Occupy Wall St.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 9:34 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SIhY6El5jk[/youtube]

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 9:35 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnSu0DG3Oo[/youtube]

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 9:36 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udfYr-UuB8Y[/youtube]

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 10:09 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypn5tf_8npc[/youtube]

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » October 14th, 2011, 10:15 am

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't watch any sort of news, and haven't for a while. Watching these clips, I can't believe how ridiculous the newscasters in the first 2 clips come off.

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » October 14th, 2011, 10:34 am

Also, it's funny how time and time again the politicians and news folk are clamoring for Occupy Wall Street to have a spokesperson or a list of concrete demands. I can't help but feel it's so they have something to attack and dismiss.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 10:56 am

Agreed, Roy. What's interesting is that many of these folks, while news commentators, also hold other roles.

From the first clip, CBC's Kevin O'Leary is also an investor and venture capitalist, holding titles like advisory board member of private equity firm Genstar Capital and co-founder, chairman, and lead investor of O'Leary Funds Inc.

PJ O'Rourke is a Fellow at Libertarian think-tank The Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is current chaired by Charles Koch. Koch is also CEO of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States. Koch and his brother are also involved in politics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... och_family

Nicolle Wallace was communications chief for the Bush administration and senior advisor for the McCain/Palin campaign.

Peggy Noonan was chief speech writer for and special assistant to Reagan. She also co-founded and is on the board of trustees for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative market-oriented think tank.

I'm not suggesting that they or anyone shouldn't state their views -- and certainly the Bill Maher show is not news per se -- but they are most certainly not impartial observers or free-market agnostics.

I've been talking with Erika over the last few weeks about all of this, and one thing that is so interesting is that they seem to have no desire to actively reach out to mainstream media to extend their message and seem to shun any attempt to be aligned with or co-opted into a political party. They also seem comfortable -- at this stage of the movement -- not having a single specific demand or an actionable set of answers. I think the combination of all of that has completely confused the media and the politicians (are they for or against? is it this or that?).

I'd posted these videos (and others) because I'm just trying to follow and understand what is going on. I hope anyone else who wants to discuss it, process it, criticize it, and even ridicule it, feels free to here.

arthursimone · Post by **arthursimone** » October 14th, 2011, 11:01 am

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/10/occupy-comics/

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » October 14th, 2011, 11:11 am

mcnichol wrote: They also seem comfortable -- at this stage of the movement -- not having a single specific demand or an actionable set of answers. I think the combination of all of that has completely confused the media and the politicians (are they for or against? is it this or that?).

It seemed frustrating at first, but as time goes on, I agree with that strategy more and more. It may be a little forced to aggressively keep it a grassroots movement with no leader, but the moment they have one, or support a candidate, or have a specific goal, they'll open up the door to being marginalized.

And as vague as their overall complaint is, it's something I, and obviously countless others, have been feeling for a while. 1) Government has been completely cowed by corporate interests, and 2) it would nice if the government served the people first. If Occupy Wall Street has a demand, it's that the people in charge do something about that. The protestors don't HAVE to have the answers. That's supposed to be the government's job.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 11:44 am

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 11:50 am

http://the53.tumblr.com/

Max Udargo wrote:I understand your pride in what you’ve accomplished, but I want to ask you something.

Do you really want the bar set this high? Do you really want to live in a society where just getting by requires a person to hold down two jobs and work 60 to 70 hours a week? Is that your idea of the American Dream?

Do you really want to spend the rest of your life working two jobs and 60 to 70 hours a week? Do you think you can? Because, let me tell you, kid, that’s not going to be as easy when you’re 50 as it was when you were 20.

And what happens if you get sick? You say you don’t have health insurance, but since you’re a veteran I assume you have some government-provided health care through the VA system. I know my father, a Vietnam-era veteran of the Air Force, still gets most of his medical needs met through the VA, but I don’t know what your situation is. But even if you have access to health care, it doesn’t mean disease or injury might not interfere with your ability to put in those 60- to 70-hour work weeks.

Do you plan to get married, have kids? Do you think your wife is going to be happy with you working those long hours year after year without a vacation? Is it going to be fair to her? Is it going to be fair to your kids? Is it going to be fair to you?

Look, you’re a tough kid. And you have a right to be proud of that. But not everybody is as tough as you, or as strong, or as young. Does pride in what you’ve accomplish mean that you have contempt for anybody who can’t keep up with you? Does it mean that the single mother who can’t work on her feet longer than 50 hours a week doesn’t deserve a good life? Does it mean the older man who struggles with modern technology and can’t seem to keep up with the pace set by younger workers should just go throw himself off a cliff?

And, believe it or not, there are people out there even tougher than you. Why don’t we let them set the bar, instead of you? Are you ready to work 80 hours a week? 100 hours? Can you hold down four jobs? Can you do it when you’re 40? When you’re 50? When you’re 60? Can you do it with arthritis? Can you do it with one arm? Can you do it when you’re being treated for prostate cancer?

And is this really your idea of what life should be like in the greatest country on Earth?

Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse. The captains of industry were making a ton of money and living a merry life far away from the dirty, dangerous factories they owned, and far away from the even dirtier and more dangerous mines that fed raw materials to those factories.

The workers quickly decided that this arrangement didn’t work for them. If they were going to work as cogs in machines designed to build wealth for the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Carnegies, they wanted a cut. They wanted a share of the wealth that they were helping create. And that didn’t mean just more money; it meant a better quality of life. It meant reasonable hours and better working conditions.

Eventually, somebody came up with the slogan, “8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure, 8 hours of sleep” to divide the 24-hour day into what was considered a fair allocation of a human’s time. It wasn’t a slogan that was immediately accepted. People had to fight to put this standard in place. People demonstrated, and fought with police, and were killed. They were called communists (in fairness, some of them were), and traitors, and many of them got a lot worse than pepper spray at the hands of police and private security.

But by the time we got through the Great Depression and WWII, we’d all learned some valuable lessons about working together and sharing the prosperity, and the 8-hour workday became the norm.

The 8-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek became a standard by which we judged our economic success, and a reality check against which we could verify the American Dream.

excerpted from here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/1 ... hat-53-Guy

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 12:19 pm

All below excerpted from recent Time Magazine poll (Oct 9-10, 2011)

Q6. IN POLITICS AS TODAY, ARE YOUR VIEWS BEST REPRESENTED BY THE (DEMOCRATIC PARTY), (REPUBLICAN PARTY), THE TEA PARTY, ANOTHER PARTY, OR DO NONE OF THE PARTIES REALLY REPRESENT YOUR VIEWS?

DEMOCRATIC PARTY 30%
REPUBLICAN PARTY 17%
TEA PARTY 12%
NONE 35%
OTHER 4%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 2%

Q7. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE POLITICAL DEBATE IN WASHINGTON AND THE MEDIA MOSTLY REPRESENTS THE CONCERNS YOU DISCUSS AND HEAR IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY, OR NOT?

MOSTLY REPRESENTS 36%
DO NOT REPRESENT 60%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 3%

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%
SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%
SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%
VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%
DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
A. WALL STREET AND ITS LOBBYISTS HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)

AGREE 86%
DISAGREE 11%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%

Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
B. THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN THE UNITED STATES HAS GROWN TOO LARGE
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)

AGREE 79%
DISAGREE 17%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 3%

Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
C. EXECUTIVES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN IN 2008 SHOULD BE PROSECUTED
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)

AGREE 71%
DISAGREE 23%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 6%

Q12. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT POSITION?
D. THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES
BASE: FAMILIAR WITH PROTESTS (787)

AGREE 68%
DISAGREE 28%
NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 4%

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » October 14th, 2011, 12:22 pm

from

Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think

and

Left behind in America: Who's to blame for the wealth divide?

SamM · Post by **SamM** » October 14th, 2011, 12:34 pm

Roy Janik wrote:
mcnichol wrote: They also seem comfortable -- at this stage of the movement -- not having a single specific demand or an actionable set of answers. I think the combination of all of that has completely confused the media and the politicians (are they for or against? is it this or that?).
It seemed frustrating at first, but as time goes on, I agree with that strategy more and more. It may be a little forced to aggressively keep it a grassroots movement with no leader, but the moment they have one, or support a candidate, or have a specific goal, they'll open up the door to being marginalized.

I understand how this can work without a single leader (at least without an apparent leader), but how can anything be accomplished without a goal or plan of action?

It's one thing to express dissatisfaction, but why would the people in this "1%" care at all? They would care if it affects their bottom line, but is this OWS movement capable of that?

Occupy Wall Street: McRevolution

On the other hand....I like this analysis of OWS as "Open Source Protest"

Occupy Wall Street (the theory)

There are a few more pertinent articles on that site that follow up on that idea as well

Roy Janik · Post by **Roy Janik** » October 14th, 2011, 12:46 pm

It's one thing to express dissatisfaction, but why would the people in this "1%" care at all? They would care if it affects their bottom line, but is this OWS movement capable of that?

But the protests are less an appeal to Wall Street and more an appeal to government. And given the timing of the protests (just as election talk is beginning to heat up in earnest), politicians are taking notice. Without an agenda or a clear goal, the Occupy Wall Street protests are resetting the agenda for the debates and campaigns to come.