Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Except for the part about Troy Davis dying
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
... felt extremely productive.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Of all the possible objections, the one being raised is, news organizations can't possibly be hypocritical? Well.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It's too easy to say that corporations that control the media would of course want to tamp down the story, such as it is. There's something else at play. These same news organizations jump at the chance to report unrest of any size and sort around the world, but when it happens in our back yard we pooh pooh it and move on?
quote:Well it was a bit more than a stroll down the sidewalk.
Originally posted by fugu13:
It wasn't really newsworthy, outside of local news, until the 80 person arrest. Getting together a few hundred people in New York City to walk down sidewalks is barely even amateur flash mob level.
And American protesting is just fine for causes that large numbers of people actually have strong enough beliefs about. For instance, the recent Wisconsin drama had high tens of thousands turnout, possibly breaking a hundred thousand (in a city with a tiny fraction of the population of NYC!). That deserved coverage, and got it.
quote:Protests are an extremely volatile situation for cops and they take them seriously. From the videos I've seen, the protest was disruptive and a few of the protesters intentionally confrontational. Some of this is due, simply, to the nature of protests. But the cops were, for the most part, doing their duty of maintaining order. As much as the protesters want to be the center of the universe, there are other american citizens who wish to use those same roads and sidewalks to get to work, conduct business, etc.
Originally posted by Shanna:
The footage coming out of this is insane. Unarmed protesters penned and maced, cops cursing and throwing punches, excessive physical restraint during arrests.
quote:Clearly.
But yeah, clearly I don't think this is a case of excessive force.
quote:It kind of reminds me of the 15-M movement in Spain - only without the wall to wall media coverage that they got during their protests this spring/summer.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I have two real complaints in this post: 1. Why aren't the protesters saying anything coherent? 2. And why isn't the media talking about it?
On the first point, seriously, there are thousands of unemployed, educated young people around this country, and they can't at least come up with a decent list of specific complaints and even a rudimentary plan of action? That's mind bogglingly unbelievable.
quote:You're talking about what? Civil Rights Movement protests? Those also had large groups behind them that were reasonably funded and helped organize both an ideological front and a protest movement.
Originally posted by fugu13:
I think it represents a fairly solid lack of strong beliefs in comparison to the same sorts of topics that have had, without large organized unions behind them, much larger protests in the past (especially given how much the population has increased).
quote:I think that last part is part of it, perhaps. We're far more likely than previous generations to compromise and listen to another side of an argument. But at the end of the day, we still need to be decisive.
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:It kind of reminds me of the 15-M movement in Spain - only without the wall to wall media coverage that they got during their protests this spring/summer.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I have two real complaints in this post: 1. Why aren't the protesters saying anything coherent? 2. And why isn't the media talking about it?
On the first point, seriously, there are thousands of unemployed, educated young people around this country, and they can't at least come up with a decent list of specific complaints and even a rudimentary plan of action? That's mind bogglingly unbelievable.
Although they had vaguely similar opinions and hopes - more jobs, no cuts, capitalism = bad, down with politicians, etc - they never really came to any real conclusions about what exactly they wanted to achieve, or, more importantly, how they could achieve whatever it might be.
So maybe it's not a US thing. It's just a modern youth/society thing. Maybe we just don't quite know what we want, or we're too prepared to see everyone's opinions as valid to decide what is most important.
quote:We've had much, much larger protests, pretty much involving primarily groups that exist to protest (as opposed to other sources of organizing power such as unions), in the past decade on issues from whales to free trade to lots of other things. A few hundred against capitalism is an extraordinarily tiny protest, and deserved about as much (again, prior to the arrest events, which were at best mismanaged) national news coverage as the regularly occurring (I know there was one every few years in southern Indiana alone) "try to block out planned parenthood" anti abortion events that could get a few hundred people together: none.
You're talking about what? Civil Rights Movement protests? Those also had large groups behind them that were reasonably funded and helped organize both an ideological front and a protest movement.
The strong feelings are there. There's just something missing from a generation or two ago. I think ideological cohesion is a BIG part of it. There's no one message to get behind and chant. They sort of had something going with the "we are the 99%" thing, but even that is too vague. They should have figured out the message BEFORE they marched.
What historical spontaneous protest movements did you have in mind?
quote:Sure, but perhaps my complaint isn't that the youth of America don't have a concrete solution that will fix our economic problems so much as they don't have any voice in the conversation at all.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I think at least part of the problem is that solving economic problems is HARD.
quote:And when people think like you in law enforcement, they typically legitimize the protesters in a way they could normally only dream of.
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Yup, clearly.
quote:Except for the part about Troy Davis dying
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
... felt extremely productive.
quote:Well, yes, there's that. (Insert suitably tongue in cheek yet not actually funny emoticon).
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Except for the part about Troy Davis dying
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
... felt extremely productive.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
quote:I'm not getting the same impression based on what I've been reading. NPR reports that a spokesman for the protest claims "[one] demonstrator was arrested because she refused to stop taking photographs of the arrests" but also reports the police as saying "the arrests were mostly for blocking traffic. Charges include disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. But one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer."
Originally posted by beverly:
It would seem that most of the people arrested were arrested for filming officers.
quote:
There were approximately 80 arrests, mainly for disorderly conduct by individuals who blocked vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but also for resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration and, in one instance, for assault on a police officer, said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne.
quote:I don't know about thousands, but the videos I've seen suggest more than 300, though, for how long they were there I have no idea.
Originally posted by fugu13:
1000+ people? I've seen zero evidence they got more than maybe three hundred, tops. And most of the videos seem to show so few that I think that's probably an overestimate.
Also, while the videos are important evidence, remember that there's nothing inconsistent between most of the arrests being for blocking traffic and a few videos showing people being arrested for filming or wearing masks.
quote:No. You're not there. Videos can be edited very easily -- even unintentionally.
Originally posted by beverly:
I can see that there is abuse going on.
quote:Sure thing. I'll link you when I get back from class tonight.
Originally posted by fugu13:
How on earth did they get several thousand? They're going by a (probably high, because almost all estimates of crowds are) estimate of 300 spending the night in a park, then "several hundred" joining them. 300 + "several hundred" != 5000. What's more, the most I see protesting on any single video so far has been maybe 100, even panning shots.
Could you link me to the videos suggesting more than 300, Lyrhawn?
quote:It's the police, at a protest of course they're using excessive force.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:No. You're not there. Videos can be edited very easily -- even unintentionally.
Originally posted by beverly:
I can see that there is abuse going on.
There may be abuse, and it certainly should be investigated. But to have decided that there definitely is at the very least premature.
quote:Exhibit A for the defense, every single police officer not using excessive force.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:It's the police, at a protest of course they're using excessive force.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:No. You're not there. Videos can be edited very easily -- even unintentionally.
Originally posted by beverly:
I can see that there is abuse going on.
There may be abuse, and it certainly should be investigated. But to have decided that there definitely is at the very least premature.
quote:Really? Would you say this of every police officer categorically serving at the area of the protest?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
However they collectively are a negative force of oppression in serving their capitalist masters. While some are merely using excessive force the remainder are still working to hinder the efforts of progress.
quote:I'll take the lack of response as a no. Okay, I'll be honest, I was taking it as a no before I even asked.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, I haven't been following the media's coverage of the occupy wall street stuff at all, but I'm curious: Did anyone make a big stink about all of the Obama-as-Hitler posters the way they did when those posters showed up at Tea Parties?
quote:(h/t Monkey Cage)
[M]aybe Occupy Wall Street is a social movement in the making—as the start-up of satellite efforts like this might indicate—but it’s not one that deserves the national media spotlight, or to be the “lead story on every nightly newscast,” as Olbermann imagines would be the case with Tea Party occupiers, just yet. OWS has some things to prove and figure out about itself. It’d be irresponsible for the national media to give it attention that overstates its influence.
quote:The LaRouchites were getting more attention than the Anarchists, despite being a smaller portion of that ridiculous crowd.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I do find it frustrating that nobody is reporting on LaRouchers at the Wall Street protest, but they leap all over them at tea parties, but... that's the extent of it.
quote:ughhhhhhhh
[M]aybe Occupy Wall Street is a social movement in the making—as the start-up of satellite efforts like this might indicate
quote:I'm for it.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:ughhhhhhhh
[M]aybe Occupy Wall Street is a social movement in the making—as the start-up of satellite efforts like this might indicate
Won't that be special, if the counter-movement ends up being formulated on this template. Can't wait to have a bunch of people wearing Black Flag and Cho tees waving Reddit memes around and having the message underlying their official mantras and slogans be essentially be 'hurrrrrrr end capitalism!'
quote:I'm not in the D.C. area, but it'll be interesting to see what comes of this and how it differs from Occupy Wall Street.
I pledge that if any U.S. troops, contractors, or mercenaries remain in Afghanistan on Thursday, October 6, 2011, as that criminal occupation goes into its 11th year, I will commit to being in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., with others on that day with the intention of making it our Tahrir Square, Cairo, our Madison, Wisconsin, where we will NONVIOLENTLY resist the corporate machine to demand that our resources are invested in human needs and environmental protection instead of war and exploitation. We can do this together. We will be the beginning.
quote:I don't really think that's fair or accurate, but whatever helps get you reelected I guess.
“The protesters are protesting against people who make $40,000 to $50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet. That’s the bottom line,” Bloomberg said.
quote:I'm so confused. Which stockbrokers does Bloomberg think are making $40-$50K a year?
The protesters are protesting against people who make $40,000 to $50,000 a year who are struggling to make ends meet.
quote:Hum.
As police clamped down on anti-Wall Street protesters over the weekend, Toronto activists said they are planning similar demonstrations against corporate greed later this month.
Organizers from a group called Occupy Toronto plan to descend on the city’s financial district on Oct. 15 at 10 a.m. The event is inspired by Occupy Wall Street, a group of demonstrators which has camped out near New York’s Financial District for two weeks.
...
“We also have focus on the Canadian issues,” he said. “Our banks didn’t get bailed out, but there are a lot of things that our banks do that harm the environment, culture and society of the Canadian people.”
quote:-Courtesy of Wikipedia your open and free encyclopedia.
Another example of criticism comes from the Debate and Discussion forums of the Something Awful message board:: [15]
I honestly think we passed the point of no return on restoring the middle class with this recession and the insane economic priorities shown afterwards. It's inevitable now, to my mind: the American Empire is dying, and one day Rick Santelli III will be hanging from a meat hook in the bombed-out remnants of Manhattan.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:Congratulations, you get your wish
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I'm for it.
quote:Incidentally, the most focused answer to this question that I could detect from news reports (which admittedly were themselves slightly unfocused and unclear as to where the story wanted to go), was "greed."
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I'd take a consistent thing they are protesting
quote:And yet you wonder why they're getting less media coverage than an actual, you know, organized protest?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm okay with it for now. It's not even a movement yet, it's just a bunch of pissed off people gathering together and voicing their anger.
quote:Co-Opted? Man, I know we disagree, but do you really need to make controversial statements as if they're obvious, undisputed facts? It seems kind of rude.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm okay with it for now. It's not even a movement yet, it's just a bunch of pissed off people gathering together and voicing their anger.
And frankly, if I'd been co-opted the way the Tea Party has been, I wouldn't be looking down my nose at a new protest movement in the making that specifically wants to avoid that fate.
quote:Apologies if I offended you. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack. If you require a qualifier, you can feel free to add an "I think," or "I feel" wherever appropriate in that statement.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Co-Opted? Man, I know we disagree, but do you really need to make controversial statements as if they're obvious, undisputed facts? It seems kind of rude.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm okay with it for now. It's not even a movement yet, it's just a bunch of pissed off people gathering together and voicing their anger.
And frankly, if I'd been co-opted the way the Tea Party has been, I wouldn't be looking down my nose at a new protest movement in the making that specifically wants to avoid that fate.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Getting everybody on the same page, no matter how ridiculous that page becomes, is not a liberal trait. You could get Republicans to do that- Democrats don't even really try. But when you're trying to get people together who are in favor of the government, like, *working* and all of that stuff- you're also dealing with the reality that one single message is not going to accomplish that. If you're interested in destroying and dismantling national institutions, then one message will do.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
The times that Tea Parties went off their core message of fiscal conservatism... that is, the times I saw people with socially conservative signs (anti-gay marriage, etc.) or with very off-the-reservation signs (LaRouchers and other conspiracy nuts)... were the times that I felt like I was in the wrong place.
quote:Well, to be fair, left-wing protests are much more common, as a general rule, and nothing about OWS initially indicated that it was different or more noteworthy than your typical run-of-the-mill protest.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I could see why it would be so easy to ignore (though given how early Tea Party rallies were covered is a stark contrast).
quote:This evolution would be what made it qualify as newsworthy, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But once the police brutality issues started (and have continued), and now that the protests have grown to thousands of people with a very distinct anti-corporate message, I don't see how that doesn't qualify as newsworthy.
quote:We're cross-posting a bit here, so if I double post my apologies. Just wanted to say: You're welcome, and I apologize that you caught the original version of the post. I realized immediately that the language was stronger than I wanted.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Apologies if I offended you. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack. If you require a qualifier, you can feel free to add an "I think," or "I feel" wherever appropriate in that statement.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Co-Opted? Man, I know we disagree, but do you really need to make controversial statements as if they're obvious, undisputed facts? It seems kind of rude.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm okay with it for now. It's not even a movement yet, it's just a bunch of pissed off people gathering together and voicing their anger.
And frankly, if I'd been co-opted the way the Tea Party has been, I wouldn't be looking down my nose at a new protest movement in the making that specifically wants to avoid that fate.
And speaking of rude, thanks for editing your original post.
quote:I enter that this is your contention, not an established fact. The motives behind covering the early Tea party demonstrations, I doubt you actually know. The reactions of the newspeople who covered those events would be more clear. You are on firmer ground make claims about those reactions, not about the motivations that the networks had for covering them.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
especially early on they were covered only to be dismissed, and/or relentlessly and mercilessly mocked, by nearly every major news outlet.
quote:So do flash mobs, and I don't think they're newsworthy either.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Yeah, I do. Because while they might not be organized like a political party, they clearly have some organization.
quote:Clearly you're interested in discussing this like an adult.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:So do flash mobs, and I don't think they're newsworthy either.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Yeah, I do. Because while they might not be organized like a political party, they clearly have some organization.
quote:Clearly you are taking things in a way I did not intend. I'll be bowing out now.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Clearly you're interested in discussing this like an adult.
quote:Oh for sure! I was only intending commentary on what they said.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:I enter that this is your contention, not an established fact. The motives behind covering the early Tea party demonstrations, I doubt you actually know. The reactions of the newspeople who covered those events would be more clear. You are on firmer ground make claims about those reactions, not about the motivations that the networks had for covering them.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
especially early on they were covered only to be dismissed, and/or relentlessly and mercilessly mocked, by nearly every major news outlet.
quote:Much more common? I suppose if you're counting fringe groups that are out there. The recent one-off protest in Wisconsin is a big example of traditional leftist groups protesting, sure. Otherwise what are you referring to in recent memory? WTO and G8 protests or other fringe groups?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Well, to be fair, left-wing protests are much more common, as a general rule, and nothing about OWS initially indicated that it was different or more noteworthy than your typical run-of-the-mill protest.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I could see why it would be so easy to ignore (though given how early Tea Party rallies were covered is a stark contrast).
By contrast, early Tea Parties were covered, certainly, but not it wasn't usually positive coverage. Conservatives don't usually protest, so it was a surprising thing to most people, and especially early on they were covered only to be dismissed, and/or relentlessly and mercilessly mocked, by nearly every major news outlet.
quote:This evolution would be what made it qualify as newsworthy, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But once the police brutality issues started (and have continued), and now that the protests have grown to thousands of people with a very distinct anti-corporate message, I don't see how that doesn't qualify as newsworthy.
quote:Your two sentences of replies came across to me as curt, dismissive straw man arguments. It's not what I would expect from you, but I don't see any indication that you were being tongue-in-cheek, so I took it seriously.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Clearly you are taking things in a way I did not intend. I'll be bowing out now.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Clearly you're interested in discussing this like an adult.
quote:As you like.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You didn't leave a great deal of room for interpretation.
quote:First of all: I was thinking of Code Pink etc. You've completely got me nailed on abortion clinic protesters and Westboro baptist style protests. I live in the SF Bay Area, and I see lefty protests on a very regular basis, whereas until the occasional tea party I never saw conservative protests out here. So, I'll cop to that here. I definitely don't own those guys (social conservative protests), and I don't expect you to own Code Pink or World Can't Wait or ANSWER. I'm glad you don't want to!
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Much more common? I suppose if you're counting fringe groups that are out there. The recent one-off protest in Wisconsin is a big example of traditional leftist groups protesting, sure. Otherwise what are you referring to in recent memory? WTO and G8 protests or other fringe groups?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Well, to be fair, left-wing protests are much more common, as a general rule, and nothing about OWS initially indicated that it was different or more noteworthy than your typical run-of-the-mill protest.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I could see why it would be so easy to ignore (though given how early Tea Party rallies were covered is a stark contrast).
By contrast, early Tea Parties were covered, certainly, but not it wasn't usually positive coverage. Conservatives don't usually protest, so it was a surprising thing to most people, and especially early on they were covered only to be dismissed, and/or relentlessly and mercilessly mocked, by nearly every major news outlet.
quote:This evolution would be what made it qualify as newsworthy, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But once the police brutality issues started (and have continued), and now that the protests have grown to thousands of people with a very distinct anti-corporate message, I don't see how that doesn't qualify as newsworthy.
If "the left" has to own that, then "the right" has to own protests at abortion clinics, some of the more homophobic protests at things like funerals. (just as, unfortunately, the left would have to probably own Code Pink's ugly style of protesting). If we're counting these sort of groups there is more than enough to go around on both sides, and the idea that the right hardly ever protests is a misleading one.
I don't recognize the mocking you're referring to among major media outlets. MSNBC probably did, that wouldn't surprise me. But I highly doubt CNN did, and I KNOW Fox News didn't.
And the news coverage that followed that evolution was delayed by several days. The media has been dragged kicking and screaming into covering this.
quote:I don't know what you expect from me at this point. Nothing, I would gather, since you're not inclined to clarify what you meant.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:As you like.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You didn't leave a great deal of room for interpretation.
quote:Well, I want to say that part of that is just because liberals had more to protest during those years. Republicans in total control of those respective governments (US and Wisconsin), something major happened that they clearly disagreed with, so they got out there. Now with a Democratic government in power, the Tea Party rose up and started to complain. Now it's mixed government and BOTH sides are protesting.
From Dan Frank
I do think that with the Wisconsin protests, and perhaps one or two of the higher profile Anti-War protests during the Bush Era, relatively mainstream lefties still have a greater propensity towards protesting, but I concede that when you dismiss the nutbags on both sides the disparity is much less than I originally stated.
As far as the mockery... I posted some links above. MSNBC was definitely the worst in that regard (Shuster manages to cram about fifty incredibly dirty innuendos into a few minutes, which is as funny as it is despicable). But there's a pretty hostile CNN piece linked as well. Or at least, it seems hostile to me. That one might be a grayer area though... you may think it seems perfectly reasonable.
quote:That's a pretty fair assessment.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Well, I want to say that part of that is just because liberals had more to protest during those years. Republicans in total control of those respective governments (US and Wisconsin), something major happened that they clearly disagreed with, so they got out there. Now with a Democratic government in power, the Tea Party rose up and started to complain. Now it's mixed government and BOTH sides are protesting.
From Dan Frank
I do think that with the Wisconsin protests, and perhaps one or two of the higher profile Anti-War protests during the Bush Era, relatively mainstream lefties still have a greater propensity towards protesting, but I concede that when you dismiss the nutbags on both sides the disparity is much less than I originally stated.
As far as the mockery... I posted some links above. MSNBC was definitely the worst in that regard (Shuster manages to cram about fifty incredibly dirty innuendos into a few minutes, which is as funny as it is despicable). But there's a pretty hostile CNN piece linked as well. Or at least, it seems hostile to me. That one might be a grayer area though... you may think it seems perfectly reasonable.
quote:Hah! I know, right?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I do find it somewhat curious that the Tea Party only materialized after Obama was elected and suddenly discovered they didn't like what Bush had been doing for eight years. Was there some sort of mass delusion whose haze only lifted after Obama was elected?
quote:Yeah, Susan Roesgen is a piece of work. I love this little stroll down memory lane. Though in fairness to CNN, shortly after her tea party coverage, they chose not to renew her contract. Which actually does a fair bit to support your point.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As for that CNN piece, that was awful. My problem comes from trying to draw a larger conclusion from a few scattered pieces of evidence. It's a 24 hour news service, you're going to find bad examples no matter what. But wow, whoever that is, she's a terrible reporter. It's one thing to engage a random person in a discussion, but that was an incredibly dishonest woman with a clear agenda.
quote:Put on your adult hat and give me a better guess as to what I might mean!
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
By ">" I assume you mean "is even more crazy and unable to present a cohesive, valuable message"
quote:Got it, responded, and thank you very much.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey Lyrhawn, I dunno if the email on your profile is up to date, but if it is, you should check your email.
quote:My actual guess was something like "bigger/better/more significant" etc. Although now I feel like I must have genuinely missed your intention. I have a hard time conceiving of that at this stage... not to say that the OWS crowd can't do it.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Put on your adult hat and give me a better guess as to what I might mean!
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
By ">" I assume you mean "is even more crazy and unable to present a cohesive, valuable message"
(which is the most I ever hope for in these kinds of discussions). Once people agree on a direction, I'm willing to bend on how we get there quite substantially. And my ideas for immigration reform were DOA anyway.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
thread on the other side; I post there once a month, at least.
quote:I don't have time to elaborate, but not really, that's my opinion as well. And almost (but not completely) Lyrhawn's, I think. If you do a search, you might still find the thread, it's several years old now. Either me or Lyrhawn started the thread.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Oooh, immigration!
I'm slightly less open-borders than a capital L libertarian! Maybe we could have a rousing debate. In broad terms, I think that we should have much looser immigration laws, and do a better job of enforcing the ones we end up having.
Is that controversial enough for you?
quote:I suspect the cartels would win in the long term.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I feel like being contrary just to spark another debate. Surely there's something else we disagree on.
Don't make me start parroting Perry's call to invade Mexico to keep the border secure.
quote:I don't really get that aspect of Tea Partyers, but I guess the election made them feel like the Republican party had lost it's fire (typified by McCain) and needed to be reborn (typified by Palin). Me, I always liked McCain, and I've stayed loyal to the memory of the Bush administration. I was open-minded on Palin (Who McCain picked, after all) until she resigned from the Alaska governorship when I decided she was a blight. But I try to avoid talking politics with my associates who are aligned with Tea Party.
I do find it somewhat curious that the Tea Party only materialized after Obama was elected and suddenly discovered they didn't like what Bush had been doing for eight years. Was there some sort of mass delusion whose haze only lifted after Obama was elected?
quote:I don't follow in the case of (2). If the protests were motivated by astroturfing, then the protests end when the puppet master says. Whether the protests end or continued demonstrates nothing unless we can show that this is contrary to what the (proposed) puppet master wanted.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
... If Tea Party animus were really driven primarily by (2) or (4), one would expect the protests to have continued unabated.
quote:I think they emerged almost a full year before early 2010.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
On (4) it's perhaps instructive, although certainly not dispositive, to note that claims of racism at Tea Party rallies didn't emerge until early 2010, a full year after the rallies began.
quote:
Dangerous Censorship From the Left
By Noel Sheppard
Published September 17, 2009
| FOXNews.com
...
Since the early days of the Tea Party movement, attendees have been called racists. No one will ever forget Janeane Garofalo’s disgusting comments on MSNBC’s “Countdown” back in April:
"You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House." --
quote:And now, so will I.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think of this now every single time people talk about taxes these days.
quote:A significant event in the rise of the Tea Party was Santelli's rant, delivered in response to rumors of bailouts for homeowners. Tea Partyers complain about bank bailouts, but they also have not been supportive of legislation aimed at preventing the need for future bailouts.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
I see four alternative explanations given in this thread for the rise of the Tea Party: (1) government bank bailouts (Dan_Frank), (2) astroturfing (Tom), (3) loss of political power (BB and Orincoro) and (4) racism (Orincoro and Rakeesh). Of course, these motivations aren't mutually exclusive, and probably all of them played a role, but I think some of them are significantly more relevant than others.
I'd say that (1) and (3) led eventually to (2), and that (4) played a marginal role at best. If you look at the summaries of rallies on this list, you see a fairly marked shift in focus from early 2009 to later 2009. As the numbers swelled, the focus shifted from protesting bailouts and the stimulus, to more general dissatisfaction with the government "taking away our liberties" and "implementing socialism." This really accelerated with the shift of focus to protesting ACA. I would say this is where (1) and (3) transitioned to (2), as national organizations that received large amounts of funding began to drive the agenda more and more.
[Deleted paragraph]
Further supporting (3) as a persistently motivating force is the fact that Tea Party rallies fell off dramatically both in frequency and intensity following the 2010 midterm elections. If Tea Party animus were really driven primarily by (2) or (4), one would expect the protests to have continued unabated.
quote:I laugh every time I see that.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:And now, so will I.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think of this now every single time people talk about taxes these days.
I love that movie.
quote:Race was never on the official agenda for Tea Partiers, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss that aspect as being minor. It was a catalyst. It served , I think, as a clear manifestation for many politically inactive people that *they* and people *like them* were not in charge, and that *others* were gaining some political power. I just don't think a lot of these people would care nearly as much if there weren't a black son of a Muslim in the white house. You've seen the polls on the ridiculous birther issue. A lot of people believed in that- alot of the same people who are suddenly against all government spending. Where were they when a rich white man was spending rivers of money on wars and defense and cutting revenue as he did it? Because they trusted that guy, for no other apparent reason.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
On (4) it's perhaps instructive, although certainly not dispositive, to note that claims of racism at Tea Party rallies didn't emerge until early 2010, a full year after the rallies began. I imagine racism played a role in some (perhaps many) of those joining the protests in late 2009 to express general dissatisfaction with the government, but I don't see any evidence to believe that such motivations were of primary importance to any but a small portion of those protesters.
Further supporting (3) as a persistently motivating force is the fact that Tea Party rallies fell off dramatically both in frequency and intensity following the 2010 midterm elections. If Tea Party animus were really driven primarily by (2) or (4), one would expect the protests to have continued unabated.
quote:Can still see, too. Polling tea party members is always a little bit surreal, to see what they believe.
You've seen the polls on the ridiculous birther issue.
quote:In what possible way can this be said of the OWS that it couldn't also be said of...well, the various Tea Parties?
Cantor says the protests are full of mobs, and "pit Americans against Americans." That seems like a sort of bizarre statement considering what Cantor does for a living. Does he not work in politics? I don't know what he was thinking when he said that, but I can't help but laugh when I read it.
quote:So Herman Cain, who has apparently not watched any of the actual protest, thinks Occupy Wall Street is a liberal front to help Obama politically. I guess all the people at the protests who have said they don't much care for Democrats either somehow got by him. That's a problem with poor coverage, too, I think. I'm willing to be that almost everyone at these events leans liberal, heavily, but that doesn't mean they're Democrats. They're protesting against the WHOLE system, not just the GOP half.
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, meanwhile, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he believes the protests are aimed at drawing attention away from President Obama.
"The proof is quite simply the bankers and the people on Wall Street didn't write these failed policies of the Obama administration. They didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't work. The administration and the Democrats spent a trillion dollars," Cain said. Citing the president's new jobs bill, Cain added that the "administration is proposing another $450 billion wrapped in different rhetoric. So it's a distraction, so many people won't focus on the failed policies of this administration."
Cain insisted that the protesters "were encouraged to get together." When asked by whom, he said, "We know that the unions and certain union-related organizations have been behind these protests that have gone on."
In New York, several unions endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement last week.
Cain insisted the protests are "anti-American."
"The free market system and capitalism are two of the things that have allowed this nation and this economy to become the biggest in the world," he said. "Even though we have our challenges, I believe that the protests are more anti-capitalism and anti-free market than anything else."
Fellow GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich told CBS that he agrees with Cain that the protests are "a natural product of Obama's class warfare. ... We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise. And frankly a strain of hostility to classic America starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country. And I regard the Wall Street protest as a natural outcome of a bad education system, teaching them really dumb ideas."
Both Cain and Gingrich described the protests as "class warfare."
Pelosi rejected that. "When we said everyone should pay their fair share, the other side said that's class warfare," she said on ABC. "No, it's not. It's the most enduring American value: fairness. And it's about everyone paying their fair share. We all have a responsibility to grow our economy, reduce the deficit, keep us No. 1."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, told NBC's "Meet the Press," "I don't disparage anybody who protests their government for better government. No matter what perspective they come from."
Republicans "want to lower the barriers against Americans who want to rise," he said. Ryan added that divisive rhetoric is "troubling. Sowing class envy and social unrest is not what we do in America."
quote:Yes. The Tea-Party is avowedly *anti-government*. But somehow, that is exceptionally patriotic. The Wall Street protests, which are for government *reform*, are "anti-American."
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Doesn't it make you want to tear your hair out in frustration, and at the same time, laugh hysterically because it's so ridiculous?
I bet he's totally serious too, and doesn't even recognize how silly it sounds.
quote:It's supposed to be. Freedom, when actually realized, ought to amount to fairness. We never, after all, wanted freedom because we thought it'd make things unfair-we wanted it because we thought things were unfair, and needed changing.
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
It's interesting that Pelosi feels fairness is "the most enduring American value," as opposed to freedom or opportunity. I think that highlights one of the fundamental differences of ideology that contributes to the polarization of America.
quote:Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
It's interesting that Pelosi feels fairness is "the most enduring American value," as opposed to freedom or opportunity.
quote:Right. They're "neo-communists." Why? Because they are for some reason.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The new response from conservatives to these protests indicates genuine worry on their part. They actually really do not want these protests to gain critical mass. So much so that the consistency of responses like Cantor belie the purposeful and strategic intent of his statements, to decry the 'mobbishness' of the protests, and to simultaneously mock them for having no true message while also trying to define the message for them. What a surprise, right?
quote:I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
quote:We haven't. Justice - which is really the basis of what is being discussed - is a much more nuanced issue than you're making it out to be. We're concerned with both positive and negative freedoms as well as the free will of all parties involved.
When did conservatives start thinking about "freedom" as a concept divorced from a sense of fairness?
quote:Oh, this poor delusional man.
“As I scrambled away from the scene of my crime, a police officer outside the museum gates pointed at my eyes, puffed out of his chest, and shouted: “Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.” He was proud that I had been pepper-sprayed, and, oddly, so was I. I deserved to get a face full of high-grade pepper, and the guards who sprayed me acted with more courage than I saw from any of the protesters. If you’re looking for something to commend these days in America, start with those guards.”
quote:Semantics. I could as easily say: to defeat the unfair tax laws, and to gain fair representation in government. It's the same thing. Pelosi talking about fairness *is* Pelosi talking about freedom and opportunity. It's an aspect of both- and a concept that is very important to a democratic society. You're seriously arguing against fairness? Why? Nobody is arguing against freedom and opportunity.
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I dunno Orincoro, your last post sounded pretty Communist to me.
Yes, we all know that taking a dim-view of the government actively preferencing members of certain classes is the basis of communism.quote:I've been on dates like that.
Actually, whatever the conservatives don't like this week, except actually they like it just fine, except they don't like it at all, is the basis of communism.
quote:No. You're the one claiming that's my position. We call misrepresentation like that a straw man. I'm not arguing against fairness. The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently). The way you couch the issue according to terms and definitions defines the outcome of your reasoning. But no productive conversation will ever come from comments such as "You're against fairness because.." Dismiss what I said by claiming semantics but I prefer to keep the discussion within the relevant context(s) and not ignore the uniqueness of different events.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
You're seriously arguing against fairness? Why? Nobody is arguing against freedom and opportunity.
quote:Why should we even be trying to "maximize freedom"? Shouldn't we be trying to maximize human well being. Freedom is certainly an important component of well being but its not the only component, probably not even the most important component. Individual freedoms would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings whose desires were in conflict with our own, but very few of us would choose to be hermits. We recognize that the benefits to our well being from participating in a community out weigh the loss of liberty.
The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently).
quote:I think we are saying much the same thing but using different words. I think its useful to separate the concept of "liberty" from the concept of "opportunity."
I vigorously disagree with you that freedom would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings who we are in conflict with. I think that is a very narrow view of freedom, free-will, and liberty.
quote:You really flew off the handle on that one. No need to use such acrimonious language. Your tantrums only make discussions with you more disagreeable.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Ah... no. You were equivocating. And you can go back and rationalize and try to make me look like an ogre now, but your statement was no more than a semantic quibble. You just didn't want to settle on "fairness," as an appropriate word for some reason...
oh right, because Pelosi likes "fairness," so you need to find some way of being disdainful of the word because it's obviously reserved for left-wing radicals now. So you can't give an inch on the idea that the revolution was about "fairness," because "freedom" and "opportunity" are *really* patriotic words for *real* patriots- not pussy communist words for pussy communists.
You jump and bark and snuffle on the conservative line like a housepet, and you don't even notice you're doing it.
quote:QFT. The idea of liberty has no meaning outside the contexts of law, order, and equality. Our liberties are only meaningful if we recognize them as a part of a framework of government- not as being rights divorced from and somehow independent of, and only negatively influenced by, the government.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Why should we even be trying to "maximize freedom"? Shouldn't we be trying to maximize human well being. Freedom is certainly an important component of well being but its not the only component, probably not even the most important component.
The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently).
The preamble to the constitution, states as its first objective unity, then justice, tranquility, defense, general welfare and finally liberty. Why should individual liberty be elevated above above all the others as the most American value and the one that should be optimized? Would it not be more American to be seeking an optimal balance of all those objectives?
quote:So if I decide it would improve my well being to steal cars, you think the government should not interfere?
I disagree. My liberties enable me to make my own decisions in regards to my own well being.
Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me?
quote:Which is a strange statement in light of constant conservative/GOP opposition to industry regulation...
Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me? Not only that, but I fail to understand why people have enough faith in the government to provide for everyone. What makes them think that government would not be more corrupt with even more power?
quote:On a limited basis, yes.
Originally posted by Geraine:
I disagree. My liberties enable me to make my own decisions in regards to my own well being.
quote:Fair enough. I have little regard for him as a poster, and I don't care about his feelings at all. But If you think I should back off, I will.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Orincoro-you went quite rude and nutty.
quote:I agree with you on this point. I am fine with regulation on things such as food and drug safety. However, I choose what kinds of food and drugs I take however. I do not want the government involved to the extent in which they tell me which foods I have to buy and which drugs I HAVE to take. If I want to eat my recreation of an Epic Meal Time episode, I should be able to.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Which is a strange statement in light of constant conservative/GOP opposition to industry regulation...
Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me? Not only that, but I fail to understand why people have enough faith in the government to provide for everyone. What makes them think that government would not be more corrupt with even more power?
Anyway, few liberals want the government to provide for everyone-it not being necessary. They would generally, though, like the government to take an interest in its citizens in grinding poverty, aside from how to incarcerate them most effectively.
Another thing: the government already determines, to an extent, what is good and bad for you and I suspect you're perfectly happy with it. The government says, "Hey! Power plant! Less pollution!" or, "Hey! Farmers! Cleaner livestock conditions!" or, "Hey! Drivers! No booze and less speeding!" Those are just a few obvious example. All of them can accurately be said to be the government 'deciding what's best for us', but that's really just another way of saying 'the people electing a government which decides what's best for us'.
Which was always the point, y'know?
quote:Actually this might surprise you, but I do not think the government should laws regarding any of those things. I truly believe that if drugs such as marijuana were legal it could be taxed for a source of government revenue. Laws on prostitution are mainly handled by the state, and is legal in many areas of my state (Nevada). Underage drinking I agree, however I do believe that it should be lowered to 18. If the person is old enough to vote and server in the military, they are old enough to drink. Pornography (as long as it does not have minors) is fine.
Speaking strictly to you, though, I regard it with skepticism because I'd be surprised (correct me if I'm wrong) if there weren't some things which you felt the government shouldn't decide what is good and bad and make laws accordingly. Underage drinking, drugs, prostitution, pornography, just for the easy picks.
--------
quote:Who is doing that? Other than the occasional loon, I don't know anyone who wants to overthrow the government and replace it with a totalitarian regime. Are you thinking of the Tea Party? They might not say it often, but that sounds more like their language.
From Geraine:
Holding signs that say they are in the 99% then giving speeches about overthrowing the government and instituting a totaliaran regime doesn't really lend them much credibility in my opinion.
quote:Not really. They want fundamental reform in campaign finance, and I totally agree. I think special interests should have a role, but it's a roll that a single lobbyist could do, rather than hundreds for each company. Unions should have a voice in government, so should Wall Street, really, but they shouldn't CONTROL government. You remove their money from the equation and just let them argue on the merits and you fundamentally change government. I'm all for that.
From Geraine:
The fact that these groups are being backed by these massive unions and ACORN don't really help them either. They want to get rid of special interests, but they are playing right into their hands.
quote:What is this a reference to? I can't think of a single food the government MAKES you eat, and the only drug I can think of they MAKE you take are immunizations. You want to bring back the era of polio and smallpox?
From Geraine:
However, I choose what kinds of food and drugs I take however. I do not want the government involved to the extent in which they tell me which foods I have to buy and which drugs I HAVE to take.
quote:(not to dogpile, but) I don't think you have to like other posters, though it'd be nice if we could all at least respect each other, even if we don't really want to.
Orincoro:
Fair enough. I have little regard for him as a poster, and I don't care about his feelings at all. But If you think I should back off, I will.
quote:So there is people doing their business in the streets, organizers are providing free condoms (why not portable bathrooms?) and free food to people who attend. They are now training protesters how to break out of handcuffs and zip ties.
Zuccotti Park smelled like an open sewer -- with people urinating and defecating in public.
And some couples have taken advantage of the free condoms distributed by organizers to do the nasty in full view of other protesters.
“It kinda makes me think of what Woodstock must have been like,” said one protester, Sarah, 19 from the Upper West Side.
“I haven’t hooked up with any guys ... but one of my friends did have sex in a tarp with a guy last night.”
The free chow offered to protesters was boosting the crowd.
“People say they are here for the cause, but the real reason is the free food,” quipped Cameron, 26, of Jersey City.
“On my third day, they had smoked salmon with cream cheese. You know how much smoked salmon is a pound? Sixteen dollars. I eat better here than I do with my parents!”
Many of the protesters said they are here for the long haul -- and predicted trouble if cops try to clear the park.
“When the weather starts getting cold, we’re already talking about bringing tents in here,” said Robert, 47, of Pennsylvania. “I’m not going anywhere.
“I lost my job of 22 years, and someone has gotta pay,’’ he said. “Civil disobedience is something we may need to keep this site occupied. If everyone does it at once, the cops won’t be able to do anything.”
Three protesters took their sleeping bags and tried to camp out on Wall Street near Nassau Street last night. When police told them to move, one demonstrator, Zachary Miller, 20, from California, was arrested for disorderly conduct, cops said.
At one point yesterday, a speaker from Washington, DC, told protesters how to break out of zip ties and handcuffs in case they get collared.
The protest vet, Ryan Clayton, 30, demonstrated how use a bobby pin to spring the cuffs open -- while claiming he was “not encouraging people to break out of restraints.”
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Someone really should have told that to civil rights protesters. Do you have any idea how tough it was to get to work in Birmingham and Selma during those marches? Traffic was a nightmare!
Shutting down parks and being an annoyance to the general public probably isn't the best way to get what you want.
quote:Under those definitions I would have to say that government's role is to maximize opportunity within reasonable restrictions to personal liberty(no murder, etc.).
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I think we are saying much the same thing but using different words. I think its useful to separate the concept of "liberty" from the concept of "opportunity."
I vigorously disagree with you that freedom would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings who we are in conflict with. I think that is a very narrow view of freedom, free-will, and liberty.
A common definition of liberty is "The state of being free from restrictions imposed by societal authority."
A common definition of opportunity is "A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."
And to complete the set, We can define freedom to be "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Personal liberty is pretty clearly maximized by eliminating all societal authority. But that option is one that comes at the cost of opportunity.
Much of the political debate is about striking the right balance between liberty and opportunity.
Freedom, however, is far more complicated because the to power act or speak can be limited by many kinds of things. It can be limited by society, by circumstances, and by natural law. Furthermore, one can have the legal or moral right to act but lack the power to do it or one can have the power to act but not the right.
When society imposes restrictions on ones actions, it by definition reduces liberty, but if those restrictions create circumstances that make other choices possible it is not clear whether they increase or decrease freedom. Restrictions can actually increase some peoples freedom while decreasing the freedom of others, even when the restrictions are applied uniformly. That's why I think its important to separate the two concepts.
quote:My favorite example of this is from liberals who were astounded that John Kerry lost against George Bush. Obviously conservatives are just of guilty of this as I know so many who see the election of liberals to office as being the product of some elaborate conspiracy since everyone in their community is a red blooded American.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I believe the phrase "We are the 99%" was originally in reference to the GOP opposition to raising taxes on the top 1%. To me, its a lot less presumptuous when viewed in that context.
In a way, that claim is consistent with the fact that the movement doesn't have one consistent message. They are a mixture of people from the lower 99% of the income bracket and that's a pretty diverse group of people.
Movements from both the left and the right have a long history of claiming to represent the silent majority of Americans. Any one remember Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority"? More recently, Tea Party Leaders like Sarah Palin have claimed to represent the average american and the silent majority. While this always has a tendency to offend the opposition, I think its common because people really believe it. They believe that their viewpoint is held by the vast majority because they are guilty of selection bias. They associate selectively with people who share their values and perspective so nearly everyone they talk to about political issues agrees with them. They then presume that, despite what they read in the media, nearly everyone thinks like they do.
quote:You forgot Andorians, Hortas, and several others.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As opposed to what, green-blooded Americans?
Is the Romulan vote really that big a constituency? Lord knows all the Vulcans are liberals up there in their ivory tower.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Right. Just throw in some circles, hand-waving, some speech ticks, garbled swallowing and panting, and it all makes sense.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It sounds weird without the chalkboard charts-it needs sole context, then it's perfectly rational!
quote:I bow to your superior knowledge of Star Trek xenobiology.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:You forgot Andorians, Hortas, and several others.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As opposed to what, green-blooded Americans?
Is the Romulan vote really that big a constituency? Lord knows all the Vulcans are liberals up there in their ivory tower.
Specieist.
quote:Well, to be fair, you're talking about people who might also form a political movement named after a group of costumed rioters who broke onto private property and destroyed a year's supply of valuable tea, no doubt bankrupting whatever merchant had been unlucky enough to import it, because they disagreed with the (nominal) imposition of duties they would be required to pay in order to purchase it (which they hadn't). And this same group of people who might, within the same year of forming, denounce peaceful public protests by the unemployed... for no specific reasons.
Originally posted by Black Fox:
Many modern Americans have this odd misconception that early Americans were against taxation and regulation of any kind. They were not, their main dispute was that they wanted that taxation and "regulation" to come from their own elected assemblies.
quote:I wrote quite a bit and decided it would be rather pointless. I generally dislike talking about history with people that have a poor grasp of it or have a strong desire for one particular flavor of it to be universally true.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Well, to be fair, you're talking about people who might also form a political movement named after a group of costumed rioters who broke onto private property and destroyed a year's supply of valuable tea, no doubt bankrupting whatever merchant had been unlucky enough to import it, because they disagreed with the (nominal) imposition of duties they would be required to pay in order to purchase it (which they hadn't). And this same group of people who might, within the same year of forming, denounce peaceful public protests by the unemployed... for no specific reasons.
Originally posted by Black Fox:
Many modern Americans have this odd misconception that early Americans were against taxation and regulation of any kind. They were not, their main dispute was that they wanted that taxation and "regulation" to come from their own elected assemblies.
But if people actually think the opinions and specific practices of the forefathers has some special enduring relevance and ever-present application to the way things are done today, then I say bully to you. And while you're at it, you can also live according to 18th century social customs, medical practices, diets, and daily activities- if you put so much stock in the way the founders did things.
quote:I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.
quote:Well, he wasn't rejected, they just said that he had to wait, like everyone else, for the time when the floor was open to contributions from everyone.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.
quote:Quick recap for those who didn't watch the video:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.
quote:Basically the same result, knowing that their process was this slow, they told him to wait knowing that he'd be gone.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, he wasn't rejected, they just said that he had to wait, like everyone else, for the time when the floor was open to contributions from everyone.
... If I had to sit through that crap all day, I'd be gone pretty fast.
quote:*shrug* Sure. I think people are smart enough to reason out the likely results of their actions even if the details are couched within bureaucracy and procedure.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You're assigning intent to them.
quote:I think this is a great assessment.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Quick recap for those who didn't watch the video:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.
Announcer introduces John Lewis, Georgia congressman, Civil Rights hero, and recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. However, before Rep. Lewis can take the mic, the group leader asks if anyone is opposed to his addressing the group. A "block" politely objects, since "the point of this general assembly is to kickstart a Democratic process in which no singular human being is more valuable than any other human being." The leader then spends eight minutes trying to determine whether there is consensus within the group for having Rep. Lewis speak. In the end, since no consensus emerges and since "this group makes its decisions by consensus", Rep. Lewis is not allowed to speak.
My take: 1) alienating prominent Democrats might not be strategically wise, 2) making decisions only by consensus in such a large group, particularly decisions of such immediacy, is a good way to generate irrelevance, 3) the human megaphone and the lecture on using hand signals (rather than clapping or speaking) are...I don't know, kinda weird in a techno-utopian, Esperanto-like way. It seems like something that sounds good in the abstract in a dorm room late at night, but when translated to a real human experience doesn't actually work very well.
It actually works far better than someone only seeing it from the perspective of a hostile outsider might guess.
quote:It seems like many of the editors' expressed concerns are informed by the video that Dan_Frank posted earlier (which is linked to from the article). They refer to the human microphone as "genuinely creepy" while recognizing its logistical value, and find the single-minded focus on consensus decision making as betraying an anti-democratic impulse. Coupled with the radically negative views expressed about capitalism (even the sort of regulated capitalism establishment Democrats support) the editors label the occupiers as being "out of sync with [liberals'] values."
[I]t is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.
<snip>
[W]e are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought.
quote:Actually, a good review of the historical data is found in this book: http://amzn.com/0300178123
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
[qb]Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
quote:*blink* Liberals should be troubled by good-faith efforts to ensure minority voices are heard and consensus is reached?
But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.
quote:(Psst, TNR is a liberal mag. The writers are liberals, not conservatives).
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:*blink* Liberals should be troubled by good-faith efforts to ensure minority voices are heard and consensus is reached?
But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.
Man, I hate when conservatives try to tell liberals what they should be like.
quote:
[W]hat makes "We Are the 53%" so heartbreaking isn't that its contributors are enormous jerks—it's that so many of them could just as easily be writing in to We Are the 99 Percent. Like the guy on the left, who can "barely afford" his rent. Or the "former marine" in the center who hasn't had "4 consecutive days off in 4 years." The phrase "I don't have health insurance" pops up frequently on "We Are the 53%," but not as a cry for help or an indictment of a broken system. Here, it's a badge of pride.
quote:I would characterize it as Obama-centrist rather than, say, Bloomberg-centrist. It's not Brooks and it's also not Krugman (Friedman is a pretty good exemplar, though). Personally, I'd call it "liberal" and I think most people would agree with me, but I'd be fine with "center-left."
Originally posted by Destineer:
TNR isn't conservative, for sure. It's centrist. Like the Democrats.
quote:What?
Gruh??
quote:Haven't those been the rules from the start though? They've flouted them for weeks now and nothing has been done about it.
Originally posted by talsmitde:
This could get interesting. The owners of Zuccotti Park want everyone out of the park by 7 a.m. tomorrow morning for cleaning, and many of the Occupy Wall Street protestors are refusing to move, as 1) they've been trying to work with the city on sanitation and 2) the owners have established rules (banning tarps, sleeping bags, etc.) that essentially prohibit the protestors from returning as full-time occupiers.
They're calling for all those in the New York area who can to come down to the park by midnight tonight.
quote:http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.
quote:Those fatcats!
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.
quote:According to HUD statics, 0.75% of Americans are homeless. Combining this with the FOX News stat, there are nearly twice as many people without homes than without refrigerators. I wonder where all those homeless people are storing the fridges.
Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Those fatcats!
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.
quote:Well, it looks like Fox is citing a DOE survey which only surveys homes.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
According to HUD statics, 0.75% of Americans are homeless. Combining this with the FOX News stat, there are nearly twice as many people without homes than without refrigerators. I wonder where all those homeless people are storing the fridges.
quote:kmboots, The stat is from DOE and its a percentage of all households with a refrigerator, not poor people.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So are they only counting the poor that have a place to live?
quote:I've really only heard Limbaugh say that they are trust fund babies.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I've also heard Fox and other Right leaning/right wing commentators say that the protestors were all, "Trust Fund Babies"--Children of Rich parents who didn't need to work, so took to protesting out of boredom/guilt/because they can.
Of course the way to limit Trust Fund Babies is through....
A strong inheritance tax.
So shouldn't the Right be all for a strong Inheritance tax so that these protesting trust-fund babies would have to get a job like the rest of us and not have time to protest economic injustice?
quote:The 'trust fund baby' argument is used to highlight the large OWS contingent comprised of affluent consumers who profit(ed) from and enjoy(ed) the fruits of the system they now oppose, a group Charles Krauthammer calls in his most recent column the "Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce[ing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over." This argument against isn't against the existence of trust fund babies but against their actions. It's the same reason the right is critical (and dismissive) of Warren Buffet's comments - if they (meaning the rich who support redistributive policies) have so much money, why not write a fat check to the IRS and voluntarily redistribute your income? The same goes for inheritance money. The right believes you're more than welcome to donate it but its's not within the government's power to tax the hell out of it.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I've also heard Fox and other Right leaning/right wing commentators say that the protestors were all, "Trust Fund Babies"--Children of Rich parents who didn't need to work, so took to protesting out of boredom/guilt/because they can.
Of course the way to limit Trust Fund Babies is through....
A strong inheritance tax.
So shouldn't the Right be all for a strong Inheritance tax so that these protesting trust-fund babies would have to get a job like the rest of us and not have time to protest economic injustice?
quote:This is a stereotype that the right would love you to believe but which simply isn't true. Sure, its likely true for some of the protestors but not for most of them. I know quite a few people involved and none of them qualify as "trust fun babies". They are at best middle class and many of them are lower middle class.
These rich liberals posses more effective means of exacting the change they desire than partying in downtown Manhattan.
quote:Nope. They have a right to protest anything they want. Just like the protestors can even say things like:
So shouldn't the Right be all for a strong Inheritance tax so that these protesting trust-fund babies would have to get a job like the rest of us and not have time to protest economic injustice?
quote:That is true pretty much everywhere. Although if you can afford a $100 iPhone plus probably at the cheapest $40 a month you can afford a refrigerator.
but an smart phone costs a lot less here than a refrigerator and orders of magnitude less than decent house.
quote:So these people in the videos are Tea Party people?
It seems like you are not aware that some of of the OWS protestors are the very same people who came out to Tea Party protests. It isn't as simple as left vs. right.
quote:Possibly. More likely they aren't really aligned with either. There are certain groups of wackos (like the LaRouche movement) that show up at anything resembling a protest.
So these people in the videos are Tea Party people?
quote:Can you provide videos of the same thing, or similar occupations from a Tea Party event?
Its rather hypocritical to complain that people paid too much attention to these fringe groups during the Tea Party protests and then turn around encourage the same thing for the OWS.
quote:Strange. So now video footage of Tea Party protests will be relevant, somehow? Seems to me that before, it was only ever the preamble to, "But Bush protestors..."
Can you provide videos of the same thing, or similar occupations from a Tea Party event?
quote:It's interesting that Krauthammer doesn't see a distinction between the members of corporate America that Occupy is actually protesting and, say, Steve Jobs. You'd think he'd do more research.
Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce[ing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over...
quote:Because I'm sure Limbaugh, Krauthammer or you have exceedingly quickly organized social demographic data on the occupy crowd.
The 'trust fund baby' argument is used to highlight the large OWS contingent comprised of affluent consumers who profit(ed) from and enjoy(ed) the fruits of the system they now oppose
quote:You think that Krauthammer does research? How would that be helpful when trying to frame this protest as both class warfare against the wealthy and snobby elitism? You think that facts are gonna help with that?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's interesting that Krauthammer doesn't see a distinction between the members of corporate America that Occupy is actually protesting and, say, Steve Jobs. You'd think he'd do more research.
Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce[ing] corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over...
quote:Just to be clear, since I have spoken here on this subject a lot, I have been pretty consistent in acknowledging that both OWS and Tea Parties have attracted a significant subset of wackjob "career protester" types. I don't think, in either case, that it's fair to judge to overall protests based on these people.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Strange. So now video footage of Tea Party protests will be relevant, somehow? Seems to me that before, it was only ever the preamble to, "But Bush protestors..."
Can you provide videos of the same thing, or similar occupations from a Tea Party event?
quote:Support for things like Alabama's immigrant law don't mean nothin', either!
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
quote:Geraine, Are you seriously arguing that one racist comment or sign at a Tea Party rally was the only evidence for racism with in the Tea Party?
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
quote:They have, stop coddling the rich, make them pay their fair share; and regulate wall street and get the economy providing jobs again.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
Since there are possibly wacko Tea Party people at the OWS rallies, I cannot help but believe that OWS is indeed inherently racist as well.
Snarkiness aside, I do agree that you cannot judge the entire OWS event by some of the crazies. It is important to look at the policies they are proposing. Unfortunately due to the way they are running their protest (no leadership) it is going to be very difficult for them come up with an actual list of policies and resolutions that they want implemented.
quote:Nitpick: you are not direct quoting, you are paraphrasing. I believe that you believe you are accurately representing their views, however, especially with regards to your first three quoted examples, in each case if you rephrase the wording so that it is more accurate to the polls themselves, it changes the meaning to be focused almost entirely on one issue: systemic racism. In other words, the polls that I've seen tended to be various ways of asking if Tea Partiers felt that systemic racism is a problem in the US. And yes, a majority of them don't seem to think it is.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Geraine, Are you seriously arguing that one racist comment or sign at a Tea Party rally was the only evidence for racism with in the Tea Party?
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
Several survey's, found that Tea Party supporters were more than twice as likely to hold racist views such as "the problems of blacks are exagerated", "the government helps blacks at the expense of whites", "blacks are more likely to be poor because they are lazy" and so forth. They were also nearly twice as likely as the average American to believe that Obama was born in Africa and a closet Muslim -- ideas which are implicitly racist. Furthermore, Tea Party leaders made a lot of very racial charged statements, like "we should shoot hispanics".
quote:Is that because it's never racist to disagree about whether there's systemic racism? Or is it because it's supposed to be a question that reasonable people can obviously disagree about in the present day?
You can argue that they're wrong, and that's fine, but I think it totally devalues the very label of "Racist" to say that someone who disagrees with this premise [that systemic racism is a problem in the US] is inherently a racist.
quote:Oh, and no. I never heard any reports of racist signs at Tea Party events- I still think the Tea Party is partly motivated by racism.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
quote:You (and dan_frank too) have both been through this on the board before. I pointed out that the tea party has a real problem with racism. It's not entirely surprising, they also have problems with homophobia and islamophobia! I was right then, I got to laugh about it through the Mark Williams debacle, and I'm still right now. I will always have been right! And no, the tea party's problem with racism is not based on whatever percentage of signs at protests 'prove' the tea party is 'inherently racist.' But I have these problems to credit for completely sabotaged races in my state, which all but gave democrats seats they still should not have ever had.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Oh but Dan, have you forgotten? One racist comment or sign at the Tea Party rallies meant that the Tea Party was inherently racist.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:... Or is it because it's supposed to be a question that reasonable people can obviously disagree about in the present day? ...
You can argue that they're wrong, and that's fine, but I think it totally devalues the very label of "Racist" to say that someone who disagrees with this premise [that systemic racism is a problem in the US] is inherently a racist.
quote:My first reaction to this question is, what do you mean by special favors? Affirmative action springs to mind. It's not racist to be against affirmative action. But in other contexts I can imagine this statement expressing the sentiment that blacks shouldn't expect not to have to struggle against prejudice to make it in the world (in other words, that it's not unjust that they have to struggle against it).
Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way
up. Blacks should do the same without special favors. (Agree)
quote:Me, I just conclude that a lot of people my dad's age, despite being very wonderful people in most other ways, are racist.
If I heard someone my dad's age say these sentences out loud, I can think of some contexts in which I'd be a little put off, but definitely not conclude "that guy is racist."
quote:Did you mean to say hit "current" so strongly- or did you mean to include current and historical institutionalized racism?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
You're not sure. That's fair. So, let's consider it again, in the barest terms possible. Do you think that someone is racist if they don't agree with the following statement: Current systemic racism is the main cause of poverty among minorities (or specify it to African-Americans, if you prefer)
Just remember, it's okay if you think they are totally wrong or ignorant. You probably think that about a lot of people who you wouldn't call racist.
quote:The information is not sufficient to positively identify a racist. But I would call it sufficient to reliably indicate racist attitudes. I would feel reasonably sure that a person had racist attitudes if he or she denied systemic racism as an extant problem. That would exclude someone with no education or analytical experience, such as a young child.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I think I was precisely clear enough. I think that what you're saying is that the information I gave is insufficient to reliably conclude that the example person in question is racist. They very well could be! It might even make it more likely! I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just saying that the one does not by necessity follow the other.
quote:It's interesting.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
My angle on the 'systematic racism is a problem today' question is that, shooting from the hip, is that someone could believe that and not be a racist. I begin to wonder about it, though, the more they are acquainted with current events and race relations and *still* think it's not a current problem.
quote:http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c0f54f7c-f735-11e0-9941-00144feab49a.html#axzz1atMPsJRA
In the worst unrest Rome has seen in decades, rioters tore up cobble stones or threw petrol bombs as the police used baton charges to control the crowd, which numbered several thousand. Protesters chanted “Killers. Killers” as thunderflashes exploded in the square, buildings were set alight and a police van burnt.
Much of the anger was directed against Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister, and the 316 members of parliament who saved his government from defeat on Friday.
quote:That isn't what I read. Stories elsewhere say that the protesters swarmed into the bank during the march, only one person actually closed an account. They were asked to leave, they refused, they were peacefully, with one exception, arrested.
Originally posted by fugu13:
If it was civil disobedience, then the protesters reporting it are doing a good job of hiding that. There's no civil disobedience in closing a bank account, and they specifically did not cop to staying in the bank after being asked to leave (though the way they glossed the situation strongly suggests they did). If it was about civil disobedience, they should be stating that they refused requests to leave. Not saying they were "about to leave".
quote:Yeah, this puts it in that sort of 'goading' strategy which was present at the dancing protest in DC — and which I loathe. You goad the police and try to get them to be forced to take action against you by being a stubborn jerk, so as to film it and call them fascists or whatever.
Originally posted by fugu13:
If it was about civil disobedience, they should be stating that they refused requests to leave. Not saying they were "about to leave".
quote:This is a pet peeve of mine. In my experience with war protests "Get a job" is, with the exception of obscenities, the most common thing for conservatives to yell at protestors. Why do thy automatically assume people protesting don't have jobs? Nearly all the activists I know have jobs and families -- just like all the people in Sunday School.
Sandra Fox, 69, of Baton Rouge, La., stood, confused, on 46th Street with a ticket for "Anything Goes" in her hand as riot police pushed a knot of about 200 shouting protesters toward her.
"I think it's horrible what they're doing," she said of the protesters. "These people need to go get jobs.
quote:
Hardly anyone chooses to live in poverty. The tens of millions of Americans who, like our friend the Marine, can’t afford health insurance, aren’t choosing to forgo it. (Maybe the sign-holder would refuse socialized medicine on principle—it would be interesting to find out if he takes advantage of the services of the Veteran’s Administration—but, pretty clearly, most would not.) If circumstances of those even at the bottom rung of current casino-capitalist realities aren’t even close to as bad, in many obvious ways, as those of Saudi women or Roman slaves, it remains the case that they have legitimate grievances, and despite the sociologically-illiterate babble of the Herman Cains of the world, it’s impossible to seriously argue that the difference between their circumstances and those of the Wall Street profiteers are entirely, or even mostly, under their control.
quote:Lyrhawn: read the article "describing the incident from the perspective of the protesters" linked above. This quotation, in particular:
That isn't what I read. Stories elsewhere say that the protesters swarmed into the bank during the march, only one person actually closed an account. They were asked to leave, they refused, they were peacefully, with one exception, arrested.
quote:The articles saying only one person closed an account are based on citibank's account -- which I believe is mostly accurate. My comment was on the *portrayal by protesters* of their actions. Note that the woman forcefully arrested was yelling about being there to close her account.
The demonstrators (all Citibank customers) were asked to leave, and when they tried to comply Citibank’s security locked them in and wouldn’t let them leave!
quote:"Only one person closed an account" is not the same as "Only one person wanted to close an account." If Citibank refused to serve people who wanted to close accounts (I don't know if they did or did not but its consistent with the story), it would be rather deceptive of them to later report that only one person closed an account even if its technically true.
The articles saying only one person closed an account are based on citibank's account -- which I believe is mostly accurate.
quote:I read it but found it mildly confusing.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Lyrhawn: read the article "describing the incident from the perspective of the protesters" linked above. This quotation, in particular:
That isn't what I read. Stories elsewhere say that the protesters swarmed into the bank during the march, only one person actually closed an account. They were asked to leave, they refused, they were peacefully, with one exception, arrested.
quote:The articles saying only one person closed an account are based on citibank's account -- which I believe is mostly accurate. My comment was on the *portrayal by protesters* of their actions. Note that the woman forcefully arrested was yelling about being there to close her account.
The demonstrators (all Citibank customers) were asked to leave, and when they tried to comply Citibank’s security locked them in and wouldn’t let them leave!
quote:If it happened, I don't recall reading about it.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I wonder if people yelled "get a job" and Tea Party protests?
quote:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bank-of-canada-head-calls-occupy-protests-entirely-constructive/article2202064/
Bank of Canada head calls Occupy protests 'entirely constructive'
In a television interview, Mr. Carney acknowledged that the movement is an understandable product of the ``increase in inequality’’ – particularly in the United States – that started with globalization and was thrust into sharp relief by the worst downturn since the Great Depression, which hit the less well-educated and blue-collar segments of the population hardest.
"You’ve had a big increase in the ratio of CEO earnings to workers on the shop floor,’’ Mr. Carney said, according to a transcript of the interview with Peter Mansbridge of CBC News, parts of which aired on Friday evening. "And then on top of that, a financial crisis.’’
...
The words that Mr. Carney applies to the civil disruption carry extra weight because the Harper government is pushing for him to become the next chairman of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a group charged with co-ordinating the overhaul of international banking regulations. There is widespread fear that, the more time that passes, the tougher it will be to muster political enthusiasm for reforms, against which the financial industry is lobbying furiously.
Mr. Carney has been a fierce critic of the industry backlash and has vowed to counter it.
quote:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hours-later-occupy-toronto-takes-to-the-streets/article2202532/
After nearly a three-hour discussion of if and when they should march, Occupy Toronto demonstrators finally took the streets and marched to Dundas Square. Their occupation lasted only 10 minutes, before the group walked back to St. James park.
The group chanted "we say fight back" and "we are the 99 per cent" as they marched on the roads, while also stopping at traffic signals.
quote:But what I'm saying re civil disobedience is about how the situation is being portrayed by people who were there and others sharing a similar agenda. I'm saying if it was an act of civil disobedience, it is being portrayed entirely wrongly to have the effects that civil disobedience targets.
You can read their account negatively or positively. There's enough information missing to put whatever spin on it you want (I'm not accusing YOU, fugu, of that. I mean anyone, myself included).
quote:I don't have enough information to judge. In my opinion, they acted improperly in forcing the woman who was outside the bank, back into the bank. There maybe some justification for that, but I have not seen it.
I tend to agree on the last point. It doesn't appear the that, as you said other than being a little hasty, that they acted particularly improperly.
quote:If she had been asked to leave bank property (again, which extends outside the bank), and had not, and they had decided to arrest her for protesting, it would make perfect sense to get her inside with the others being arrested for trespassing. If they told her to go inside (there's no evidence they didn't) and she refused to do so, then using physical force has to be acceptable, or the police wouldn't be able to arrest anyone who just refused to go with them.
I don't have enough information to judge. In my opinion, they acted improperly in forcing the woman who was outside the bank, back into the bank. There maybe some justification for that, but I have not seen it.
quote:You missed non-disruptive; banks have always insisted on high levels of decorum from customers, out of politeness to other customers. Much as I'd expect any library to throw out a group of people protesting in a reading area even if they were non-violent and non-threatening.
Customers have a right to close their accounts for any reason, including to protest Bank policy. They have a right to inform the bank of their reasons for closing their account, as long as this is done in a non-violent non-threatening way, which based on the videos it was.
quote:The bank stated only one of the protesters asked to close an account, and was able to do so. The videos made available don't show enough to know how much protesting was going on inside the bank, but the accounts of protesters certainly suggest they didn't just say they wanted to close their accounts, but actively engaged in protesting. Which is disruptive, something the bank has an active policy against (whether the disruption is protesting or not).
How do I think the bank should have handled the situation? I think a manager should have come out on the floor and said, "I understand a number of you are here to close your accounts as a protest. Will those of you who are customers here to close your accounts please form a line here." Then they should have proceeded process the closing of accounts as quickly as possible. If the protestors remained after closing their accounts, the manager should have announced "Those of you who have closed accounts are no longer customers of this bank. We kindly request you leave immediately." If at this point, the protesters refused to leave, the manager should have asked bank security to escort them out. If they resisted -- then and only then would calling the police have been a proportionate response.
quote:If that was their intent, then they should stop saying that they were about to leave when the police arrived.
Once they are asked to leave and don't it becomes civil disobedience.
quote:Yes, but one of the reasons for civil disobedience is that normal channels aren't working. The average customer can't get access to the CEO to discuss their concerns or voice their complaints. If their goal is to get the upper echelons to start listening to and addressing their concerns, then getting their attention by non-violent disruption of business at the accessible levels, it is a reasonable application of the principals of civil disobedience.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Certainly. Of course, since any civil disobedience in this case is aimed at larger policy decisions, the bank manager and police are still acting within reasonable limits -- any changes the civil disobedience would be aimed at need to occur on much higher levels.
quote:I never said it wasn't (though I have said they're going about it ineffectively if their message is civil disobedience). It is entirely possible for both sides to be acting reasonably.
Yes, but one of the reasons for civil disobedience is that normal channels aren't working. The average customer can't get access to the CEO to discuss their concerns or voice their complaints. If their goal is to get the upper echelons to start listening to and addressing their concerns, then getting their attention by non-violent disruption of business at the accessible levels, it is a reasonable application of the principals of civil disobedience.
quote:I've seen people asked to be quiet in banks (well, more often credit unions, but I don't think they are drastically different for these purposes) dozens of times (mostly when younger, because I hardly go to physical branches nowadays). I've never seen anyone thrown out, but that's probably because the people have quieted down.
I've never heard of any one being thrown out of a bank for talking loudly to other customers, carrying anything short of a weapon or wearing clothing emblazoned with political statements.
quote:I think you're assuming rather more about what went on inside than I am.
While it's certainly true that a bank is private property and has the right to demand people leave the premises, its also true that banks have contractual obligations with their customers and preventing customers from accessing bank services, violates those obligations. Banks can't just throw people out because they want to withdraw money from their accounts. That isn't legal or just. And while it also isn't exactly what happened, its a part of what happened.
quote:I think you are wrong on this. A side walk outside of a business may technically be private property, there is a public right of way to any sidewalk that is along a street or part of a thorough fare. Athoug this sidewalk does not appear to be along a street, it does appear to be a public access route into Washington Square. You can't charge someone for trespassing on a sidewalk that is normally open to pedestrian traffic. You might be able to charge them with loitering, but not trespassing.
If she had been asked to leave bank property (again, which extends outside the bank), and had not, and they had decided to arrest her for protesting, it would make perfect sense to get her inside with the others being arrested for trespassing.
quote:I'm not assuming much. My opinion is based on the videos that have been posted and the reports of eyewitnesses. What I saw is that a group of about 2 dozen people stood in a large lobby area inside the bank and announced they were there to close their accounts. One of them was able to do that. Several members of the group gave brief speeches explaining why they were closing their accounts. The protester were very calm and generally respectfully. Description of this group as "a threatening mob" are entirely inaccurate. There was no shouting, name calling, or other threatening behavior. The crowd of protesters was not large enough that it interfered with the movements of bank employees or customers. While I'm sure the speeches were distracting, most of the bank employees appeared to be ignoring it and going about their business. Unless the protestors escalated things after the video clips I've seen, the bank could have chosen to continue ignoring them. Some other banks did and there was no incident.
I think you're assuming rather more about what went on inside than I am.
quote:If you look at the google street view of the bank branch, it is away from the sidewalk, on a private plaza.
I think you are wrong on this. A side walk outside of a business may technically be private property, there is a public right of way to any sidewalk that is along a street or part of a thorough fare. Athoug this sidewalk does not appear to be along a street, it does appear to be a public access route into Washington Square. You can't charge someone for trespassing on a sidewalk that is normally open to pedestrian traffic. You might be able to charge them with loitering, but not trespassing.
quote:I don't generally doubt you kate, but I'm skeptical that you have the facts correct. I'm willing to believe that you can be charged with trespassing in a public park. I'm also willing to believe you can be arrested for loitering on a sidewalk. But laws that guarantee right of access to thoroughfares, like sidewalks, are pretty standard. Until I hear it from an Illinois lawyer, I'm not going to believe you can be charged with criminal trespass on any sidewalk that's a public thoroughfare.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Actually, at least in Illinois, you can be charged with criminal trespass on public property (such as a sidewalk) if a police officer asks you to leave and you decline.
quote:I did check that before I made my post. The Citibank in question is located in Washington Square Village which is owned by New York University (not Citibank). The sidewalks in front of the bank are a thoroughfare that provides access to the gardens and apartment complex. New York University might have the right ask people to leave the grounds, but Citibank almost certainly did not.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:If you look at the google street view of the bank branch, it is away from the sidewalk, on a private plaza.
I think you are wrong on this. A side walk outside of a business may technically be private property, there is a public right of way to any sidewalk that is along a street or part of a thorough fare. Athoug this sidewalk does not appear to be along a street, it does appear to be a public access route into Washington Square. You can't charge someone for trespassing on a sidewalk that is normally open to pedestrian traffic. You might be able to charge them with loitering, but not trespassing.
quote:Bolding mine. At least here, the sidewalks were (at least in 2003) considered land supported by state or federal funds and police officers were considered representatives of the state.
Sec. 21-5. Criminal Trespass to State Supported Land.
(a) Whoever enters upon land supported in whole or in part with State funds, or Federal funds administered or granted through State agencies or any building on such land, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the State or its representative that such entry is forbidden, or remains upon such land or in such building after receiving notice from the
State or its representative to depart, and who thereby interferes with another person's lawful use or enjoyment of such building or land, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
quote:I bet you citibank got authority in their lease over the part of the walk in front of their branch, as is typical in business leases when the location involves plazas and such.
I did check that before I made my post. The Citibank in question is located in Washington Square Village which is owned by New York University (not Citibank). The sidewalks in front of the bank are a thoroughfare that provides access to the gardens and apartment complex. New York University might have the right ask people to leave the grounds, but Citibank almost certainly did not.
quote:They were on a sidewalk which is a thoroughfare to a park and an apartment complex. Typically, charges of trespass can only be made on sidewalks which are for the sole access of a private business or residence. Trespass is not normally a legitimate charge on a sidewalk that serves as a thoroughfare or which is used to access multiple properties, which this is.
Originally posted by fugu13:
And if you had looked that up, what was up with the talk about sidewalks?
quote:Of course they are! I know a lot of trust fund kids who go to UC Berkeley, and virtually all of them are on the side of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
I'm trying to figure out why Rush Limbaugh thinks trust fund kids are protesting against Wall Street. Does he even know what a trust fund is?
Or maybe we should be thankful that trust fund kids are so willing to work against their own self interest in the interest of social justice.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Or maybe we should be thankful that trust fund kids are so willing to work against their own self interest in the interest of social justice.
quote:Rich in the sense of leisured and educated. I think, whether you're rich or not, a leisurely and educated life will inevitably lead some people to conclude that they are getting *too* sweet of a deal. That, and the confidence inborn of a person who's life has always worked out in every way, will make you believe you can do anything. In many ways I identify with this attitude. As somebody from a moderately wealthy background, I've always craved the stress and uncertainty of dynamic environments and foreign places. Had it not been for the wishes of my parents, I would have joined the military in my early 20s.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The line "you gotta be rich in the first place to think like that" stings because in a way it's very true.
quote:Really tiny example, but the source appears hostile enough to the Wall Street protests that it's still helpful
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... Why do thy automatically assume people protesting don't have jobs?
quote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html
On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.
...
Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).
An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.
quote:Very apt.
I'm not ashamed of that, I think it's human nature to imagine your invincible when you know there's a safety net. That's actually the reason I'm so much in favor of a social welfare system: when you know that failure is not death, but only shame, your gaze widens to encompass all your possibilities. Conservatives tend to think that a safety net makes you lazy, but I think that's backwards. My safety net always made me more daring.
quote:So depressing. Nothing like being absolutely right to lose you an election.
In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions.
quote:ok liberals, revoke roe vs. wade, agree that waterboarding isn't torture, dismantle the EPA, get rid of that silly concept of 'separation of church and state,' commit to voucher systems for public schooling, recriminalize marijuana, have a federal 'right to work' law to undo the unions, and we might not block parts of your campaign finance reform in the new convention.
A new constitution or a revised one isn't going to happen, and given the political climate, I'd be scared to death if we tried it.
quote:Reminds me of the first time I heard Glenn Beck say the real lesson of Vietnam as it pertains to Afghanistan and Iraq is that we didn't try hard enough. We should have stuck around even longer as we were on the cusp of victory, and we snatched defeat from its jaws. It was listening to the whiny spineless anti-war crowd that screwed us all over.
Originally posted by Destineer:
From that WSJ article:
quote:So depressing. Nothing like being absolutely right to lose you an election.
In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions.
quote:A terrifying thought. But on the other hand, I think constitutional amendments to facilitate real campaign finance reform and replace the electoral college with direct election of the President would be a good starting place. I also think that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support such amendments.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:ok liberals, revoke roe vs. wade, agree that waterboarding isn't torture, dismantle the EPA, get rid of that silly concept of 'separation of church and state,' commit to voucher systems for public schooling, recriminalize marijuana, have a federal 'right to work' law to undo the unions, and we might not block parts of your campaign finance reform in the new convention.
A new constitution or a revised one isn't going to happen, and given the political climate, I'd be scared to death if we tried it.
quote:I love it Annie.
Originally posted by Annie:
I have nothing original to add to this discussion except for this political cartoon I just drew.
quote:
Oh I get it. The banks have done the wrong, but got all the money anyways. The people who aren't the banks are currently away from the money, and in many cases, the jobs. The government does nothing to stop the banks and the wrongs, and even does the wrongs for the banks when the banks ask. Finally, there's something wrong with taxes and that should be different.
quote:This is certainly the only way in which I use the word. I am, for example, strongly partisan, but I am not particularly liberal.
I guess if "partisan" is strictly pertaining to the Republican/Democrat, then I am actually not nearly so bothered in this situation.
quote:Why do you think so?
The OWS is fundamentally left wing.
quote:No dispute with your thesis- just a few quibbles. I'm not sure what beholden means here. In particular, I don't see the Tea Party being where it is today without the cheer leading of Republican operative Roger Ailes' network, or former Republican senator Dick Armey's organization, or Republican ally American's for Prosperity logistical support etc.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Assuming the usage holds up, then I would say that the Tea Party is undeniably right wing/libertarian, (and by my definition undeniably partisan!) but not beholden to the Republican party. Their goal was always to reform or replace the Republican party, though. There's no question which side of the fence tea partiers fall. And I definitely get irked when people try to pretend it's a centrist movement, and co-opt public support (the same way I get irked at the "99%" label). It's not. The one unifying principle of every tea party I have seen has been small, limited government, which is fundamentally a right-wing position.
quote:Again, why do you think this is fundamentally leftist? Is it really true that only leftists are conscious of class struggle?
Signs like "one day the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich."
quote:I think the Tea Party as it was originally intended was not a right-wing movement; it became right-wing when it was co-opted about a year later by the usual suspects and marginalized its libertarian elements.
I assume you disagree that the OWS movement is left-wing? Why? Alternatively, why did you not have the same problem with my characterization of the tea party as right-wing?
quote:Small limited government is a right wing slogan not a principal they follow. For the past 30 years the Republican party has been the party of big military, strict penalties for blue collar crime, large prisons, and police power. They've promoted Christianity in the schools, the war on drugs and laws against abortion, porn, sexual freedom and homosexuality. They've supported sin taxes, restrictive immigration laws, centralized regulation of school curricula, and corporate welfare. And the Tea Party seems to support all those things. With that kind of record, its ridiculous to say "small limited government" is a right wing principal.
It's not. The one unifying principle of every tea party I have seen has been small, limited government, which is fundamentally a right-wing position.
quote:The second demand was what Milton Friedman wanted, and Hayek, I think.
Demands like a $20.00 minimum wage and guaranteed wage regardless of employment, or a state monopoly on health services.
quote:I think Dan would respond that this is what distinguishes the Tea Party from the Republican Party. However, the proliferation of anti-abortion bills since the Tea Party-fueled Republican successes of 2010 suggests that they (the Tea Party) are also prone to carve out exceptions to small government orthodoxy when it suits them.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Small limited government is a right wing slogan not a principal they follow. For the past 30 years the Republican party has been the party of big military, strict penalties for blue collar crime, large prisons, and police power. They've promoted Christianity in the schools, the war on drugs and laws against abortion, porn, sexual freedom and homosexuality. They've supported sin taxes, restrictive immigration laws, centralized regulation of school curricula, and corporate welfare. And the Tea Party seems to support all those things. With that kind of record, its ridiculous to say "small limited government" is a right wing principal.
It's not. The one unifying principle of every tea party I have seen has been small, limited government, which is fundamentally a right-wing position.
It's also ridiculous to call the republicans "fiscally conservative". The federal Deficit sky rocketed under the last 3 republican Presidents, during good economic times.
What the republicans are against isn't big government, its anything that interferes with the rich getting richer. Its anything with a hint of redistributing wealth, unless that redistribution favors the already rich. So the republicans are against progressive taxes (but they love sales tax on food), they're against welfare, against national health insurance, against unions, against the minimum wage, against environmental regulations, against health and safety regulations, and against economic regulation in any form.
quote:That, recently, the rich have gotten richer in a way disproportionately faster than they have gotten richer relative to the less rich in the past is indisputable. That the rate of increase in wellbeing of the middle class has, in the same period, been lower than in the several decades previously is also indisputable.
Re: the class struggle thing... well, if we want to go there... yes? I reject the premise that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's a myth. But I really hope that we can address the other things I said and not just focus on this one sentence because, well, I think this part alone could become a big debate.
quote:I'm not disputing there are ways to rationalize this. Look- if I believe that animals are nearly-persons, and should enjoy the same protections against torture that people do, then government is just doing it's job regulating the way animals are treated. However, I don't see this being a popular small-government position. ETA: to what extent can you incorporate other (far from self-evident) beliefs before the principle of "small government" is lost, and it becomes, as Rabbit said, simply a slogan?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Natural Mystic: Despite being in favor of abortion rights myself, I think your characterization is flawed. Pro-Lifers believe an unborn baby is a person with full rights, thus aborting them is murder. Reproductive rights don't enter into it. If you agree with their premise, then their conclusion is not antithetical to a small government any more than laws against murder are. Making it a debate about reproductive rights is very common, but I think it moves the goalpost to a meaningless discussion. If a fetus is a person, pro-lifers are right. If it's not, they aren't. That's the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:I am not sure how you can reject that premise. The rich have tools that they can use to get rich (health, education, safety, starting capital) that the poor do not. How could it not be easier for the rich to get richer and harder for the poor to keep from getting poorer? It is kind of how nature works. Take a herd of deer. Barring intervention, the healthier, stronger animals will get more and better food and get even healthier and stronger. The weaker animals can't compete and get weaker. As humans accumulate wealth, they have an advantage in the competition for wealth.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Re: the class struggle thing... well, if we want to go there... yes? I reject the premise that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's a myth. But I really hope that we can address the other things I said and not just focus on this one sentence because, well, I think this part alone could become a big debate.
quote:You are missing a big part of the discussion. If you re-phrase it as, "If the fetus is a person who has taken up residence in another person and will be using their organs for a while", you will be closer to understanding the debate.
Natural Mystic: Despite being in favor of abortion rights myself, I think your characterization is flawed. Pro-Lifers believe an unborn baby is a person with full rights, thus aborting them is murder. Reproductive rights don't enter into it. If you agree with their premise, then their conclusion is not antithetical to a small government any more than laws against murder are. Making it a debate about reproductive rights is very common, but I think it moves the goalpost to a meaningless discussion. If a fetus is a person, pro-lifers are right. If it's not, they aren't. That's the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:It's not a myth. Having heard you flat-out contradict what is, well, objectively accurate so far as statistics can show us...what *would* convince you it wasn't a myth? Direct economic evidence that the wealth of the top tiers grows at faster rates than the lowest doesn't seem to cut it. What would?
Re: the class struggle thing... well, if we want to go there... yes? I reject the premise that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's a myth. But I really hope that we can address the other things I said and not just focus on this one sentence because, well, I think this part alone could become a big debate.
quote:Ah, I'll bet that is what he means.
Taking poor get poorer literally might be Dan's contention; the poor in the US have consistently improved in how well off they are for quite some decades. And most of that increase has been because of the operation of free markets, because most of that increase is from the increasingly cheap availability of food, clothing, and consumer goods.
quote:No. Because we do intervene. We fiddle.
Originally posted by fugu13:
And a herd of deer, boots, seriously? Human ecology isn't remotely like a herd of deer.
quote:Why do you believe this is a myth?
Re: the class struggle thing... well, if we want to go there... yes? I reject the premise that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's a myth.
quote:Do you think the rising tide in the US is lifting all boats, check the data I posted above. There was a time when economic growth in the US "lifted all boats", but for the last 40+, the lower half of households has not risen at all despite significant economic growth. That's a big part of the problem. The rising tide is not only not lifting all boats equally, its not lifting all boats period.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If he meant the 'rising tide lifts all boats' it's a myth, I can agree with that. If he means all boats are being lifted in proportion to their size, that's another thing.
quote:Responding first to the bold: Precisely! Because most small-government types don't think that animals are nearly-people, they think they are significantly removed from people. If you're a vegan libertarian then you would see government restrictions on what can be done to animals as consistent, because you would see animals as near-people deserving of protection. That isn't contradictory.
Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:I'm not disputing there are ways to rationalize this. Look- if I believe that animals are nearly-persons, and should enjoy the same protections against torture that people do, then government is just doing it's job regulating the way animals are treated. However, I don't see this being a popular small-government position. ETA: to what extent can you incorporate other (far from self-evident) beliefs before the principle of "small government" is lost, and it becomes, as Rabbit said, simply a slogan?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Natural Mystic: Despite being in favor of abortion rights myself, I think your characterization is flawed. Pro-Lifers believe an unborn baby is a person with full rights, thus aborting them is murder. Reproductive rights don't enter into it. If you agree with their premise, then their conclusion is not antithetical to a small government any more than laws against murder are. Making it a debate about reproductive rights is very common, but I think it moves the goalpost to a meaningless discussion. If a fetus is a person, pro-lifers are right. If it's not, they aren't. That's the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:That's cool! I've seen stuff too! Care to... share any of what you saw?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I've seen the "misleading" allegation debunked however at SA when another sought to claim the data misleading.
quote:In a literal sense the poor are getting poorer. They are less likely to be able to get good healthcare (hopefully this will change shortly), less likely to be able to afford to send their children to college, less likely to be able to find affordable daycare for their kids. Ie their access to the resources/mechanisms whereby their kids have a better chance to climb the social ladder is severely limited. But they have a big screen tv, so it's all good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Fugu13 definitely addressed a large part of what I was saying, so... thanks man! In a literal sense, the poor are not getting poorer. Part of this is in reduced price of commodity goods that make up a large portion of the poor's expenditures, as he said. Increases have also come in general quality of life... when rich people create expensive new technology that improves lives, after a few years the price drops dramatically and it improves the lives of the middle class, and then a few years later the price drops again and it improves the lives of the poor. See: cars, refrigerators, computers, cell phones, etc.
quote:Ah, okay, I see what you mean. To a certain extent I agree, when you make rationalizations for why gov intrusion into "X Issue You Really Care About" is okay then you can do this ad infinitum and end up with lots of government intrusions. I do still think the abortion one is sort of sticky because to many people they literally see it as killing another human being that should have full rights as a human being, and that's why I say it becomes a discussion of philosophy rather than politics. I mean, saying it's a decision between a woman and her doctor leaves the proposed 3rd party out of it. That's like saying if you and I plan to kill Fred, and the government stops us, it's interfering in a personal decision between you and I.
Originally posted by natural_mystic:
You're missing my point somewhat. From a bird's eye view you have what appears to be a thoroughly intrusive government action - government dictating the interaction between a private individual and her doctor. This is justified by incorporating a far from universal belief to carve out an exception for extreme government intrusion. In this way you get government creep. At the end of the day you get a government where virtually all actions can be rationalized, yet it is a sizable government. Having carved out all these exceptions, it is hard to take someone seriously when they object to something on the basis of 'small government.'
As for the drugs thing; certainly there are lots of self-identified small government types who are against legalization. I would be curious about their justifications. Also, what are your views on a drinking age exceeding, say, the age at which one can vote or serve in the military? Or drunk driving enforcement?
quote:So... this is interesting. I think there is compelling evidence to suggest that most of the goods and services I listed are cheap because of market forces, while the two key services you listed both have severely inflated prices. Would you agree with that? We probably disagree on why the prices are inflated, but I'm wondering if you also disagree on my premise so far.
Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:In a literal sense the poor are getting poorer. They are less likely to be able to get good healthcare (hopefully this will change shortly), less likely to be able to afford to send their children to college, less likely to be able to find affordable daycare for their kids. Ie their access to the resources/mechanisms whereby their kids have a better chance to climb the social ladder is severely limited. But they have a big screen tv, so it's all good.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Fugu13 definitely addressed a large part of what I was saying, so... thanks man! In a literal sense, the poor are not getting poorer. Part of this is in reduced price of commodity goods that make up a large portion of the poor's expenditures, as he said. Increases have also come in general quality of life... when rich people create expensive new technology that improves lives, after a few years the price drops dramatically and it improves the lives of the middle class, and then a few years later the price drops again and it improves the lives of the poor. See: cars, refrigerators, computers, cell phones, etc.
quote:For sure! This is totally what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Parkour:
Don't forget their fridges. Tthese ows types must just be mad about nothing.
quote:trollwarring already? Seems a little early for that.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:For sure! This is totally what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Parkour:
Don't forget their fridges. Tthese ows types must just be mad about nothing.
quote:No dispute that abortion is a sticky issue.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. To a certain extent I agree, when you make rationalizations for why gov intrusion into "X Issue You Really Care About" is okay then you can do this ad infinitum and end up with lots of government intrusions. I do still think the abortion one is sort of sticky because to many people they literally see it as killing another human being that should have full rights as a human being, and that's why I say it becomes a discussion of philosophy rather than politics. I mean, saying it's a decision between a woman and her doctor leaves the proposed 3rd party out of it. That's like saying if you and I plan to kill Fred, and the government stops us, it's interfering in a personal decision between you and I.
quote:Presumably the justification is that there is some unacceptably high probability that the drunk driver will do some serious damage to property and/or people. There is also quantitative evidence showing that having a drinking age of 21 instead of 18 will result in fewer fatalities. What exactly is the difference between these situations from a libertarian perspective?
I have never seen a similar justification for ostensibly small-government types who favor illegalization of drugs, though. I doubt it exists. Ditto for drinking ages (or any ageism, really) and ditto again for homosexuality. These are issues where the only "victims" are the people engaging in them, and I can't see how anyone can argue otherwise. What other victim could there be?
Drunk driving enforcement's really interesting for me. I mean, drunk drivers are indisputably operating a death machine and endangering other people. The minarchist in me still doesn't like the idea of government intrusion, but the minarchist in me usually takes a backseat to the realist in me. How different is drunk driving than, say, a guy shooting his rifle in random directions from his porch? Both are sort of his right/his property etc... but he's also actively endangering everyone around him. Overall I'm fine with this being considered a crime.
quote:I definitely agree that the costs of healthcare and education have vastly exceeded inflation. I don't know what happened with education, but I would argue that healthcare is attributable, to some degree, to certain interests being able to circumvent market forces.
So... this is interesting. I think there is compelling evidence to suggest that most of the goods and services I listed are cheap because of market forces, while the two key services you listed both have severely inflated prices. Would you agree with that? We probably disagree on why the prices are inflated, but I'm wondering if you also disagree on my premise so far.
Edit: You mentioned more than two services, but the Big Two I was referring to were healthcare and education costs, in case it wasn't obvious.
quote:I am content to abandon this particular conversation but not to leave your earlier statements unchallenged.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Well, sure, but the host also invited the other "human being" to live there. (Except when they didn't, but even a lot of pretty staunch christian right conservatives still are willing to allow for a rape clause)
I have to say I am semi-uncomfortable with us continuing down this avenue too far, because I don't really want to get into a full blown abortion debate... especially one where I take the devil's advocate role of a pro-lifer. That sounds... exhausting.
quote:Your analogy doesn't demonstrate anything, and I'm very frustrated that you think it does.
Nor do we eat leaves and grass. Seriously. You are going to act like a jerk over an analogy demonstrating that beings who are well off have an advantage when it comes to becoming more well off? Are you disputing that?
quote:I'm going with that the proportion drastically changed starting around the 80s. More people became far more better off before then than after then, even using optimistic numbers.
I'm curious how some of you are defining "in proportion" in this context. How do we determine the "right" proportion for increases in wealth? If the rich are getting richer, and the poor are also getting richer but not as rich as the rich are getting, well, that slogan seems a hell of a lot less compelling to me, and I suspect that's why nobody uses it, despite it being more factually accurate.
quote:You're drastically understating what the statistic means. For many people, living alone isn't voluntary, and it means giving up the large (and mostly unmeasured) output that used to come from someone engaged in housework and the like (and also frequently engaging in the informal, very undermeasured economy of childcare and the like). What's more, household size decline has not been very dramatic in the period we're talking about -- 2.76 in 1980 vs 2.63 in 2009. It *did* have a dramatic decline from 1950, when it was 3.37, though, which completely undermines your argument: if the gains from household size decrease are what's compensating for the change in household income now, the greater decrease in household size then could only have resulted in an even larger scaling factor for changes in household income back then (which were drastically increasing). After all, the biggest expense of a (median) household is support of the number of individuals in it.
And finally, a commonly cited stat that is supposed to prove middle class wage stagnation is that household median income has not increased significantly over the last thirtyish years, while productivity has. But this only works if you look at household income. On an individual basis median income has improved at a rate commensurate with productivity increases. It's just that more people are living on their own now than were then, because they can afford it.
quote:Healthcare for the poor (as opposed to the middle class) is largely through a lot of healthcare institutions not pursuing medical debt owed by the poor, private social endeavor, and (in large part) government healthcare. All of those have been increasing in this period, not decreasing. There are numerous colleges low income families can afford to send their children to, and daycare among the poor has almost always been a matter of informal systems, not purchasing through a daycare provider.
In a literal sense the poor are getting poorer. They are less likely to be able to get good healthcare (hopefully this will change shortly), less likely to be able to afford to send their children to college, less likely to be able to find affordable daycare for their kids. Ie their access to the resources/mechanisms whereby their kids have a better chance to climb the social ladder is severely limited. But they have a big screen tv, so it's all good.
quote:Do you have a link for this?
Originally posted by fugu13:
Healthcare for the poor (as opposed to the middle class) is largely through a lot of healthcare institutions not pursuing medical debt owed by the poor, private social endeavor, and (in large part) government healthcare. All of those have been increasing in this period, not decreasing.
quote:What colleges are you thinking of here?
There are numerous colleges low income families can afford to send their children to,
quote:Do you have a link for this? My inclusion of this was based on anecdotal evidence and my own observations, so I'd appreciate seeing an actual study on this.
and daycare among the poor has almost always been a matter of informal systems, not purchasing through a daycare provider.
quote:I defined the sense in which I regard them as getting poorer. The growth in after food/transportation/housing income doesn't really speak to this. The housing costs is also a bit misleading. They would not find housing cheaper if they were to try and live in a good school district. Which, again, speaks to the poor being priced out of the mechanisms of social mobility.
And anyways, you're ignoring the most important things. We *know*, with certainty, what the biggest expenses are on average in the lives of poor people: food, transportation and housing. Those have dropped as a percentage of income for those in poverty quite drastically, while quality has in all cases gone up drastically. The poor are not getting poorer, overall. (By the way, given the way college education is structured in the US, it is probably better overall for poor families *not* to save for college, strangely -- household assets are counted strongly when determining available financial aid).
quote:The link is to a pdf document. Check your downloads.
Rabbit: your link doesn't go anywhere, and I'd be very surprised if it says what you say it does, because as far as I'm aware, median household income in that period went up over 25%.
quote:Interesting. I think we can chalk this up to me operating from memory. So, to clarify: There is a study that claims median household income did not increase significantly in the last 30 yrs, isn't there? Is that what Rabbit tried to link? But now you said median household income increased during that time, so maybe that stat was just wrong? What I'd read was that the stat may be accurate but it was misleading because individual median income had increased during the same time. I think I filled in the gap with "people are living alone" when in reality there are a number of ways both of those could be true. Like, going from two earners making less to one earner making more, for example.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:You're drastically understating what the statistic means. For many people, living alone isn't voluntary, and it means giving up the large (and mostly unmeasured) output that used to come from someone engaged in housework and the like (and also frequently engaging in the informal, very undermeasured economy of childcare and the like). What's more, household size decline has not been very dramatic in the period we're talking about -- 2.76 in 1980 vs 2.63 in 2009. It *did* have a dramatic decline from 1950, when it was 3.37, though, which completely undermines your argument: if the gains from household size decrease are what's compensating for the change in household income now, the greater decrease in household size then could only have resulted in an even larger scaling factor for changes in household income back then (which were drastically increasing). After all, the biggest expense of a (median) household is support of the number of individuals in it.
And finally, a commonly cited stat that is supposed to prove middle class wage stagnation is that household median income has not increased significantly over the last thirtyish years, while productivity has. But this only works if you look at household income. On an individual basis median income has improved at a rate commensurate with productivity increases. It's just that more people are living on their own now than were then, because they can afford it.
quote:To clarify, feel free to continue to challenge what I've said. My comment wasn't intended to give me the last word at all! I'm not really exhausted yet, I just anticipate a time when the prospect of continuing to play devil's advocate here will feel more trouble than it's worth. It was basically just a warning that I may concede at any point. As long as you're cool with that, challenge away!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:I am content to abandon this particular conversation but not to leave your earlier statements unchallenged.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Well, sure, but the host also invited the other "human being" to live there. (Except when they didn't, but even a lot of pretty staunch christian right conservatives still are willing to allow for a rape clause)
I have to say I am semi-uncomfortable with us continuing down this avenue too far, because I don't really want to get into a full blown abortion debate... especially one where I take the devil's advocate role of a pro-lifer. That sounds... exhausting.
quote:I question this. Many of the major expenses for middle income households, such as rent/mortgage, insurance, cars, major appliances, and utilities are at most weakly dependent on the number of individuals in the household. When a household splits up (due to divorce for example), they suffer economically because it is significantly more expensive to support 4 people living in 2 households than it is to support the same 4 people in one household.
After all, the biggest expense of a (median) household is support of the number of individuals in it.
quote:That's fine.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:To clarify, feel free to continue to challenge what I've said. My comment wasn't intended to give me the last word at all! I'm not really exhausted yet, I just anticipate a time when the prospect of continuing to play devil's advocate here will feel more trouble than it's worth. It was basically just a warning that I may concede at any point. As long as you're cool with that, challenge away!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:I am content to abandon this particular conversation but not to leave your earlier statements unchallenged.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Well, sure, but the host also invited the other "human being" to live there. (Except when they didn't, but even a lot of pretty staunch christian right conservatives still are willing to allow for a rape clause)
I have to say I am semi-uncomfortable with us continuing down this avenue too far, because I don't really want to get into a full blown abortion debate... especially one where I take the devil's advocate role of a pro-lifer. That sounds... exhausting.
quote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/220484/the-american-dream-moves-to-denmark
DAVID FRUM
The American Dream moves to Denmark
At the GOP's latest debate, Rick Santorum utters some hard truths about our economic decline
...
The American dream is still alive. It's just more likely to come true in Denmark than in the USA. In fact, the American dream is less likely to come true in the USA than in any other major economy except the United Kingdom's.
The freezing of income mobility is distinct from, but probably related to, two other important trends in American life: The stagnation of middle-class incomes and the widening of the gap between rich and poor.
The American dream is less likely to come true in the USA than in any other major economy except the United Kingdom's.
A generation ago, an American family did not need to "climb the ladder" to become better off. If a family started in the dead middle of the income distribution in 1947 and ended in the dead middle of the distribution in 1973, it still saw its standard of living approximately double. By contrast, middle-class incomes barely budged in the quarter century leading up to 2007.
At the same time, the richest have pulled away from the middle — and the richest of the rich have pulled away from the merely affluent.
Conceptually, you could imagine a highly unequal society with rapid income mobility. You could imagine a society with little mobility, but in which all classes were getting richer at approximately the same pace. America, however, is a society of widening inequality, hardening class lines, and stagnating living standards for most people. And all of these trends rely on numbers from before the economic crisis and before the election of Barack Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13
Taking poor get poorer literally might be Dan's contention; the poor in the US have consistently improved in how well off they are for quite some decades. And most of that increase has been because of the operation of free markets, because most of that increase is from the increasingly cheap availability of food, clothing, and consumer goods.
quote:Once again, I question the validity of these claims. Over the last half century, the price of essential consumer goods like food, energy and housing has not been decreasing relative to median incomes. Here is some data on average prices as a percent of the median income which I've put together from a variety of internet sources
Originally posted by Dan_Frank
In a literal sense, the poor are not getting poorer. Part of this is in reduced price of commodity goods that make up a large portion of the poor's expenditures, as he said
code:This is hardly a comprehensive study but the data does not support the contention that the prices of staples have been dropping relative to incomes.
1965 1980 1990 2009
house 200% 430% 430% 450%
car 38% 31% 36% 51%
loaf of bread .003% .003% .004% .003%
gallon of gas .0045 .007% .004% .003%
quote:Luckily nothing I said implies that. Even if we attempt to apply my statement to the individual level, I'm only (approximately) saying that overall expenses will drop by a substantial amount with each person that moves out. Some of that drop will only be taken when a household downsizes living arrangements, of course -- but that does happen, and more and more frequently, as households rent more and more often compared to owning.
The biggest factor influencing the size of households in the US over the last 30 years has been the increasing median age of the population which has resulted in fewer households with children. It's certainly expensive to raise children, but the major expenses for a family of four don't drop by a factor of two when the kids move out on their own.
quote:Starting at the last, I've done some minor stuff relating to economics as work, and it is more than just a serious armchair interest (a decent bit of education, plus I intend to work in a related field, international development, eventually), but I don't work in a related field at the moment.
Interesting. I think we can chalk this up to me operating from memory. So, to clarify: There is a study that claims median household income did not increase significantly in the last 30 yrs, isn't there? Is that what Rabbit tried to link? But now you said median household income increased during that time, so maybe that stat was just wrong? What I'd read was that the stat may be accurate but it was misleading because individual median income had increased during the same time. I think I filled in the gap with "people are living alone" when in reality there are a number of ways both of those could be true. Like, going from two earners making less to one earner making more, for example.
Just want to add a thank you for your participation here. You're obviously very learned with regards to economics. If it's cool for me to ask, is it just a serious armchair interest, or do you work in a related field?
quote:This is what I was getting at, but I came to that conclusion very much more from a layperson's perspective. What I've read and heard over the years fits this-the poor aren't getting poorer in the sense that they cannot afford necessities and such, they're getting poorer in the sense that there is an amount of prosperity in the United States, and it's going to have some limit. And the poor and middle class are getting less of it now than they used to.
Poor people are actually doing reasonably well (in terms of increase in standard of living), though you don't see it in earned income statistics as much, both because government transfers to the poor have overall improved a lot and because the particular products poor people consume most have dropped hugely in price and improved hugely in quality.
quote:Sorry, I said that wrong. Thinking of the top tier vs. everyone-I should've said that it was my understanding that, overall, the 'not rich' are getting less prosperity proportionally now than in the past. As for the poor, it's always been my impression that standards of living have steadily been rising for pretty much everyone, overall, for a very, very, very long time. And to me, the relative terms part you mentioned last is what's most relevant to this discussion.
the poor are getting about the same amount of additional prosperity as they did in the past, possibly more, and their situations are improving, not declining. It's the middle class(es) that's not receiving as much prosperity as it used to, and about treading water (though probably not declining, except in relative terms).
quote:I don't think they're more deserving of a higher relative prosperity gain (than the middle parts of the income distribution: the poor are keeping up pretty well, once you include the effects I mentioned).
Are the super-rich just...more deserving or something of higher relative prosperity gain than everyone else? There's wealth being generated by our economy, but proportionally our population isn't getting as much of it anymore (is my understanding).
quote:You keep saying this but how can it be given that housing, medical care, transportation, energy and food have all increased faster than income growth. Do the poor really get all the basics from public assistance so their spending their money on stuff like that is going down in price like cell phones and computers?
I don't think they're more deserving of a higher relative prosperity gain (than the middle parts of the income distribution: the poor are keeping up pretty well, once you include the effects I mentioned).
quote:That certainly fits with my anecdotal experience.
By the way, it isn't the super rich who are corralling the gains, just the fairly well off. The households showing disproportionately high growth start at about $90k a year.
quote:This is not consistent with either my personal experience or the data I've been able to find. The data I've found has shown that food prices for staples, like bread and rice, were nearly constant as a percentage of the median income between 1965 and 2005. But that's a bit misleading because eating patterns have changed significantly over that time. Families are less likely to have a stay at home Mom than they were decades ago and so they are more reliant on prepared foods. Even though the prices of specific items has remained flat, the amount that a family needs to spend on groceries has gone up.
For instance, food prices only started rising recently, and are still down from 30 years ago.
quote:Indeed, it must also be pointed out that since the Clinton administration the CDI, which is used to calculate social security payments and similar has been slowly been fabricated as to be not resemblant to reality.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You keep saying this but how can it be given that housing, medical care, transportation, energy and food have all increased faster than income growth. Do the poor really get all the basics from public assistance so their spending their money on stuff like that is going down in price like cell phones and computers?
I don't think they're more deserving of a higher relative prosperity gain (than the middle parts of the income distribution: the poor are keeping up pretty well, once you include the effects I mentioned).
quote:Do you happen to know numbers on hours worked relative to 30 years ago? Another indicator of quality of life wou
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Transportation costs have also risen. Not only has, the price of cars has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, changes in working and living arrangements make it so families need more cars.
quote:That's very true. There's a bad gap problem between, where earning more can remove significant gov't assistance.
I think some of our disagreement is based on the who we consider to be the poor. There is a great deal of controversy about the official government poverty level and many people argue that many families earning up to twice the official poverty level can be reasonably considered poor. In my experience, lower income families that don't qualify for government assistance are the ones who have suffered most over the past few decades.
quote:The price of new cars has risen faster than inflation. Poor people are generally not buying new cars. If you check the price of used cars, especially the lifetime costs (which are much lower, as more recent cars require far less maintenance), you'll find it has remained well under increases in income.
Transportation costs have also risen. Not only has, the price of cars has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, changes in working and living arrangements make it so families need more cars.
quote:Yeah, if I have to spend more than 3 days in the office in a given week something must have gone seriously wrong.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Do you happen to know numbers on hours worked relative to 30 years ago? Another indicator of quality of life wou
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Transportation costs have also risen. Not only has, the price of cars has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, changes in working and living arrangements make it so families need more cars.
Be hours worked in comparison to income. Do people now work more hours or less? For instance, I wonder if e working poor and lower middle class commute longer and work more hours for the same relative economic status.
Purely anecdotally, the upper middle class friends and relatives of my parents now seem to work less hours and earn more money, largely due to technological advances that would not effect low wage workers. For instance, telecommuting saves hours per week in travel time, and in the publishing business, which is where most of these people are, 3 days in the office per week is the norm for many positions.
quote:Was that sarcasm? I can't tell, but that's how I read it.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Yeah, if I have to spend more than 3 days in the office in a given week something must have gone seriously wrong.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Do you happen to know numbers on hours worked relative to 30 years ago? Another indicator of quality of life wou
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Transportation costs have also risen. Not only has, the price of cars has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, changes in working and living arrangements make it so families need more cars.
Be hours worked in comparison to income. Do people now work more hours or less? For instance, I wonder if e working poor and lower middle class commute longer and work more hours for the same relative economic status.
Purely anecdotally, the upper middle class friends and relatives of my parents now seem to work less hours and earn more money, largely due to technological advances that would not effect low wage workers. For instance, telecommuting saves hours per week in travel time, and in the publishing business, which is where most of these people are, 3 days in the office per week is the norm for many positions.
quote:Yeah, I doubt this would have been much of a disruption to his remarks. According to Weigel the audience "would have consisted almost entirely of protesters" which is why Cantor backed out.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Little side story. Eric Cantor was supposed to give a talk at Penn today about his view of economic inequality, but Occupy Philly protested and some of them may have been able to get in to see him, so he ran away like a little girl.
quote:Is there a politician in this country who has sufficient confidence in their platform to go and speak before what will likely (again, if true) be a hostile, unruly, pre-planned crowd of opponents? Lemme know when you find one, k, and I'll credit your accusation of cowardice as something more than a totally partisan, "Ha!"
Its clear they lack the confidence in their platform and are unable to stick to their guns and unwilling to face directly the people they have had such an easy time demonizing from the safety of their 1% bought political positions.
quote:Well, sure, the movement as a whole would like to be heard and taken seriously. What's that got to do with anything? Fred Phelps wants to be heard and taken seriously, presumably. That's not to liken OWS to Phelps, but to point out how inaccurate it is to claim that 'wants to be taken seriously' equates to 'should be taken seriously in all cases'. It doesn't. One could say, with quite a lot of fairness, that if they wanted to be taken seriously, they shouldn't behave in such a way as to make it so easy for Cantor to dodge them-that is, by pointing to their own behavior as a justification.
The OWS movement wants to be heard and taken seriously, so Cantor was clearly fearful of directly engaging them.
quote:Unless he's some sorta coward.
I don't think he's obligated to be yelled at and use as a media tool (he has a Tool Exclusivity contract with the RNC anyways) for OWS.
quote:Nope, not at all. Orincoro makes a good point.
Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Was that sarcasm? I can't tell, but that's how I read it.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Yeah, if I have to spend more than 3 days in the office in a given week something must have gone seriously wrong.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Do you happen to know numbers on hours worked relative to 30 years ago? Another indicator of quality of life wou
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Transportation costs have also risen. Not only has, the price of cars has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, changes in working and living arrangements make it so families need more cars.
Be hours worked in comparison to income. Do people now work more hours or less? For instance, I wonder if e working poor and lower middle class commute longer and work more hours for the same relative economic status.
Purely anecdotally, the upper middle class friends and relatives of my parents now seem to work less hours and earn more money, largely due to technological advances that would not effect low wage workers. For instance, telecommuting saves hours per week in travel time, and in the publishing business, which is where most of these people are, 3 days in the office per week is the norm for many positions.
quote:Wow.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Nope, not at all. Orincoro makes a good point.
quote:But then he shows the chart that the top 20% pay 64% of all taxes -- and he carefully doesn't show what percentage of taxes smaller portions of the top 20% pay, or the percentage of *federal* taxes paid by those groups, which is higher -- which would show that, indeed, "the top several percent of earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal gov't", something he's just said is wrong!
It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year.
quote:The US has many tax problems, but if he's worried about the situation looking more equitable than it is due to tax avoidance, the US is the last place to start looking: many major European economies (that he holds up as comparatively better examples) have *far* higher rates of tax avoidance. We're pretty good at actually collecting tax, and many of the rules he holds up shortly after as letting the wealthy avoid tax are there to make sure we do tax, and tax accurately.
So the best estimates that can be put together from official government numbers show a little bit of progressivity. But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland.
quote:Well, there was this guy.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Is there a politician in this country who has sufficient confidence in their platform to go and speak before what will likely (again, if true) be a hostile, unruly, pre-planned crowd of opponents? Lemme know when you find one, k, and I'll credit your accusation of cowardice as something more than a totally partisan, "Ha!"
Its clear they lack the confidence in their platform and are unable to stick to their guns and unwilling to face directly the people they have had such an easy time demonizing from the safety of their 1% bought political positions.
quote:Well, it's sort of a pipe dream for me, too. I changed jobs in August. I used to work an 8-5 office job in the financial industry, but I was getting frustrated and feeling stagnated, so I quit. And now I have a come-in-whenever-you-feel-like-i-or-just-telecommute job working for a software consultant. So, I definitely understand having a hard time wrapping your head around it.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
T:man's reaction is more one of incomprehension. You forget that there was a period of your life when you would have found it hard to believe that someone would trust you enough to get work done, that you were being payed good money for, on your own at home, without their supervision. For people like me who entered the workforce during difficult financial times, that kind of an arrangement is a pipe-dream.
quote:I'm not sure exactly what's meant here by controlling for the size and profitability of companies. What is the correlation supposed to be? Should one expect that a company of twice the size (in terms of total holdings, I guess?) would naturally pay their CEO twice as much? Would a company be expected to pay the CEO twice as much if it's twice as profitable?
Once you control for company size, CEO pay in the US is not nearly so outsized compared to Europe (we have much bigger companies), and once you control for company profitability, almost all the rest disappears (we have more profitable companies). So even if the process for determining CEO pay is so completely bankrupt as in his examples, it somehow sets the bar about where you'd expect for companies of a given size and profitability.
quote:This seems perfectly reasonable to me. A larger company with more irons in the fire means more risk and complexity, theoretically with more possibility of failure not just because of that, but because of more people looking to better you economically. For those and other reasons it's not surprising or unreasonable that 'pay' (all the various incentives, that is) would be greater for a larger company. I also agree with fugu that this won't be analagous to a lower-level employee, one whose responsibilities and risks aren't going to change as much if they're working for, say, a local oil change place and JiffyLube.
Destineer: first, a thought experiment. Does it make sense for someone who is the CEO of a small company with five million dollars in revenue to be paid the same as someone who is the CEO of a company with a five hundred million dollars in revenue? No, CEO pay shouldn't scale exactly with company size (and I wasn't saying it should), but there is a definite correlation between company size and reasonable CEO pay, because the CEO of a larger company carries more responsibility.
quote:Perhaps the idea that CEOs actually bear responsibility -- as opposed to simply having to be paid as if they bore responsibility -- should be examined a bit.
the CEO of a larger company carries more responsibility
quote:Well, I will agree that by the time they get to that level it seems that the consequences they bear are going to be 'reap enormous financial benefits' if they're successful, and 'lose their job/face demotion with a substantial parachute' if they fail, barring all but the most egregious screw-ups. But I'm not very well informed on the subject.
Perhaps the idea that CEOs actually bear responsibility -- as opposed to simply having to be paid as if they bore responsibility -- should be examined a bit.
quote:That makes some sense, although one would also expect the CEO of a larger company to have a correspondingly larger and more supportive staff.
Does it make sense for someone who is the CEO of a small company with five million dollars in revenue to be paid the same as someone who is the CEO of a company with a five hundred million dollars in revenue? No, CEO pay shouldn't scale exactly with company size (and I wasn't saying it should), but there is a definite correlation between company size and reasonable CEO pay, because the CEO of a larger company carries more responsibility.
quote:We've got a lot of data that tell us what the approximate relation between firm size (and lots of other factors) and CEO pay are. We can use standard statistical tools (regression) to determine how close the CEO compensation data we see in the US is to what we would expect, given the various properties of firms in Europe, the pay of CEOs in Europe, and the properties of firms in the US. That doesn't show that the pay isn't necessarily outsized, but it does show that the pay isn't any more unusual (well, not much more, it does tend to be somewhat higher), but it does show that the pay isn't much outsized compared to Europe, and since a lot of people play up the comparison between US CEO pay and Europe CEO pay, that undermines a lot of the argument.
The real question I was trying to get at is, why should one conclude that the disparity in pay between CEOs of large, profitable companies versus small, less profitable ones is reasonable? You seemed to be saying before that the difference in pay between big US CEOs and small European ones is about what we should expect. Why is that?
quote:So while I don't think there's anything particularly bad about CEOs being paid what they are, I also am fine with taxing high earners (many of them those same CEOs) at higher rates than they currently are (and I should point out that their compensation is mostly not coming from long term capital gains).
But the supply of talent is
inelastic and the allocation of
talent would not be affected if everyone faced high tax rates.
quote:Not as much as you might think. There's only so many people you can use to run an organization without carving the organization up into smaller sections and putting people in charge of them. At some point, the responsibility is limited to a small set of people, and ultimately one (with directorial but not executive oversight by the board of directors). There may be lots more people working under such a person, and I would certainly hope they were better at their jobs at much larger companies, but that's not taking anything away from the fact the CEO has to make decisions about a much larger company, that can make or cost such a company hundreds of millions to billions of dollars depending on which choice the CEO makes. No matter how many people are there giving him the advice on which course is better, and no matter how good they are, the CEO is the one making such decisions, many times a year.
That makes some sense, although one would also expect the CEO of a larger company to have a correspondingly larger and more supportive staff.
quote:Which is why, when a company fails, a CEO is generally left destitute and unable to find work in the business world.
No matter how many people are there giving him the advice on which course is better, and no matter how good they are, the CEO is the one making such decisions, many times a year.
quote:While I understand that you are maxing out the sarcasm meter, is this what you hope happens to CEO's when a company fails? Would that be your just punishment? They should be left penniless and never find work again?
Which is why, when a company fails, a CEO is generally left destitute and unable to find work in the business world.
quote:Well they certainly shouldn't make money-that is, their punishment amounts to 'I won't make as much money as I would have if things had gone well'.
While I understand that you are maxing out the sarcasm meter, is this what you hope happens to CEO's when a company fails? Would that be your just punishment? They should be left penniless and never find work again?
quote:Well that's clearly what Tom was suggesting. All of those things together, in fact.
How would you make them suffer? If the large company fails, do we raid the CEO's home, seize all of their assets, and blacklist them from ever working again? Maybe throw them in jail without possibility of seeing the light of day because the company failed? What if the company just loses lots of money? Do they get the same percent of their assets taken?
quote:I don't see much reason why they should. I guess I get a little skeptical when issues about who deserves what get brought into discussions about what's the overall best system in something like economics. It seems to me the question should be, what system leads to the best overall outcomes? If the most beneficial system involves some people getting a better lot than they deserve, so be it.
If their reward is commensurate with the size of the company, so that they earn hundreds of times more than a line worker for shouldering hundreds of times more responsibility, shouldn't they suffer hundreds of times worse than a line worker when their decisions doom their company?
quote:But wait, I thought you agreed earlier that there's no reason pay should scale linearly with the size of the company. (That is, there's no reason the CEO of a $500M corp should make 100 times as much as the CEO of a $5M corp.)
For instance, in the period when CEO pay grew six times (roughly) at the largest companies in the US, those companies also grew six times. A six times increase in pay doesn't sound so completely outrageous, all of a sudden. It might be high, but it isn't so outsized as to be ridiculous.
quote:You only see a 1:1 correlation (linear means something else) in pay increases in the *very* largest companies. In most companies (including those, once you take into account the original salaries) you see that a company that increases in size by 10% has about a 3% increase in CEO pay. That seems to be higher at the top end, but most of the models only fit linear relationships to the overall sample (easier to be confident of the math). In particular, there's a lot more competition in the US for CEOs at the top end: keep in mind that even the tiniest percent difference in company value caused by a CEO will almost certainly amount to tens of millions, and probably hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Then look at the CEO salaries of the top 400 companies.
But wait, I thought you agreed earlier that there's no reason pay should scale linearly with the size of the company. (That is, there's no reason the CEO of a $500M corp should make 100 times as much as the CEO of a $5M corp.)
Is it just that, when you fit a curve to the pay of foreign executives like you were talking about, you actually do see a linear dependence between size and pay?
quote:Which is why, when a worker messes up at the thing they do and are fired, they are left destitute and unable to find work? You've got some messed up morals, Tom, if you think that's what should happen to people who mess up badly at their jobs. Last I checked, normal workers who had that happen were paid whatever their employment contract stipulated, including any severance pay stipulated, and then went and found a new job.
Which is why, when a company fails, a CEO is generally left destitute and unable to find work in the business world.
quote:Oh, not at all. Because...
Which is why, when a worker messes up at the thing they do and are fired, they are left destitute and unable to find work?
quote:...if the rewards for success must be summarily greater, the consequences of failure should be greater as well. Or should at least exist. Meg Whitman is running Hewlett Packard, for God's sake.
You've got some messed up morals, Tom, if you think that's what should happen to people who mess up badly at their jobs.
quote:Ah, so what's the income cutoff for being left destitute and unable to find work upon messing up your job? You're messed up, Tom.
...if the rewards for success must be summarily greater, the consequences of failure should be greater as well. Or should at least exist. Meg Whitman is running Hewlett Packard, for God's sake.
quote:'suffer' is not the word for it, realistically. They don't suffer. They are rewarded.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If their reward is commensurate with the size of the company, so that they earn hundreds of times more than a line worker for shouldering hundreds of times more responsibility, shouldn't they suffer hundreds of times worse than a line worker when their decisions doom their company? And yet they suffer far, far less.
quote:Excellent question. I'll let the details people work on that. Do we agree that CEOs don't really face any real burden of responsibility, then, since apparently you have to be "messed up" to mention the possibility?
Ah, so what's the income cutoff for being left destitute and unable to find work upon messing up your job? You're messed up, Tom.
quote:Is it seriously your opinion that she left eBay in a good position?
As for Meg Whitman, she grew a company from $4 million revenue to $8 billion revenue and won numerous awards for doing so.
quote:I don't think Tom is suggesting that is what should happen; I think he is suggesting that is what does happen. "Normal" workers don't generally get to have contracts that stipulate huge severance pay packages. Or severance packages at all. "Normal" workers are lucky to get two weeks.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Which is why, when a worker messes up at the thing they do and are fired, they are left destitute and unable to find work? You've got some messed up morals, Tom, if you think that's what should happen to people who mess up badly at their jobs. Last I checked, normal workers who had that happen were paid whatever their employment contract stipulated, including any severance pay stipulated, and then went and found a new job.
Which is why, when a company fails, a CEO is generally left destitute and unable to find work in the business world.
quote:A burden of responsibility is not the same as having a required punishment of being destitute with no job. If you look at actual data, you'll see that CEOs that haven't demonstrated high capability as a CEO and are then fired rarely get hired again by companies of similar size or larger. But evidence doesn't seem to matter to you, so I don't know why I bother.
Excellent question. I'll let the details people work on that. Do we agree that CEOs don't really face any real burden of responsibility, then, since apparently you have to be "messed up" to mention the possibility?
quote:Better than when she found it? By a long shot. And if she made some mistakes towards the end, it hardly sunk the company. They've got really strong competition from Amazon, not to mention that the downturn hit a lot of their core customers, but their revenue is going back up again, and their profits are doing even better.
Is it seriously your opinion that she left eBay in a good position?
quote:Oh, absolutely. So do we agree that, because the punishment does not scale with size, the rewards should not, either?
A burden of responsibility is not the same as having a required punishment of being destitute with no job.
quote:I don't believe I've said that at all. I expressed skepticism that Whitman should be CEO of Hewlett Packard.
you've made clear that you think working long hours in business for thirty years, having a successful upper management career, taking a risky move to a small startup with only a few million dollars in revenue through the dot com crash (which many larger companies didn't survive) and turning it into a multi-billion dollar company, and then messing up some (but still leaving it one of the biggest internet companies in existence) should be punished by destitution
quote:You just offered a justification for CEO salaries based on the same logic.
I find it hard to believe someone as intelligent as you is advocating retribution morality.
quote:No, because that's an insanely stupid thing. Of course rewards scale with things other than risk. They also scale with required expertise and level of responsibility, for instance, two things that are very high for a CEO of a large company.
Oh, absolutely. So do we agree that, because the punishment does not scale with size, the rewards should not, either?
quote:If you think this, you should improve your logic. Saying that it is reasonable for people to choose to pay workers who provide returns for a company commensurate pay does not mean it is reasonable to take away all money (note: not just all pay; you said destitute) from CEOs who do not manage provide large returns for a company. I'm not at all sure where you get it is the same logic. Could you provide what you think I've said, in logical statements, and then show that they necessarily imply what you've said?
You just offered a justification for CEO salaries based on the same logic.
quote:Hit-piece commentary notwithstanding, it sounds to this layman like fugu has made some pretty compelling statements as to why Whitman shouldn't be considered to have 'failed her way to the top'. It takes a pretty specific point of view to say of someone who leaves a company (for example) substantially better than they found it that they're just a failure.
Meg Whitman was used quite honestly as our last class example of dysfunctional incentives in and rewards towards holders of top-level positions like CEO's. She's an excellent example of someone who, as the quote goes regarding Meg in some of the more hit-piece commentary on her business career, "failed her way to the top."
quote:And yet punishments do not scale? Why not?
Of course rewards scale with things other than risk. They also scale with required expertise and level of responsibility, for instance, two things that are very high for a CEO of a large company.
quote:I guess Whitman's big deal now is her politician-dom, but I always will know her as that clown that bought skype (but not any of the associated technologies that run skype). If I'm lucky, there's a surviving thread mucking about where me and some other guys were talking about it because it made practically no sense, what she was doing. Later on, when HP was the subject, we discussed that how between carly fiorina, mark hurd, leo apotheker, and meg whitman, it was like HP had a desire to die under a parading succession of terrible CEO's. About the best you could say for her is that she could at least be counted as an improvement by HP's standard, but that's .. not saying much.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Hit-piece commentary notwithstanding, it sounds to this layman like fugu has made some pretty compelling statements as to why Whitman shouldn't be considered to have 'failed her way to the top'. It takes a pretty specific point of view to say of someone who leaves a company (for example) substantially better than they found it that they're just a failure.
Perhaps she would have been a failure if she kept going in a given job, but that's an entirely different discussion.
quote:Big company CEOs still make the big decisions that risk substantial parts of the company, such as moving completely out of hardware production into all services (what HP is doing right now). Making decisions that involve more money is a pretty obvious definition of more responsibility.
You've already agreed that the latter isn't true. Is there any reason to believe that the former is true? I would expect that the larger the corporation, the less difference the CEO actually makes, particularly in the short run. In larger companies, I would expect a much larger of fraction of the decisions are made at lower levels and that the CEO would be far more dependent on analysis and advice from staff.
quote:Interestingly, substantial parts of the wealth of CEOs of large companies tend to be tied up in the stock of that company due to stock options and the like -- that was certainly the case for Meg Whitman, for instance. That doesn't mean they're risking destitution, but you can hardly say they have nothing on the line.
In a small business, the CEO usually owns a major portion of the business and makes most of critical decisions based on their personal expertise. So in a small business, the CEO is largely responsible for the company performance by either criteria. I don't think that either is particularly true for larger corporations.
quote:You should think through how selection bias applies to that question for a second. I know you know enough stats to understand the point. Studies routinely do find a small correlation for small differences in various measures of scale between the CEOs of publicly held companies. A small correlation that explains far more of a difference in company value than the entire salary of the CEOs (and this is among CEOs who are presumably all fairly good, so compared to a mediocre or bad CEO, the value explained is large).
fugu13, Your arguments seemed to be founded on the idea that if the market forces are working, that if CEOs weren't worth what they are paid, they wouldn't be being paid so much. But as best I can tell, the evidence doesn't support that position at all. Companies with "credentialed" CEOs don't outperform other companies. For example, corporations with Harvard MBAs as CEOs significantly underperformed companies whos CEOs held no advanced degrees.
quote:Because there's no reason for them to be. They don't scale for anyone else, but you're saying they somehow suddenly need to scale at the very top. You're the one calling down hellfire, you justify it.
And yet punishments do not scale? Why not?
quote:While I'm entirely content to agree she has some serious flaws, you have to be pretty darn skilled to take a small company through the dot com crash and into multi billion dollars territory from under five million dollars in revenue. Things like the acquisition of Paypal were very good ideas (and since Paypal is a large part of eBay's potential growth opportunities right now, looking even better in hindsight). I'm not so sure that just any medium competent CEO could have done the same thing she did -- after all, there were an awful lot of CEOs of companies of similar size who didn't even survive the crash, much less make their companies one of the largest few tech companies in existence.
As for how well she treated eBay, by the bottom-line measure of growing net income (conveniently during the part of the company's life where it went public) .. she did fine! And this probably misses all the reasons why ebay couldn't have been happier to get rid of her.
quote:One proposal:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
How would you make them suffer? If the large company fails, do we raid the CEO's home, seize all of their assets, and blacklist them from ever working again?
quote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-11/buffett-retains-his-100-000-berkshire-salary-after-faulting-pay-excesses.html
Buffett told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in May that top executives must be held responsible for the performance of companies that falter.
“You need a person at the top who has all the downside that somebody has that loses their job working at an auto factory,” he said in an interview released by the panel in February. If a company fails, management should “give back five times the highest compensation they received in the previous five years.”
quote:http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf
Too often, executive compensation in the U.S. is ridiculously out of line with performance. That
won’t change, moreover, because the deck is stacked against investors when it comes to the CEO’s pay.
The upshot is that a mediocre-or-worse CEO – aided by his handpicked VP of human relations and a
consultant from the ever-accommodating firm of Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo – all too often receives gobs
of money from an ill-designed compensation arrangement.
...
Getting fired can produce a particularly bountiful payday for a CEO. Indeed, he can “earn” more
in that single day, while cleaning out his desk, than an American worker earns in a lifetime of cleaning
toilets. Forget the old maxim about nothing succeeding like success:
Today, in the executive suite, the all too-prevalent rule is that nothing succeeds like failure.
Huge severance payments, lavish perks and outsized payments for ho-hum performance often
occur because comp committees have become slaves to comparative data. The drill is simple: Three or so
directors – not chosen by chance – are bombarded for a few hours before a board meeting with pay
statistics that perpetually ratchet upwards. Additionally, the committee is told about new perks that other
managers are receiving. In this manner, outlandish “goodies” are showered upon CEOs simply because of
a corporate version of the argument we all used when children: “But, Mom, all the other kids have one.”
When comp committees follow this “logic,” yesterday’s most egregious excess becomes today’s baseline.
Comp committees should adopt the attitude of Hank Greenberg, the Detroit slugger and a boyhood
hero of mine. Hank’s son, Steve, at one time was a player’s agent. Representing an outfielder in
negotiations with a major league club, Steve sounded out his dad about the size of the signing bonus he
should ask for. Hank, a true pay-for-performance guy, got straight to the point, “What did he hit last year?”
When Steve answered “.246,” Hank’s comeback was immediate: “Ask for a uniform.”
(Let me pause for a brief confession: In criticizing comp committee behavior, I don’t speak as a
true insider. Though I have served as a director of twenty public companies, only one CEO has put me on
his comp committee. Hmmmm . . .)
quote:I first encountered her when she destroyed the careers of a few of my friends by betting heavily on Pokemon, back in the late '90s.
I always will know her as that clown that bought skype (but not any of the associated technologies that run skype).
quote:What makes you think they don't scale for anyone else? As an assembly-line worker, if your mistake destroys an assembly line, you don't think that'll come up? I think they do scale, but not with size.
Because there's no reason for them to be. They don't scale for anyone else, but you're saying they somehow suddenly need to scale at the very top. You're the one calling down hellfire, you justify it.
quote:You keep speaking as if Whitman were somehow instrumental in growing eBay. Do you believe it would not have happened had she not come in well after the company became successful?
you have to be pretty darn skilled to take a small company through the dot com crash and into multi billion dollars territory from under five million dollars in revenue
quote:Ha ha, oops.
You only see a 1:1 correlation (linear means something else) in pay increases in the *very* largest companies.
Yes, I know what linear means.quote:You're making it sound like the CEOs of large US companies do in fact make more than you would expect extrapolating from the pay of small-time CEOs. Is there some reason that's not the right way to read the fact that (it sounds like) the slope of a graph of CEO pay vs. size goes up considerably for the largest companies (which are, as you say, mostly American)? Just because there's so much money at stake with every percent increase? I guess I don't find that point so convincing.
In most companies (including those, once you take into account the original salaries) you see that a company that increases in size by 10% has about a 3% increase in CEO pay. That seems to be higher at the top end, but most of the models only fit linear relationships to the overall sample (easier to be confident of the math). In particular, there's a lot more competition in the US for CEOs at the top end: keep in mind that even the tiniest percent difference in company value caused by a CEO will almost certainly amount to tens of millions, and probably hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Then look at the CEO salaries of the top 400 companies.
quote:On this note:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
... From what I've seen, the escalation of CEO salaries is a result of companies competing to draw a "successful" executive from some other company rather than promoting from within.
quote:http://baselinescenario.com/2011/10/16/the-more-you-pay-the-less-you-get/
Schumpeter at The Economist pointed me to a paper by Richard Cazier and John McInnis on one of my favorite topics: CEO hiring. Cazier and McInnis first confirm, not surprisingly, that pay for new, externally-hired CEOs is positively related to the past performance of their previous firms. In particular, they measure EXCESS_COMP as the difference between actual first-year compensation and the compensation that you would predict just based on the characteristics of the hiring firm; EXCESS_COMP turns out to be positively associated with the CEOs’ prior firms’ stock returns. That makes sense, since you would think that people from successful companies would be able to command a higher price than people from less successful companies, and it isn’t obviously controversial, since you would think they would deserve it.
But what do the new firms get for this pay premium? It turns out that their future performance, measured in terms of return on assets and operating return on assets, is negatively associated with excess compensation based on prior performance.* In other words, people from successful companies don’t deserve the pay premium because the higher the premium they are able to command, the less well they are likely to do.
...
In the end, you get something vaguely like the Peter Principle: the more successful Company A is, the more market power its CEO has, and the more likely she is to be overpaid to be CEO of a company she is not qualified to lead.
quote:They don't scale for anyone else's degree of compensation (though the causation does go in the other direction: people engaged in riskier jobs do receive higher compensation). Of course consequences scale with the degree of the mixup.
What makes you think they don't scale for anyone else? As an assembly-line worker, if your mistake destroys an assembly line, you don't think that'll come up? I think they do scale, but not with size.
quote:I'm not trying to say US CEO compensation is perfect. I'm just saying those really big outsized sounding numbers are almost entirely possible to explain by company size and profits scaling up. They mean you can't say US CEOs are obscenely compensated compared to European ones, because adjusting for the size of the company, they aren't. Ditto, the ratios between lowlevel worker pay and CEO pay aren't outrageous compared to European ones, because European companies tend to be smaller and less profitable. The largest companies in the US very possibly do pay somewhat outsized amounts, but I'm hardly going to get super upset about it; we're talking between all of them maybe one or two hundred million dollars, which just isn't that big a problem considering the scale of the problems in our economy.
You're making it sound like the CEOs of large US companies do in fact make more than you would expect extrapolating from the pay of small-time CEOs. Is there some reason that's not the right way to read the fact that (it sounds like) the slope of a graph of CEO pay vs. size goes up considerably for the largest companies (which are, as you say, mostly American)? Just because there's so much money at stake with every percent increase? I guess I don't find that point so convincing.
quote:Do I think she had something to do with the company she was in charge of growing around two thousand times larger? Yeah, I do. And she was widely regarded as instrumental in it by those in and outside of eBay during most of that period.
You keep speaking as if Whitman were somehow instrumental in growing eBay. Do you believe it would not have happened had she not come in well after the company became successful?
quote:It can be very difficult at times to tell the difference between skill and luck.
I'm not so sure that just any medium competent CEO could have done the same thing she did -- after all, there were an awful lot of CEOs of companies of similar size who didn't even survive the crash, much less make their companies one of the largest few tech companies in existence.
quote:I've only argued she is, as CEOs go, somewhat above medium competence. You'll hardly see me singing her praises as one of the best examples of CEOs out there. Of course, she was repeatedly awarded for being a good CEO during most of her tenure, so apparently a number of people thought she was. I also never said she was particularly visionary, but it takes more than just a sound business model to grow to a multi billion dollar company.
E-bay's original business model was sound. It filled an unfilled niche'. Its operating costs were very low enabling it to maintain a huge profit margin while charging fees most sellers found reasonable. With that base, reasonable competence was all that was really needed to build a successful company.
quote:Buying companies with existing expertise is classic management, period. And since ebay did try to develop a paypal competitor (unsuccessfully) before giving in and buying paypal, the aside isn't even right.
This was a classic of Harvard MBA management. Why develop expertise yourself, when you can just buy a smaller company that's got it.
quote:I definitely agree with you there.
The largest companies in the US very possibly do pay somewhat outsized amounts, but I'm hardly going to get super upset about it; we're talking between all of them maybe one or two hundred million dollars, which just isn't that big a problem considering the scale of the problems in our economy.
quote:Most horrid CEO's can point to repeat awards for performance. Jill Barad had a wall of 'em.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Of course, she was repeatedly awarded for being a good CEO during most of her tenure, so apparently a number of people thought she was.
quote:I wouldn't be upset about it if I didn't believe that it contributes to a culture of entitlement among executives.
The largest companies in the US very possibly do pay somewhat outsized amounts, but I'm hardly going to get super upset about it...
quote:It's worth pointing out that while the Bloomberg interview is from March of this year, the reasoning is from 2005 and is inside a letter to shareholders. That of course doesn't rule out that he made the comment based on political reasoning, but I don't think its clear since much of the reasoning is from the standpoint of high CEO pay being a bad investment.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Mucus: Buffett's proposal is a very bad idea, but that isn't surprising, he's made it clear that he's mostly throwing out his recent sound bites for political reasons.
quote:"Nobody"? Not even an unemployed auto-worker or a recent college graduate? "Nobody" is obviously an exaggeration or at least I hope it is since it should be clear that many people would take such an offer, just not necessarily the current people that want to be a CEO, but I think that's by Buffett's design.
If Buffett's plan were enacted, nobody would ever want to come into a company in trouble in an effort to turn it around.
quote:
I think there should be significant downside to them. I’ve suggested to them that maybe they give back five times the highest compensation they received in the previous five years or something. It has to be meaningful but it can’t be so Draconian that you don’t get Directors. You’ll get CEOs, you don’t have to worry about that, if you’ve got a lot of upside for CEOs you can give them the downside of, you know, sack cloth and ashes and you’ll still get CEOs that--
quote:How many failing companies do you think, if they manage not to fail, could afford to hand out stock options to the tune of billions of dollars? Much less with another of Buffett's proposed rules in place: expensing stock options.
It's way better than a lottery ticket, I think. You run the risk of having to pay back the base salary (or simply going bankrupt), but for five years you get to enjoy the perks of being a CEO. That could be a good deal for *someone* on the healthcare benefits alone. That's the downside, but the upside, if you manage to turn the company around could be stock options paying off to the tune of billions of dollars.
quote:We let random people be president. I don't see too much of a distinction. But, then, you know how I feel about the uselessness of executives in general.
I also don't think you have a remote idea the complexity involved in running a large company, that you're proposing random people come in to run one.
quote:No, we don't. It's pretty hard to take your thoughts on the matter seriously when you say such silly things about the subject. As for the uselessness of CEOs...well, it doesn't seem like your opinions on the matter are based much on evidence, much less experience in business.
We let random people be president.
quote:What evidence can you possibly present for the utility of a chief executive that controls for the role of a senior staff?
As for the uselessness of CEOs...well, it doesn't seem like your opinions on the matter are based much on evidence, much less experience in business.
quote:'Bad selection process' isn't the same as random. Regarding the presidency, the biggest factor in attaining the office is, drumroll please, 'political skill'. Now our execution of determining that is obviously far from without flaws, but it's peculiar to suggest that the top politician of our government shouldn't have 'political skill' pretty far up on the list of determining factors.
No, we really do.
Look at the current candidates for president. Heck, look at last year's. Which of those do you think would be qualified to run Hewlett Packard?
quote:This is merely RRR's 'argument' repackaged. "The staff/advisors do the work." It's just...baffling, the idea that a senior staff of some sort wouldn't be necessary for a vastly complex organization such as a nation or corporation. Just to see where we're standing, Tom-have you ever been a politician or executive, or occupied a position which required a large staff? (The answer to the first question I know, and I suspect my second answer is correct.)
What evidence can you possibly present for the utility of a chief executive that controls for the role of a senior staff?
quote:I'm not proposing "random" people, I've done a search and I don't see where that word came in. I don't think Buffett is either. He's just saying he'd be satisfied with the CEO candidates that would accept draconian conditions in the case of failure, a group that clearly doesn't contain "nobody."
Originally posted by fugu13:
I also don't think you have a remote idea the complexity involved in running a large company, that you're proposing random people come in to run one.
quote:I don't think that's clear at all.
Originally posted by fugu13:
It's clear in your quotation he wasn't doing anything other than tossing off a bit in a way that would get him in the news. There was no serious analysis behind his "proposal".
quote:Where have I said that I believe my anecdotal experience should be considered representative?
you'd straight-up laugh off someone using the kind of experience you're talking about to castigate some other profession
quote:The irony of his statement is that not only is the presidency rarely random, it's so highly, tightly controlled that we have little say in it at all, but it's anything but random.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, we don't. It's pretty hard to take your thoughts on the matter seriously when you say such silly things about the subject. As for the uselessness of CEOs...well, it doesn't seem like your opinions on the matter are based much on evidence, much less experience in business.
We let random people be president.
quote:Random in the sense of possessing no particular qualifications; in the sense you brought up with "an unemployed auto-worker or a recent college graduate".
I'm not proposing "random" people, I've done a search and I don't see where that word came in. I don't think Buffett is either. He's just saying he'd be satisfied with the CEO candidates that would accept draconian conditions in the case of failure, a group that clearly doesn't contain "nobody."
quote:There's no doubt Buffett walks the walk on basic pay levels, but I don't recall any evidence of him having written a "pay off the last five years' salary if your company fails" clause in any CEO contracts.
As a historically outspoken critic of CEO pay, plus as the person that determines the (relatively modest) pay of his 40 or so CEOs, I think it's clear that he's done plenty of analysis over the years. The performance of his underlings matters a great deal to his shareholders (which would include himself).
quote:"...on what basis do you suggest a chief executive is useless?
Where have I said that I believe my anecdotal experience should be considered representative?
quote:(My emphasis.)
I think it’s enormously important when you get very big financial institutions and maybe in other cases too, well, we’re in a building run by the Keywood Company. It’s the most successful construction company in the world and it has been for decades. Nobody’s ever heard of it but it’s huge and it’s got a set of management principles and basically it started with Pete Keywood saying that arranging a compensation system so that (when) the company got in trouble not only he went broke but all the people that got him in trouble went broke.
quote:You are ignoring Tom's mainpoint. If its impossible to assign responsibility when a company fails, why isn't the converse also true. Why is it reasonable to say that the CEO is responsible when a company succeeds? And if the CEO isn't actually responsible either way, then how can you claim they deserve a huge salary because they have an enormous responsibility?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Also it seems like that is still just dodging fugu's main point, which is that by the time a company goes completely belly up there is an excellent chance that those originally responsible will be long gone, so the punishment will fall on the heads of people trying to, as he said, right an overturning ship. Whether this is the CEO's head, the Board's heads, or any other groups, it doesn't really solve this fundamental problem.
quote:I started working for executives when I was twelve. I don't think I did think anything about them before that, except maybe, "Oh! Those are people who own suits!"
I notice you didn't answer my question about what you thought about executives before working with them...
quote:Is he really?
Originally posted by fugu13:
Rakeesh: I think Tom's made pretty clear that he's trolling yet again. Little point in attempting to actually nail down a position.
quote:It's not clear, but in this case, it sounds like Pete Keywood designed the compensation scheme penalty to be non-specific.
Originally posted by fugu13:
... what mechanism would (or could!) be used to determine who, specifically, was responsible for the failure of the company?
quote:Yeah I wasn't talking to Tom at all, actually, (I will now, though: Hi Tom!
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You are ignoring Tom's mainpoint. If its impossible to assign responsibility when a company fails, why isn't the converse also true. Why is it reasonable to say that the CEO is responsible when a company succeeds? And if the CEO isn't actually responsible either way, then how can you claim they deserve a huge salary because they have an enormous responsibility?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Also it seems like that is still just dodging fugu's main point, which is that by the time a company goes completely belly up there is an excellent chance that those originally responsible will be long gone, so the punishment will fall on the heads of people trying to, as he said, right an overturning ship. Whether this is the CEO's head, the Board's heads, or any other groups, it doesn't really solve this fundamental problem.
As for a serious proposal for holding CEOs responsible, I'd suggest that the majority of their compensation should be in terms of stock that they cannot sell until 5 years after they have left the company.
) I was talking to Mucus re: his conversation about Buffet's proposal to make execs pay back money if their company goes under. So... there's that.
quote:
You are ignoring Tom's mainpoint. If its impossible to assign responsibility when a company fails, why isn't the converse also true. Why is it reasonable to say that the CEO is responsible when a company succeeds? And if the CEO isn't actually responsible either way, then how can you claim they deserve a huge salary because they have an enormous responsibility?
quote:Then you should be just fine with the situation as it is, where people who are looking at the company directly set pay, instead of some weird outside force that attempts to do so equitably. Of course assigning direct responsibility for particular things is hard! But businesses somehow manage to evaluate employees at all sorts of rungs of the ladder. People get promoted, people get bonuses, people get praise, because we *can* trace a lot of things to people, even at middle management and above, when familiar with the details of an organization. Do evaluators do a perfect job? No, not at all, but that's hardly reason for action. Is the person supervising a few dozen grant reviewers not responsible for the performance of those grant reviewers, because it isn't possible to trace any the output of positive grant reviews directly to them? No, because the performance of the group of grant reviewers as a whole is still their responsibility, and even if it isn't entirely possible to say when they do a bad job and when they do a good job, it would be a much worse world if we didn't *try*.
(As a side note, Rabbit has the right of it. I am attempting to demonstrate that, because it's impossible to pin the failure of a company on a CEO, it's ludicrous to base CEO salaries on the concept that a CEO might be responsible for the success of a company. Ergo, I am not at all invested in proving that CEOs are bad people who need to be punished; rather, I'm interested in proving that their "responsibility" is a fiction, since they bear no real responsibility at all. Being the person who signs off on a decision is not the same thing as being responsible for it. There is no responsibility where there is no accountability.)
quote:Yeah, he's ignoring every question that would let someone pin down an actual position. That's classic trolling. Of course, I think Tom trolls more on autopilot than out of conscious decision. He lays down a ridiculous position, defends it over and over and says his position is obviously right, and if ever pinned down, says "that wasn't really my position, you should have known I was just exaggerating for effect!" despite the entire previous conversation.
Is he really?
quote:First, they are extreme. As demonstrated by example, a CEO who fails majorly can be unable to continue in that career path and give up ~75% or more of their future income.
I don't think that exaggeration or writing in general terms is the same as trolling. Tom's point is not that tough to figure out. If we are making the claim that the obscene rewards given to these CEO's (or bankers, or brokers or whatever) are justified because the responsibility is so enormous, then the consequences of failing in that responsibility should also be extreme. And it isn't.
quote:While companies are of course free to use whatever standard they want, this doesn't make sense from a perspective of scale.
I would like to see CEO pay be based on median employee at that company pay. In that case, the CEO would have motivation to increase pay to the workers so his/her pay will also increase.
quote:So, what, because you feel the 'larger truth' you're talking about is accurate, it's unreasonable to point out details are problematic?
...I feel that you are nit-picking away at what are larger truths. Different styles of communication, but neither is insincere or trolling.
quote:You have strange notions about how much CEOs make. Only the very highest paid CEOs make more than $20 million, and there are CEOs at many high value companies that make under $5 million. So even most of the highest paid CEOs would need to save 100% of their compensation for 50 years to have a single billion dollars. A large company CEO paid a more typical compensation of $5 to $10 million (these aren't tiny companies -- Sprint, UPS, Tyson Foods, General Mills, PG&E, et cetera) would have to save their salary for 100 to 200 years to reach a single billion dollars.
Can you understand that, when losing 75% of their income still leaves one a billionaire, it is a different category of consequence than a person who, making a smaller mistake, ends up losing their (only) house?
quote:If the larger truths lead to outright stupid conclusions, perhaps the nit-picky details are useful.
Where you get hung up on broad words like "destitute" or "obscene", I feel that you are nit-picking away at what are larger truths. Different styles of communication, but neither is insincere or trolling.
quote:kmbboots, you (and Tom) have more than once said flat-out wrong things in this discussion, recently, and when called on it your response has been 'you're ignoring the larger point and nit-picking'. Tom has failed to respond to much of anything directly, except to describe his anecdotal evidence as the reason for his perception of CEOs while also saying his anecdotal evidence shouldn't be taken on its own.
Any way you can have this conversation without being insulting? I assume that you mean well, but it is getting more and more difficult to read your posts as anything other than nasty.
quote:I think that the two of you are making different true points here. "Billionaire" is a measure of wealth. "Make" usually refers to income.
Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:You have strange notions about how much CEOs make. Only the very highest paid CEOs make more than $20 million, and there are CEOs at many high value companies that make under $5 million. ...
Can you understand that, when losing 75% of their income still leaves one a billionaire, it is a different category of consequence than a person who, making a smaller mistake, ends up losing their (only) house?
quote:What on Earth does this have to do with the discussion currently going on? The discussion isn't 'is desperate poverty bad', but rather 'do top executives in fact do little or nothing to earn their compensation'?
I live in a situation where I am confronted daily with both - yes, obscenely - wealthy people who are wealthy through no commensurate achievement or merit and people who, through no great fault of their own are, at best, struggling against overwhelming burdens. It is true; I see it. Families with no safe place to live. People who work hard and still have to go without medical treatment.
quote:Very few top CEOs are billionaires, even among the very highest paying companies in the US (much less once you look at the top few hundred). Feel free to check it. I was underscoring why so few were billionaires, and the simple reason is because CEOs don't make enough to become billionaires, generally speaking.
I think that the two of you are making different true points here. "Billionaire" is a measure of wealth. "Make" usually refers to income.
An example is Richard Fuld (Lehman Brothers) who accumulated a net worth of roughly a billion dollars and could lose 75% of his income or even all of it and still be very comfortable.
That is a point not invalidated by the fact that he "made" "only" half a billion or so over an 11 year period at Lehman Brothers.
As for how rare this is, it looks like of Forbes' 413 American billionaires, eye-balling it, the vast majority were CEOs at some point or another. Describing whether this is "sufficiently" rare for this conversation to focus on them is of course, a matter of perspective.
(Although a part of me does idly wonder how many people in China were the equivalent of billionaires before the revolution came.
What IS the tipping point is an interesting question.)
quote:Which particular example was this? The only person I've seen singled out as an example was Meg Whitman and she is in fact a billionaire. And while her current "salary" from HP is only $1, her total compensation will most likely be much greater than $200k to 500k per year.
In the particular example, the CEO was being paid less than $5 million a year, and her lifetime future earnings will probably be on the order of $200k to $500k a year (she's earning about at the low end of that right now, as her only income is from being on the boards of some medium companies.
quote:Because you're addressing fugu as though he's having the one conversation, when he's specifically stated which conversation he's having, and then criticizing him for 'nitpicking'. It's not about which conversation is more valid-that's still another conversation.
Rakeesh, we very likely are having different conversations. I am not so sure why you would consider one more valid than the other.
quote:Yeah, and if I said 'you're supporting baby killers', you might get a bit testy.
You could say truthfully that my arguments put me on the same side of the policy debate with those that have apathy for the unborn.
quote:Which I why I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by fugu13:
As I've stated in *other* threads repeatedly, I am for a good-sized increase in taxes that extends down to around $100k to $150k in household income, simplifying the tax code drastically, cutting federal expenditures (grant programs and homeland security especially) by a lot, restructuring FICA taxation so that it isn't regressive and is sustainable, creating a negative income tax on the lowest bracket so there's a guaranteed minimum income, and instituting national single payer health insurance.
quote:I can tell you what the wrong response is, flat-out: to write it off as trolling and to psychoanalyze him as insincere.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Can you see why that would be frustrating? If someone is going to say something that's just plain wrong, they shouldn't be frustrated when it's pointed out. It's a discussion board.
quote:I tried to have a discussion with him and wrote pages and pages of answers to his points, including specific questions to attempt to narrow down his position. He didn't bother conversing honestly and settled into his typical trolling routine when it comes to taking outrageous positions on controversial topics. It isn't like this is unusual for him, and it isn't like I didn't try to talk reasonably about it. I've been responding thoroughly and forthrightly through the entire history of my participation in this thread, so I don't appreciate being told I'm the one having the wrong response.
I can tell you what the wrong response is, flat-out: to write it off as trolling and to psychoanalyze him as insincere.
quote:This is about how I see things, but it makes me wonder if the focus on CEO compensation (which I'm emotionally sympathetic to) doesn't sort of miss the point.
As I've stated numerous times here in thread, I'll state my specific argument here again: CEO pay in the US, given the size and profitability of the companies involved, is probably somewhat higher, but not excessively higher, than it should be
quote:I need to clarify, in case you haven't understood this point, that I was not advocating that they be left destitute. I was pointing out that because we would not leave them destitute (or force them to otherwise suffer 1000 times the actual responsibility of a line worker), the idea that we should give them 1000 times the reward based on that assumption that they bear a similarly large responsibility is one that, to my mind, does not pass muster.
Second, he was saying a heck of a lot more than extreme, he was saying they should be left *destitute*, specifically and repeatedly.
quote:Oh, absolutely. CEO pay, IMO, is only an obvious symptom of a far deeper problem. There's actually a fairly interesting article making the rounds that examines which companies actually hold the bulk of the wealth in the world, and IIRC it turns out that roughly 50% of the total wealth is actually held by 25 corporations, 20 of which are financial institutions. On the boards of those corporations sit under 300 people, and 50 of those are on more than half of them. You could fit the men who own half the planet comfortably in my yard.
If increasingly large corporations require CEOs with increasingly large compensation packages, is it worth it to re-examine how we regulate mergers? And do some corporations merit being broken up?
quote:I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Seeing large, nebulous social issues is not a reason to side with whichever side of a specific argument tends to use the right rhetoric. I hope that isn't what you're arguing, because it sure sounds like it.
As I've stated numerous times here in thread, I'll state my specific argument here again: CEO pay in the US, given the size and profitability of the companies involved, is probably somewhat higher, but not excessively higher, than it should be. That this is true by the yardsticks the US is commonly asserted to have a problem vs (such as CEO pay in Europe) is readily confirmed by data. The problem is small compared to other, much larger problems (such as the general plight of poor people and the decline of the middle class), and is almost certainly corrected by measures worth supporting anyways, namely raising taxes.
As I've stated in *other* threads repeatedly, I am for a good-sized increase in taxes that extends down to around $100k to $150k in household income, simplifying the tax code drastically, cutting federal expenditures (grant programs and homeland security especially) by a lot, restructuring FICA taxation so that it isn't regressive and is sustainable, creating a negative income tax on the lowest bracket so there's a guaranteed minimum income, and instituting national single payer health insurance.
I am for all these things because I have researched the problems that pertain as well as I know how, trying to use data as much as possible to help me understand what actually helps and how much. I am not for these things because other people I share some opinions with are for these things. I am not for these things because they use sound bites that agree with my general sympathies. I am not for these things because they hurt people I like or help people I don't like. I am not for these things because they attempt to get rid of things I perceive as social wrongs unless I have reason to believe there wouldn't be worse social wrongs created in the attempt.
quote:This is then disputed by another academic study, which suggest that "the highest-income households’ share of income is explained by the prices of assets in financial markets and possibly by the evolution of corporate governance and entrepreneurship, rather than by superstar theories or by technological change that complemented certain skills." A third competing theory is given (although the CBO authors dismiss it to some degree):
The authors concluded that their findings are most consistent with the theories that technical changes have enhanced the value of certain skills and that the increasing scale of corporate and financial activity has raised the value of corporate executives and financial professionals, rather than that weak corporate governance has led to excessive compensation.
quote:On a different note, I found this demographic tidbit interesting:
Others have argued that the observed growth in the conversion of C corporation income into S corporation income has contributed to the rapid growth in income for the highest-income households.
quote:For those who don't want to do the math, that leaves 31% unaccounted for. There is some suggestion in the report that a share of these are entertainers in various fields (sports, music, movies), and some are small business owners (although perhaps they're included in the nonfinancial managers, executives and supervisers category), but I'd be interested in knowing what that composition looks like.
The study found that nonfinancial executives, managers, and supervisors made up the largest subgroup of the highest-income households, accounting for 31 percent of the top percentile. Medical professionals were the second largest occupational category, making up 16 percent, while financial professionals accounted for 14 percent and lawyers for 8 percent. No other single occupational group accounted for more than 5 percent of the top percentile.
quote:That's question period in Parliament.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
... For my part, I think it's a very exceptional politician who speaks before a hostile audience that expects to ask open questions, and certainly not one who is only speaking in order to deliver some canned sound-bytes.
quote:My feelings exactly, parliament is awesome to watch once they get into the swing of things.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:That's question period in Parliament.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
... For my part, I think it's a very exceptional politician who speaks before a hostile audience that expects to ask open questions, and certainly not one who is only speaking in order to deliver some canned sound-bytes.
(The first part anyways)
quote:Yep. Overwhelmingly.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
There have been a few encounters between police and protesters in Oakland, but the protesters have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
quote:I can't get the link to load. What is it?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Yep. Overwhelmingly.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
There have been a few encounters between police and protesters in Oakland, but the protesters have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
quote:It's reprinted from the Oakland Trib. Here is another site hosting an excerpt... does that one work?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I can't get the link to load. What is it?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Yep. Overwhelmingly.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
There have been a few encounters between police and protesters in Oakland, but the protesters have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
My comments was more about their protest activities. They aren't rioting, they aren't attacking police officers (I think there might be a few exceptions to that). And the problems in the park were reports, but I'm not sure how much I believe them without some independent confirmation. I don't doubt the possibility given where the camp is, it used to basically be an open air homeless camp, and the fact that anything is possible. But I also don't particularly trust the media or the government on this one. Show me the investigation and the report that proves it. Until then, it's random unsubstantiated report that even the news reports is unsubstantiated since they claim to be unable to reach the scene.
Even if true, overwhelmingly means mostly, not entirely, and thus allows for small exceptions.
quote:I do love the Midwest. On the other hand, give me a little credit, I grew up within walking distance of Detroit. I'm not exactly out in the cornfields. Well, actually now I AM in the corn fields, but I didn't grow up there!
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:It's reprinted from the Oakland Trib. Here is another site hosting an excerpt... does that one work?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I can't get the link to load. What is it?
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Yep. Overwhelmingly.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
There have been a few encounters between police and protesters in Oakland, but the protesters have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
My comments was more about their protest activities. They aren't rioting, they aren't attacking police officers (I think there might be a few exceptions to that). And the problems in the park were reports, but I'm not sure how much I believe them without some independent confirmation. I don't doubt the possibility given where the camp is, it used to basically be an open air homeless camp, and the fact that anything is possible. But I also don't particularly trust the media or the government on this one. Show me the investigation and the report that proves it. Until then, it's random unsubstantiated report that even the news reports is unsubstantiated since they claim to be unable to reach the scene.
Even if true, overwhelmingly means mostly, not entirely, and thus allows for small exceptions.
Basically, there was some infighting. Woman was threatened, guy was assaulted (punched, choked), then a mob formed to kick the guy doing the assaulting out, he was threatened with a knife, and someone (article is confusing, not sure if it was the knife guy or the assaulting guy) was hit in the head with a piece of wood.
I think you are splitting hairs re: "overwhelmingly," though I agree you are technically correct. Still, just as a thought experiment, try to imagine your reaction if there had been a sexual assault at a tea party, and how you'd take it if I tried to write it off and claimed the event was still "overwhelmingly" safe. I think you might find you are letting your bias effect how seriously you're taking it. What do you think?
It's Oakland, man. You grew up in the Midwest, I think, so maybe you don't know, but... Oakland is not a safe place, by any stretch. The city looks for reasons to riot. This isn't terribly surprising, and frankly I don't even think it's fair for conservative blogs to try to use Occupy Oakland against the Occupy crowd in general. But I do think that trying to defend Occupy Oakland does not make the rest of OWS look terribly good.
quote:Well, it's literally leet.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So it was! Is that... is that a special number?
I don't really get leetspeak...
quote:Wouldn't that be post 1337? And I had post 1137? Or am I missing something?
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Well, it's literally leet.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So it was! Is that... is that a special number?
I don't really get leetspeak...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
quote:I've seen the video, and something definitely went wrong here. I'm adamantly opposed to cops who abuse their power, and I don't want be an apologizer for them.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And when Shanna says "nearby," she means "just out of arm's length." This wasn't a case of a cop firing randomly at a knot of people he couldn't quite make out; this was a case of a cop who watched a bloodied man collapse to the ground in pain ten to twelve feet away, watched members of a fleeing crowd turn back to cluster around him to check on his condition, and then tossed a grenade directly into the center of that crowd from three yards away.
quote:Sorry, based on the body language of the thrower, I can't see either of these possibilities.
I wonder if, given the high tension of the situation and the fact that it was night, the cop was deliberately trying to keep people away from the injured man, or if he simply saw a crowd of people rushing towards the barricade, panicked, and threw a flashbang.
quote:That's fair. As I said, I'm not holding any of these theories very tightly, I'm just wondering if it's a possibility.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Sorry, based on the body language of the thrower, I can't see either of these possibilities.
I wonder if, given the high tension of the situation and the fact that it was night, the cop was deliberately trying to keep people away from the injured man, or if he simply saw a crowd of people rushing towards the barricade, panicked, and threw a flashbang.
Just to provide some balance.
quote:Seriously, more than one major protest in Oakland in the last couple of years have turned into riots. If the police decided to arrest everyone at the event, prepping with the assumption that a riot would break out once they started making arrests was a perfectly reasonable to do.
Originally posted by Shanna:
Again, the amount of force used by police just seems so unnecessary. Tear gas canisters are meant as non-lethal force. So are bean bag projectiles. But they still are incredibly dangerous and even if no one is severely and directly harmed by the canister itself, its amazing no one was trampled as people fled the gas. If anything, it seems to rile up the protestors and make them more prone to physically acting out against the officers.
quote:I think this is closest to the mark. Still, I think the police overreacted to their poor behavior in a manner that wasn't just unjustifiable, it was outright stupid. As you say, it's Oakland. That's the kind of behavior that sparks MORE riots, it doesn't quell them.
Everybody involved acted badly, and neither side's behavior justifies the other side.
quote:He has a picture of two black security guards (I assume these are the actual security guards) with a caption that says something like 'apparently their security plan is to find the two scariest looking guys around and put them in charge of security.'
So, what makes you think he only chose the two black guys because they were the scariest guys he could find? This really reads like you're projecting on this issue, to me.
quote:Really? I know you're using a general you, and I appreciate that a lot, but I still gotta still disagree with you, man. I see a white, hispanic, or black guy wearing a wifebeater in the middle of a park in Oakland holding a roll of bills, and I assure you, my first thought is always "drug dealer." Gambling and strip clubs don't even blip my radar in that situation. Now, if he's wearing a suit and just got out of a nice car parked in certain neigborhoods of Oakland? Yeah, then I might think strip club or gambling (though honestly I don't think about gambling much so I'd just assume strip club).
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You see a white guy (general 'you', not you specifically, Dan) with a roll of bills, you think, "Gambler maybe. Could be going to a strip club or something. Maybe a bookie, or a dealer." You see a black guy of the same build with that same roll of bills, you think, "Drug dealer. Maybe a bookie. Could be going to a strip club.
As for the security guard bit...well, to some people, unknown black men are scarier than unknown white men. Pretty straightforward. It doesn't make the guy a frothing-at-the-mouth David Duke activist or something, but, "Scary black guys!" is a pretty strong ping on the racist radar and doesn't require much projection.
quote:
By refusing to take a ragtag, complicated, and leaderless movement seriously, the mainstream media has succeeded only in ensuring its own irrelevance. The rest of America has little trouble understanding that these are ragtag, complicated, and leaderless times. This may not make for great television, but any movement that acknowledges that fact deserves enormous credit.
quote:OWS desperately needs this editorial to be believed. Sadly, it's not just the mainstream media and pundits that are wondering what the protesters want, it's the public in general as well. This type of editorial helps stall to get the time they need. But the rational public have been patient while the occupiers shout all the wrongs of the country and tiptoe around the true reality: It's getting cold, the people are getting tired, and if they don't come to a consensus and present some solutions, OWS will end up "ensuring its own irrelevance" and with a swiftness I believe will catch them off guard.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
An editorial by Dahlia Lithwick on how people (specifically corporate media) asking "What do the occupiers want" are clueless. Her take, it's complicated and you wouldn't understand because you're corporate tools.
quote:
By refusing to take a ragtag, complicated, and leaderless movement seriously, the mainstream media has succeeded only in ensuring its own irrelevance. The rest of America has little trouble understanding that these are ragtag, complicated, and leaderless times. This may not make for great television, but any movement that acknowledges that fact deserves enormous credit.
quote:I think most of the reason they're not doing it is because it seems pretty impossible for them to get consensus on anything substantive. On NPR this morning, the liason from the Philadelphia mayor's office talked about how it took a week and a half for the occupiers there to agree to a response to a minor request of the city (I forget the exact issue, and am not able to find the news story right now). A week later, the issue still had not been addressed, even after coming to a consensus on how to address it, because the protesters couldn't agree on what format the response to the mayor's office should take.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As soon as they settle down with a list of demands, and as you say, get tired and go home, they'll be pigeonholed and this whole thing will be swept under the rug.
That's most of the reason why they're not doing it.
quote:I'm like, I wish it was bigger than the Falun Gong protest. Or at least I think I wish it was bigger than the Falun Gong protest.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Occupy Central!
My dad took the picture on his way to work at JP Morgan.
#Nostalgic for Hong Kong
quote:Also less crazy than the Falun Gong protest.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I'm like, I wish it was bigger than the Falun Gong protest. Or at least I think I wish it was bigger than the Falun Gong protest.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Occupy Central!
My dad took the picture on his way to work at JP Morgan.
#Nostalgic for Hong Kong
quote:Well, for the first 40 seconds or so there's nothing violent in it, just showing Warren has expressed strong support for OWS and pointing out that most people at the OWS are strongly anti-capitalist and tend towards communist politics. I say "most" because, well, that's certainly the group that I've seen to be the most vocal, both in videos, in person, and online. Maybe there's a quieter majority but they aren't apparent to me.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I'm interested in what people think of the latest attack ad that tries to connect Elizabeth Warren with the most radical and violent elements of Occupy Wall Street.
Attack Ad
quote:If you look at protest history in America, you'd find that this happens far more than you'd think for left-wing groups, not because they're naturally more violent (though that has been an undercurrent of their history), but because they tend to be more brutally repressed. You never saw the government turn the hoses on protesters at a Klan rally.
I don't see any good end game for the occupiers. They're coming into conflict, not with the 1%, but with local police and city officials.
quote:Why I Signed
Will Occupy Wall Street grow into a Tea Party-style political organization on the left? I suspect not, because its methods are too anarchist. Will it force the government to enact laws that regulate financial institutions more strictly or restrain the political power of corporations? Not while Republicans control the House of Representatives. But nothing concrete or lasting was achieved by the Bonus Army of American veterans who encamped in Washington, D.C., in 1932, or by the British workers who protested their unemployment and poverty by marching from the small town of Jarrow to London in 1936. All that those earlier protesters managed to do was add new voices to the political conversation. That alone wouldn’t be a small achievement.
quote:Edit: Never mind. I said a buddy of mine who works as a field coordinator for a union told me a little while ago that a general strike would be illegal. But I'm not sure if that's true.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Tenneesee judge orders state to stop arresting protesters
And in other news, Occupy Oakland is trying to get movement on a General Strike in the city.
I read a couple OpEds a few weeks ago about Occupy Wall Street trying the same thing, but it's hard to pull off. Have their been any major GENERAL strikes in major US cities in the last even 20 years?
quote:We need more people like him.
Originally posted by Destineer:
Noam Chomsky's speech to Occupy Boston.
quote:Hi there, Lyrhawn at your service.
From SenojRetep:
If only there were someone on these boards with a history degree and a focus on labor movements that could clarify for me!?
quote:Returning to this, I can't see how it fits with the CBO report cited here by Krugman:
Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:That certainly fits with my anecdotal experience.
By the way, it isn't the super rich who are corralling the gains, just the fairly well off. The households showing disproportionately high growth start at about $90k a year.
quote:
There has been no rise in the share of the 81-99 group! It’s all about the top 1 percent.
Second, even within the top 1 percent the gains are going mainly to a small minority.
quote:
For other households in the highest-income quintile (the 81st through 99th percentiles), average after-tax income grew by 65 percent between 1979 and 2007. That growth was not nearly as great as for the top 1 percent of the population, although it was much greater than for most other households
quote:Saw this linked from Ben Smith's blog; thought it was funny.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
In a breaking news story, MF Global, a brokerage firm that its CEO, John Corzine ex-governor of New Jersey and ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, was trying to transition into a "mini-Goldman Sachs" has imploded after it was revealed 1) that they bet heavily on European debt and then leveraged those bets at a rate of about 40 to 1 and 2) talks to buy a large part of the business fell through when it was discovered that they had broken major regulations by mingling customer money with the money they were betting with and are now missing around $700 million of customers money.
They're going through a very messy bankruptcy right now and are likely going to be subject to fines and possibly criminal prosecution (although not holding my breath on that one).
John Corzine near single handedly destroyed this company. His severance package, when all this came to light, was $12 million.
quote:
Just three months ago, Mr. Corzine's firm assured regulators that the proposed rule could cripple the futures brokerage industry by hurting their profitability. In a letter, MF Global told regulators that they were trying to "fix something that is not broken," adding that the firm was not aware of any brokerage firm like itself that was unable to "provide to their customers upon request any segregated funds."
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you clarify?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If roles were reversed and Republicans were against this, they'd be going NUTS over this right now. Instead, I'm not hearing much of anything from politicians, and I bet if we did, Republicans would be quick to slap it down.
quote:I've been surprised how polite people at Occupy Chicago have been to the police.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Good for you! Be safe and have fun. Be polite to the police officers if you can.
quote:If the GOP was pro-banking reform rather than anti-reform, they'd be screaming their fool heads off about this. Case in point, they hate Obama's green policies, so when Solyndra happens, they cry bloody murder and subpoenas start flying. If they were pro-reform, they'd be screaming about this too, especially since it's PRECISELY the kind of thing regulators and reformers were trying to avoid with the banking bill, but the GOP cried foul and it was removed from the Dodd bill, which the Tea Party wing, at the very least, wants repealed entirely.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you clarify?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If roles were reversed and Republicans were against this, they'd be going NUTS over this right now. Instead, I'm not hearing much of anything from politicians, and I bet if we did, Republicans would be quick to slap it down.
quote:
The event made news for the reason that the October 1 march on the Brooklyn Bridge made news: It was a mess, and authorities didn't know what to do. Attendees at the summit today tell me they were stuck in the building as protesters tried to get in and police kept the two movements apart.
quote:It took more than that, for serious people to start thinking that. Things like the strong long-lasting (in the face of all sorts of evidence) Birther nonsense, support for racist policies on the federal level.
How many racist signs did there need to be at Tea Parties in order to safely characterize Tea Partiers as racists, again?
quote:This may be a case of confirmation bias, then. You realize that the Birther idiocy is still viable enough that Republican candidates for President can get a bump in their polls by expressing doubts about his citizenship?
every single conservative blog and pundit I follow mocked Birthers mercilessly
quote:I think there's a bit more of a stretch here, actually, since once you've conceded that the government has any right at all to demand money for any services, you're just left quibbling over what constitutes a "core service" of the government.
by this criteria, it's reasonable for a hardcore libertarian to call Occupiers (or even run-of-the-mill moderates) "thieves" since they support state taxation for non-core services
quote:Oh, it could easily be confirmation bias! I tried to ignore Trump as much as possible, so forgive these next questions (and if you don't know the details offhand, I'm not asking you to search for 'em, it's just idle curiosity): How significant of a bump was it, and is there some way it was definitively pinned down to his embracing of the Birther crowd, or is it a correlation/causation sort of a situation?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This may be a case of confirmation bias, then. You realize that the Birther idiocy is still viable enough that Republican candidates for President can get a bump in their polls by expressing doubts about his citizenship?
every single conservative blog and pundit I follow mocked Birthers mercilessly
quote:Sure. Anarchists, then. So say you're talking to an anarchist... If meaningful dialogue between you two is possible, I suspect it will not involve him calling you a thief. If he does that, I think he's signalling that he's more interesting in name-calling than in actually arguing his position. What do you think?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think there's a bit more of a stretch here, actually, since once you've conceded that the government has any right at all to demand money for any services, you're just left quibbling over what constitutes a "core service" of the government.
by this criteria, it's reasonable for a hardcore libertarian to call Occupiers (or even run-of-the-mill moderates) "thieves" since they support state taxation for non-core services
quote:Well, right, here the question is specifically whether or not it's valuable to characterize people in favor of those things as racist. I don't think it facilitates any sort of understanding, or discussion, or hell, even argument. I think, in fact, it is a label specifically designed to shut down dialogue or argument. And I think that's lame.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, when we're talking specifically about those policies-such as fences, punishing those who harbor illegals, mandatory papers-carrying, questioning based on race-I talk about things more specifically. But here the question was specifically about racism.
quote:I wouldn't go so far as to call someone who supports such policies a 'racist', anymore than I'd say of someone who told a lie, "You're a liar!" They are, however, racist policies and humoring the sensitivities of people who support them doesn't seem to be especially worthwhile.
Well, right, here the question is specifically whether or not it's valuable to characterize people in favor of those things as racist. I don't think it facilitates any sort of understanding, or discussion, or hell, even argument. I think, in fact, it is a label specifically designed to shut down dialogue or argument. And I think that's lame.
quote:Yeah I've seen that video, and I like it. I also totally agree with your assessment of every policy suggestion above.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
I think this brief video will be helpful in illustrating where I'm coming from, Dan.
quote:I wouldn't go so far as to call someone who supports such policies a 'racist', anymore than I'd say of someone who told a lie, "You're a liar!" They are, however, racist policies and humoring the sensitivities of people who support them doesn't seem to be especially worthwhile.
Well, right, here the question is specifically whether or not it's valuable to characterize people in favor of those things as racist. I don't think it facilitates any sort of understanding, or discussion, or hell, even argument. I think, in fact, it is a label specifically designed to shut down dialogue or argument. And I think that's lame.
To be clear though, it's not my starting point. When talking about those things, I point out that they don't work, they're unAmerican, violate all sorts of laws, and they target specifically based on race. None of those things, for these particular subjects, are really very debatable. A wall wouldn't work, and it's a stupid way to attack the problem. Punishing private citizens who help illegal immigrants-even church programs-is unAmerican. Questioning based on race is legally problematic.
Those are remarks designed to shut down argument, because there's not much to be argued about. But-again-they aren't what we were talking about. We were talking about to what extent the racism label can apply to the Tea Party, and how much it stems from signs of all things.
My point is there's actually quite a bit more than just signage at rallies to bring to that discussion, such as a higher degree of support for...well, let's just call them racially biased policies amongst the right-wing/Tea Party.
Put another way, "That's a racist policy," is actually quite different than, "You're a racist." In fact, reading the former statement as the latter is a not-uncommon way of shutting down criticism of...racist policies. If the person defending them changes the subject to, "You're saying I'm a racist!" well suddenly the topic is very different. They're allowed to get angry about that-it's a personal insult! And it's much easier to reject than is the claim 'support for race-based questioning is racist'.
quote:That was the narrative for some people, sure. Plenty of people find it difficult to distinguish between 'support for racist policies' and 'racist'. Speaking for myself, though...I don't find a whole lot different about it either. I'm splitting hairs because it makes actually discussing the racist threads in those policies easier, not because I don't think supporting them points to any kind of racism.
Lots of people accused Tea Partiers, not of endorsing policies that might be racist, but of being racists themselves. Far as I have seen, this is not a case where anyone needed to flip it and make it about who they are... that was the narrative from the get go. Did you see something different?
quote:Citation needed.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Has the tea party at least shifted to the point where at least half of them acknowledge that Obama was born in America? Like, so that this is no longer literally a minority position?
quote:When on earth does this happen? My impression of the exchange is more like, people interviewed to talk about tea parties saying "oh well the only reason they don't want the health care reform bill to get passed is because they hate Obama. And you know why so many people hate Obama, right? It's because they don't want a black man in the white house!" and the interviewer nodding sagely.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The Tea Party in particular, and conservatives in general, are allowed to dodge being called on support for racist policies by pointing out that they're not racists. That's an insult! By the time the hapless liberal/Democrat manages to get the conversation back to those same racist policies...
quote:Man, you weren't kidding about confirmation bias, given that this has already been discussed, here.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Citation needed.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Has the tea party at least shifted to the point where at least half of them acknowledge that Obama was born in America? Like, so that this is no longer literally a minority position?
quote:Citation
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Citation needed.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Has the tea party at least shifted to the point where at least half of them acknowledge that Obama was born in America? Like, so that this is no longer literally a minority position?
quote:Dan, Did you even look at the link I posted. The week before Obama released his long form birth certificate, only 34% of people who identified themselves as Tea Party said they believed Obama was born in the US. 45% of people in the Tea Party said they believed he was not born in the US. That's not a insignificant number of marginalized cooks.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Dude, I'm willing to acknowledge that they made up a statistically significant group, but... a majority? When nearly every major outspoken Tea Party advocate thinks they're crackpots fixating on a detrimentally stupid conspiracy? Breitbart, Coulter, Beck, Reynolds, basically all of PJM's contributers... all of these people have repudiated the Birthers. Who hasn't, exactly?
I'm not basing this off of my personal experience at tea parties, as I've only been to one (not many of them where I live). I'm basing it off of everything I've seen online. If this is confirmation bias, then introduce some new data to my blinkered perspective, please.
quote:the majority of tea party members, when polled, haven't figured out that the president was born in the united states. Less of them believe the truth than believe a falsehood. This is also not new data. This is available from a whole smorgasboard of easily googleable polls on the beliefs of the tea party. It is also not difficult to find prominent tea party leaders and officials jumping wholeheartedly on board with birther claims, or support for people who are riding Birther paranoia, like trump or taitz.
If this is confirmation bias, then introduce some new data to my blinkered perspective, please.
quote:And I would add, that both scenarios contradict Dan_Frank's contention that birthers are a tiny marginalized minority within the Tea Party.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Whether or not he actually believes that or was using it as a desperate attempt to pander to the Tea Party is also an open question.
Of course, in neither scenario does he come out looking particularly good.
quote:I found this linking to reports that while Breitbart himself, when asked directly about Birthers, would...well. He'd call it stupid and ridiculous and a losing issue, but was often careful to point out it was because they 'didn't have the evidence'. Not because it was a bunch of lies, mind you-but because it couldn't be converted into a winner at the polls. But for quite some time, at the very least, his own website fostered a lot of Birther nonsense.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002070002
quote:All the time.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
To this day, I still regularly see posts in comment threads on media sites insinuating that Obama is somehow a secret Muslim.
quote:One of the responses to the above:
WHO is this man in the WHITE HOUSE? Why won’t he just show his Birth Certificate.
PPS: This is NOT the main issue…but it could be…he‘s not supposed to be in office or he’s the Anti-Christ (who just appeared) …Since I believe in Revelations’ teachings…I can believe almost anything about him. HE talks like the ANTI-CHRIST; HE moves like the ANTI-CHRIST; HIS EYES (the mirror to one’s soul) are pure EVIL…EVIL. SO don’t YOU go telling US what to believe when many of us have spent a lot of time digging through pages of records and comparing things like the TIME LINE and the US PASSPORT issuing records, and have seen the foreign aid application to Occidental College (Obama’s first) … YOU don’t have to believe it…fine. We don’t say you do. BUT the only people who approved this guy were PELOSI (yeah, right) and FEINSTEIN (more ?) something stinks… YOU stick to educating us about the CONSTITUTION and our FOUNDING FATHERS and the MUSLIM quest to take over the WORLD, we get it that you don’t agree, but since we’re not SHEEPLE…we are entitled to our own belief… there are Millions who agree with me that Obama is a MUSLIM WOLF in SHEEP’S CLOTHING, Sponsored by GEORGE SOROS and Communists/Socialists/Marxists brain washed by COMMIE PLANTED PROFESSORS in YALE, et al and his goal is to destroy EVERYTHING GOD made. I will be the first to apologize if I see a real, and I mean forensic experts (several of them) testimony that it’s real.
quote:Excellent reason to doubt President Obama's anti-christ credentials.
my reading of the Bible and prophecy leads me to think that the anti christ will be a homosexual jew? Although I realize i’m labled as an anti semite I think that is a pretty common interpretation. Not just trying to be ugly or smart..
quote:
The intransigence over the debt ceiling enraged Republican stalwarts. George Voinovich, the former GOP senator from Ohio, likens his party's new guard to arsonists whose attitude is: "We're going to get what we want or the country can go to hell." Even an architect of the Bush tax cuts, economist Glenn Hubbard, tells Rolling Stone that there should have been a "revenue contribution" to the debt-ceiling deal, "structured to fall mainly on the well-to-do."
quote:Funny story about this -
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Of course there were some, "Go get jobs!" folks,
quote:He should get a lot worse than that, in my opinion. But he probably won't even lose his job. Bleh.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Cop #14 is going to have a very bad day in the press, I predict.
quote:My 'interpretation' of the infographic is skewed?
but I'd say Samp's interpretation of it is significantly skewed
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
quote:To me you seemed pretty "rah-rah go team" about it, so I was a bit surprised when I didn't see that borne out in the graphic itself.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I've always been amused by the fact that it got turned into "samp." Samp Rimary? Where's that come from? The wastebasket of Star Wars character name rejects?
quote:My 'interpretation' of the infographic is skewed?
but I'd say Samp's interpretation of it is significantly skewed
quote:I think that might have been my fault. Sam didn't work for me as a shortening as Samprimary; Samp did.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I've always been amused by the fact that it got turned into "samp." Samp Rimary? Where's that come from?
quote:That's not how it's pronounced?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I used to pronounce sakeriver as sake (as in, "I'll do it for your sake")
quote:It's just my first name with a lowercase r.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
How about you, rivka? What's the trick to correctly processing your screen name?
quote:I'm not parsing this correctly. Is there a character named BlackBlade, or is that how the phrase translates into Elvish?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
In my head, whenever I see "BlackBlade" I automatically translate it to "Mormegil," which is his Elvish name (in Sindarin).
quote:Oh god I'm the worst.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
not star wars per se, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorian
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Andonian_tea
quote:Aha! Now that's downright Machiavellian!
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:It's just my first name with a lowercase r.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
How about you, rivka? What's the trick to correctly processing your screen name?
quote:I see you, and raise you.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/m7ymg/correction_to_the_misleading_infographic_saying/
quote:Turin Turambar, my all time favorite Tolkien character, who is woefully under appreciated, changes names a few times throughout his travels in Beleriand, but during his time in Nargothrond, he is known as Mormegil, the Black Blade (or Black Sword), because the sword he carried, Anglachel (reforged as Gurthang) was made from meteorite rock, and thus black.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I'm not parsing this correctly. Is there a character named BlackBlade, or is that how the phrase translates into Elvish?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
In my head, whenever I see "BlackBlade" I automatically translate it to "Mormegil," which is his Elvish name (in Sindarin).
quote:Andrew Gelman points to some inconsistencies in Schoen's reporting on the poll. Kind of funny, since Schoen is a Democratic pollster whose pronouncements on the poll try to make OWS look bad (or, at least, outside the mainstream), while Gelman is (to the best of my knowledge) a Republican* who dismantles Schoen's misrepresentation of OWS.
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:I see you, and raise you.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/m7ymg/correction_to_the_misleading_infographic_saying/
quote:
At one o’clock this morning, the New York City Police Department and the owners of Zuccotti Park notified protestors in the park that they had to immediately remove tents, sleeping bags and other belongings, and must follow the park rules if they wished to continue to use it to protest. Many protestors peacefully complied and left. At Brookfield’s request, members of the NYPD and Sanitation Department assisted in removing any remaining tents and sleeping bags. This action was taken at this time of day to reduce the risk of confrontation in the park, and to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhood.
quote:
“I have become increasingly concerned – as had the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties – that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community. We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake – the final decision to act was mine.
“The park had become covered in tents and tarps, making it next to impossible to safely navigate for the public, and for first responders who are responsible for guaranteeing public safety. The dangers posed were evident last week when an EMT was injured as protestors attempted to prevent him and several police officers from helping a mentally ill man who was menacing others. As an increasing number of large tents and other structures have been erected, these dangers have increased. It has become increasingly difficult even to monitor activity in the park to protect the protestors and the public, and the proliferation of tents and other obstructions has created an increasing fire hazard that had to be addressed.
quote:
No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibilities. The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out – but it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others – nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law. There is no ambiguity in the law here – the First Amendment protects speech – it does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public space.
“Protestors have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags. Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments.
quote:
The mayor’s office sent out a message on Twitter at 1:19 a.m. saying: “Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared.” Fliers handed out by the police at the private park on behalf of the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties, and the city, spelled out the same message.
quote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/zuccotti-park-cleared-occupy-wall-street_n_1094313.html
Shen Tong, a protester and former leader of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, tried to calm the growing tension between protesters and police. Addressing a crowd of about a hundred people two blocks from the park, he shouted, and his words were echoed by all those standing near.
"Brothers and sisters of the NYPD who used to think you're not part of this. Tonight, you're a part of this," he said. "You used to think you could just keep your head down and get along, or maybe get ahead, but tonight, we tell you, you are involved!"
Shen said the key to winning the night was to stay mobile.
quote:You mean like this?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
(In related news, does anyone else find the Times' naked bias hysterically funny? It's like they're personally put out about it. Maybe one of their editors used to jog through the park every morning. *grin*)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Yes. A silent protest in that instance is far more penetrating. Looking at the police officer who sprayed the group first, it became clear to me that once he got his bottle out and shook it, he was going to do it. It was either that, or look weak by putting it back.
Originally posted by Shanna:
Applause to whoever organized the silent protest. Brilliant decision. Just watching it gave me the chills. I can't imagine what it felt like to walk it.
This is a great article about the event at UC Davis: Militarization Of Campus Police
quote:Well that, and we didn't have pepper spray in the 60's. They would have been beaten with clubs, mauled by dogs, and high pressure hoses spraying them.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
My brain is in a weird place right now.
I've watched about eight hours of civil rights documentaries over the course of the past two days for the directed reading I'm doing, and I'm in the middle of a stack of books on the same subject.
If that video, the one of the spraying, had been in black and white, there would have been nothing distinguishing it from the Civil Rights Movement except their clothes.
quote:http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/why-many-in-china-sympathize-with-occupy-wall-street/247356/
I didn't write this to complain. The terrifying thing isn't that justice is relative. The terrifying thing is to witness injustice and to act as if one sees nothing. While I was getting my masters, I once had a conversation with a girl who at the time had 3 years of work experience under her belt. She is now the HR director of a joint stock company. We were talking about a marketing strategy for Weida's paper industry. Her idea was to carve out a new market by advertising Weida's high quality dinner napkins to China's nine hundred million farmers. Surprised by her cocksureness, I asked her if she knew how farmers wipe their mouths after each meal. She returned my question with a misgiving look. I raised my hand and wiped my mouth on my sleeve. She looked at my graceless action with contempt.
During a macro-economics class, a classmate attacked blue collar workers who'd been laid off, and unemployed high school dropouts: "80% of them are where they are because they don't work hard. They chose not to specialize in something when they were young, so they can't get jobs now! Those kids are perfectly capable of studying and working. I've heard that a lot of students use their holidays to make thousands to pay their tuition." You can't find a person who knows less about the struggles of rural China than this classmate of mine.
quote:Ah yes, I'd forgotten about tear gas. No, not every confrontation was a Bull Connor level of excess, but there was also Kent State.
Tear gas was commonly used. Not EVERY encounter with police looked like a confrontation with Bull Connor. That's beside the point though.
quote:What struck me is that there is no fundamental contradiction between these two views of the video. The officer was doing his job and he was causing great and unnecessary pain on unresisting students. That is the problem.
Indeed, the disjunction between how the UC-Davis police read this video (they see an officer doing his job) and how many others read this video (they see a man in a uniform causing great and unnecessary pain to unresisting students) indicates that we have reached a kind of intellectual impasse about what kind of police we want and what limits should be placed on their power.
quote:Kent State was not a Civil Rights protest, it was a Vietnam War protest.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lyrhawn:quote:Ah yes, I'd forgotten about tear gas. No, not every confrontation was a Bull Connor level of excess, but there was also Kent State.
Tear gas was commonly used. Not EVERY encounter with police looked like a confrontation with Bull Connor. That's beside the point though.
quote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/21/tahrir-square-us-teargas-used-egypt?CMP=twt_fd
US firm's teargas used against Tahrir Square protesters
Egypt's military junta fired CS gas cartridges made by Combined Systems Inc of Pennsylvania, say demonstrators
The teargas used by interior ministry troops in Cairo's Tahrir Square is supplied by a US company. Demonstrators say cartridges retrieved from the scene are branded with the name and address of Combined Systems Inc (CSI).
The firm is located in Jamestown, Pennsylvania. It specialises in supplying what it calls "crowd control devices" to armies and "homeland security agencies" around the world. It also manufactures lethal military equipment.
Protesters say the CS gas seems more powerful than that used by Egyptian police during the country's last popular uprising in February. "It's stronger, it burns your face, it makes you feel like your whole body is seizing up," one witness said. He added: "It doesn't seem to be combated by Coke or vinegar."
quote:Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Kent State was not a Civil Rights protest, it was a Vietnam War protest.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Lyrhawn:quote:Ah yes, I'd forgotten about tear gas. No, not every confrontation was a Bull Connor level of excess, but there was also Kent State.
Tear gas was commonly used. Not EVERY encounter with police looked like a confrontation with Bull Connor. That's beside the point though.
quote:While that's a rational argument, you know as well as I do that the terms "Civil Right's Movement" and "Civil Right's Protest" have taken on a meaning much more specific than the literal definition of the words.
Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
quote:I'll grant that's true. But it wasn't something in my thoughts when I wrote what I did. I was merely pointing out that the state of protesting response at that point in American history also included killing Americans.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:While that's a rational argument, you know as well as I do that the terms "Civil Right's Movement" and "Civil Right's Protest" have taken on a meaning much more specific than the literal definition of the words.
Not being forced to kill people in another country we had no business being in, or pay for it with my tax dollars seems like a civil rights issue to me.
quote:Grant Rolled
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Granted.
quote:Amazon Review of UC Davis Pepper Spray
Whenever I need to breezily inflict discipline on unruly citizens, I know I can trust Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray to get the job done! The power of reason is no match for Defense Technology's superior repression power. When I reach for my can of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray, I know that even the mighty First Amendment doesn't stand a chance against its many scovil units of civil rights suppression.
When I feel threatened by students, no matter how unarmed, peaceful and seated they may be, I know that Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray has got my back as I casually spray away at point blank range.
It really is the Cadillac of citizen repression technology.
Buy a whole case!
quote:He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
More video surfaces of police brutality in Oakland.
Yeesh. Not really sure how to explain that away.
quote:You would have hit an unarmed person who presented no physical threat to you? Physically restraining him and arresting him would not have been sufficient? I agree he should have gotten on the ground, especially after the officer told him to, but swiping at his head and legs with a truncheon would have been your solution? Do you not appreciate the problem that people see in this kind of behavior?
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
More video surfaces of police brutality in Oakland.
Yeesh. Not really sure how to explain that away.
quote:That's just an odious thing to say, capaxinfiniti. As much as I've often thought your politics pretty shill-ish, this is different. It's just *nasty*.
He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:He wouldn't move. He wouldn't leave. He wouldn't get on the ground. Pretty much explains it. I would have hit him too.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
More video surfaces of police brutality in Oakland.
Yeesh. Not really sure how to explain that away.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
And when people think like you in law enforcement, they typically legitimize the protesters in a way they could normally only dream of.
quote:Only a matter of time before this is increasingly the mainstream of conservative American thought, I've already started seeing it on IRC channels with people who I thought 'normal'. Maybe Capax doesn't think they should be hanged but I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed with the 'professional whiners' rationalization for beating them.
Originally posted by What Someone Actually Said:
“Leftists are the most violent prone segment of the American population. That's why I hold that Democrats, Liberals and other criminals should be rounded up and in many cases hanged so they won't get lots of innocent people killed and brutalized.”
***********
"Minor problem here as related to Zuccotti Park. While it is private property in the sense most of us think of as private property, it is technically a Privately Owned Public Space. When it was originally built back in the '60s, the builders built it in exchange for being allowed to build the adjacent building taller than would usually be allowed. As part of that agreement, the owners were required to leave the park open 24 hours a day. They could still regulate what activities were allowed in the park, just not the hours. So the owners would have to renegotiate their agreement with NYC in order to be able to close the park during certain hours. Hopefully they'll be allowed to do that and make the modifications necessary to be able to close the park when needed."
*****************
Ideologically, they appear to be more related to the anarchist movement than to anything else. I'm seeing the same sort of rhetoric that theyu used when they burned Seattle a couple of years ago, and attacked the various international financial conferences. If they have a motto, it allears to be Loot Rape Pillage and Burn.
We've dealt with barbarian savages before. We've done so in a rather unpleasant manner. Since it's considered impolite to sell them into the merciful institution of slavery, we're stuck with liquidating them.
Hanging is the green solution.
******************
Where shall my second call upon you, boy?
I don't want to lynch them. I'd be happy to try them by Counter-revolutionary court befire I hang them. That should take about five minutes per OWSer.
They are fighting against my country and the prosperity of my children and grandchildren. They are cirrational and dangerous. Their existence is partly a factor of not having conducted mass executions of communist agents as a result of the McCarthy and House Unamerican Activities investigations.
I am not a nice person. They have taught me hate. Now I want them dead.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
******************
Not saying I agree with Dennis completely, but not saying "no" either. But Winston, you must understand that many of the people doing this protesting are professional whiners. They get paid to make a scene. I have no use for such drivel. And these 'kids' that are bitching about school debt, etc.? They studied and got degrees in areas such "Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving" just as a ludicris example- what possible need are there for such in a depressed worldwide economy?
I know you have a socialist streak that is strong in you, Winston. But try to look at it from other perspectives. Over here across the pond, we ARE more ocnservative and most of us do not hold with these whiny little spoiled brats. If they were my kids, suffice to say an arse whooping would be in store. I also have already told my kids if you get arrested doing something stupid, don't bother calling me. And they understand why!
**************************
What the OWSers don't understand is that Zucotti park is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The second the owners, in this case Brookfield Properties, asks them to leave they MUST leave. If not, they're tresspassing, and Brookfield has every legal right to send in the cops to arrest them.
Some of the public spaces various OWS protest groups have occupied make things more complicated, but Brookfield has the same rights on Zuccoti park that I do with people in my front yard. When I say get, you get.
quote:It depends on the government.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Why is that so many conservatives, who are opposed to "big government", have no problem with non-violent people being maced or beaten for refusing to follow police instructions?
quote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/22/back-iran-protesters-gop-urges-obama/?feat=home_headlines
“So I hope that we’ll hear more of this [from Mr. Obama] because the young men and women taking the streets in Tehran need our support,” Mr. Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it.”
...
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, said, “I believe that we could be more forceful than we have” in dealing with Iran.
“If America stands for democracy, and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don’t think that we really care, then obviously they’re going to question, do we really believe in our principles?” Mr. Grassley said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
quote:I think you and a few others are overreacting to what I said. The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement. These people taking the fight to the police wouldn't respect them in any circumstance. Their behavior originates from a twisted sense of "if you're not with us, you're against us" as well as a poor understanding of the demographics of the police force. What happened to the police being part of the 99%? These are the Americans who get drunk drivers off our streets and keep guns and drugs out of our schools; who go to domestic violence calls and see the wife's face bloodied, her eye hanging out of her socket because her husband hit her so hard; these are Americans who care enough about the quality of their country that they risk their lives to protect the safety of their fellow citizens. Meanwhile occupy wall street huddles in parks, banging on drums and overdosing in tents...
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
That's just an odious thing to say, capaxinfiniti. As much as I've often thought your politics pretty shill-ish, this is different. It's just *nasty*.
It's talk like that that gets your crew, conservatives that is, tagged with all sorts of unpleasant associations with he Civil Rights movement.
quote:It puts me in the company of the peace officers of this country, and I'm proud to be there. As I implied above, I don't see this as an OWS issue and I sure as hell don't see this as a civil rights issue. Orinoco broke down the incident in a fairly accurate way, thought our analyses of the event differ. I think the officer showed great restraint and control by giving the man plenty of time to comply (and later by hitting only the mans leg, and once, his arm.) Instead the man stood defiantly in front of the officer when he could have continued his protest at an alternate location. Notice the officers first action is to grab the protester by the shoulder, turning him so his back is toward the officer, standard procedure for arresting someone. But the man jerks away, facing the officer and raising his hands. Then he doesn't get on the ground, etc, etc. So I don't feel the actions of this police officer were unprofessional or inexplicable. This guy wanted to be a martyr and he got it.
Think, for a moment, of what kind of company that statement puts you in. I'll rephrase, but it's still accurate to what you said: "When an American citizen, peacefully protesting in a nonviolent, nonthreatening way, refuses to cooperate with law enforcement-one of the *points* of peaceful, nonviolent civil protest-law enforcement has the go ahead to hit them."
quote:You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe. Imagine if everyone was told to be embarrased about sharing their opinion. Since when has silencing a dissenting voice been part of your ideology? I know you're capable of constructing a more substantial counterargument.
It's a nasty, shameful thing to have said and you ought to be embarrassed by it. I hope after thinking about it, you don't mean it.
quote:You said a peaceful, nonviolent protestor should be treated violently by the police with an attack by a truncheon. You didn't just say it was OK for that to happen, you specifically approved. People are objecting to that. Big shocker.
I think you and a few others are overreacting to what I said.
quote:Well, goodness gracious me, I forgot that the people who define what OWS is about are far-right conservative Republicans. That sure makes things easier! Every single police officer is a hero who took the job out of a sense of altruistic public duty, and the OWS protestors are drug addicted tent-huddling whiners. Glad that's straightened out.
The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement. These people taking the fight to the police wouldn't respect them in any circumstance. Their behavior originates from a twisted sense of "if you're not with us, you're against us" as well as a poor understanding of the demographics of the police force. What happened to the police being part of the 99%? These are the Americans who get drunk drivers off our streets and keep guns and drugs out of our schools; who go to domestic violence calls and see the wife's face bloodied, her eye hanging out of her socket because her husband hit her so hard; these are Americans who care enough about the quality of their country that they risk their lives to protect the safety of their fellow citizens. Meanwhile occupy wall street huddles in parks, banging on drums and overdosing in tents...
quote:Yeah, that's why OWS is spreading. Because they're not garnering support. Your reasoning is laughable, but let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right, the only reason they've maintained or improved their PR is by 'taunting and villifying the police'. Cops aren't allowed to freaking hit people just for being taunted. It's supposed to take more than that before the threshold of violence is crossed.
OWS would do well to keep the police on their side. These sideshow antics are neither here nor there. They don't advance their cause and they don't garner support. If the complaints of the occupy crowd can't stand on their own merit they shouldn't resort to taunting then vilifying the police in order to draw back the waning American public interest. The police are charged with maintaining order and ensuring the rights of everyone in these cities. Meaning citizens of any ideological persuasion should be able to go about their lives without excessive molestation by the protesters.
quote:Ironically your attitude does a disservice to the police, or do you think helping OWS make martyrs out of peaceful protestors is helpful to the cops? If you think Orincoro broke down the incident accurately, you simply cannot come to the conclusions you're drawing-they don't match up. His viewing of the incident only leads to a substantial disapproval of how the officer behaved.
It puts me in the company of the peace officers of this country, and I'm proud to be there. As I implied above, I don't see this as an OWS issue and I sure as hell don't see this as a civil rights issue. Orinoco broke down the incident in a fairly accurate way, thought our analyses of the event differ. I think the officer showed great restraint and control by giving the man plenty of time to comply (and later by hitting only the mans leg, and once, his arm.) Instead the man stood defiantly in front of the officer when he could have continued his protest at an alternate location. Notice the officers first action is to grab the protester by the shoulder, turning him so his back is toward the officer, standard procedure for arresting someone. But the man jerks away, facing the officer and raising his hands. Then he doesn't get on the ground, etc, etc. So I don't feel the actions of this police officer were unprofessional or inexplicable. This guy wanted to be a martyr and he got it.
quote:Oh, I've got absolutely zero hope that that would've 'shamed you into keeping silent'. It's an Internet forum, dude, I don't have that power. I had a fleeting hope that you'd realize, "Whoa, hey, violence against peaceful protestors by the government...that's bad! I'm not supposed to like that!" since you've been less of a political hack lately than you have in the past. But I was clearly mistaken.
You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe. Imagine if everyone was told to be embarrased about sharing their opinion. Since when has silencing a dissenting voice been part of your ideology? I know you're capable of constructing a more substantial counterargument.
quote:I think not.
The recent spat of conflicts with police are less about the alleged injustices on wall street and more about the anit-authoritarian/anti-police tendencies of some of the people involved in the OWS movement.
quote:Are you deliberately ignoring that OWS really took off with the help of conflicts with police? Do you really still not understand the concept, or how it was demonstrated in a way you are completely, doggedly overlooking?
OWS would do well to keep the police on their side. These sideshow antics are neither here nor there. They don't advance their cause and they don't garner support.
quote:More people than just me are probably just trying to shame you into having a clue about what you're talking about, especially when it comes part-and-parcel with a headscratching support of violence.
You're trying to shame me into keeping silent about what I believe.
quote:That wasn’t the point I was attempting to make but I can see the confusion. I don’t believe taunting and vilifying the police is an attempt at improving their PR. I meant that the protesters need these clashes with the police to get front page news coverage because their protest actions alone don’t generate enough public interest that Americans demand or seek out information on the movement.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Yeah, that's why OWS is spreading. Because they're not garnering support. Your reasoning is laughable, but let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right, the only reason they've maintained or improved their PR is by 'taunting and villifying the police'.
quote:Fine. I think there have been overgeneralizations on both sides. My point was to maintain the understanding that police are part of the taxpaying public too.
By the standards you're using, the Tea Party is a bunch of racist, crazy, Birther-believing xenophobes, though. Of course when someone paints with the kind of brush you're doing, and focuses on someone you like rather than blithely and ignorantly dismiss out of hand...well. Then it's an overgeneralization, of course.
quote:The man made provocative actions then resisted arrest. The man was given multiple lawful orders - leave, move, get down. His civil disobedience was still disobedience. Anyone engaging in it should be aware of the consequences and willing to continue their fight in court, where the judicial system will determine if their actions were indeed civil disobedience and whether the actions of the officer were justified. I acknowledge the existence of alternatives to this type of force - pepper spray, tackling, maybe a shouting contest? - none of which you would likely approved of.
Cops aren't allowed to freaking hit people just for being taunted. It's supposed to take more than that before the threshold of violence is crossed.
quote:
those rules about violence, when to escalate, etc., they exist as much to protect cops as they do to protect the citizens. But in any event, y'know who the cops answer to? Us. We make their rules for them. That's the way it's supposed to be in an open, representative society. We're not supposed to just sign off on whatever they do, because hey, they're cops.
quote:
As others have said, this is actually the sort of thing a conservative should be pretty up in arms about: when and how the government is allowed to use violence against its citizens. But, whew! Good thing it's only a bunch of protesting liberals. Now you don't have to be concerned about the government using violence against peaceful political protestors.
quote:I don’t think my solidarity with the police is a disservice. This man being hit did little to advance his cause, nor, I argue, did it significantly detract from the credibility of the police once a reasonable explanation for the officers actions was given.
Ironically your attitude does a disservice to the police, or do you think helping OWS make martyrs out of peaceful protestors is helpful to the cops?
quote:
It actually seemed to me that once you were confronted with what you were saying, you might revise your statement.
quote:See, you're talking just like the UCD chancellor- " strategies for gaining compliance" was the line, I believe. Which rather ignores any alternative that is not overtly forceful. For instance, waiting. Talking. Politely conferring with group leaders.
The man made provocative actions then resisted arrest. The man was given multiple lawful orders - leave, move, get down. His civil disobedience was still disobedience. Anyone engaging in it should be aware of the consequences and willing to continue their fight in court, where the judicial system will determine if their actions were indeed civil disobedience and whether the actions of the officer were justified. I acknowledge the existence of alternatives to this type of force - pepper spray, tackling, maybe a shouting contest? - none of which you would likely approved of.
quote:That's a false analogy. The law is not on your side nor do you have the right to endanger the lives of other law-abiding citizens by driving recklessly. In any case, the decision of the UC Davis campus police was OK before this video was released. But this video shows the police acted in a patient, professional manner and that their actions weren't sudden or rash. The debate over whether or not the group should have been forced to move can continue but this nonsense about the unethical behavior of the police and putting two officers on administrative leave should stop.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
cap: So because the police warned them, now suddenly it's OK? I'll be sure to remember that the next time I don't feel like waiting at a red light. I'll just blare my horn as I drive on through.
quote:Of course it doesn't. That's a stupid question, coming from someone like you. There are important differences between pepper spraying, beating to unconsciousness, and shooting people with a firearm. The police needed the roadway cleared and chose a course of action that was both quick and efficient, followed orders and protocol, maintained the security of the officers, and resulted in no lasting discomfort for the protesters. Pepper spraying did all of that.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Does the ethical behavior of the police's decided-upon procedure continue to be nonsense at any point along the continuum?
quote::snort:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:That's a false analogy. The law is not on your side nor do you have the right to endanger the lives of other law-abiding citizens by driving recklessly. In any case, the decision of the UC Davis campus police was OK before this video was released. But this video shows the police acted in a patient, professional manner and that their actions weren't sudden or rash. The debate over whether or not the group should have been forced to move can continue but this nonsense about the unethical behavior of the police and putting two officers on administrative leave should stop.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
cap: So because the police warned them, now suddenly it's OK? I'll be sure to remember that the next time I don't feel like waiting at a red light. I'll just blare my horn as I drive on through.
quote:And sparked an *international* furor over police violence. Why? Because pepper spraying people is *violent* and *excessive*.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Does the ethical behavior of the police's decided-upon procedure continue to be nonsense at any point along the continuum?
Of course it doesn't. That's a stupid question, coming from someone like you. There are important differences between pepper spraying, beating to unconsciousness, and shooting people with a firearm. The police needed the roadway cleared and chose a course of action that was both quick and efficient, followed orders and protocol, maintained the security of the officers, and resulted in no lasting discomfort for the protesters. Pepper spraying did all of that.
quote:Dude-buddy, I'm aware of the location of this incident and the general-purpose nature of the path. It's not a roadway in the sense of allowing local traffic. But to get to the heart of it, I think your ignoring the purpose behind obstructing the "roadway" in the first place. The intent of this small group was to make it impossible for the police to transport protesters who were arrested before the pepper spray incident occurred. The police weren't going to walk the arrested through demonstrations and across the quad. They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
The footpath "roadway" in question is not a vital artery of campus transportation. You've ignored every piece of input from everyone who knows anything about this situation, so do go ahead and ignore that too, and imagine the students were blocking an actual road, and not a footpath across an enormous quad, hindering *no one*.
quote:I haven't ignored them. I have, in fact, offered arguments and counter-arguments for my view and did so in a respectful, sincere way.
But whatever, you've steadfastly ignored any of a dozen sounds explanations of why this was not, in fact, "by the book" police work.
quote:So? So if it's a road you can pepper spray people in the face? You shouldn't just force their hands apart and arrest them? Too much work? Because it's a road? You can't do what you're supposed to do in *every other variation of civil disobedience arrests?* Since it's a road, assault is warranted? Do examine this reasoning. You're arguing that pepper spray was appropriate essentially because it was convenient.
They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
quote:Do tell us more about this society of yours that should crush dissent whenever it wants.
Dude-buddy, I'm aware of the location of this incident and the general-purpose nature of the path. It's not a roadway in the sense of allowing local traffic. But to get to the heart of it, I think your ignoring the purpose behind obstructing the "roadway" in the first place. The intent of this small group was to make it impossible for the police to transport protesters who were arrested before the pepper spray incident occurred. The police weren't going to walk the arrested through demonstrations and across the quad. They had their vehicles near the freshly-dismantled encampment, and were leaving with the arrested, rendering the path temporarily a road.
quote:I see your arguments circles back to the issue of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience isn’t an argument to fall back on when protesting results in consequences you don’t like. It doesn’t grant you carte blache to break any law you deem necessary to advance your cause. Just because you "cause [the police], and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff" doesn't mean they will agree with you in the end.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Right, Capax, its called "civil disobedience." Obstructing the actions of the police in a controlled, non-violent manner, in order to make their job harder, and cause them, and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff.
quote:If this is how you reduce the issue in your mind, it’s easy to see why our views differ so greatly.
they were *blocking* the *path*, so it was okay to spray *chemical weapons* in their *faces*.
quote:Pepper spray is a non-lethal option that officers can use at their discretion but always according to protocol and regulation. Around 45% of U.S. police departments allow the use of pepper spray in response to passive resistance. Meaning a large percentage of the police agencies in this country don’t believe pepper spray is only for defense. It can function to deter non-compliance, minimize the level of resistance, and reduce the possibility of injury to both the officer and the arrestee.
You hand waved the *biggest* element of all of this, which is that pepper spray is a weapon of last resort..
quote:I think the issue of it being a road or path or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant, and that claim is supported by my comments above. It could have been grass or ice or asphalt, the intention of the protesters was to keep the police from completing the arrests. That's why they were pepper sprayed.
So? So if it's a road..
quote:No, civil disobedience does not give you carte Blanche. However, it *does* afford you the right not to be abused unduly by the police. It forces the police to arrest you, and forces the justice system to either charge you, or endure your continued arrests and disruptions. Civil disobedience is a very important part of the traditions of civil rights protests. It does not require that the police agree with you, but it *forces* the police to deal with you, in a most inconvenient way. The police have no right to punish this behavior. They can only make arrests. This inexplicable idea of yours that somehow pepper spraying non aggressive people is just part of the play book is ridiculous, and you should drop it. You are wrong.
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:I see your arguments circles back to the issue of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience isn’t an argument to fall back on when protesting results in consequences you don’t like. It doesn’t grant you carte blache to break any law you deem necessary to advance your cause. Just because you "cause [the police], and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff" doesn't mean they will agree with you in the .
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Right, Capax, its called "civil disobedience." Obstructing the actions of the police in a controlled, non-violent manner, in order to make their job harder, and cause them, and others, to question the validity of their decisions and the process that led up to the standoff.
quote:Bingo!
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orincoro:
The crime(s) they committed went beyond simply “blocking” the road:
Unlawful assembly (on the road, not the presence on the quad.)
Violating a rule or regulation of the institution - disruptive activities, failing to leave when ordered.
Failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer.
Interfering with an arresting officer.
Resisting arrest.
quote:I think you're leaving out a pretty important piece of information here: 'against people who are not themselves violent, or threatening violence'. Pepper spray is a couple of steps up the policeman's toolbox of responses to instructions, to infractions, etc. There's no good reason why that one had to be jumped to.
Fundamentally, I agree with you that a cop pepper spraying people committing crimes who aren't specifically attacking him is actually perfectly fine. That's sort of the point pepper spray. If someone is attacking him or someone else with anything more deadly than a potato peeler, I'd really prefer he shoot them.
quote:How do you reconcile this position with your libertarian beliefs?
Bingo!
Fundamentally, I agree with you that a cop pepper spraying people committing crimes who aren't specifically attacking him is actually perfectly fine. That's sort of the point pepper spray. If someone is attacking him or someone else with anything more deadly than a potato peeler, I'd really prefer he shoot them.
quote:The problems with American democracy go far beyond the primary process. We need to rework it from the ground up. Our electoral process is corrupted by money, corrupted by gerrymandering, and corrupted by partisan rules. It needs a radical overhaul but the people in power owe their power to this corrupt process so there is little chance they will ever reform it.
The primary process in this country needs to be totally overhauled and given increased prominence. I think that would drastically cut down on incumbency rates.
quote:The problem I always have with this sort of thinking is that it seems to want to have it both ways.
Our electoral process is corrupted by money, corrupted by gerrymandering, and corrupted by partisan rules. It needs a radical overhaul but the people in power owe their power to this corrupt process so there is little chance they will ever reform it.
quote:If this were the problem, then the solution would be to provide clear resources by which people could both confidently inform themselves and determine the trustworthiness of other sources. And then you'd have a well-informed populace both electing better people and also ceasing to use the sources of bad information.
They are misinformed, by people spending billions of dollars to work against their interests and misinform them.
quote:Sir, I strenuously object
So, to clarify... I was, in fact, disagreeing with capax. Vigorously. Strenuously, even!
quote:Who provides it? Who decides it's trustworthy, and makes sure it stays that way? Who decides what content will be presented, and in what order? Who will convince people to read it? how will you stop private interests from slandering and libeling the organization in Oder to discredit it in favor of their own lies?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:If this were the problem, then the solution would be to provide clear resources by which people could both confidently inform themselves and determine the trustworthiness of other sources. And then you'd have a well-informed populace both electing better people and also ceasing to use the sources of bad information.
They are misinformed, by people spending billions of dollars to work against their interests and misinform them.
quote:"You object? Oh no, no n n no no, You *strenuously* object, well, that's different. I keep forgetting you were sick the day they taught LAW at LAWSCHOOL!!!"
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Yes, and he should therefore reconsider.
quote:Those are all good questions to consider, if your goal is actually to combat misinformation. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you're not bringing them up for that reason, though. If you believe that the public's problem is that they are misinformed, shouldn't that be a major goal in reforming the system?
Who provides it? Who decides it's trustworthy, and makes sure it stays that way? Who decides what content will be presented, and in what order? Who will convince people to read it? how will you stop private interests from slandering and libeling the organization in Oder to discredit it in favor of their own lies?
quote:I don't see how that statement can exist in conjunction with the idea that there is a major problem with big money campaign donations. The second seems to me to necessarily include that the public is swayed to vote for people based on the things that the money pays for and that these are not good reasons to vote.
My only point is to defeat the notion that there exists a fundamental problem with the electorate.
quote:What if the non-lethal methods were equally effective? Would you then say the victim has a moral obligation to use non-lethal self defense?
What I was trying to say is that, in the case of a violent assault I'm not necessarily sure pepper spray is the best weapon for a cop to use. Sometimes, depending on the level of violence, but I really strongly reject most (or at least most in my state of CA) definitions of "reasonable force." If someone is trying to kill me with a knife, and I kill him with a gun, I didn't use unreasonable force. If I chose to pepper spray him in that situation, fine, but to imply that I (or a cop) had a moral obligation to pepper spray him is, in my opinion, totally untenable. Every nonlethal technology we have today is strictly less effective than a good old fashioned Roscoe. To say that someone has a moral imperative to use one of these methods is to draw a level of moral equivalence between perpetrator and victim/protector that I am totally unwilling to do.
quote:I don't think so. Once someone has broken the social contract about not murdering people, I don't think they have a right to its protection. Choosing non-lethal methods in that case may be more admirable, but there is no duty to do so.
What if the non-lethal methods were equally effective? Would you then say the victim has a moral obligation to use non-lethal self defense?
quote:Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
Nevertheless, killing someone when you know it not to be necessary to apprehend him or to stop a crime in progress is murder.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
Nevertheless, killing someone when you know it not to be necessary to apprehend him or to stop a crime in progress is murder.
quote:It depends. Are you in a society that has relegated the punishment of crimes to some official body? Then you have a duty to society to follow that.
Let's say your assailant has already been subdued by non-lethal means.
quote:But even if you're in such a society, you still have no obligation not to kill him in the first place? Is that your position?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It depends. Are you in a society that has relegated the punishment of crimes to some official body? Then you have a duty to society to follow that.
Let's say your assailant has already been subdued by non-lethal means.
quote:Yes. The obligation you owe is to society, not to the person who tried to kill you.
But even if you're in such a society, you still have no obligation not to kill him in the first place? Is that your position?
quote:I'm not so sure this is obvious actually. I would probably do it, but I don't see it as a given that any society would be okay with that action.
Obviously, if you have a disruptor it's OK to kill him -- even though he hasn't broken the social contract and in fact means you no harm.
quote:How do you determine whether or not someone is attempting to murder you?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Why? I've stated my argument. There is a social contract about not murdering people. If someone violates that (as attempting to murder you would do), they are no longer under its protection and you don't have a duty to not kill them. Note, I'm not saying that you should kill them, just that you are not under a moral obligation not to.
quote:Depends. If you can safely subdue them and then maroon them on a desert island or something where they'll never be a threat again, I'd say you're obligated not to kill them. If there's no easy way to protect yourself aside from killing them now, I'd say you're permitted to kill them.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Dest,
Let's say that you are in a society that doesn't have a judicial system or police force but does have a social contract against murder. Someone earnestly and willfully tries to kill you and, for whatever reason, doesn't succeed. Is it morally impermissible to kill them now that they don't pose an immediate threat to you?
If so, where does this moral obligation not to kill them come from?
quote:There are people who are dying right now that you could save. Do you not respect their right to life?
The obligation comes from the fact that they have a right to life.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I want to come back to this, too. Honestly, marooning them on a desert island sounds like a lot of work. Is there some level of burden where you are no longer under an obligation to not kill them. Let's say to maroon them, you'll need to learn how to sail, build a boat, explore around to find a suitable island, and then after you drop them off have to make regular food runs so they don't starve to death.
If you can safely subdue them and then maroon them on a desert island or something where they'll never be a threat again
quote:The reason I hesitate to give an answer is that there are many potential answers, and I'm not sure which is correct. And like I said, we're speaking hypothetically in the first place, since I actually think the right to life is broader than just the right not to be killed.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Because I know where my moral principles come from. And I don't accept this one.
If you're saying that it is so because you choose to believe it, that's fine, but that seem to me to be a pretty nonsensical foundation.
quote:It is someone's life. But certainly there's some degree of hardship that would be too great, so the answer to the important question is yes, there is some level of burden where you are no longer under an obligation to not kill them.
I want to come back to this, too. Honestly, marooning them on a desert island sounds like a lot of work. Is there some level of burden where you are no longer under an obligation to not kill them. Let's say to maroon them, you'll need to learn how to sail, build a boat, explore around to find a suitable island, and then after you drop them off have to make regular food runs so they don't starve to death.
Do you have the obligation to do this instead of killing them?
quote:But you're not killing them solely in self defense. Yes, that goal is accomplished, but in my view, they've forfeited the protection offered by the social contract by violating that contact. At that point, you have no obligation to them to not kill them.
But doesn't your view have the absurd consequence that you're allowed to kill someone "in self defense" even when you can protect yourself just as easily without killing them?
quote:You keep conflating "killed" and "murdered," even though I specifically pointed out these are different quantities. It is *against* the social contract to kill someone when it is not necessary, or perceived as necessary, to do so. We call that, a killing which constitutes a violation of the social contract, a "murder."
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
So, it's not a right to life, but rather a right not be killed.
If so, where does that right come from?
quote:One thing that's confusing me: how do you know the social contract doesn't govern when lethal methods can be used in self-defense? Couldn't there be a just civilization where people generally agreed that it was impermissible to kill attempted murderers in cases where they can be subdued non-lethally?
But you're not killing them solely in self defense. Yes, that goal is accomplished, but in my view, they've forfeited the protection offered by the social contract by violating that contact. At that point, you have no obligation to them to not kill them.
However, in our society, there is a separate obligation one owes to society because we delegate punishment of crimes to the judicial system. This is only goes into effect after the person is subdued, though.
quote:Nothing I've said implies this. It might be that the death penalty deters crime in a way that imprisonment doesn't, so that imposing the death penalty will lead to fewer murders. In that case, setting a society-wide policy of killing attempted murderers might be the right thing. (Although I don't know of a state where the death penalty applies to attempted murder, which is all the attacker in our example is guilty of.)
edit: I think part of this is also that, while there are some major practical problems with it, I have no theoretical objection to the death penalty. I'm assuming that you do.
quote:Yeah, if there's some morally good end they can achieve by doing so, and couldn't achieve in any better way. That's very different from saying that it's permissible to kill someone who is attacking you, even when there's nothing morally good to gain by doing so (which seems to be your position).
If a society can morally kill someone as the result of judicial proceedings, then a person in a theoretical society without a judicial system can likewise do so.
quote:Good. That's their job. Unlike the police in these videos, the ones you saw were doing their job right. That's the minimum we should expect from our public servants.
I've seen protesters sticking their fingers in the face of police and screaming at them from just a few inches away, and the police have kept their cool. They know that if they make one wrong step there will be 20 people around taking pictures of it just to throw everyone into an uproar.
quote:If they were to stay put, rather than obeying police orders to move, that would harm someone?
Luckily we have had no problems whatsoever here in Las Vegas. The people here at Occupy Vegas have been MORE than willing to work with the police. The police have asked them to move, they simply do it. They don't argue, cry, or scream at them. They have their beliefs and make them known, but they are doing it in a mature way that doesn't cause harm to anyone.
quote:Really? B of A is a scummy company, and also really lame. I have great sympathy for anyone who takes them on.
Compare that to Oakland where people are firing off shots or the other protest (I think New York?) where they broke into Bank of America and vandalized it. Why on EARTH would I want to hear what someone who does that has to say?
quote:Wow. No.
Originally posted by Destineer:
Morally, it might be an OK thing to do
quote:I think there are many situations in which protestors commit vandalism as an expression of legitimate complaints that we the public ought to pay attention to. Environmentalists sometimes do this kind of thing too, for example.
Why on EARTH would I want to hear what someone who does that has to say?
quote:I still would disagree that vandalism is a morally acceptable method of highlighting that.
Originally posted by Destineer:
What if the protestors are right that large US banks are, in fact, instruments of oppression?
quote:If that turned out to be the case, then by all means, viva la revolucion. Change the name of the movement to Burn Wall Street and pass out the torches.
Originally posted by Destineer:
What if the protestors are right that large US banks are, in fact, instruments of oppression?
quote:Ok. I'll ask you, too. What if the private property being destroyed were tea?
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Vandalism of a bank office is OK in the course of a protest as long as the bank is scummy? I don't see how that's a good enough excuse.
I can see refusing to leave a park as an acceptable level of civil disobedience by protesters. Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
quote:I have no opinion on that. Feel bad for the tea company? I'm not by any means a member or sympathizer of the Tea Party movement, if that's what you're driving at.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Ok. I'll ask you, too. What if the private property being destroyed were tea?
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Vandalism of a bank office is OK in the course of a protest as long as the bank is scummy? I don't see how that's a good enough excuse.
I can see refusing to leave a park as an acceptable level of civil disobedience by protesters. Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
quote:I see what you're doing and I like how clever it is, though.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Ok. I'll ask you, too. What if the private property being destroyed were tea?
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Vandalism of a bank office is OK in the course of a protest as long as the bank is scummy? I don't see how that's a good enough excuse.
I can see refusing to leave a park as an acceptable level of civil disobedience by protesters. Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
quote:Since nobody else seems to have answered this question...
Originally posted by Destineer:
Why is vandalism necessarily worse than committing other crimes in the name of civil disobedience? Because it's a property crime with a clear victim?
quote:Eh. I didn't think it was all that clever - or that subtle. Just a reminder that, sometimes, we as a country have approved of the destruction of private property in order to make a political statement. We tend to think of the Boston Tea Party as a blow against England when really it was the destruction property that belonged to a company.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I see what you're doing and I like how clever it is, though.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Ok. I'll ask you, too. What if the private property being destroyed were tea?
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Vandalism of a bank office is OK in the course of a protest as long as the bank is scummy? I don't see how that's a good enough excuse.
I can see refusing to leave a park as an acceptable level of civil disobedience by protesters. Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
I dislike how it is a manipulation of the general disconnect from the lessons of our own history that makes it clever.
quote:Insofar as B of A is a monopoly, propped up and supported by the full military might of the US... that is, insofar as BoA's relationship with the US mirrors the EIC's relationship with the British Empire... you're totally right!
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Eh. I didn't think it was all that clever - or that subtle. Just a reminder that, sometimes, we as a country have approved of the destruction of private property in order to make a political statement. We tend to think of the Boston Tea Party as a blow against England when really it was the destruction property that belonged to a company.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I see what you're doing and I like how clever it is, though.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Ok. I'll ask you, too. What if the private property being destroyed were tea?
Originally posted by advice for robots:
Vandalism of a bank office is OK in the course of a protest as long as the bank is scummy? I don't see how that's a good enough excuse.
I can see refusing to leave a park as an acceptable level of civil disobedience by protesters. Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
I dislike how it is a manipulation of the general disconnect from the lessons of our own history that makes it clever.
ETA: I doubt that corporate vandalism is necessary here, but I don't see a big moral difference between the property of BoA and the property of the East India Company.
quote:Smoking opium is what would explain some of their fees and policies.
Originally posted by scholarette:
kmboots, I wouldn't put it past them.
quote:Here is the problem with your comparisons, boots, as I see it.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Good heavens! And you think my comparisons are absurd! Certainly, property destruction is vandalism. It is not necessarily violent nor is it mass murder. Again, can you say that the Sons of Liberty (who often btw engaged in more violent activities than property destruction) were wrong to toss that tea? What about my comparison do you find absurd?
I am more likely to listen to someone who gets my attention. Sometimes that can be done without disturbing people; often it cannot.
quote:Not really. Much the same way that if Al Qaeda had failed to provoke us into war, I would not consider their actions any more or less moral.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If the Sons of Liberty had not succeeded in provoking a war, would you in retrospect consider their actions less moral?
quote:That it's justified in this case?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So you are saying that sometimes destruction of private property (and even violence which is further than I went) is sometimes justified. Which is what I said, too. So where am I so wrong?
quote:Fundamentally I think you're wrong that it is comparable to the Boston Tea Party, but I think that because 1)I think OWS lacks very much in the way of legitimate gripes, and 2)Even if they did not, I think that a BoA branch is not a very good representative of the adversary they are ostensibly fighting.
...insofar as BoA's relationship with the US mirrors the EIC's relationship with the British Empire... you're totally right!
That is to say... there is a shred of truth here (see bailouts, ML acquisition, etc.)... but you're still wrong.
quote:Actually, I think you have the wrong perspective on OWS here. To OWS, the problem is the pigs, and BoA is one of the biggest pigs. That there may be a systemic way to deal with all the pigs does not mean that striking a blow against an individual pig is seen as pointless.
BoA may be one of the fattest and ugliest pigs at the trough, but they are hardly the only pig, and more importantly the trough is the real problem, not the pigs. The "trough" is, of course, the government. Or, if you're an OWS protester, I guess it's capitalism and prosperity?
quote:If you will read what I wrote, I was quite careful not to say it was justified in this case only that the destruction of private property is sometimes justified. Or at least, that we, as a country, have sometimes deemed it admirable through the lens of history. That it is not some sacred line that good people never cross as afr suggested.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:That it's justified in this case?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So you are saying that sometimes destruction of private property (and even violence which is further than I went) is sometimes justified. Which is what I said, too. So where am I so wrong?
I thought I said that in the beginning... Yeah here it is.
quote:Fundamentally I think you're wrong that it is comparable to the Boston Tea Party, but I think that because 1)I think OWS lacks very much in the way of legitimate gripes, and 2)Even if they did not, I think that a BoA branch is not a very good representative of the adversary they are ostensibly fighting.
...insofar as BoA's relationship with the US mirrors the EIC's relationship with the British Empire... you're totally right!
That is to say... there is a shred of truth here (see bailouts, ML acquisition, etc.)... but you're still wrong.
I don't think I ever said vandalizing property is automatically always in every case wrong. If I did, I apologize! I was totally wrong to maybe say that. Another example of where it would be okay to vandalize a bank would be if you had been trapped inside a bank that was slowly filling with water and you had to break a window to escape! (Assuming you couldn't find the hidden switch which would deactivate the water, of course)
Believing in objective moral reality doesn't mean that I believe said morality is determined in a vacuum.
quote:Since I am rarely referenced here, I can't help but notice when I am. Not sure if I'm being misrepresented. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was saying vandalism is not a line OWS should be crossing. It's not, however, a line that should never be crossed.
That it is not some sacred line that good people never cross as afr suggested.
quote:How about "structuring taxation such that the colonizing country gets all the wealth while the colonized country is stripped of its resources while never being allowed to develop infrastructure or trade on its own behalf and remains permanently economically dependent?"
England may be debatable, being taxed to pay for something you don't like is a pretty mild form of "evil." The "no taxation without representation" thing is closer, but I think that the focus should be the East India Company.
quote:You did in your clarification. In the post I was originally responding to, it was not clear.
Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Since I am rarely referenced here, I can't help but notice when I am. Not sure if I'm being misrepresented. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was saying vandalism is not a line OWS should be crossing. It's not, however, a line that should never be crossed.
That it is not some sacred line that good people never cross as afr suggested.
quote:
Seems like condoning the destruction of private property crosses the line, though.
quote:Well, that seems less appropriate to me. Accepting it as true, an unequal distribution of spoils does superficially compare with the theme of inequality of OWS, but as a comparison to "evil" that seems pretty low grade and not very flattering
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:How about "structuring taxation such that the colonizing country gets all the wealth while the colonized country is stripped of its resources while never being allowed to develop infrastructure or trade on its own behalf and remains permanently economically dependent?"
England may be debatable, being taxed to pay for something you don't like is a pretty mild form of "evil." The "no taxation without representation" thing is closer, but I think that the focus should be the East India Company.
quote:I wasn't saying you were young (or not young
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pooka, how young do you imagine I am?! I was 30 in 1994.
) But it's my impression that a lot of the energy driving OWS is from a younger generation, and I believe the hot blood of the American revolution was from a then younger generation. quote:To take this further, the new "tax" actually made tea cheaper to the colonists (largely by conferring to the EIC a monopoly on the distribution rights of tea to the colonies). The problem was that by doing so, it basically priced out the smaller merchant/privateer/smuggler market created by the upper-class colonists.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Taxation rates in America just before the Revolutionary War were lower than pretty much anywhere else in the British Empire, including back in England itself. Lack of representation was a fair argument. The tax revolt aspect was poppycock.
They had plenty of legitimate complaints. I don't think that was one of them.
quote:The OWS demographics are likely skewed by the fact that 16-to-25-year-olds are the hardest hit by the economic conditions, in that their unemployment rate is much higher than older workers. Like by as much as double: http://bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:I wasn't saying you were young (or not young
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pooka, how young do you imagine I am?! I was 30 in 1994.
Now I did read a Newsweek article saying one can find people of all ages in the OWS movement, and I'm sure that's true but I believe the majority of them are are recent college graduate aged. If anyone has a link showing otherwise I'd be happy to adjust my opinion.
Mucus: OWS is way more upset about not getting the best of the most privileged lifestyle on the planet than one could accuse the American colonists having been. If you want to judge their behavior by our standards, try judging OWS behavior by a Ugandan's standards.
quote:(We're covering a lot of varied ground here)
Originally posted by pooka:
... If you want to judge their behavior by our standards, try judging OWS behavior by a Ugandan's standards.
quote:I am not sure what your reason is. It read to me as if your reason was that young people don't have a sense of history or perspective. I think that the reason OWS is happening now is because income equality and social mobility is worse now than it was and, rather than most everyone trying to fix economic hardship, some in Congress are making it worse.
Originally posted by pooka:
Yeah, but I think my reason is a better explanation for why OWS is happening now and not when I was a whippersnapper.
Er, actually, I may never have been a whippersnapper. (This is said for humorous effect. As mentioned in the early pages, I did actually attend some nuclear test ban demonstrations in the late 80's.)
quote:My theorizing arose from this.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't think that England was actually evil.
ETA; At least to the US colonies. Ireland is another matter!
quote:Really? Truly? You're saying that the EIC and BAC (B of A's actual corporate acronym) are legitimately comparable? You're going to commit to this?
Originally posted by Mucus:
If you're advocating against a domestic, monopolistic, and abusive corporation that greatly benefits from close and corrupt ties with the government a la BoA, then the East India Company is about as good an example as they come (perhaps too good, as I've noted).
quote:I am kind of a peacenik, but I don't think that war is only justified when your enemy is evil. I think that England's actions towards the colonies were destructive but I don't think that they were of evil intent and they were certainly milder in there subjugation of the US colonies than most other oppressor nations or even in their subjugation of other colonies. Compared to our treatment of the Native Americans, the English were practically gentle with us.
From here, I think, is where it gets more interesting. Because then there is the question of whether or not war, in general, is moral. I believe that it can be, when the enemy is evil enough, but then I also believe in objective good and evil
quote:Again, in addition to being all around much more evil than BAC, the EIC's ties to Great Britain were orders of magnitude deeper than BAC's ties to the US Gov, which much more significantly blurs the line between private property and government property.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that in our horror at the contemporary vandalism of corporate property, we often forget that what most of us think of as a valiant blow for freedom in 1773 was also the destruction of corporate property.
quote:The problem here is that in order for one to not view the destruction of private property as not bad, one needs to be given the full context first, because context-free it is bad.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
ETA: In other words, the destruction of private property does not necessarily make a protest (or protesters) "bad".
quote:No, I don't see that it was.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Really? Truly? You're saying that the EIC and BAC (B of A's actual corporate acronym) are legitimately comparable? You're going to commit to this?
Originally posted by Mucus:
If you're advocating against a domestic, monopolistic, and abusive corporation that greatly benefits from close and corrupt ties with the government a la BoA, then the East India Company is about as good an example as they come (perhaps too good, as I've noted).
Wasn't this comparison demolished in like three sentences on the previous page?
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Growing opium, smuggling opium, and then invading and colonizing in order to continue selling opium when caught is somewhat difficult to compare to selling fraudulent mortgages.
You'd probably have to do some mashing together of Citigroup (to match the political connections), of Halliburton (to get mercenary armies), and the CIA (selling drugs in Central America) to get anything really comparable.
quote:I don't follow how this relates.
Originally posted by pooka:
Mucus, China is seeking to emerge as a first world power (If you can tolerate my assumption they are not one already.) I wouldn't say their perspective is so different from our own.
quote:But see this comes back to how I'm using "evil" in a very technical philosophical sense rather than a colloquial sense. So, yes, Ted Bundy is evil, but so is the guy who knocks over a liquor store. In the sense that both have committed immoral acts. Evil is not a binary scale, in my opinion.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pooka, that was in response to Dan.
quote:I am kind of a peacenik, but I don't think that war is only justified when your enemy is evil. I think that England's actions towards the colonies were destructive but I don't think that they were of evil intent and they were certainly milder in there subjugation of the US colonies than most other oppressor nations or even in their subjugation of other colonies. Compared to our treatment of the Native Americans, the English were practically gentle with us.
From here, I think, is where it gets more interesting. Because then there is the question of whether or not war, in general, is moral. I believe that it can be, when the enemy is evil enough, but then I also believe in objective good and evil
ETA: Dan, just the opium part.
As far as we know.
quote:Wow, that's hilarious. So it was demolished by you! At least as far as I can see... how are you failing to persuade yourself that EIC and BAC, while having a couple of (troubling!) superficial similarities, are at the most basic level hugely different entities?
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:No, I don't see that it was.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Really? Truly? You're saying that the EIC and BAC (B of A's actual corporate acronym) are legitimately comparable? You're going to commit to this?
Originally posted by Mucus:
If you're advocating against a domestic, monopolistic, and abusive corporation that greatly benefits from close and corrupt ties with the government a la BoA, then the East India Company is about as good an example as they come (perhaps too good, as I've noted).
Wasn't this comparison demolished in like three sentences on the previous page?
Maybe I'm not explaining myself very clearly.
I'm also the one who made this observation
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Growing opium, smuggling opium, and then invading and colonizing in order to continue selling opium when caught is somewhat difficult to compare to selling fraudulent mortgages.
You'd probably have to do some mashing together of Citigroup (to match the political connections), of Halliburton (to get mercenary armies), and the CIA (selling drugs in Central America) to get anything really comparable.
quote:About the same as now, because they sometimes were violent and vandalised property?
Originally posted by Geraine:
I can only imagine what would have happened with the civil rights movement if they had been violent or vandalized property. ...
quote:Huh? I'm not sure I follow you.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
... how are you failing to persuade yourself that EIC and BAC, while having a couple of (troubling!) superficial similarities, are at the most basic level hugely different entities?
quote:Yeah, I don't buy this. I don't think OWS somehow needs to commit property crimes in order to get attention. They've been lavished with attention. They got attention when they were just people camping out against the rules in a privately owned public park (which, to be clear, I saw no problem with, as the owners of the park had not asked them to leave).
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, I am not likely to listen to someone who does not make me aware of the fact that they are saying something. The protesters are not my children; they don't automatically have my attention. If a child asks so nicely that I don't notice them asking, they aren't going to get what they want.
quote:Oh! My mistake, Mucus, sorry! So I correctly understood your original post, and misunderstood your more recent post. I think the phrase:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Huh? I'm not sure I follow you.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
... how are you failing to persuade yourself that EIC and BAC, while having a couple of (troubling!) superficial similarities, are at the most basic level hugely different entities?
I was specifically saying that they are hugely different. That's the point of the post.
quote:Is what threw me. I see now when you say "perhaps too good, as I've noted" you're referring to your original post. I just saw the "a la BoA" and interpreted that as comparing EIC and BAC. Soooo... yeah! This crow doesn't taste very good at all. Sorry to misunderstand you.
If you're advocating against a domestic, monopolistic, and abusive corporation that greatly benefits from close and corrupt ties with the government a la BoA, then the East India Company is about as good an example as they come (perhaps too good, as I've noted).
quote:http://www.kptv.com/story/16033228/windows-smashed-at-portland-bank
On Monday, Occupy Portland's press team issued the following statement to "people who use the Occupy name to justify violence."
Violence is a form of fear. You lash out at what you are afraid of, hoping to destroy it before it destroys you. But no one with this kind of fear can ever be free. The Occupy name makes it all feel safe, as if there are millions standing with you as you lash out at what you fear. But instead, all you do is spread that fear to others, and take a bit of their freedom from them. If you engage in violence, no matter if you claim the Occupy name, you are by definition separate.
Violence solves nothing... violence perpetuates the systemic problems that we have. Do you solve a fire by fanning the flames? Do you dry clothing by sticking it in water? The use of violence reveals only one thing: that a person is not yet ready to live in the world that they are asking for.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Is what threw me. I see now when you say "perhaps too good, as I've noted" you're referring to your original post.
quote:Depending on what time frame we are using for the civil rights movement, violence was rejected almost to the point of absurdity. It was only in the period after the mid sixties that some of the major groups questioned it as a philosophy. Southern blacks commonly armed themselves for self defense, but it wasn't until after thr main, traditional civil rights period that major riots and violence happened. Most of the movement juggernaut organizations were more of less defunct at that point.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:About the same as now, because they sometimes were violent and vandalised property?
Originally posted by Geraine:
I can only imagine what would have happened with the civil rights movement if they had been violent or vandalized property. ...
Chinese-American businesses in Memphis were specifically targeted for destruction by black rioters because they wouldn't choose between the black "side" or the white "side."
quote:Which is why the Sons of Liberty made a habit of beating, tarring, and killing loyalists.
British Loyalists didn't see the Sons of Liberty as heroes, and the Boston Tea Party would not have been seen as persuasive by them.
quote:If you think the fight is between OWS and capitalism you really don't understand OWS at all.
I mean, they're fighting for different results, obviously, and I think one of them was basically fighting for good ends and the other's basically fighting for evil ends, but the nature of their fights are more analogous than the "fight" of OWS vs. Capitalism.
quote:Disrupt commerce, draw attention to the real issues, knock people out of their complacency, shake things up...
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Does anybody have a quick rundown on the rationale for why Occupy is targeting ports? I'm not grasping on how that fits with the movements core objectives.
quote:<edit>Kate's link points out that two "men [who] have held elected office in ILWU Local 10" (one of whom is now retired) supported the call for the port shutdown. That's a pretty thin reed for the assertion there's "discussion" among the leadership. Unless there's something else at the link that I'm missing.<edit>
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union said it generally supports the Occupy movement but opposes the blockade because the movement appears to be trying to appropriate union issues.
"Support is one thing, organization from outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another," ILWU President Robert McEllrath wrote in a letter to local union branches.