Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

Ulairi wrote:

So, going through the signs and reading the list of "demands" are we able to call a spade a spade? These leftist kids are not going to get anywhere and what makes these people any different from the trade protestors of the 90's and early 2000's? I know leftist kiddies would much rather have a Republican in the white house but this is vanity like all of hipsternomics. These people deserve the tea party because they have no solutions. No real policy alternatives. Just empty leftist platitudes presented by economic illiterate useful idiots. You want to make a real change? How about electing someone who will and when he says he'll do certain things and doesn't, not voting for his reelection.

I'll set your sarcasm aside for a moment. Not everyone is going to be an econ policy expert. It's okay for people to protest and have a general idea of what's wrong. They don't need to be presenting detailed policy prescriptions on what they'd change. No protest has ever really been educated to that degree. It doesn't make their voice any less worth hearing. The path you're talking about is the path we're already on. One where those with the most money and the most access to media have the biggest voice in public policy. I'm not sure how anything changes under your scenario. Voting doesn't solve everything.

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

You said it better than I did. But yeah, this. They're protesting the very fact that Wall Street finances campaigns, thus essentially locking them out of the process. In many ways this is the only thing we can do.

Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Plus, if you've got people on the streets demonstrating it's because your mechanisms of political debate are malfunctioning or co-opted to one degree or another. Protests are the voices of people who feel excluded or shouted down within the existing framework of political debate. When those mechanisms run well, protests are usually made up of marginal groups with marginal interests. This means most people feel they have a voice. It also tends to lead to an association between "protester" and "crackpot".

When those protest groups become larger; and cover more of a cross section; and start to hit at broader themes: then you're talking about a bigger failure of communication. You're talking about far more people who think that what they say via the existing political process is ignored or unheard. This is the bit of the argument where someone is screaming at you "you never listen!" not the bit where you're having a rational discussion. The protest isn't the manifesto, the protest is the demand that future manifestos will be read.

Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

I'm getting old, but I can't remember when I mentioned the Tea Party.

DSGamer wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

You said it better than I did. But yeah, this. They're protesting the very fact that Wall Street finances campaigns, thus essentially locking them out of the process. In many ways this is the only thing we can do.

So then their ire should be directed towards Obama, who backed away from a potentially historic public funding pledge when it became apparent he was actually a frontrunner.

Yet somehow organizations like moveon are starting to get involved here without a trace of irony.

This could get worse if it moves beyond 'young people', 'young hipsters' whatever the term might be. The parallel universe that Wall Street thrives within was made absolutely clear when the TARP funds were being doled out and financial firms/managers continued to receive whatever bonuses they felt were entitled to (reduced maybe but well outside the the bounds of an average private sector worker). This is absolutely alien contractual agreements / thinking to folks for whom any hope of bonus or salary bump is tied to actual corporate performance. I think most working families I know have endured years of downward pressure on salaries. Minimal to non-existent increases and benefit reductions that are explained as strategic decisions that are 'competitive with the market'.

My perspective could be way off, but for the average American I dont know that they ever vented their frustration or were left with anything but holding the bag while the financial 'elite' continued to empty it.

I remember either Seth or OG_Slinger (I think) mentioned great trepidation with Obama, because in his election on a platform of change, if he did not deliver, it would cause possibly greater damage. I think they were prophetic words. He has failed to deliver the change that I think most folks were hoping for. Whatever that nebulous change was. Surely it was hoped to reverse the trend of the previous 8+ years.

Sure, he has been actively sabotaged all along the way. It definitely leaves the voter in a pickle for 2012. I can't see rewarding the party of no in any way whatsoever. No, to me was the most childish of political strategies, one that I just dont see having served the people. And yet, it worked. A party and a half demonstrated that talk is ineffectual and what is the lesson there?

So where will all that desire for 'change' for the people go. They see talking fail, because of entrenched viewpoints and impotent negotiations. The average American continues to be squeezed. For now folks focus on making ends meet and are still living the American lifestyle, which is a pretty darn good one I think. However, its not as good as it was. The future is very uncertain.

It just seems that if it doesnt get better, if political promises of change go undelivered, if the rich continue to prosper while the rest are forced to be competitive with the 'global' market... well, pressure is going to continue to build. I dont think this is the time or place that it will erupt, but I would suppose there is the potential if things continue to get worse or possibly if they just continue to stay the same in a prolonged sense.

Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

You said it better than I did. But yeah, this. They're protesting the very fact that Wall Street finances campaigns, thus essentially locking them out of the process. In many ways this is the only thing we can do.

So then their ire should be directed towards Obama, who backed away from a potentially historic public funding pledge when it became apparent he was actually a frontrunner.

Yet somehow organizations like moveon are starting to get involved here without a trace of irony.

I agree completely. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the protestors feel this way and are trying to remain some semblance of focus. Left wing protestors, with good reason, have been criticized in the past for showing up to a protest with a billion causes and thus losing the message.

Maq wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

I'm getting old, but I can't remember when I mentioned the Tea Party.

My point is that the tea party draws a lot of ire from this forum and we can make the same argument for them. I see a lot more benefit of the doubt being given to these hipsters than the tea party.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

When has the tea party done something to warrant arrests? So, if I am right from reading your post, you are fine with these leftist hipsters because you agree with them politically but you're not ok with the tea party because you don't agree with theirs?

Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

I'm getting old, but I can't remember when I mentioned the Tea Party.

My point is that the tea party draws a lot of ire from this forum and we can make the same argument for them. I see a lot more benefit of the doubt being given to these hipsters than the tea party.

Dismissing them as "leftist hipsters" as a way to diminish their message is every bit as bad as dismissing tea party protestors as "tea baggers". Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Ulairi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

When has the tea party done something to warrant arrests? So, if I am right from reading your post, you are fine with these leftist hipsters because you agree with them politically but you're not ok with the tea party because you don't agree with theirs?

I think you missed the point completely. If I'm understanding what he was saying, I think the point is that the difference between the two movements is that the protestors in New York are willing to risk their livelihood and freedom for their cause, whereas the tea party members were generally showing up at town hall meetings or organized protests put on by Fox or Glenn Beck or the Koch Brothers and shouting down politicians. Both are acts of civil disobedience, but the "hipsters" you dismiss seem willing and able to put themselves on the line.

Obviously part of this is demographics, but still, Quintin's point has merit.

Latest bit of anti-Occupy Wall St. messaging from (billionaire) Mayor Bloomberg:
http://t.co/JPWPccKx

The protests are targeting "people who are struggling to make ends meet"

Right..

DSGamer wrote:

Dismissing them as "leftist hipsters" as a way to diminish their message is every bit as bad as dismissing tea party protestors as "tea baggers". Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Today I saw a bunch of them shuffling along dressed like zombies!

It's like a cross section of the most annoying things - the only way to top that would be a zombie hipster protester driving a car with one of those "coexist" bumper stickers

NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Dismissing them as "leftist hipsters" as a way to diminish their message is every bit as bad as dismissing tea party protestors as "tea baggers". Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Today I saw a bunch of them shuffling along dressed like zombies!

It's like a cross section of the most annoying things - the only way to top that would be a zombie hipster protester driving a car with one of those "coexist" bumper stickers :)

Right, so you're dismissing them because of who they are, not what they're saying. I'm certain the "zombie" gag was in reference to the fact that most of the banks on Wall Street are "zombie banks" and technically shouldn't be alive right now.

Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Because the Tea Party is a political entity with actual representatives in government.

Ulairi wrote:

And they are different from the tea party, how?

For one thing they better represent the demographics of this country since they aren't virtually all older, white Christian males. And for another they've correctly identified the institution that's responsible for screwing up our country instead of blaming it on immigrants, gays, and "socialists".

Ulairi wrote:

And they are different from the tea party, how?

For starters, I haven't seen any corporate sponsors for the Occupy Wall Street folks.

IMAGE(http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fox-20090408-opposition2.jpg)

Meanwhile, more folks it's hard to dismiss as spoiled leftist hipsters may be on their way.

I'm heading up there tonight in my dress blues. So far, 15 of my fellow marine buddies are meeting me there, also in Uniform.

I want to send the following message to Wall St and Congress:

I didn't fight for Wall St. I fought for America. Now it's Congress' turn.

My true hope, though, is that we Veterans can act as first line of defense between the police and the protester. If they want to get to some protesters so they can mace them, they will have to get through the f*cking Marine Corps first. Let's see a cop mace a bunch of decorated war vets.

I apologize now for typos and errors. Typing this on iPhone whilst heading to NYC. We can organize once we're there. That's what we do best. If you see someone in uniform, gather together.

A formation will be held tonight at 10PM.

We all took an oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of this country. That's what we will be doing.

This is really turning into a remarkable turn of events.

DSGamer wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Dismissing them as "leftist hipsters" as a way to diminish their message is every bit as bad as dismissing tea party protestors as "tea baggers". Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Today I saw a bunch of them shuffling along dressed like zombies!

It's like a cross section of the most annoying things - the only way to top that would be a zombie hipster protester driving a car with one of those "coexist" bumper stickers :)

Right, so you're dismissing them because of who they are, not what they're saying. I'm certain the "zombie" gag was in reference to the fact that most of the banks on Wall Street are "zombie banks" and technically shouldn't be alive right now.

No he is dismissing them not for who they are but who he is. He says he works for Wall Street. I have never heard him say how we should fix the problems. Or even if he thinks there is a problem. He has just taken swipes at the Occupy Wall Street people.

There are plenty of people who work in Wall Street or around Wall Street that think things need to be fixed. That Wall Street shuffling of money is not productive and are saying things very similar to the Occupy Wall Street people.

Ulairi wrote:

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Content is the difference, the content of the protests.

Your argument appears to be that it is impossible to distinguish between any two groups that employ civil disobedience in order to enact social change. All political movements that break the law are the same: illegal. That is, of course, bunk. It paints with far too large a brush. Using that logic, one could compare any non-violent civil disobedient cause or leader (Civil Rights, Ghandi, or Arab Spring) with any violent or oppressive movement such as abortion clinic bombers, illegal settlements in Palestine, or the folks who spike trees to kill loggers.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that the Wall Street Protesters are financially illiterate, and as thus just a ripe for ridicule as the Tea Party is, you might have a point. You'd have to point out signs that rival "Home Scholers for Perry" of "Keep your Government out of my Medicare" which, frankly, I haven't seen. I've seen a "your" instead of "you're" sign, but nothing egregious.

So, on the one hand, Tea Party protesters who are protesting the very same thing as the NY Hipsters should, of course, be treated the same. They have an awful lot in common. However, what gets the Tea Party in trouble is their anti-intellectual bent and their apparent need to define America according to strict white, rural, and Protestant lines. When they stick to protesting corruption, graft, and federally funded bonuses to the individuals responsible for the market crash, they should be treated the same.

Ulairi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

When has the tea party done something to warrant arrests? So, if I am right from reading your post, you are fine with these leftist hipsters because you agree with them politically but you're not ok with the tea party because you don't agree with theirs?

Spare me your rage, Ulairi. You asked how they were different. I answered you. Was something I said unclear or nonfactual? Where exactly did I say one was okay and the other was not? If you're going to accuse me of things, at least have them be real things and not figments of your imagination.

goman wrote:

I have never heard him say how we should fix the problems.

Haven't heard any solutions from the protesters yet. I'd rather hear from them than from someone who doesn't appear to have an issue with.....whatever it is exactly they have an issue with. Do we start lynching people in suits? Do the banks print checks for everyone? Maybe the 1% could give each of us 99% a pizza

If they are going to continue protesting, I hope they develop a coherent message of not just what exactly they are protesting, but what the possible solutions are.

Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

I'm getting old, but I can't remember when I mentioned the Tea Party.

My point is that the tea party draws a lot of ire from this forum and we can make the same argument for them. I see a lot more benefit of the doubt being given to these hipsters than the tea party.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Maq wrote:

X-thousand people on the streets saying "we're citizens of this country and we're so angry about Y we don't care if we're arrested shouting about it" is a powerful, and legitimate political statement even if you're not submitting policies, electing a mouthpiece and picking out what font you like for your banners. This is especially true if the political framework you're expected to work within is dominated by the very body you're protesting against.

And they are different from the tea party, how?

Goals, tactics, support. When has a Tea Party protest/march resulted in mass arrests?

When has the tea party done something to warrant arrests? So, if I am right from reading your post, you are fine with these leftist hipsters because you agree with them politically but you're not ok with the tea party because you don't agree with theirs?

I think the better question is, "What have the Occupy Wall Street protesters done to warrant mass arrests?"

Over 700 arrested for marching on the Brooklyn Bridge this weekend. A march that by most accounts was deliberately herded into place by the police, who were ready and waiting with zip ties and paddy wagons and buses the moment the mass misstepped.

I have to say, I would feel better if more of the signs said things like:

Bring back Glass-Steagall

or

Separate Investment Banks from Commercial Banks!

or

Don't Speculate with my Life's Savings!
goman wrote:

No he is dismissing them not for who they are but who he is.

Well, yes, as someone who found zombie walks vaguely annoying and pointless before occupy wall st, I find it twice as annoying in this context, and doesn't exactly scream "we're totally serious and not kids with a bunch of free time". I wasn't making a completely serious point (hence the smiley) but, yes - I'm outed as someone who thinks grownups playing dress-up outside of halloween is silly.

He says he works for Wall Street. I have never heard him say how we should fix the problems. Or even if he thinks there is a problem. He has just taken swipes at the Occupy Wall Street people.

"On" Wall Street, not "for". As in physically, my building is on that street.

And I've suggested a fix several times - set up shop in D.C. where the actual problem is. I do understand that blaming rich people is easier than taking your own party to task though - like when we ran things and blamed everything on "activist judges".

MattDaddy wrote:
goman wrote:

I have never heard him say how we should fix the problems.

Haven't heard any solutions from the protesters yet. I'd rather hear from them than from someone who doesn't appear to have an issue with.....whatever it is exactly they have an issue with. Do we start lynching people in suits? Do the banks print checks for everyone? Maybe the 1% could give each of us 99% a pizza

If they are going to continue protesting, I hope they develop a coherent message of not just what exactly they are protesting, but what the possible solutions are.

I'm sorry, but... Why do they need to have a plan/solution for the change they demand? Ideally, that is supposed to be the job of our politicians-- to hear the cries of the constituents and create a plan that will satisfy. Granted, there are not really any politicians in power that can or would do anything to effect the change that we the people demand, but the purpose of a protest is simply to protest, and thus bring the issue to the forefront of our government's attention.

Tea Partiers did just that: Grassroots movement, protests, rallies, etc. Then political leaders took the helm/rode the wave and pushed the movement into the halls of the government with the promise of continuing the movement.

Occupy Wall Street are doing exactly what they need to do: peaceful protests, a clear message of a desire for specific things to change, all in a peaceful and respectful manner. From there it will be up to leaders to take up the helm and form a true solution for that change. With the likes of the US Marines and Cornell West joining the protest and the exponential growth of the movement in NY and across the country, I'm sure soon there will be a person or people who will rise to form a solution that these people can get behind.

But writing the protesters off simply because they didn't start with a figurehead with a 10 point plan for change? Kind of asking a bit too much of any social/political movement.

IMAGE(http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg)

Is there some arbitrary threshold of serious that a protest movement needs to pass before it gets taken seriously?

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg)

Is there some arbitrary threshold of serious that a protest movement needs to pass before it gets taken seriously?

Apparently when it's a protest led by people with whom you disagree.

MattDaddy wrote:

Maybe the 1% could give each of us 99% a pizza ;)

How about some cake?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Well, yes, as someone who found zombie walks vaguely annoying and pointless before occupy wall st, I find it twice as annoying in this context, and doesn't exactly scream "we're totally serious and not kids with a bunch of free time". I wasn't making a completely serious point (hence the smiley) but, yes - I'm outed as someone who thinks grownups playing dress-up outside of halloween is silly.

IMAGE(http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2010/04/14/img-mg---tea-party-fashion---founding-fathers-2_150245627649.jpg)

Goddamn kiddies playing dress up, nobody's going to listen to 'em.