Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Story of Baby Elephants and the 99%

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 13, 2015, 7:39 p.m. EST by SerfingUSA (451)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The story of baby elephants and why the 99% must stop thinking we are one.

When elephants are babies, their owners tie them to a post with a very heavy chain. No matter how hard they pull, the chain is just too strong to break free. They try and try, over and over again, but it is of no use, they are not strong enough.

When the elephant grows up to be an adult, he is giant and powerful. Strangely a heavy chain is no longer needed to bound him to the post, but only a thin rope. He could easily break the rope, or uproot the post, but has lost all hope in becoming free. He is no longer confined by the rope. He is confined by his own beliefs.

Sadly, the 99% are like that giant elephant. The 99% must question their conditioning and realize this dystopian system can be changed. There is a better way, but we will never see that better world, unless the 99% stops thinking it's still a baby elephant.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

"Rate of environmental degradation puts life on Earth at risk, say scientists"

"Humans are ‘eating away at our own life support systems’ at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years, two new research papers say"


We're in serious trouble. We really do need to get our heads out of the sand. The time is now.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

there are a lot more humans these days

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Even Global Warming Can't Convince Republicans That Global Warming Exists

Polling data suggests that even when the heat is on, political ideology outweighs facts.

—By Tim McDonnell

Scientists and science journalists like to say that one of the best ways to tell that climate change is real is to take a look at the changes we can already see: This year is on track to be the hottest ever recorded, and glaciers, corn, and even grizzly bears are responding to the warming. But all those shifts won't be enough to convince most conservative climate skeptics, a new study in Nature Climate Change finds.

A growing body of recent research suggests a person's political ideology, economic philosophy, and religious beliefs tend to overwhelm observed facts about global warming. The new study, which was released Monday, put that hypothesis to the test by analyzing Gallup polls taken just after the unusually warm winter of 2012. It found that both Democrats' and Republicans' perceptions of the warmer weather in their state tracked fairly well with actual satellite temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But "for people who said their local winter was warming, the observed temperature anomalies had no effect on the tendency to attribute that to global warming," explains Aaron McCright, a sociologist at Michigan State University who authored the study.

In other words, the actual temperature had no bearing on whether people believed in climate change. Instead, McCright says, "one of the strongest predictors" is party affiliation: Republicans were far less likely to attribute the warming they felt to man-made climate change than were Democrats. Other variables—gender, age, and level of education—were far less reliable as predictors of a person's global warming beliefs.

The findings suggest that the political polarization of climate change has become so great that the path of least resistance for most people is to hew to their party line, McCright says. Interesting, Democrats in the polling data were guilty of a different kind of bias: Overall, they perceived local temperatures to be warmer than their Republicans neighbors did—a reminder, McCright says, that confirmation bias exists on the left, too.

An unrelated national survey taken after 2012's record-breaking hot summer found that a growing majority of Americans are making the connection between temperature extremes and climate change. But that survey didn't account for political affiliation. McCright's research suggests that convincing Republicans will be a different challenge than convincing the public at large, and that references to extreme weather aren't the best rhetorical strategy to deal with that challenge.

The political chasm on climate change is gaping—a Pew poll last year found 44 percent of Republicans believed there was "solid evidence the earth is warming" versus 87 percent of Democrats. That imbalance sets the stage for partisan gridlock on climate action in Congress; Senate Republicans have said they plan to make attacking President Obama's climate policies a priority when they take control next year. So the stakes are high for winning more conservatives to accept the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change, and this study finds that changes in the weather might not be enough to change many minds.

"If we wait around for that to happen, we'll be waiting for a while," McCright says.


[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

The Sixth Mass Extinction is what we are in the midst of now. It's time to put politics aside and join together as the human race if we are even to make a dent in the damage that has already been done.

"Humans are killing off species thousands of times faster than nature creates them, new research finds."



"The Earth has been stripped of up to 90% of its species five times before in the past 450 million years. Now it's happening again—and this time there's no rogue asteroid responsible."

[-] 3 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Each corporation, entity, operation, household, and individual must get their own environmental footprint within some reasonable, modest and sustainable standard. Any failure to do so should be met with relentless criticism and pressure.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

energy consumption is also much greater per human

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

Absolutely true. Shameful greedy behavior with no forethought.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research The "reform" measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA's advisory board


Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it  “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can."


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

The biggest part of the battle for the 99% is convincing them that a. change is needed, and that b. they have the power to make the change.

America's 99% cover up their powerless feelings and despair by sticking their heads in the sand. This is the greatest part of our challenge. Getting them to fight back.

[-] 2 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

You know, humans are a strange bunch. As a species, we like to give ourselves alot of high-fives. We've all heard how great we are. "we're the most intelligent species on earth". "No other animal is like us", "we are the apex predator, the top of the food chain"blah, blah, blah. For as much "Yin" we have that makes us a great species, there's just as much "Yang" in us that makes us flawed. I think our whole species as a unit, could use some feudian psychotherapy couch time to find out why we do everything ass backwards.

When you really think about the crap that the 99% allows the 1% to do to us, it's *&€¥¿#-ing mind blowing! We are just like that giant elephant. And the 1% is our "mahout" elephant trainer. The 1% is like that little indian guy who keeps whacking the elephant with a switch. Always trying to work on the elephant's mind to control it's thinking and re-enforce their unnatural reality upon him. What the "Dog Whisperer" is to controlling dogs, the 1% is to controlling the 99%. The 1% is our Dog Whisperer, our little creepy Mahout, who keeps whacking us with a switch to control our thinking and dominate us. Like in a Matrix, the 99% are limited, graded, worked, given allowances, indebted, confined and trapped by the constructs of the 1%'s unnatural reality.

The 99% should realize we are a giant, smart, powerful elephant now. We are no longer a weak little baby elephant. The many do not have to be dominated by the few. We should throw off our creepy little 1% mahout, and stomp the living shit out of him.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Republicans and Democrats Go To War Over EPA       By Chris Dalby

Posted on Sun, 23 November 2014

The Republican Party has made no bones of the fact that, now it controls Congress, it will be seeking to scale back environmental regulations in the U.S. as well as hinder the bodies that pass them. This was unlikely to be smooth sailing and Tuesday proved to be the first battleground of an environmental policy-making war that is likely to stretch to the 2016 elections and beyond.

On the same day as the Democrats blocked the bill allowing for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in the Senate, the GOP leadership unleashed a broadside on the Environmental Protection Agency. H.R. 1422, which passed the House by 229 votes to 191, seeks to overhaul the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, with its drafter Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) saying that the board “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” While this sounds reasonable, Salon made the language plainer, adding that the bill seeks to forbid scientific experts from “participating in advisory activities that either directly or indirectly involve their own work.” Essentially, this would prevent the EPA from gaining advice on environmental matters from independent scientists, unaffiliated to any business or state interests. Burgess’ bill, however, would allow the “industry experts” mentioned, some of them certain to be paid corporate shills, to weigh in.

Related: GOP Has Big Plans For Energy, But Are The Numbers Right?

This bill is simply one of three that the Republicans are planning to roll out in short order, all targeting the EPA. Besides gutting the agency’s advisory scientific panels, the other two bills would seek to weaken the EPA’s say in setting and regulating air quality standards, and to change the transparency guidelines it has to obey. On Tuesday, the White House threw down the gauntlet, vowing to veto all three bills and attacking the Republicans for seeking to undo the work of “the most transparent administration ever.”

President Barack Obama’s veto has not yet been wielded since the mid-terms but he may soon have to. The blocking of the Keystone XL bill likely led to a sigh of relief from the Oval Office, the threat of a veto pushed back for now. However, in the wake of the success of H.R. 1422, there is little doubt the other two bills will sail through the House. The passing of the Secret Science Reform Act was scheduled for Wednesday. Again, the language used in this bill makes it sound perfectly reasonable. It aims to ban the EPA from using in its findings science that is not “transparent or reproducible.” But this is not the GOP standing up for scientific literacy or for the importance of publicly accessible data. Bloomberg approached two of the bill’s backers, Representatives Lamar Smith and David Schweikert, for evidence of external sources having been unable to replicate scientific data used by the EPA due to such restrictions. Neither could do so. Roll Call also showed how some of the data used by the EPA is simply not able to be shared publicly, such as patient information.

Related: Who Stands To Benefit From Climate Change? Your FREE Guide to the most lucrative investment in American History Direct Investing in Oil & Gas Wells and why this investment can pay out for 18... even 50 years. You will learn about tax breaks, how to find the best deals and special loopholes known to only a few investors. Click Here to get hold of your free guide right now while there's still time.

These battles have now moved on to the Senate, where they are sure to receive a warm welcome by putative Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who has stated that his top priority next year will be “to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in” and that he felt a “deep responsibility” to stop the EPA from issuing any regulations overseeing “carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.”

The blocking of Keystone XL shows the Democrats in the Senate are still up for a fight so the GOP war on the EPA may not be all plain sailing yet. They are not alone in this fight as Obama seems to have regained his appetite for a fight on the environment on the back of his climate change agreement with China. On Tuesday, which was truly a fantastically busy day for environmental policymaking, the White House Office of Management and Budget approved tougher federal standards for the recycling of hazardous waste. This changes the EPA’s definition of solid waste, which had been watered down under President George W. Bush. This is sure to go down badly in the Republican camp and sets up a fierce Beltway fistfight for 2015.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

"Humans- the only species dumb enough to shit where it eats (fracking)"

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Pick any 1% pig by name or any of their corporate golden geese. The individuals and entities at that rope with the switch in their hand. Do ten minutes of research and create a page right here ripping on them by name. If each one of us do this TODAY, and make it our new united front instead of spending hours each day arguing and jabbing at eachother, we could strike fear into that 1% elephant trainer one page at a time.

Would someone like to post a list for us to chose from just to get started? How about BP or it's current CEO? There are hundreds of well known individuals and entities to chose from. It's important that we rip on them by name with fully devoted pages of criticism. A list from which each OWS member could chose from would help. I won't even complain about a list riddled with Democrats just as long as their are an approximate number of Republcans to chose from also.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Gee what a shock. Another 4 markdowns to my legitimate suggestion. Why? Because it came from me, a voter.


[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif.

The congressman pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion on Nov. 28, 2005.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Republicans Go to Bat for Bank Investment Schemes Again-2390

Republicans are taking a second shot any time now at passing a bill that was already defeated last week. The bill would allow banks to gamble money on overseas investments and if they lose the money is to be reimbursed by the American taxpayer. Obama has of course promised to veto this bill if it passes. You may recall the government bailed out large Wall Street firms during the Great Recession, to the tune of billions of dollars. I found this expression on a news web site, in a comment, and it rings so true: “Republicans love socialism: they privatize the profits while socializing the loses.”

They point the finger at welfare fraud and abuse and then stick it to all people on welfare, punishing good people along with the bad. This includes little school children who depend on a hot meal they may not even get at home.

The real money is flying out the window on risky, bad overseas investments that can blow up in their faces at any moment with the volatility of markets in China and some parts of Europe. Obama has a lot of work to do these last two years. He will deserve a long, Hawaiian vacation when this is over. – Preston Brady III< Mobile Tribune.


[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Wikimedia Commons Former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, Republican Rowland resigned from office and later pleaded guilty to one-count of deprivation of honest services on December 23, 2004.

Rowland was allegedly using public funds to pay for vacations and other extravagences. He served 10 months in a federal prison.


[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

The Forum SIGN UP should be opened for a start. Occupy Wall Street is supposed to represent all people. This forum was always a place where anyone could post, but unfortunately the SIGN UP page has been shut down. This makes no sense if you want to have an inclusive movement. So, we can start right here, by asking for the SIGN UP page to be opened up again.

Only by the 99% being able to see, like you say, that we have power as a group, will this thing ever change. We are now the powerful elephant that you speak of, but we must be awake to what needs to be done and to the fact that WE CAN DO IT!

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

some would rather the forum suffer ?

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

Some would rather the forum flourish too!

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

Don't bother me with reality. Get out of the way. I'm trying to watch the football game. While you're at it bring me my beer....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

LOL. It's quite funny, though very very sad, too. All the brainwashing has gotten to the American people. Big question is, is it too late for us? Can the ethos be changed at this late date to find a more meaningful way to live that is based on love and generosity and not fear and greed? Can we love ourselves and the earth and preserve both? Only time will tell.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

" Hatred cannot be ceased by haterd. Hatred can only be ceased by love..." - Budda. A Buddist monk once asked me what I thought of those words, and of Budda's words for peace in general. I answered "how many thousand years have gone by since the Budda spoke those words, and how many prophets have said the same; some of whom were crucified for their sayings." The monk looked at me perplexed. I think though the far greater sin is to give up trying.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

We can never give up. This interview with Henry Giroux is worth listening to in full. We're at a point where, if you are one of the people who gets what is going on, and if you have convictions, then you have a duty to educate and agitate for positive change.

Giroux: "This (neoliberalism) is an ideology that is in its roots as bad as any totalitarian ideology we have ever seen.... It tells people there is no alternative, that market freedom is really about freedom in general, that a rabid kind of individualism is all that matters, that as Ayn Rand used to say, self interest is the ultimate virtue, and people believe this stuff. I mean they, because they have no other discourse, this is where the left has failed, this is why people think this way. I mean the left doesn't realize that unless you create a formative culture and a critical consciousness capable of changing the way people think about the common sense assumptions that drive their lives then you've got an ideological foundation for neoliberalism and totalitarianism that not only destroys the capacity to think critically it destroys the capacity to have convictions."


[-] 3 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

I agree. "We can never give up." And part of never giving up is having the "conviction" of never caving into people, including the hacks on here, that want to make our movement a traditional faux Democrat vs Repulican battle. We've been there, and played that game, much to the delight of the neoliberals who have bought our political system out. And where has it gotten us, the 99%? Answer: Here...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

The Forum SIGN UP should be opened up if we stand true to our convictions, that Occupy Wall Street represents the 99%. ALL should be welcome to post here. Peace and solidarity.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

None may claim silent majority. US election failed quorum.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Johannus, you have a short and selective memory. Just two days ago, I tried to break the monotony with a legitimate attempt to inspire more legitimate and diverse protest. I got nothing in return for it but more markdowns from your poser posse.



[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Because you chose to ignore and label in your ongoing strategy to aid conservatives, I'll remind you. I've posted dozens of pages and hundreds of comments ripping on the 1% often by name and several of their industries with no regard whatsoever for political affiliation. Others have as well. However, when you and the rest of your poser posse declared a markdown war on those of us who still believe in voting in addition to protest, you drew more of our focus on that very issue. The vote. Say that reminds me.


[-] 2 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

You are saying that I "aid conservatives," while you continuously promote the war mongering, neoliberal duopoly!? You make me laugh.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Your actions result in the election of the GOP you are responsible for what they do, as long as you act in such a way as to cause them to be elected you are responsible for what they do just as you blame anyone who votes for a Dem with what they do, no choice is a choice just the same, you choose to let others decide and in so doing you give the choice to the 1% it is because of you and people like you that wealth inequality has grown not shrunk since the inception of OWS because people like you care more about getting your way than actually addressing wealth inequality, you would give up on OWS core principle to build your stupid Green Party.

[-] 1 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

You might not like to admit it, but you do indeed "promote ...[the] duopoly," and you know it! You may never say it, but the reason you are here, and your inferences are clear especially when you say that we should support the "lesser evil," that you feel is electable.

Your efforts at trying to quell this struggle, and bring it into the neoliberal sphere are futile. Oddly enough, it was your man (formerly mine too), Obama who made many of us realize that our political system is broken. Hence it was he who made us realize that systemic change has to occur from outside the system, as was the case for all revolutions.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Update: My ability to post new comments has been restored.

Johannus, that's a load of crap. For the record, I am not a liberal or a Democrat. I'm a free thinker who leans to the right on abortion, the mandates of the ACA, the death penalty and voter registration. I'm moderate on gun control, immigration, and foreign policy. I'm liberal on gay marriage and the environment. I'm HELL-BENT against the 1% and conservative economic policies. Because the concentration of wealth is the most important issue to me by far, I prefer Democrats and/or fiscally liberal independents to hold a slight majority in Congress and the Presidency. I DO NOT want them in full control.

[-] 0 points by johannus (386) from Newburgh, NY 5 years ago

Dang SMC, your "...ability to post new comments has been restored." Does that mean that you will continue to push your duopo-lic, neoliberal "crap," while trying to disguise it as being revolutionary? Your not being able to spread your manure this morning was a super reprieve for most of us, but far too short-lived.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Johannus, the rating for your comment regarding my account restriction was '0' just a moment ago. I marked it down to '-1'. It was immediately marked back up to '0' by you or one of your poser posse buddies. Only two or maybe three of whom exist. However, they use multiple IDs to make their numbers appear greater. If another legitimate user marks your comment back down, you or another multiple ID poser will immediately mark it back up. I'm telling you this to let you and others know that I'm onto you and your calculated strategy. I intend to keep reminding others until my account is finally revoked.

By the way, name ANY fiscally liberal candidate for President regardless of party affiliation and I will seriously consider them for promotion UNLESS they have no chance whatsoever of winning.


That's what I thought.


[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 5 years ago

Thanks for reminding me to mark you down and johannus up. Seems like you are some sort of idiot savant. You have the amazing vision to see behind the website. Or maybe it is more the idiot part kicking in. You cannot imagine that there are more than two or three people here who do not like your comments. You come to ows with the moniker of capitalist and promote the Democratic Party. Surprise surprise few here like you. Yes it is definitely more idiot than savant

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

I'll remind you and the poser posse that I was well received here back in 2011. In less than three months, I had accumulated way over 2000 points. That was before Justine Tunney and Micah White sold out and turned against the cause. That was before dozens of legitimate users had their comments removed and their accounts canceled by the sold-out co-founders and operators of this site.

About three years ago, I took a two year break for personal reasons. When I left in January or early February of 2012, my user rating was still way over 2000. Nearly all of my comments were highly rated. When I returned in the election year of 2014, the site had already been taken over by you and the rest of the sell-out/conservative poser posse. Since then, hundreds of my highly rated comments and several entire pages from 2011 have been removed by the sold-out co-founders and site operators. In addition, I suspect that you and/or they have hit the archives and marked many of them down. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, my old user rating remains at way over 2000. About 2300 as I recall.

Without further adieu, I give you indisputable proof:






Legitimate users check the evidence quickly. It may not be around much longer.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

what issues did you vote for ?

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The state issues I've had the opportunity to vote on over the last few years would not interest many people outside of my state. My profile should give you an idea what I'm for and against.

[-] 3 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

I've never been a friend to Ann Rand's philosophy, nor of Milton Friedman's economy, and all that other like stuff. It all undermines basic social responsibility as you imply. I do not think that these lines of thought are being fostered by some accident, but are being put out by a certain group of people, a.k.a. "the 1%", so to undermine those countering philosophies that hamper the 1%'s quest for ever greater power. I notice all those wars in the Middle-East, elsewhere, and now spreading into Europe. The one theme common that I see in all these wars of adventure is that those places being besieged by war all have cultures, some age old, and live by philosophies that are not in line with the neo-liberal agenda. I don't think it is just the money or oil. Scary stuff.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

control of available energy is important

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

"Richest 1% Is Likely to Control Half of Global Wealth by 2016"


Scary indeed. Time to wake up folks! And what you say about war is spot on, they want to spread it all over. War, war and more war. Bastards.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

On a bright note............................I heard that someone wanted to poison J Boner.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

always the singling out

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Disease carriers should be removed from the general population. Don't ya think? Or were you thinking that Boners best-est buddie Bitch McConAll should have been included for purpose of support and solidarity?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Scary indeed.

[ edit ] Especially when that 1% is supposed to be numbered as like 80 individuals.

Can anyone tell me why the pitchforks are coming?

edit-> Hmmmm ............ better yet .................

Can anyone tell me why the pitchforks wouldn't be coming.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

modern police forces are very well armed

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I am sure the new huge GOP house majority, which you worked so hard to elect, will make this much worse just as it has grown worse every year since 2011, not long ago we could have changed this but then then the Green Party scum creeped in and divided OWS into those who hate the Dems like you and those that don't like me, and people like you work to elect the biggest margin for the GOP in over 80 years.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

Have you ever read the Green Party Platform? Here it is:


I'd say it is the farthest thing from scum and if we could have gotten idiots like you to see that, we might be moving toward a better world.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The moment any member of the Green Party reaches within grasp of any power to effect change, in particular with regard to corporate profits, they will immediately become subject to the same influence that has corrupted both major political parties. That is, if they haven't already.

For that reason, it will always come down to a choice between greater and lesser evil. A choice that will ultimately be made with a VOTE.

Now do you see why I stand against the very concept of extreme personal wealth?

By the way, I did read the platform. Filler does not impress me. Aside from that, I'm fine with about 2/3 of it. If and when a strong candidate from the Green party reaches within grasp of a position I am able to vote for, I will consider doing so depending on the circumstances.

Still, the point remains. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind.

If you find this hard to believe, then maybe you can explain why Justine Tunney took a position at Google, a high ranking Wall Street juggernaut and suggested it's CEO be appointed to run America.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

What is your proposal to deal with the 80 people who have as much wealth as the bottom half of humans on earth?

Just curious. I agree with you about the wealthy. But, how do we deal with it by voting? When all the people that we are offered to vote for are bought out by the very same wealthy? Just doesn't seem like a viable way to deal with inequality.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

The 2/3 who have opted out at this point in time - need - to unite and present their own candidates - and in the process of finding candidates they must have a binding contract to sign that failure to perform as required by the people they lose office automatically and their office will remain vacant pending a peoples replacement.

Part of the contract for office should be signing pledges to push forward the peoples issues and can list some of (or all of them) them to be immediately taken-up.


overturning Citizens United

establishing One Subject at a time legislation.

ending subsidies to fossil fuel

taxing wall street transactions

refusing the keystone pipeline

outlawing fracking




The people need to provide a list of issues and objectives to meet - government needs to follow the directive of the people.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Well someone didn't like the idea forwarded - addressing possible ways to get government into the hands of the people. But - SURPRISE. They didn't say why they didn't like the idea of how to approach creating/establishing a path to creating a real direct democracy.


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago

I think the Sign Up being closed is more important than voting on the forum right now. This forum needs to be open to all people to participate by voting and by posting if they wish to. This closed thing is really bugging me.

Those are all good ideas above, but how are the people going to find candidates to agree to work within this system? I mean, it all sounds good, but I don't see it happening. We can hardly get anyone decent to run for office now. How are we suddenly now going to find all of these people? And, how are you going to automatically throw people out of office when they don't perform?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

how are you going to automatically throw people out of office when they don't perform?

You missed the part about representatives signing a binding contract?

Part of the changing of government - is - making those in office (someday with a developed direct democracy - office holders not needed?) - accountable to the people. So if candidates can be made to sign a legally binding contract (ACLU? ANYONE? is this possible?). Then it does not really matter who a candidate is - what then matters is that any office holder is bound by contract to work for the people and off of an agenda provided by the people. The office holder can not vote their choices. Any votes must be taken by the people and the office holder just forwards that result.

Like I said. If the 2/3 who have opted-out get together and establish this - then we can make change happen.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I just love it when direct democracy comes up in discussions and everyone chimes in on how direct democracy should/could be developed/implemented/forwarded. Obviously I am talking about other sites. As it seems everyone likes to bitch about what is wrong here (legitimately bitch?) - but few jump in (anymore) with their own additions or refinements - HUH - how strange when those that do comment on this site anymore call themselves true OWS supporters. Seems like all that these so called (by themselves) true OWS supporters are concerned about is having people opt out - and - only opt out - as they like to complain about duopoly - they offer nothing in how to go about making change.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

My position on greed starts with the 1% in America. Their average net worth is $16,000,000. That is too much period. No exceptions. That group holds more than 40% of all private US wealth. That share is at least double what the lower 99% should be willing to tolerate.

We need to vilify the 1% as a group and as individuals by name with no regard whatsoever for anything but their personal fortunes. We need to stop being such consumer junkie morons, do a little research, THINK before we spend a dollar and do so in a manner intended to reduce the share of wealth held by the 1%. We need to make the very concept of extreme personal wealth socially unacceptable. To show deca-millionaires the same level of contempt we show child molestors.

As a society, we've been doing the exact opposite.

We need to do our research before each election and cast our votes in a manner intended to put the more fiscally liberal candidate in office. The one more likely to vote for tax increases on the rich and their corporate golden geese and for aid to those with legitimate need. We need to do so keeping the actual effect of our vote in mind, not only the gesture. We need to pressure all politicians and candidates to enact policies designed specifically to reduce the concentration of wealth significantly.

We need to give up on the sold-out founders and return OWS to it's former size and strength or form a new group to replace it.

Of course, it is not likely that enough people will take the action necessary to reverse the concentration of wealth until the coming Greater Deression is well underway.

Those of us willing should make a valiant effort regardless.

I never said that voting was enough. It never will be. In fact, given the choice of one or the other, I'd much rather reform American consumerism than American government.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

The Greens are the scum of the earth they are ego driven monsters I don't need to read their lying bullshit, they stand for themselves and they elect their GOP they are the stupidest people on earth.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23319) 5 years ago


[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

House Tries To Stop All New Government Rules

WASHINGTON -- The House passed a measure Tuesday to dramatically restrict the government's ability to enact any significant new regulations or safety standards, potentially hamstringing the efforts of every federal agency, from financial regulators to safety watchdogs.

The measure, called the Regulatory Accountability Act, has been passed by the House before, but stood no chance in the Senate when it was controlled by Democrats. With the GOP in the majority, it is at least likely to get a vote in the upper chamber. The White House has threatened to veto it.

Opponents dub the measure a "stealth attack" because it targets obscure parts of the regulatory process that very few people understand, but has such broad scope that it would affect all agencies, from independent regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission to executive branch agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

"This is using that arcane process to basically undermine the entire regulatory system of the United States," said Ronald White, director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government, which opposes the bill.

"It really covers the entire spectrum of public health and safety, worker health and safety, financial protections, consumer product protections -- just about everything that you can think about for which the government has a responsibility to ensure the public is being protected," White said.

The primary way the bill would work is by making just about every step an agency takes on a major new rule subject to numerous legal challenges. It does that by defining major rules as ones that have direct costs of more than $100 million or indirect costs above $1 billion, or would have significant costs for just about anyone, including government. Then it requires that for any such rule, agencies must make public their cost-benefit analyses of the new regulation and choose the cheapest option.

Agencies already do cost analyses, but their primary legal responsibility is to choose the rule that offers the best safety for consumers, workers or investors. Also currently, not all of those decisions can be reviewed by courts. The Regulatory Accountability Act would open up all the elements of a new rule to judicial challenges, including the science and various expert analyses. The bill also does not define how to measure costs or benefits, leaving even that interpretation up to someone who might want to challenge a regulation.

"It’s basically modifying the Administrative Procedures Act, which has been in existence for 60 years, and saying we’re going to change that whole process in a way that would require agencies to do years more analyses, to expand analyses in ways that we don’t define but which would allow industry to challenge any regulation as being inadequate or inappropriate," White said, adding that some 74 new procedures and requirements would be slapped on agencies.

"This is a paperwork creation bill. This is a government inefficiency bill," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said during House floor debate Tuesday.

But Republicans insisted the measure was meant to streamline federal regulation, and prevent new bothersome, overly burdensome rules. Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said no one wants to stop smart regulation, but that Congress should make it harder to pass bad regulation, which he argued already costs $1.86 trillion a year and weighs heavily on Americans.

"All across this country people who have been struggling, people whose jobs and wages have been disappearing, people who have been leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool, people who have seen no way possible to start a new business, can feel in their bones that this American dream, the dream that they cherish and their children need is slipping away," Goodlatte said before the measure passed 250-175, with eight Democrats in favor.

"What is killing this dream? It’s not ordinary Americans, It’s not global phenomena, it’s not natural disasters," Goodlatte argued. "More than anything else, it is the endless drain of the resources that takes working people’s hard-earned wages to Washington and Washington’s endless erection of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth."

Goodlatte and several other Republicans pointed to a study first done several years ago for their estimate of the costs of regulations, but Democrats noted the study has been challenged by many critics, including the Congressional Research Service, which pointed out that while the study used data from the George W. Bush administration on the costs, it ignored the Bush White House data on the benefits of regulation, which out-weighed the costs in almost every year.

Some Republican backers admitted that they want to make it harder for agencies to make rules.

"It's supposed to be difficult to enact laws and regulations," said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas). "We've got to pass something out of the House, we've got to pass something out of the Senate and get it signed by the president to enact a law, but a bureaucrat can do it basically with the stroke of a pen."

He did not note that regulations are written to carry out laws passed by Congress.

Business groups strongly favor the bill.

UPDATE: 8:50 p.m. -- In response to the House passage, Wake Forest University law professor and Center for Progressive Reform scholar Sid Shapiro released a statement that said the rule-making process would be delayed by 10 years or more under the bill.

"House Republicans voted today to delay clean air, clean water, safer workplaces, and less toxic products for their constituents," he said. "In addition, they have given Wall Street a green light to re-engage in behavior risky enough to collect enormous profits while taxpayers are left footing the bill for the inevitable devastating consequences."


[-] 3 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

What has all that got to do with football and beer?

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

It is too bad that during campaigning for the 2014 midterm elections, many Democratic candidates ran away from President Obama’s economic achievements and did their level best to be Republicans. Yesterday the President briefly touched on his successful economic record that Democrats were terrified of and Republicans claimed was a major disaster.  Republicans ran on, and won big with, their claim that the GOP is “the party of solutions” founded on conservative pro-growth economic policies, deregulation, and tax cuts for the rich they claimed were more successful than anything “hapless” Democrats or Obama could ever hope to achieve. This is despite the President’s nearly five-year job growth record, world-leading GDP growth, and increased revenue paying down the nation’s debt at a record pace.

This column has given special attention to the trickle-down economic disaster in Kansas, but plenty of other Republican states’ economies are failing miserably; especially states with Republican governors held up as the model for the nation in hopes of winning the White House and running nation’s economy into the ground. Republicans said throughout 2014 that Democrats and the President consistently offer up “ineffective economic policies” responsible for the President’s failed economic policies leading to increased income inequality plaguing the poor and middle class. Republicans have no interest in addressing income inequality according to red states with failing economies due to their storied “pro-growth agenda” of tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

In New Jersey, Chris Christie campaigned on and entered office on a pledge of balancing the state budget and “replenishing the state’s pension program.” Instead, Christie’s “pro-growth agenda” of cutting corporate taxes drastically increased pension liabilities, created Kansas-style revenue shortfalls, and earned the state a record eight credit downgrades; a new mark for a sitting governor. New Jersey is also, like Kansas, lagging the rest of the nation in creating jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and while the national unemployment rate has been steadily dropping, New Jersey’s is growing just over the past year.

To save his failing pro-growth economy, Christie is following Brownback’s lead and cutting employee’s pension-fund payments and delaying property-tax relief for individuals. It has already adversely affected, and caught the attention of, public workers, senior citizens, and middle-class homeowners who likely voted for more trickle-down tax cuts for the rich. Christie’s pro-growth agenda has created a $1.7 billion revenue shortfall this year due to more than $600 million in corporate tax cuts that failed to deliver economic growth, increase revenue, or create job growth.

Christie tripled corporate tax cuts in less than three years with more coming this year and, like Brownback in Kansas and Republicans in Washington, he promised and still claims that more frequent and larger business tax cuts are absolutely necessary to grow the economy, create jobs, and most importantly; “benefit the big corporations.” The only part of Christie’s promise that reached fruition is the benefit to big corporations; the goal of all conservative “pro-growth reforms.”

Despite a flagging economy, poor job growth, revenue shortfalls, and eight credit downgrades, Christie has pledged that he will do nothing to endanger the still-growing corporate tax cuts to save the state’s economy. In fact, even raiding and cutting pension-fund payments is not enough to make up for the growing corporate tax cuts he has no intent of stopping.

In Louisiana, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal’s conservative economic policies have the state facing “a very large shortfall as we go into the spring session of 2015 because we’ve been relying too much on those onetime funds for recurring expenses” according to a fiscally conservative Republican state representative. Brett Geyman said Jindal has relied “too heavily on a non-replenishable pool of “onetime” funds that won’t be available next year.”

The “very large revenue shortfall” is in spite of “the steepest cuts to education ever proposed for the state” that the Republican speaker of the Louisiana House has vowed to block because they “will set us back generations.” The fact that Jindal is still in office is proof enough form semi-intelligent Americans that the state’s education system has already set the state back generations. Jindal claims the steep education cuts are necessary to balance the state’s budget even though with the drastic cuts, the state still faces a substantially large revenue shortfall. Jindal wants to completely eliminate corporate taxes completely and raise them on the bottom 80% of the population; a tactic that will exacerbate the revenue shortfall. However, like New Jersey’s Christie and Kansas’ Brownback claim, eliminating business taxes will be a “great benefit to big corporations.”

Republican Scott Walker of Wisconsin is also facing a “pro-growth agenda” revenue shortfall this year to the tune of $2.2 billion as well as a record “slower than average job and wage growth” compared to the national figures according to a recent analysis. Walker claims the facts are false, and that he will make up the $2.2 billion shortfall by “adjusting funding priorities” that in Republican economic parlance means steep cuts to domestic programs and pension payments. Walker already cut taxes for the rich and funded them partially with Medicaid cuts and still; the state faces a 2.2 billion revenue shortfall.

What is telling in all these Republican economic failures is that the national economy is and has been steadily growing, job growth is at record pace, manufacturing is growing, and gas prices are falling. There is a reason why these, and other, Republican-led states are not enjoying the same growth and recovery as the rest of the nation and it is down to the Republican ‘pro-growth agenda’ of tax cuts for the rich and corporations and cuts to pensions and domestic programs that help drive the economy whether at the state or federal level.

Democrats who ran away from the President’s economic record were fools, and voters in economically-failed red states were morons for either electing or re-electing ‘pro-growth’ Republicans who are not only decimating their state economies, they are dragging down the national economy as well. The real obscenity is that Democratic states are stuck bailing out the idiots in red states who continue electing Republicans who have no other intent than advancing their failed pro-growth agenda on the national level.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8258) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

If only they knew how easy it would be to break that chain, but they become confused pulling first one way then another, never focusing long enough in one direction to break free from the ties that bind it to an old system, if only the elephants understood that if it move in one direction with ALL its might it could tear down the ladder of power that binds it.

But its fear that, that direction might not be good enough far enough to the left maybe it should try another and so around and around it goes trapped in its indecision tied to a post of power because it cannot make a decision!

This story really tells a tale of giving up, the baby pulls and pulls when it is young, like the nation voting Democratic over and over, but it doesn't work and the baby gives up and stops pulling or voting not realizing that it has grown and if it would pull once more all together and vote for them dems it could pull free in one giant surge of power!

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

Pay special attention to the last paragraph.

STUDY: Food Stamps Improve Childhood Health And Development

Participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores, new research reveals.

The social, economic, and health-related benefits of food stamps have been documented in numerous studies over the years. The federal food assistance program is widely cited as the most effective and efficient of any government benefits program, and research shows that every $5 in food stamp spending generates up to $9 in economic activity. Studies have also found that food stamp participation is associated with improvements in diet, higher rates of breastfeeding, and better health outcomes among women and children, and some recent reports even credit the government program for a marked drop in childhood obesity.

Now, a newly published study adds to the evidence, finding that the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, doesn’t just boost the health of young children and their moms: It also plays a positive role in kids’ cognitive development.

“These findings suggest that WIC meaningfully contributes to children’s educational prospects,” Brown University sociologist Margot Jackson writes in the article, which was published online ahead of print in the journal Social Science and Medicine.

WIC is a large-scale government program serving 53 percent of all infants born in the United States. It provides vouchers that are redeemed at supermarkets for healthy, nutritious food such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women are eligible, as are children up their fifth birthday; parents also receive nutritional education and counseling.

For the study, Jackson analyzed two sets of data to investigate both short-term and longer-term outcomes of WIC participation. The first dataset was the birth cohort of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, which followed about 11,000 children from age nine months to kindergarten. It includes information on WIC participation, as well as the results of a standard test given at age two, “an assessment general mental ability that indicates problem-solving and language-acquisition skills.”

The other dataset came from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a nationally representative, longitudinal study of families. It includes information on both WIC participation and the results of standard math and reading tests administered when the children were, on average, 11 years old.

WIC participation confers lasting benefits for children Both sets of data linked participation in WIC with positive outcomes. The first showed that “prenatal/early childhood WIC exposure is associated with significantly stronger cognitive development,” Jackson writes. The second provided evidence that “the benefit associated with WIC participation persists into the school years.”

To reach that second conclusion, Jackson compared test scores of children from the same family, comparing those who grew up with WIC nutritional assistance with those who did not. (For a variety of reasons, some mothers do not participate in WIC until they have had at least one child.)

These within-family comparisons “suggest that children who receive prenatal/early childhood exposure to WIC perform significantly better on reading assignments—up to 0.3 of a standard deviation—than their siblings who do not,” she writes. “This association is not explained by measured differences in prenatal behavior toward siblings, such as time spent reading with children or breastfeeding behavior, nor is it explained by differences in families’ economic circumstances during the child’s birth year.”

In other words: WIC works. Kids who ate healthier food showed signs of stronger cognitive development early in life, and their later test scores show that these initial indications were not just a fluke.

In an ironic twist, the study comes barely more than a week after Republican lawmakers slipped a $93 million cut to the WIC program into the last-minute compromise federal budget just passed by Congress. But this isn’t the first time the food stamp program has come under attack from the right — far from it, actually. Despite the evidence documenting its effectiveness and cost-savings, the federal food assistance program — comprised of WIC, along with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — is a frequent target of Republican lawmakers, who have repeatedly tried to slash its funding and weaken its benefits.

Perhaps the incoming Congress may want to read up on the research before it draws up the next federal budget.


[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 5 years ago

The Five Battlefronts in Republicans' War on the EPA

Republicans have spent six years campaigning against President Barack Obama’s “war on coal” and promising to fight the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations. Now that Republicans have gained control of both chambers of Congress, they are in a position to declare war with the EPA.

The GOP’s plans for environmental regulation are hardly a secret. The Senate’s new leadership includes a majority leader who promised he would “get the EPA reined in,” an environmental chairman who thinks global warming is a hoax, and a newly elected senator who would like to eliminate the EPA altogether.

Their most publicized plan is to derail the Obama administration’s proposed cuts to carbon pollution, but there are plenty of other, lesser-known EPA targets that are equally at risk. Republicans are attempting to…

Fight Ozone Reduction

The EPA will announce new regulations that lower the existing standard for ozone, or smog, from a current level of 75 parts per billion, which scientists say is too high to protect public health. Exactly how ambitious this proposal is won’t be known for a few weeks. But GOP leadership has already pledged to prevent it. South Dakota Senator John Thune proposed a bill that would block any new standard until there is 85 percent compliance with the old one.

Limit the Clean Water Act

This spring, the EPA proposed a rule to answer a question that has lingered for at least a decade: Which streams and wetlands does the 42-year-old Clean Water Act protect? The EPA’s rule makes previously unregulated waters subject to new pollution restrictions—and that has made conservatives furious. The EPA  says these streams and wetlands are important to both drinking water supplies and wildlife. There are already 30 Republican senators who have already signed onto legislation to prevent this rule.

Allow Congress to Block Major Regulations

There is a little-known bill that could bring the entire regulatory process to a standstill. It’s called the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act and would require any regulation costing the economy over $100 million a year to also pass an up-or-down vote in Congress. If Congress doesn’t hold a vote within 70 days, the regulation dies. This gives a Republican Congress direct control of regulations that are all well within the EPA’s authority to enact—thanks to Congress’ own Clean Air and Water Acts. Mitch McConnell hasn’t hinted what his plans might be on this bill, which already passed the House of Representatives last year. Kentucky’s junior Senator Rand Paul already supports it.

Stall Coal Regulations With Numbers Games

Ever since the EPA hiked the assessed cost of health, property, and climate damage caused by carbon pollution—from $22 to $36 per ton—Republicans have challenged its calculation. The House has already passed a bill that prohibits the EPA from considering the benefits of avoiding carbon pollution unless a federal law allows it. The social cost of carbon forms the basis for a number of coal regulations, so by challenging this calculation, the GOP hopes to stall the EPA’s plans.

Block Carbon Pollution Regulation

McConnell has already hinted at the ways he hopes to block the EPA’s draft rule to cut power plant pollution 30 percent by 2030. The GOP still faces a Democratic minority capable of filibustering legislation, and of course Obama’s veto. But McConnell has suggested the GOP will limit the EPA by attaching policy riders to must-pass appropriations bills, raising the stakes even at the risk of a government shutdown. “It will be hard because the only good tool to do that ... is through the spending process, and if [Obama] feels strongly enough about it, he can veto the bill,” McConnell said in a recent interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader.

There is one bright spot. Natural Resources Defense Council’s director of government affairs, David Goldston, is doubtful most of this can become law. He thinks the GOP’s new power is “in one sense a good thing [because] it hasn’t been clear to the public up to now what’s at stake in the battles in Washington.” The GOP’s attacks on the EPA will make that clear.