Good pick up Poet!
I had to look twice!
Usually means distress - not disrespect.
C.
I would like to add my applause for Dr. Martenson’s commentary about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. He has quite perfectly captured the intent of this protest and given us a clear-sighted analysis of what is quickly becoming a major political re-direction in these United States.
As an octogenarian who has over the years felt voiceless and disenfranchised in the political process, my heart thrills at what I see and hear about the mostly peaceful rebellions taking place in the US. Regardless of how many press reports there are that refer to the participants as "a bunch of pot-smoking hippies", it is obvious to anyone who has the eyes to see and the ears to hear that those who make up this protest are actually a cross-section of America in both age and gender.
Adding to the enduring shame of the mainstream media’s slanted reporting about the Occupy Wall Street demonstration is their continued opining that there are no coherent demands from the protestors. The so-called ‘chattering class’ continually snipes at the demonstrators for not being able to articulate an agenda. Well, as usual they simply don’t get it!
As others have already pointed out, there is indeed one basic charge being voiced by those who have gathered in protest, and that is "the system is broken".
One of the major points about the New York City OWS demonstration that is not being talked about is the way in which the protestors have created their own unique "system of governance" within the park they are occupying. The participants have created not a hierarchical leadership structure, but a community of people that is evolving a horizontally structured template of non-violent rebellious action that is being adopted by other US cities and foreign countries around the world.
One of these structures is their adaptation of a "general assembly" to assure that everyone has an opportunity to make their views known. Twice each day, the Zuccotti Park assembly meets. According to reports, those protestors who want to speak simply raise their hands. As they speak, their words are repeated back through the assembled crowd so that all can "hear" what is being said. This is a "work-around" response to the police restriction against the use of megaphones in the park. (Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/10-1 )
If you watch the Live Stream video broadcasts, you will see the participants waving their hands and fingers. This is how they signal their agreement or disagreement to what is being said. Hands held level with wiggling fingers shows their displeasure, holding hands in the air and wiggling fingers means that the person likes what they are hearing. If a speaker says something that is completely unacceptable, such as "Kill The Cops" or a racial slur, the speaker is shouted down by the listeners.
But what makes me prouder than anything else is how these protestors have insisted on non-violence and nonaggression …. even in the face of the obvious police brutality. I find myself wondering if the $4.5 million that J.P. Morgan is reported to have donated to the New York Police Fund just prior to the protests have anything to do with how the NY police are so aggressively conducting themselves.
Check out Lee Camp's brilliant recent work
Speaking to the OWC crowd http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gaFdIa-F2GM
I attended the OWS rally yesterday in Buffalo. First, the objective observations. As billed, Buffalonians are a hardy crowd. With winds over 20 mph and gusts up to 50 mph, driving rain storms including a little hail and temperatures around 50 F, a crowd of about 200 (my estimate) hung in for several hours. The crowd included a few long term campers. The crowd was strictly non-violent and there was no uniformed police presence. An occasional patrol car cruised by, more interested in traffic congestion than activities on the square (actually a circle). There was way more gray hair than dreadlocks.
Business was conducted on the "general assembly" model described by countzero above (BTW, welcome to the site). I’m not sure it is exactly like the NYC model, as the Buffalo event required concensus. It is not a model designed to get anything done. Everyone in the crowd had the right to make a proposal that was put to a concensus vote or to block whatever proposal came forward. I suspect I could not have gotten concensus on whether grass is green. It reminded me of why I am not much of a joiner. Mind numbing procedure and body numbing weather. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe any actual activity was approved. They did manage to pass a statement of principles that was pretty much unobjectionable to just about anybody.
I hung in through this exercise because it was to be followed by break out sessions in which I imagined actual issues would be discussed. I was wrong. The break out groups were to discuss more procedural issues. No peak oil, Wall St criminality, corporate-govt collusion, free speech issues, environmental problems, inflation, deflation, fiat currencies, federal reserve, corporate greed, sustainable anything, etc, etc. were discussed in these groups. That’s when I lost heart and went home.
As far as issues by indentifiable subgroups in the crowd, fracking was represented largely because it is a hot local issue, since we live on top of the Marcellus shale formation. I saw a few signs objecting to student loans, or more accurately, I imagine, paying them off. There were a lot of signs on the theme of 99% vs 1%, but apparently the thinking didn’t go much deeper. There were some objecting to utility costs.
There was one lonely guy carrying a large banner saying "Support Capitalism" who garnered way more than his per capita share of media attention. Of the three clips of interviews I saw, his thinking wasn’t any more sophisticated than the rest of the crowd’s (the other 99%?) was. He called the rest of the crowd socialists and essentially said capitalism is better.
That is my report, such as it is. I am going to try to contact some of the prime movers of the group to see if they intend to try to address any issues, in which case I may connect, but otherwise I’ll just continue to meet with our little group and prepare ourselves and our community (much smaller than Buffalo).
Doug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8
Citibank arrests, disturbing video, can’t imagine what possibly could have haapened prior for this woman to get literally kidnapped off the streets and pulled into a bank to be arrested?
Thank you for your feedback, Rector.My comment never referred to the RT article, and I had no intention of suggesting CM is a communist. But I do have concerns about injecting leftist politics into something as important as educating people about the 3 Es. Doing so may prevent a lot of people from listening.
Just telling it like I see it from where I stand. It’s an opinion. The fact that my opinion makes so many people on this blog so angry says a great deal about the divide in this country and why I think it was a bad idea for CM to go there.
Outcast 19
The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have created an interesting counterpoint to the more established Tea Party protest movement. The rhetoric of left-right conflict seems to be infused with partisanship, but, given the populist, anti-establishment tenor of both groups, it’s ironic that their aims appear to have more in common than not. The real reason they are opposed in action is probably due more to perceived ideological differences, rather than party identity.
Partisanship is a win or lose proposition decided by electoral victory or defeat. Our national elections are more like the Superbowl of politics that have hardened over time into a permanent rivalry. Like the Yankees vs. the Red Sox, it’s always the blue team vs. the red team and to the victor go all the spoils. (Well, not really. Read on.)
Political ideology is a different beast that articulates and guides our philosophical principles of government. Political ideology has a long and violent history, especially in the 20th century. We had monarchy challenged by market capitalism and democracy, which, in turn, was buffeted by communism and socialism. With the failures of the extreme, non-democratic ideologies, modern democratic politics has been largely distilled down to a tug-of-war between pro-government and pro-business ideological factions, with the left being pro-government and the right pro-business. The point of confusion in our modern politics is that we have conflated political partisanship with ideology.
As populist movements, OWS and the TP are not really partisan driven, though they still are strongly ideological. But there is an inherent contradiction. As opposed to the dominant two party factions of pro-government and pro-business, populist movements are divided along class lines of establishment elites vs. the democratic public. The financial elites that both OWS and TP protestors oppose are in collusion with the political establishment of both parties, so choosing up sides according to party is counter-productive to the success of any anti-establishment movement. The Tea Party seems to have understood this better than the OWS protestors, but let’s give them a little time.
Naturally, any popular movement in a democracy is going to attract the interest of organized parties because there is power in numbers that can help neutralize money and influence. So, the Republicans court the Tea Party and the Democrats court the OWS protest. But populists should not be fooled. Party elites, with the aid of media elites, have every incentive to co-opt a populist movement to serve their own purposes, which is to reinforce the establishment’s status-quo, aka the Powers That Be.
So, what about the ideological divide? Populist movements really have no vested interest in pro-government or pro-business ideologies because these mostly serve the party elites. Rather one would expect a populist convergence on the ideological principles of individual freedom and democracy. These are the same governing principles that the designers of the US Constitution arrived at more than 200 years ago and they have served us well ever since. When you think about it, a pure pro-government or pro-business ideology has more in common with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin or Mao than Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, MLK Jr. or Gandhi.
For the populists among us, the Superbowl analogy may make this more clear. It’s an orchestrated battle on the field. While the fans pay for the tickets, the advertising rights, and all the concessions, the two teams on the field, with their owners and media promoters, always walk off with all the money, no matter who wins or loses.
Not bad for a day’s work.
Hello Poet --It seems I’ve become a lightning rod for having expressed what many who visit site have been thinking. I have nothing to hide so I will share my biases with you.
First, contrary to your judgement, I am not an extremist. I am an independent thinker. My friends on both the left and the right are often frustrated by my unwillingness to embrace (and my arguments against) their perspective on issues.
I am a 63 year old white male, a life-time registered republican who has voted for democrats if I thought they were the better candidate, a struggling small business owner (with my wife and partner of 36 years), a neo-libertarian, an active supporter of many children’s causes, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam war, a two time cancer survivor, and the father of an adopted son of whom I am very proud.
My closest friends include an accomplished academic, a passionate environmentalist, a home builder struggling to feed his family, a retired federal law officer, a struggling farmer, an out of work civil engineer, people I served with in Vietnam, and assorted small business owners. I consider myself a spriritual person, much to the consternation of my evangelical friends. While not actively religious at this point in my life, I once was and I even studied for the ministry. (Sidebar: I have a very strong bias against ontological superiority in any form.)
I admire people who are intellectually honest. That’s why I am able to get along with good friends who hold opposing viewpoints…we know where we each are coming from and we respect that. In that regard, I respect Sen. Bernie Sanders for his willingness to declare himself a socialist, even though I oppose his political agenda. I disrespect President Obama because he has not been honest about being a socialist nor about his political agenda.
I value honesty, loyalty, trust, and persistence. I value neighbors who help neighbors. I value charities like Food for the Poor and The Salvation Army where most of the resources are used to actually help people in need, rather than to support administration and marketing.
I value the Constitution and the miraculous series of events that created it. I value the right to liberty and to make my own choices about my life circumstance. I value the right to own property and make contracts without government interference. I value the right to speak freely and petition government for redress of grievences. I value the right to keep and bear arms.
I hold in extremely high value my right to vote for people who will restore our republic to its founding principles, and recognize the personal responsibilty that goes with it.
I have contempt for both houses of Congress. Washington has been doing the bidding of special interests (corporate, private and public) rather than serving the national interests for far too long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Freedom
I have contempt for the departmentalized bureaucracy at all levels of government that over-regulates in order to justify its existence.
I have contempt for the banksters that control our financial system, and, ultimately, Washington. This includes the Fed and the big Wall Street banks. But these people are NOT capitalists. They are power crazed corporatists enabled by an elite political class residing in Washington. http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/24/corporatism-not-capitalism.
I have particular contempt for anyone who would foist victimhood on a group of people. It is a political tool of the most dishonest and corrupt nature.
I could go on, Poet, but I think my biases are pretty clear. I’d be appreciative of you sharing yours if you’re inclined to do so.
Outcast 19
Thank you for that. If it means anything to you, you have my respect. Better yet, it seems that you command respect. Congratulations.
Since so many people have been concerned with the accuracy of facts in this thread, does anyone know if this is actually a veteran? Outcast 19
Outcast 19,
No, we don’t know - and I’d suggest it really doesn’t matter.
Your points are well spoken and understood. My understanding on the matter is that folks who are inclined towards logical analysis are capable of representing themselves honestly, and without the need for imbelishment.
Validation through association rarely holds up, and in that way, you will either validate yourself through your future posts, or be found to be phony.
So, onto the point - I like your style and enjoyed the post.
My take on this entire debacle is that it doesn’t really matter what happens with OWS.
The problems highlighted here are playing out, and no one faction will be ‘victorious’.
Another certainty is that either way - no matter who ‘wins’ - it’s not likely to change the outcome, which is a dramatic change in both our socio-political and economic landscape… probably towards a less civil and structured society.
The underlaying truth is that no one thing is wrong, and it took a grab bag of issues to produce the social cacaphony we’re witnessing. If it were something simple, it might be that we could still fix it. But it’s not, and we can’t. Even a "solution" at this point would be nearly as painful as the depression we’re going to face.
In the times ahead, there won’t be much space for dishonesty. The "truth" will reveal itself about character, experience and intent.
The future is going to look like the past, and there are many examples of modern societies backtracking.
How we re-invent our world afterwards will not be as simple as a protest, and my gut says that the folks running the show won’t change much. Their legal claim on control will just be a bit weaker.
Let them protest - the greedy losing sleep for fear is good, and it’s been a long time coming…
Cheers,
Aaron
Yesterday my daughter, her boyfriend and I participated in the "Occupy Dallas" march. About 700 marched from their campsite to Goldman Sachs and the Dallas Federal Bank. The protest reminded me of the days when I marched against the Vietnam war. The tactics were similar between now and then. In the early 70s, the protesters were college students who voiced their anger against a single issue, Vietnam. The "Occupy Dallas" group was less focused, but all agreed Wall Street was a problem. The protesters were a bit older - peppered with a few middle age farts such as myself. I am glad to see the "Occupy" groups have grown. I know their growing numbers are becoming effective when I see conservative pundits and Fox News spew their vitriol with ever increasing voracity. It proves the "Occupy" movement is speaking truth to power.
As I walked through their campsite, I noticed official signs were posted at the entrance of large tents. Each tent represented a specific organization - promoting their a cause such as energy, the environment, education, and the war. I couldn't find any particular group that seemed to represent their shared "anti-Wall Street" theme. I guess it is easier for existing organizations to hang their hat on movements with like causes. Who will carry the anti-Wall Street theme forward? Who can separate the chaff from the wheat? What organization has the capability to create a message that conflates Wall Street corruption with other social problems? So where is the Democratic party? Where are their leaders? Are they too busy campaigning for money? Do they fear retribution from their corporate contributors? We have a lot of untapped energy in this country. Democrats need to shit or get off the pot.
[quote=Outcast 19]Since so many people have been concerned with the accuracy of facts in this thread, does anyone know if this is actually a veteran?
Outcast 19
[/quote]
Outcast19
It’s just an image posted online. The guy could be "actually a veteran", or he might not be.
But I think what is a little disturbing is the thought that a not-insignificant minority of people (not necessarily you, Outcast19, of course) would find it difficult to believe that a veteran could possibly have these thoughts and want to share them. That they are so cynical these days that their first thought is that the followingmight instead be "propaganda" by a non-veteran instead.
But if it were "actually a veteran", it isn’t?
It’s as if no one’s ever heard of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW).
Poet
Maybe human history could be written in terms of bubbles. For instance, I see the Industrial revolutioln as a fossil fuel bubble which is in the process of bursting. Large bubbles on a larger surface are often surrounded by smaller ones. One bubble bursting often triggers others. It’s hard to know which bubbles will burst first. Maybe we’re in a revolution bubble at present.
Dan
It looks to me like all the pieces are coming into place for a perfect storm.
I disagree with any hint that Dr Martenson has gone political, the video represented what one would expect a fact finding visit to the protest to produce, no more, no less.
I am extremely glad that I am now an old man and won’t have to live through much of the turmoil to come. I just wish my son would not have to face it, though.
Keep up the good work, and thanks
I was at the Foley Square OWS demonstration. I was asked by a reporter if the protesters had an understanding of what they were protesting about. I think if you ask any of them, you will wildly different ideas of what is wrong. However, I think there’s something underlying them all, and I’m not sure your blog catches. I wrote,
“‘I think they understand that the people on Wall Street were responsible for breaking the country two years ago; that it’s not yet fixed; that none of those on Wall Street went to prison, but are now doing very well again, thank you very much, and the folks who are demonstrating aren’t. And,” I added, “they think that that’s not right.’ It occurred to me later that if, with my IT skills, I’d crashed the economy for even one day, I’d have been tried as a terrorist and spent decades in prison."
As an environmentalist, I took the discussion a step further in my blog post at http://nyc.sierraclub.org.
I was at the Foley Square OWS demonstration. I was asked by a reporter if the protesters had an understanding of what they were protesting about. I think if you ask any of them, you will wildly different ideas of what is wrong. However, I think there’s something underlying them all, and I’m not sure your blog catches. I wrote,
“‘I think they understand that the people on Wall Street were responsible for breaking the country two years ago; that it’s not yet fixed; that none of those on Wall Street went to prison, but are now doing very well again, thank you very much, and the folks who are demonstrating aren’t. And,” I added, “they think that that’s not right.’ It occurred to me later that if, with my IT skills, I’d crashed the economy for even one day, I’d have been tried as a terrorist and spent decades in prison."
As an environmentalist, I took the discussion a step further in my blog post at http://nyc.sierraclub.org.
Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud! Prosecute the fraud!
London October 17, 2011 ... Assange, flanked by bodyguards, received a warm reception from the demonstrators as he addressed them from the cathedral steps. "One of the reasons why we support what is happening here in Occupy London is because the banking system in London is the recipient of corrupt money," the Australian said. ... Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/assange-joins-london-protests-20111016-1lraa.html JULIAN ASSANGE AT OCCUPY LSX - ST PAUL'S CATHEDRAL (youtube, 4Minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnypOKpBgs
I have been following this site since I first watched the Crash Course a year and a half ago. This is the most patently ridiculous post I have seen…and it is disheartening because I have always thought this site, and Chris’ analysis of current events were really spot on.
To think that this "protest" and the "protesters" are anything other than garden variety Leftist ideologues who don’t understand the first thing about how economics work is REALLY naive. I would hope that any interview with any of these people would include some pointed questions like "Do you know where money comes from?" or "Do you understand fractional reserve banking?" or maybe "Are you familiar with the concept of Peak Oil?" These "occupiers" of Wall Street are the same petulant children who scream and yell about corporate greed, but yet could not even define what the structure of a modern corporation is…or how our economy is structured in general. Most of them think that the answer to all of our problems is some over-reaching form of despotic government.
Please Chris…don’t lend any kind of legitimacy to these people…they are really myopic, undereducated dropouts with the proverbial axe to grind…not any type of deep thinkers who understand the depths of the real problems we are facing. We could have an unlimited supply of free energy and these dopes would still be screaming bloody murder about how "unfair" everything really is…