Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

absurddoctor wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Also, does this mean we can stop worshipping the NYPD? Yes, members of the NYPD and NYFD were heroic on 9/11. That was 10 years ago and in the years before and after that there have been numerous instances of brutality in the police force. They're not saints. They're humans who happen to work as police.

I think I've seen this mentioned on GWJ before, but I'm still confused about who worships the NYPD. That doesn't seem to be a common attitude in NYC, is it more common outside of the city?

I've seen people wearing NYPD paraphernalia before (no idea if they were from NYC or not though).

Stengah wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Also, does this mean we can stop worshipping the NYPD? Yes, members of the NYPD and NYFD were heroic on 9/11. That was 10 years ago and in the years before and after that there have been numerous instances of brutality in the police force. They're not saints. They're humans who happen to work as police.

I think I've seen this mentioned on GWJ before, but I'm still confused about who worships the NYPD. That doesn't seem to be a common attitude in NYC, is it more common outside of the city?

I've seen people wearing NYPD paraphernalia before (no idea if they were from NYC or not though).

I think that post-9/11, the rest of the country bought into the mythology, whereas the rest of us had to live with all of the NYPD's day-to-day BS.

Stengah wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Also, does this mean we can stop worshipping the NYPD? Yes, members of the NYPD and NYFD were heroic on 9/11. That was 10 years ago and in the years before and after that there have been numerous instances of brutality in the police force. They're not saints. They're humans who happen to work as police.

I think I've seen this mentioned on GWJ before, but I'm still confused about who worships the NYPD. That doesn't seem to be a common attitude in NYC, is it more common outside of the city?

I've seen people wearing NYPD paraphernalia before (no idea if they were from NYC or not though).

It's a huge thing in "middle America". It's kind of like how people from Ohio are more angry about the "Ground Zero mosque" than people who actually walk by it every day.

IMAGE(http://www.meilung.com/product/02%20NON-TAIWAN/0203%202001-9-11/ori/03-police/20-13s19573-NYPD%20AMERICA%E2%80%99S%20HEROES.jpg)

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Really seems to me like you're glossing over the government's role here. Not trying to excuse criminal behavior, but one group is beholden to the people and the other is beholden to shareholders. Which statement should create the most moral outrage: "rich people find sneaky and manipulative ways to get richer" or "policy makers allowed themselves to be bought and sell out their constituents"?

(assuming every policymaker and freddie/frannie were on the take, which I'm positing only for the sake of argument)

The policy makers and the rich people have been essentially the same group from time immemorial.

I think there needs to be discussion about the lines between honest worker in the finance industry and corrupt exploiter of the system willing to crash our way of life to make a short term profit.

Life, as we currently enjoy it, simply isn't possible without what we broadly refer to as Wall Street. On the other hand, there are people and groups that have intentionally wrecked our system to exploit short-term gains. I'd like to vilify one without writing the other off. My problem is, I lack the financial literacy to tell the difference.

So I would like to throw the dirty bums out, but I'd also like to avoid punishing the nice people who make it possible for me to have a mortgage and student loans.

Because without the latter, we're back to feudalism and complaining about the Lord's bastards gambling and whoring away the fruits of our hard earned labor.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Uh, comparisons between the people protesting and actually poor arab youth seems... spurious, based on seeing the protesters every day. The term "trustafarian" comes to mind, to be honest. There are pleny of disadvantaged kids in this country, but those aren't them.

Disparaging narratives like these (or the iPhone or sunglasses comments) are harder to maintain as protesters are joined by high-visibility groups like these United pilots (protesting in uniform).

IMAGE(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg737/scaled.php?tn=0&server=737&filename=grreb.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)

Look at those hipster pilots with their shoes.

Oso wrote:

I think there needs to be discussion about the lines between honest worker in the finance industry and corrupt exploiter of the system willing to crash our way of life to make a short term profit.

Life, as we currently enjoy it, simply isn't possible without what we broadly refer to as Wall Street. On the other hand, there are people and groups that have intentionally wrecked our system to exploit short-term gains. I'd like to vilify one without writing the other off. My problem is, I lack the financial literacy to tell the difference.

So I would like to throw the dirty bums out, but I'd also like to avoid punishing the nice people who make it possible for me to have a mortgage and student loans.

Because without the latter, we're back to feudalism and complaining about the Lord's bastards gambling and whoring away the fruits of our hard earned labor.

I think the real problem is that the system we have today does not make it possible to distinguish between the latter and the former. They are, in effect, one in the same. And though I agree with you that I love having the benefits of an economy in which capital is as free and liquid as it has been, I am willing to make certain sacrifices to my power as a consumer/investor in exchange for a return of the political pendulum to somewhere closer to the middle of the consumer/investor vs. citizen continuum.

I love the fact that food (even insanely luxurious speciality foods) is cheaper now than in living memory. I love that I can purchase the most obscure collectable on the Internet and be reasonably assured that I got close to the lowest possible price. I love that I have far greater freedom of choice at far lower prices than any human has ever had in history. But I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of that if it means I have wild places with clean water to visit, that I have clean air to breathe, and that I have a safely regulated place in which to work (all things that would never be tolerated by a free market).

Paleocon wrote:

I think the real problem is that the system we have today does not make it possible to distinguish between the latter and the former. They are, in effect, one in the same. And though I agree with you that I love having the benefits of an economy in which capital is as free and liquid as it has been, I am willing to make certain sacrifices to my power as a consumer/investor in exchange for a return of the political pendulum to somewhere closer to the middle of the consumer/investor vs. citizen continuum.

I love the fact that food (even insanely luxurious speciality foods) is cheaper now than in living memory. I love that I can purchase the most obscure collectable on the Internet and be reasonably assured that I got close to the lowest possible price. I love that I have far greater freedom of choice at far lower prices than any human has ever had in history. But I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of that if it means I have wild places with clean water to visit, that I have clean air to breathe, and that I have a safely regulated place in which to work (all things that would never be tolerated by a free market).

Socialist.

I worked for a major investment bank for a couple years and I left because it isn't an honest business. Everyone knows what they are doing is wrong and you don't say that it's wrong because that's not how the game is played. You keep your mouth shut and play the way everyone else is playing otherwise the other firms get an up on you and we can't have that. If you do what is right and play by the rules you think you should be playing by, you get hurt. I left the industry because it's bad and I don't want to be selling my soul for a six figure income. The government is so out of step and both parties are paid for that there never is going to be smart regulation because it has to come from people who don't want to set the rules to be smart and work well. The whole system is broken and both parties are unwilling to have the talk with the american people on what we need to do to fix it because there is so much money in the system from industry, unions, green groups, etc that they don't want to piss people off.

Ulairi wrote:

I worked for a major investment bank for a couple years and I left because it isn't an honest business. Everyone knows what they are doing is wrong and you don't say that it's wrong because that's not how the game is played. You keep your mouth shut and play the way everyone else is playing otherwise the other firms get an up on you and we can't have that. If you do what is right and play by the rules you think you should be playing by, you get hurt. I left the industry because it's bad and I don't want to be selling my soul for a six figure income. The government is so out of step and both parties are paid for that there never is going to be smart regulation because it has to come from people who don't want to set the rules to be smart and work well. The whole system is broken and both parties are unwilling to have the talk with the american people on what we need to do to fix it because there is so much money in the system from industry, unions, green groups, etc that they don't want to piss people off.

This is why protesting Wall Street makes more sense than protesting Washington.

Ulairi wrote:

The whole system is broken and both parties are unwilling to have the talk with the american people on what we need to do to fix it because there is so much money in the system from industry, unions, green groups, etc that they don't want to piss people off.

That somewhat implies they know what we need to do to fix it, and really know it in a way that transcends mere opinion and waxing hypothetical. It may well be that they do but surely at some point the political pain of pissing off those groups is trumped by being the superstar party/politician that "saved America!" ?

krev82 wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

The whole system is broken and both parties are unwilling to have the talk with the american people on what we need to do to fix it because there is so much money in the system from industry, unions, green groups, etc that they don't want to piss people off.

That somewhat implies they know what we need to do to fix it, and really know it in a way that transcends mere opinion and waxing hypothetical. It may well be that they do but surely at some point the political pain of pissing off those groups is trumped by being the superstar party/politician that "saved America!" ?

I think Carter already tried that. There is some magical tipping point we haven't reached yet.

Jayhawker wrote:

This is why protesting Wall Street makes more sense than protesting Washington.

The only aspect I'd disagree with is the fact that protesting Wall Street is largely a gigantic waste of time. There's no end game and there's no possible impact from this.

If the protests in Washington get large enough you'll get more national, if not international attention and representatives will start to notice. Ask the Tea Party if showing up and shouting works.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

The victim, Rev, victim of a cruel campaign of unfair name calling based on ugly stereotypes in an attempt to marginalize them from the mainstream, prompted by ignorance and fear--something you'd never understand*!

*That's the joke

Well if you're going to put words in my mouth, at least let me in on the joke here - is Rev like, black, or rich or something?

I didn't see this answered already, he's gay.

Bear wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This is why protesting Wall Street makes more sense than protesting Washington.

The only aspect I'd disagree with is the fact that protesting Wall Street is largely a gigantic waste of time. There's no end game and there's no possible impact from this.

If the protests in Washington get large enough you'll get more national, if not international attention and representatives will start to notice. Ask the Tea Party if showing up and shouting works.

My experience with the protests in Madison earlier this year would contraindicate that, at least from a media perspective.

Protests with 100k+ people? Barely even a mention in mainstream media.

Contrast that with the squad of national news trucks who showed up when Sarah Palin came to speak to 800 Tea Partiers (who were vastly outnumbered by the protestors, though that went without mention in most media coverage of the event).

"Protestors mass in Washington" is really easy for the media to ignore. "Protestors mass in Wall Street" at least has the story hook of novelty, and unlike Madison, has the advantage of being in one of the biggest media markets in the world. If more mainstream folks keep showing up (especially highly-visible ones like United pilots in uniform), the protestors stand a chance of getting their story out.

Whether they can covert any attention into the kind of political change they're pushing for may be a different kettle of fish, but I'm glad to see folks taking peaceful action, and hope that any misbehavior by the NYPD is appropriately punished.

Yonder wrote:

I didn't see this answered already, he's gay.

Uh, okay - not sure how what I said has any bearing on gay people, and actually it seems like a pretty offensive position to suggest I'd take, but okay.

See, my joke was more at the expense of the victim stance--Wall Street unjustly tarred as the boogey man. It's an increasingly common strategy--gun control proponents are bigoted against gun owners, anti-gay rights politicians are being marginalized for their desire to marginalize others, and so on. It's, at best, silly. I think it's pretty offensive to assume I'd be so coy if I thought someone was being homophobic--I assume that's what offends, but I'm not sure how you get there, to be honest. You'd be better served, Norm, continuing to explain how you feel Wall Street is being unfairly made the bad guy.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

See, my joke was more at the expense of the victim stance--Wall Street unjustly tarred as the boogey man.

Someone literally said Wall St was stealing the futures of children away from them, I'm questioning the factual basis of that position. Which one of us is playing the victim card?

Ugh. I posted, as fact, that a big reason why the youth protest is that they can't get jobs. Not "won't" get, but can't.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

They're severely unemployed. Their future is at risk. I say this as someone near 40. This isn't about "playing victim", this about facts. Facts. You made a crack about youth protesting and I explained that they're the ones protesting because they have no jobs and a dwindling future. Get it now?

What's with painting other people as "playing the victim" these days. This is a frequently abused rhetorical device of the ruling class. Be it conservatives or right wing Dems. Is it incomprehensible to you that people might have legitimate, fact-based complaints?

DSGamer wrote:

Ugh. I posted, as fact, that a big reason why the youth protest is that they can't get jobs. Not "won't" get, but can't.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

They're severely unemployed. Their future is at risk. I say this as someone near 40. This isn't about "playing victim", this about facts. Facts. You made a crack about youth protesting and I explained that they're the ones protesting because they have no jobs and a dwindling future. Get it now?

What's with painting other people as "playing the victim" these days. This is a frequently abused rhetorical device of the ruling class. Be it conservatives or right wing Dems. Is it incomprehensible to you that people might have legitimate, fact-based complaints?

That's because they have to compete with people with more skills. As the general labour situation improves so will the ability for young people to find jobs. If you're a 23 year old with a liberal arts degree, you have to be prepared to have a tough time finding a job. Major in science, bio med, accounting and you'll have multiple offers.

Ulairi wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Ugh. I posted, as fact, that a big reason why the youth protest is that they can't get jobs. Not "won't" get, but can't.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

They're severely unemployed. Their future is at risk. I say this as someone near 40. This isn't about "playing victim", this about facts. Facts. You made a crack about youth protesting and I explained that they're the ones protesting because they have no jobs and a dwindling future. Get it now?

What's with painting other people as "playing the victim" these days. This is a frequently abused rhetorical device of the ruling class. Be it conservatives or right wing Dems. Is it incomprehensible to you that people might have legitimate, fact-based complaints?

That's because they have to compete with people with more skills. As the general labour situation improves so will the ability for young people to find jobs. If you're a 23 year old with a liberal arts degree, you have to be prepared to have a tough time finding a job. Major in science, bio med, accounting and you'll have multiple offers.

It took a couple years for many of my engineering classmates to get jobs, a couple of them didn't end up doing engineering, but rather whatever they could get. If you look at the enrollment levels of Masters or Doctorate programs they are up across the board, indicating that people are having trouble finding jobs across the board. (Since historically, and now, when undergrads are not able to get into the job market they generally remain in school).

Eventually people are going to have to recognize that the image of the unsuccessful being stupid, or lazy, or making bad choices, or otherwise deserving of their fate isn't as true as they like to think. A lot of it is just down to a heaping helping of luck.

Yonder wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Ugh. I posted, as fact, that a big reason why the youth protest is that they can't get jobs. Not "won't" get, but can't.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

They're severely unemployed. Their future is at risk. I say this as someone near 40. This isn't about "playing victim", this about facts. Facts. You made a crack about youth protesting and I explained that they're the ones protesting because they have no jobs and a dwindling future. Get it now?

What's with painting other people as "playing the victim" these days. This is a frequently abused rhetorical device of the ruling class. Be it conservatives or right wing Dems. Is it incomprehensible to you that people might have legitimate, fact-based complaints?

That's because they have to compete with people with more skills. As the general labour situation improves so will the ability for young people to find jobs. If you're a 23 year old with a liberal arts degree, you have to be prepared to have a tough time finding a job. Major in science, bio med, accounting and you'll have multiple offers.

It took a couple years for many of my engineering classmates to get jobs, a couple of them didn't end up doing engineering, but rather whatever they could get. If you look at the enrollment levels of Masters or Doctorate programs they are up across the board, indicating that people are having trouble finding jobs across the board. (Since historically, and now, when undergrads are not able to get into the job market they generally remain in school).

Eventually people are going to have to recognize that the image of the unsuccessful being stupid, or lazy, or making bad choices, or otherwise deserving of their fate isn't as true as they like to think. A lot of it is just down to a heaping helping of luck.

That's true. But, also, the B.S. or B.A. isn't what it used to be. There is a strong arguement that we really need to build up our votech and trade schools and that not everyone needs to go to college. This is one area that I'm bitter about because I have friends from school who partied a lot, had a lot of fun and sex. I was in the library almost every night studying my butt off because my parents would never allow me to get worse than perfect marks. If I came home with two a's and 3 b's they'd be unhappy and punish me. They put into me to expect the best so I worked hard to make sure I got good marks so I could get into a good graduate school. In graduate school, I worked hard so I could get the good internships and have the ability to go study abroad at one of the world's best uni. Now, I'm not saying everyone needs to give up social life for school life but a lot of these kids just out of college I hang out with didn't study hard and don't work very hard. They went to college because that's what their friends did and their parents wanted them to do.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Someone literally said Wall St was stealing the futures of children away from them, I'm questioning the factual basis of that position. Which one of us is playing the victim card?

Rather than answer myself, I'd rather see you give a legitimate reaction to DS' salient points.

And I have to agree with Dimmer's take on building protest momentum--DC isn't the place to start.

Ulairi, a lot of kids go to college because the US manufacturing economy has been gutted. Trade jobs for people willing to work hard are few and far between. When I was a kid the push started to get everyone to go to college. Everyone was going to be a doctor or scientist or engineer or teacher. The US was moving up the food chain.

That hasn't happened. But you blame the kids for trying? You blame them for rolling the dice when they've been told that is their only hope? I went to college and studied English. A useless degree to you. I took that degree and added some hard earned technical skills and made a career of being a software engineer. I worked hard, but I was also lucky. Lucky I entered the workforce during a boom. Blaming kids in this country for getting a liberal arts education when they've been told it's their only ticket out of poverty (and often is) seems really insane to me. Shaming the poor and unfortunate is not a becoming trait in this economy. Especially in case you someday find yourself unemployed.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Someone literally said Wall St was stealing the futures of children away from them, I'm questioning the factual basis of that position. Which one of us is playing the victim card?

Well, if you want to see who played the victim card quite well, you only need to turn to Richard Fuld, the disgraced CEO of Lehman Bros. who drove the bank into the ground and bankruptcy and walked away with $350,000,000 for his troubles. Then, when called to testify in front of a Congressional committee, he talked about how he owned 10 million shares of LB stock when the company declared bankruptcy and didn't do so well compensation wise when the company didn't do so well.

After all he went through, it breaks my heart to hear about the struggles of the CEO of Lehman Bros. having to make the tough decisions about how he will ever manage with only $350 million in the bank.

Looks like the folks claiming support from the United pilots may have been mistaken.

Dan Nguyen, on Flickr[/url]]United and Continental airline pilots took part in a short demonstration regarding a labor dispute. It was not organized in coordination with #occupywallstreet, despite the physical proximity of the two demonstrations.

Too bad - that's exactly the sort of support protestors should be looking to reach out to.

DSGamer wrote:

Ugh. I posted, as fact, that a big reason why the youth protest is that they can't get jobs. Not "won't" get, but can't.

http://bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm

They're severely unemployed. Their future is at risk. I say this as someone near 40. This isn't about "playing victim", this about facts. Facts.

I agree that grads and young people today are facing massive unemployment and underemployment, that is a fact. But you actually went on to say that Wall St is the cause of that problem, and that is what I challenged you about. You yourself admit that there are deep structural changes and constraints in our economy recently, so is it more reasonable to pin those changes on sweeping technological change and mistakes in truly long term (decades long) fiscal policy, or "Wall Street"?

What's with painting other people as "playing the victim" these days. This is a frequently abused rhetorical device of the ruling class. Be it conservatives or right wing Dems. Is it incomprehensible to you that people might have legitimate, fact-based complaints?

I actually agree with most of this, it's a lazy tactic that tries to undermine a legitimate point without properly addressing it. I wasn't actually trying to undermine you that way, just on the defensive after being accused of it myself.

DSGamer wrote:

Ulairi, a lot of kids go to college because the US manufacturing economy has been gutted. Trade jobs for people willing to work hard are few and far between. When I was a kid the push started to get everyone to go to college. Everyone was going to be a doctor or scientist or engineer or teacher. The US was moving up the food chain.

That hasn't happened. But you blame the kids for trying? You blame them for rolling the dice when they've been told that is their only hope? I went to college and studied English. A useless degree to you. I took that degree and added some hard earned technical skills and made a career of being a software engineer. I worked hard, but I was also lucky. Lucky I entered the workforce during a boom. Blaming kids in this country for getting a liberal arts education when they've been told it's their only ticket out of poverty (and often is) seems really insane to me. Shaming the poor and unfortunate is not a becoming trait in this economy. Especially in case you someday find yourself unemployed.

There are jobs out there, in fact, there are a LOT of jobs out there. The problem is most of these jobs don't come with an instant $100k salary, a corner office and a company car. It seems to me that we've got a generation that assumes they'll be granted instant mid level managerial status becuase they got a degree. I don't think it's ever been a reality but that's the picture colleges want you believe. In my area, it take over a month to get an electrician to your house. Need a contractor, better schedule that for next year. I knows about a half dozen contractors who can't hire enough people for the work they have.

A lot of kids also go to college because colleges have become BIG businesses. Colleges and universities have perfected their marketing message and the art of convincing everyone that a college degree is a necessity. They require you to spend four years and tens of thousands of dollars with absolutely no guarantee of employability. Then they spit you out into the workforce with no job and usually carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Not to mention that when a lot of kids enter college they're too young and too immature to have any idea what they'd like to do for a living.

There are literally dozens of degrees you can earn that have a snowballs chance in hell of providing you with employement opportunites. That's rarely said of vocational degrees. From a purely business perspective, colleges have a horrible ROI for most graduates. I've got a degree in Criminal Justice, I completed about 90% an engineering degree and 1/2 a masters and I work in healthcare sales. Not because of college, but because I was in the right place at the right time. I got my current job when I was working a temp. Nothing I did in college prepared me for a life in business yet I've managed to do this for 18 years and I've been pretty successful.

I'm not anti-college or anti-education but as a society we really need to sit back and examine the dynamic we've created.

Bear wrote:

There are jobs out there, in fact, there are a LOT of jobs out there. The problem is most of these jobs don't come with an instant $100k salary, a corner office and a company car. It seems to me that we've got a generation that assumes they'll be granted instant mid level managerial status becuase they got a degree.

I just don't think that this is accurate at all.