We need to have someone on the inside. And by that I mean someone here has to get extremely rich, then use their influence to try to end government corruption. I nominate me, now give me all your money.
there's nothing "They" want more than for us to try and play within their system. i think its more important to restructure the way the system is working at the core. as far as the V for Vendetta references... like i was saying before, i am kind of afraid that it will have to be that bad before people stand up. its just a movie of course, but i think in particular it is a good example of one thing: it takes something really extreme, like when that Fingerman shot the kid, for people to wake up...
Keith's Special Comment: Why Occupy Wall Street needs Michael Bloomberg - Countdown with Keith Olbermann // Current TV Raises a fantastic point.
Congress Reaps Pizza Harvest « NotionsCapital Dear Congress, This is what George Takei thinks of you - YouTube Sincerely, people that give a **** about the future of health.
Pac i wish you would be all up in this thread with the same zeal you are up in the other thread! Daily Kos: Confirmed: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) coordinating Occupy raids Police Response to Occupy Wall Street is Absurd - Forbes contribute some thoughts people, lets converse http://www.motherboard.tv/2011/11/1...-wall-street-inside-the-nypd-s-lost-and-found for those who read through the lines, notice how the narrative is all about police now?
Unlike the other thread which is about a very specific issue with very specific consequences this issue, while potentially more important in the long run, is too spread out over too many different issues. The "occupiers" can't get a clear message together over what they want so at this point its just a bunch of college students protesting because their friends are doing it. As far as the police being complete idiots....yes.
Actually there IS a clear message: get the money out of politics equal representation for all people abolish citizens united reinstate glass-steagall The media continues to portray Occupy like exactly what you said, continues to blur the very clear and concise mesage that they have. The reason why the problem seems so unclear is because all the other issues that occupiers bring up, which make it seem like they are unfocused, are actually all symptoms of the same main problem. Sure, some people are there just because their friends went. So what? Maybe those people didn't have any clue about this stuff until they decided to head down to the protest with their friend and see what it was all about. People may hop on the train because everyone else is, but when they see for themselves the real issues, they can't help but become as angry and involved as others. Anyway, i didnt mean it as an attack on you was just trying to spark some discussion.
Oh is that the message now. I've been to the occupy Philadelphia movement, heard what few people had something concrete to say and none of it was that. It doesn't matter if someone mentions fifty things that are side effects of a main thing. The time it takes to say those fifty things means the original thing gets convoluted and lost. These are good ideals but only the second two are ideals based in reality and are actually achievable. "Get the money out of politics" is like politicians saying they're going to "close loopholes". They can keep saying it but that doesn't mean anything will get done. Equal representation for all people is called a pure democracy and has never been known to work in history. At least for populations larger then 5 people. So, the fact that out of the 4 things you told me only 2 things are specific things means their message is not clear. Don't get me wrong, I find the whole political system at this point tiring and out of touch with reality. There comes a point where greed is not enough justification for the actions of some of these people. But until I hear some more specific ways to combat corporate greed or some actual bills drafted to reform problems I find it hard to stay steadfast toward the occupy movement.
Yea, I know how you feel about that actually. The message is concrete and clear on the internet, but when you go down to the protest yourself, there's not always a gathering of well-informed educated people talking about the main issues. I have met people there who are, however, like in any situation, you can't expect everyone there to be able to recite to you the history of how this all came to be, from 1929 until now. let me ask you this, if we "get some bills to be drafted" ... first off, who is gonna draft them? second, the bought officials will just reject them, or go over them, changing the fine print to suit their needs. how will that solve anything, when the officials are corrupted and bought? you cant reform a corrupt system, you have to fix the corruption, and then reform it. ___ when i said get the money of out politics, it is directly connected to abolishing citizens united. when i said equal representation i am also referring to the fact that we have little to no voice in our gov't. Some people have been doing work to come up with solutions. "The New Common Sense" was one example of that. These things don't make it on the news, you have to seek them out. You can't expect a bunch of working class people to have already come up with a plan to fix a ****ed up economy, ****ed up system, and ****ed up country, in the short time span of only 2 months. [br][/br]Edited by merge: quote from a G+ posting that i enjoyed (unrelated, just droppin in links and stuff here as usual)
Awh but concrete and clear on the internet is not the place where politicians are looking for the message is it. Anyone can draft a bill. The point is no one has. You can't just assume something won't work before you do it. That's what apathy is all about and it results in no progressive thinking. If some smart people come up with some specific set of rules to fix things (and by specific we're talking about things that can actually be written down as law, not general statements like "play nice" and "don't be greedy".) and if enough people support it (meaning petitions, rallies, etc) then you'd be surprised how much could get through a corrupt system. Politicians can't say no to something if enough people back it. The changing the fine print thing is a concern yes but again you can't just assume the worst before trying to at least get something going. Reform and fix are the same in this sense. Unless you completely overhaul the system (revolution) then reform is the only way we can "fix" the system. Ok on the first part, the second part just isn't true. Just because our voice in government isn't as apparent as you'd like doesn't mean it isn't there. And "our voice" is a very vague statement in itself. Whose voice? Hard core liberals, the government has those they just don't get the media attention. The majority of Americans are moderate or centrists. They shift within a few degrees to the left or to the right but it is that centrist point of view that actually has the largest voice in government. But anyone at all has the ability to write to a congressman, go to town hall meetings, sign petitions, etc. The level of what gets done in relation to what the occupy movement people are saying is the real issue here not how much a voice people in general have with the government. I suppose not but coming up with a plan is a start.
are we trying to get the message to politicians? NO. the message needs to get to the people. You're talking about progressive thinking and playing within the system in the same paragraph. If we want change, it has to be big change. it has to be revolution. because the methods to fix the system are ineffective! because its rigged from the start! you say im assuming it wont work and thats apathy, i see your point, but i say that i make that assumption based on observation and experience. we have both seen with our own eyes attempts be made to fix things and they just fall through the cracks ignored. whose voice? we the people. we do not have an equal representation in our government BECAUSE of things like citizens united. when corporations can make secret donations to campaigns, it makes their voice A LOT louder than the rest of the peoples voice. this is what i am referring to when i said equal rep but when we have no voice, how can we expect to be heard yea coming up with a plan would be nice. it would have be even better if they had come up with a plan and fixed this **** a long ****ing time ago instead of making as much money as they can on the way down. So. here we are. You're saying WHERES THE PLAN why dont you start making some suggestions? [br][/br]Edited by merge: just saw this today: Democratic Florida Congressional Rep. Ted Deutch has proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States outlawing corporate money in politics and ending so-called “corporate personhood”, according to Talking Points Memo. If passed, the amendment would overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, restoring caps on corporate election spending and rescinding the right of for-profit business interests to receive the same protections as citizens under the First Amendment. The amendment is called the “Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy”, or OCCUPIED. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...ov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl# House Democrat: Occupy the Constitution! - The Washington Post http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf
The internet is not where the majority of "the people" reside. Believe it or not the majority of people in the United States are the working class people not twenty year olds feeling slighted by the system. In fact the majority of Americans are actually above the age of 50, usually a conservative period in one's life. I'm saying things grounded in reality that have a chance of happening and improving things over time. Until I start seeing some V for Vendetta hundreds of thousands of people in the streets around D.C. willing to go against the military I'll think revolution is off the table. But you haven't experienced all things and all situations, nor are you an expert on politics, so you to make assumptions on an already biased point of view isn't the best base to stand on for making revolutionary claims. Mind you I'm all for change to, but change that is actually can be accomplished given a few presidencies not empty pipe dreams of complete overhaul. They're ignored because the message isn't clear or meaningful to enough people. If a bill is drafted which is clear (not full of political double-speak bullshit) and can appeal to the greatest amount of people (remember most people are not twenty-two year old revolutionaries) then it has an honest shot of getting somewhere that can do some good. Even if it is watered down it still sets precedent as a progressive change and that precedent is a very strong motivator. Please, again let's stay grounded in reality. No, the money Lobbyists give to politicians campaigns make those voices higher priority, not louder. If the American people (and I mean all the people) have something to say the government will listen. However few people know the tools that they possess to make the government listen. That is a sad problem but that doesn't mean the people don't have the ability to make their voice heard, far from it. Again, we aren't heard because the message isn't there yet to get enough people interested. When that message is clear and somewhere everyone can see you will get the voice. It's not my job to come up with a plan. It's my job to learn how to do what interests me and excel at it. I am not a revolutionary. I like the American way of life. I dislike the choices Politicians make most of the time and the trend of extreme greed that has developed over the past 50 years (technically since the Industrial Revolution but WWI and WWII really knocked some sense into people) Edit: Just read your edit. Now see, that is what I'm talking about. It's a politician (they're not all corrupt you know) who proposed an actual written down proposal for a change that would benefit and help fix the system. That pretty much is my point.
I see your points and i get it, but i can't help but be a little idealistic about things and hope for something more. I feel like when you say the message needs to be more clear... it's really more like it just needs to be more bite-sized. people don't want to have to understand all these complicated issues, they just want the answer fed to them in short, sweet tidbits. but the problem with that in this case is that its not really that simple, ya know? btw, im having some weird bug with trying to sign that whitehouse petition, are you also?
Not at all, the message can as long as it needs to be. The point is that message can't be convoluted with all sorts of side issues that don't apply to most people. I just think the occupy movement hasn't produced that crystal clear message yet. Plus we are the _% memes are too fun to do.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home Spoiler excerpt ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/19/maybe-its-time-to-occupy-the-police-state/ one small thing i have to disagree with... he says at one point you need to start playing the game in order to win it. to which i reply how can we win the game when the game is rigged? [br][/br]Edited by merge: here comes even more! =)
Good points being made Pac and Tit. I'd like to participate more in this but I'm afraid the best I can do for now is a short list of [disjointed?] thoughts I've had. 1. This isn't something we just 'learn to live with' because true democracy is problematic. Citizens United is indefensable, and must be reversed. 2. Just to reiterate what I've said before, I'm against a high bar for protest. When peaceful, I find it [at face value] to be admirable and I'd be thrilled to see it much more often, over frivolous things even. Everyone should protest something. Like Titmar said, you can't win a rigged game from within. I make no distinction at this level of analysis between protest I agree with and don't agree with. 3. That being said, be careful to speak for yourself! I don't like the usage of the whole "we are the 99%" slogan, because it's not strictly true, and may do more harm than good in the psychological battle. A close [non-military] friend of mine shared this on facebook: My response: "I would consider my sacrifice to be for the 99%, not something to define myself in some way opposed to them or to marginalize their problems." The point is, I got mad at that pic in a "speak for yourself, bro" kind of way, and I see how the exact same thing goes on whenever someone says "we are the 99%". Spin-off parodies like this are a direct response to being 'spoken for' by people with a message you don't happen to relate to. (just to clarify, for those who don't know I'm an Iraq & Afghanistan veteran myself) 4. I love Noam Chomsky. God he's hard to listen to with his droning voice (hard to read as well), but he brings things up that no one else does. This is one of his better videos; still hard to pay attention to with his droning monotone, but I picked it out because he samples so many relevant topics, and it's cut together with some nice footage. Particularly listen to what he says from 13:00 - 13:50 Chomsky on #ArabSpring and #OWS - YouTube
You and titmar keep bringing up the "can't win a rigged system" point but that's what needs to be done for progressive change. Protests are still within that system as they call attention to things people want. Revolution is not going to happen, I'm sorry to the people who think that's the only option but facing facts, its not going to happen. What can happen is progressive in nature bills that get support from lots of people who force politicians to give it a chance. Small progressive change begets larger progressive change and the precedent that it sets is the most important.
I think we're discribing two sides of the same coin, or the same thing with different definitions for our terms. At any rate, if you define protests as being 'within the system', that's fine and I agree. I'm more concerned with people who think that protests need some high standard of who-knows-what (it varies for convenience) in order to be legitimate, which is a sentiment I still see from time to time. This is what that comment was clumsily aimed at. I haven't read this thread extremely thoroughly so if I seem like I'm just yapping at nothing, I apologize.