a mob, either. It was me and 20 cops (everyone else was way down the block). They pepper-sprayed me anyway, and had to reach down between my hands to do it. And to add to the insult, they Didn't! arrest me. They had nothing on me because I hadn't broken a law. I was just there, in the street, not impressed by their authority.
anyway... nobody's perfect. everyone's trying (or rather 99% are trying!)
Occupy Toronto's eviction was a model of peace (not just non-violent but PEACEFUL) that every Occupy should emulate.
Why can't Occupy be a PEACEFUL protest?
so does that mean everyone packed up and left peacefully when the police ordered them to, or does that mean "everyone" peacefully got arrested?
I am not in favor of "giving in" and peacefully following orders. I'm in favor of Civil Disobedience... refusing to leave, but accepting the penalty of being arrested (and then going to court and continuing the fight as well as going right back to the street ASAP).
so what happened? which was it?
You know that's nice if you are all those things, but please don't insult or berate the people who are Libertarian Pacifists who believe in Jesus, who don't do drugs, are clean shaven and like electric guitars. :)
I haven't insulted anyone. I suppose I reserve the right to, but I haven't yet done so. At least I haven't intended to. Who did I insult and how?
"I'm a radical revolutionary anarchist and I don't believe in Jesus and I smoke pot and don't shower and like bongo drums. What say ye?"
I am the same as you...but at this point I am so fuck'in angry that I just want to skin the bastards alive. The real trolls are not on this forum.. They are on Wall Street.
Are you angry at OWS or the "trolls"???
I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.
I agree we have to challenge ourselves and each other.
Words that are overused on internet forums: troll, fail, meh, LOL.
Thank you. (Not used enough)
For the record, I don't believe in Jesus or support this movement.
why not? I mean about the movement.
I'm sorry but some of the ideas make no sense. Maybe if you could explain i to me without making it look like everyone is out to get you?
well, the most basic and universal idea of OWS is that our political system is broken, and that our elected representatives are not even Trying to solve OUR problems (the country's problems that is). instead they are taking "donations" and doing whatever the highest bidders want them to do. we don't have a democracy anymore; we have "legalized bribery" of politicians and a culture and society that is dominated by a "for profit" vision of the purpose and meaning of human life.
the Long list of "complaints" and concerns, and causes, and demands simply follows this basic, fundamental problem. some are widely agreed upon by most OWS people-- for example "we" generally believe that protecting the environment (and repairing! it) is really important. "we" also tend to think that health care (like high school education and roadways) should be one of the services we get for our taxes, and, generally speaking, would rather spend our taxes on getting those services than bailing out banks or even preparing for, or going to war.
i believe, and i think a lot of OWS people believe that if we could solve the 1st problem-- which is making sure our elected representatives really are representing US then WE could solve all these other problems together.
again, take health care. I'm in favor of single-payer system so that both public and private hospitals and health care providers are paid for their service out of a government run insurance fund (Medicare for everyone in other words). I don't mind losing this battle if people have a better plan, what i mind is the idea that this plan was never even on the table for discussion because the Private health care insurance companies who make billions in profits off of OUR sicknesses and injuries and diseases made sure that this idea was Dead on Arrival!)
you are right there are, in a sense, too many OWS "complaints" and demands. but it's a long backlog of problems and issues that are not being democratically decided. that's the main thing. the rest, as i said, i believe we, the American people, can solve together through discussing, debate, compromise, science, technology, and our Constitutional system.
what do you think?
Lets take this one point at a time if that's ok with you. I agree with you that the political system is broken. However, to be fair did we ever really have a democratic system? It made sense at the time to set things up the way the founding fathers did because of the lack of technology. However, with the technology around to day we should be able to vote for who we want and not have the proxy system that was set up. Also, the Congress and Senate were never set up to be lifelong careers. It was supposed to be more of a public service than anything. Personally I want to get into Congress myself to get rid of the congressional and senatorial pensions they are paid along with all of the other extra's they get on top of social security. However, to be clear while they are in office they do deserve to get paid for what they are doing because they are doing a job required by the nation. I know its a small step but how does that sound?
and i keep asking why not? why not take care of ourselves and each other? we all need healthcare anyway, just like we need roads and a post office. btw, i contend that it's "good for business" to have people healthy.
people without health insurance show up in emergency rooms anyway... and that gets billed to the taxpayer/ gov't. in general it's more expensive to treat problems when they have developed into emergenices, so again it just makes sense (and saves money) to just provide health care.
so even putting the moral issue aside, it's a good deal for everyone.
I don't understand... what's your objection?
Why do we need healthcare?
because we are poorly evolved primates and Time is cruel!
you've never been sick? i consider myself super healthy and i've had broken arms, stiches, and an apendectomy. plus dental work and check-ups and cleanings. i'm only 43. and super lucky.
I'm only 16 and I've never had a broken bone or stitches. I'm careful within reason. Poorly evolved is hardly an argument. We are how we are. If you had said we have so many chemicals that we ingest which lowers the life expectancy then I could have given that to you. However, we are working on somethings that would help expand the life expectancy by allowing genes to replicate more preventing the aging process.
i was being ironic.
and now i'm smiling because now your question makes sense. i remember being 16 too. i was indestructible. i was going to live forever. old people sucked.
enjoy your youth! really. live it up. health is a blessing. but our bodies age, we get diseases, things happens. and if we are lucky enough to get old, then we really can look forward to sicknesses and trips to the doctor.
I'm not indestructible. I know my limits and when I hit them I may try to push it a little further but normally I'll stop. I've never not fallen out of a tree when I know I'm going to fall out of a tree. My father is the youngest 60 year old I know and I'm convinced he's going to lie to be 150. Of course the older you get the more you have to take care of yourself. May I suggest a diet change? I totally removed grains from my diet, except for several special occasions, and I noticed a difference inside of a week. My Cross Country times dropped 30 seconds just by changing one thing in my diet.
I agree that service should be... well, service and not a career (though there is an argument to be made for multiple terms because everyone improves with "on the job training" and we do want some degree of professionalism. but of course it's way out of balance, and the main thing is there are virtually no viable options/ alternative candidates. i don't mind paying them well, nor do I grudge them a pension. it's the "revolving door" between Congress and lobbyist & industry positions that worries me. so yes, some term limits, and mostly get Real people (like you) in.
I don't like the idea of even electronic voting machines at the polls. I guess I'm too old school, but I can't bring myself to trust a vote that can't really be physically, visibly counted.
As for "instant referendums"... it's an interesting idea and I suppose I'd be down for some experiments and trials, but again-- I don't really trust that results would be tamper-proof and "majority rule" does not always lead to good policy.
I'm not entirely sure that they should be allowed to run more than 10 terms total in the congress, senate, or as president. Even that to me seems like more than enough because 10 terms equals way more years depending on which office you run for and is definitely a career. That would keep the corrupt people from getting re-elected over and over until the drop out hopefully getting rid of your congress lobbyist union at least in part. Maybe 6 terms would be better than 10 but I don;t know enough about how much time it takes to become proficient in what they do. The current system of voting does not always lead to good policy either. At least this way, people would actually have a decision in who they pick instead of someone they actually didn't vote to represent them. I can agree with you on the fact that voting online could have its hazards but there are ways to minimize the risks and keep people out who want in.
I would say maybe 10 years max. in the House and 18 max in the Senate and 8 seems fine for the President. but i don't mind as long as there is a limit and moreover that there are limits on the $$ that can be made from "favors" while in office (or after one is out!)
the current system is effed because of the legalized bribery... so that's not a good criticism.
Wait terms or years? I think that the system has been screwing ever since people started doing this as a career and have had their money solely from the government the rest of their lives including the a special retirement plan on top of social security. If you are run for the congress and senate both you get both plans and pensions the rest of your life. It does not honestly seem fair for you or me to pay for their private jet.
years.
it might be a good thing to pay them well so they don't need money from dubious conflicts of interest...?
but most of them are rich anyway... which is another problem. why are they all millionaires??! partly because it's so expensive to run. we have to make it easy for regular people to run. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM/ PUBLICLY FINANCED CAMPAIGNS.
Agreed on everything except the second section of text. Actually I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean.
just that one might expect a rich man to be Less susceptible to a bribe than a "poor" one. but our current politicians don't seem immune despite their own wealth
Well to be honest the phrase about power begetting more power and mony being the source of this power comes to mind. However, I already feel as if we've established their greed. Do you feel comfortable moving on?
dot ORG.
: )
Environment is good. However, I don't think it needs to be as protected at the extremists do. I agree with the idea that taxes should pay for schools and roadways. War is necessary. I hate to say it but we would have a huge unemployed mass if we were to get rid of or greatly reduce the amount of military member that are currently serving.
However, I don't like the idea of medicare. Now I may be reading you wrong but if you're suggesting what I think you are then Canada had or has the same system and it takes weeks to get into the hospital for a broken arm under it.
Yeah, call me an environmental extremist because I'd rather err on the side of "too clean" than not quite clean enough... or too many fish left in the ocean than even a remote possibility of losing species.
my friend... It's simply not true that Canadians have to wait weeks for a broken arm or any such nonsense. WHY don't you like the idea of medicare?? The idea is simply that instead of BlueCross "insuring" you, the USA does. You got to any doctor you want, and the doctor bills the good old USA. The only difference is that BlueCross wants to make a profit off of your broken arm. The USA just wants you to get your arm fixed and (presumably) get back to work.
I'm currently in Paris and my girlfriend woke up yesterday not feeling well and said, "I'm going to the doctor." No appointment. She walked out the door and came back 2 hours later. No bill either.
It's really not as difficult as the health insurance companies want you to believe. Canadians are Very happy with their system. The French don't even think about it. btw... my girlfriend's daughter's braces will also be covered.
I'll grant you that it is simpler, but where is the harm in making money?
the "harm in making money" is when your private health insurer employs an entire staff of technocrats dedicated to finding reasons to deny your claims or deny you coverage because it's cheaper for them to pay for that than have to pay for your cancer treatment. (there are many documented cases of this kind of situation, and the whole business model of private insurance is to avoid having to cover people as much as possible. the harm is also the extent to which Some private providers actually profit from your sickness, not your health, or profit by marketing drugs directly to "patients" and then provide "kickbacks" to doctors for proscribing them.
the harm is also in the lie that we can't afford to take care of our own citizens. of course we can afford it-- as long as these giant private insurers don't get to make billions of dollars in profits off the system, and private providers don't have to follow guidelines from insurers in order to provide appropriate care.
but yes, i do think there is a moral issue when your business model depends on people getting sick, or conversely, on excluding services to people who need care.
and honestly, if everyone would shut the f--- up about how "Christian" the the USA is I would stop worrying about helping all the sick people like Jesus tried to do and told everyone to do. I'm covered through my job so fine. But it is disgusting to claim to be a follower of Christ and then fight like hell to make sure no one gets health insurance unless someone else can make a buck on it. grrrr!
Call me paranoid but doctors benefit just as much from you being sick if not more. Is there something you would like to do about that?
doctors are human beings that actually work with you know you. they often know your family too. i don't catch your point because i don't think doctors go around calculating how much money to make from you as they treat you. in any case they take an oath not to and face criminal charges as well as the AMA. they do worry, however, about being sued for malpractice and have to insure themselves against that, driving up costs more and creating another "profit" industry that adds nothing to the act of caring for sick or injured human beings, or better yet... Caring for them Before they get sick and preventing it.
what are you really objecting to? your argument is bouncing around now. mine is simply that if private insurers can make billions in PROFIT from insuring people, the USA could at least break even doing it. even if they lost money... seems like money well spent "providing for the general welfare" of the citizens and getting a lot of it back in the increased productivity of said citizenry.
To be honest it sounds great. However, I don't think the government should have to provide for everyone.
there is this strange habit/ frame of mind of seeing "the government" as he some kind of over-involved parent or patrolling Big Brother. I think it shows just how corrupt our "government" has become.
the government is supposed to be US. Our voices, our concerns, our principles enacted through Our representatives.
would it sound better to say "I think We can use our taxes to provide basic health care to ourselves and our fellow citizens"??
It sounds better yes but I don't feel like taxes are needed to do so.
of course taxes are needed. As a Patriot, it is my proud honor to pay my dues! (as long as my elected representatives actually represent me and my fellow citizens... which is the current problem).
No I didn't say that they weren't needed. I have no problem paying my taxes. I just don't think that they should go to health care for everyone.
people who are indeed disgusted with OWS and posting on the forum= troll
Therefore you met a troll.
well, then... on behalf of OWS... welcome! how can I help you?
You can help by helping us protest and opening your eyes both metaphorically and literally.
I'm doing what I can. I'm in Paris. there is (or was) a small Occupy camp here and I went to some marches and sat in on a few GA's and hung around the camp.
you can check my blog if the Paris OWS interests you.
happen to open wide... what you got?