Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?

[toastywombel]

Okay John, let us take this step by step. . . .

 

So people with such bad organisational skills that they think they need 25 committees and working groups to co-ordinate 70 people are the ones you will listen to for advice on how to run a country?

 

Jumping to conclusions about my beliefs. I never stated the above nor was it implied by my comments. Furthermore, why would you exclude someone from giving you advice on government? Simply because you don't like their organizational skills? Furthermore, why should you exclude anyone from giving you advice? That seems like a rather ignorant position that does not correlate with such concepts as: freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, and democracy. I mean even I watch Fox despite the fact that it is clearly biased.

 

If there were 10,000 protestors, they might have justification, but they don't. They only had 700 pledging to turn up anyway, does it take 25 committees to co-ordinate 700?

 

Actually there are tens of thousands of protesters rallying around the OWS movement worldwide. I do understand your point about the committees, but again that only proves that the protesters have many committees. One may go to the extent of saying that such a system is redundant. But it is not wise to make broad, overreaching conclusions based on a very small detail, which this is.

 

Do you take financial advice from the person who's never had a job or from soneone knowledgeable in the field? To me it's the same thing.

 

False choice. Why are there only two types of people to side with on this issue? Those with an 'level of knowledge' and those who have never had a job. Or is that all there is to you?

 

The irony of this statement is that for years the finance industry and the public took the advice of those who were often considered to be knowledgeable in the field of finance. Do I need to remind you how that turned out? But I suppose your point is that you don't take advice from anyone unless they are knowledgeable in the field. Again very broad point. What level of education is considered knowledgeable? And again it seems really close minded and anti-democratic to simply shut out a group of people out from giving you advice.

 

As to the slogans. The thing here is that it's not slogans. Slogans are, as you say, a standard part of protesting and politics in general. I have no quibble with this. However the repetition of the "Leaders" comments are not slogans, they are a form of affirmation, a totally different thing. People are far easier to influence in a group, you can make them say and do things that they would never do if you tried it on a one to one basis. The use of affirmations is to increase the feeling of "inclusiveness", a person is included in the group because they are repeating the leaders words and is set apart from those who don't. In this particular case, by the frequent use of the words "Democracy" and "Consultation" the crowd member is made to feel that they are "special" because they are part of the group that believes in democracy and consultation. Note that this also gives the crowd member the impression that those who don't repeat the leaders words obviously don't believe in democracy and consultation.

 

So slogans you consider part of politics in general are okay and you have no quibble? Again, your point is vague and obviously biased. Then it seems that your are trying to argue that protest leaders using words like democracy and consultation to empower protesters is a bad thing. From my understanding most people go to protests to change policy and vent frustration. I think the examples you are making to marginalize the whole occupy wallstreet movement are really examples you could apply to many different protest groups throughout history.

 

I mean you are making the argument that if leaders of political protests/movements use slogans to make protesters feel empowered, included and special amongst other usually positive emotions that it is and only can be brainwashing.

 

The truth is your post is just a vast generalization of one group of people. Then you compare that group of people (ows protesters) to another group of people you deem brainwashed (environmentalists). And your evidence for brainwashing is that the leaders of the movement chant empowering mottos that make protesters feel special. Finally all of that aside, you just accuse the protesters of being brainwashed and hardly attempt to address what they are protesting.

 

 

Come on this is a joke. Its not even within the realm of legitimate debate about the OP. Finally the most ridiculous statement from your post is this,

Start a new party, or infiltrate and gain control of an established one, neither are particularly difficult to do, and get what you want enacted.

 

Really, you think starting a political party and/or infiltrating an active one is not difficult to do?

 

Many banks committed fraud amongst other things, yet its the protesters who are at fault for not working hard and brainwashing each other by using inclusive slogans.

 

I mean really to what extent are people allowed to spout intellectually dishonest debate on the politics forum. It seems the whole point of your topic doesn't even address the protesters message instead it just attacks a select few of the protesters in an attempt to marginalize them. Furthermore you frame your whole theory off of pure conjecture and one video.

 

And now the protestors are sitting down whining about how much they don't like it. Don't like something? Fine! Then get off your arse and actually do something about it rather than bitching and moaning 'cause I'm not listening. Bluntly, if it's your cause and you aren't going to do anything, why should I?

 

And what are you doing? sitting down at your computer complaining how you don't like that the protesters are not getting off their butt. . . Yet they are out protesting. I mean if you applied the above logic to yourself one could say, "Stop being lazy get off your butt and go show the protesters how to protest effectively or stop complaining about it.

 

Another thing, why do approach as if you are from a position of authority on all these issues? You continually imply that you know what successful protesting is, you aren't going to listen to the protesters (as if that invalidates them to anyone else but yourself), the protest leaders use crowd control brainwashing (are you an expert on this subject?).

Edited October 17, 2011 by toastywombel

[JohnB]

Firstly, let's make a couple of things clear. I have not been talking about the ows thing in general. I have been talking about 2 specific things.

 

1. Concerning the committees. These are in Sydney, Australia. They have no bearing whatsoever on the ows movement worldwide. My point being that the original co-ordinating group (maybe 20 people?) decided that they needed all those committees for Sydney, not anywhere else, but for 1 city. Got that? How many people worldwide are involved is quite beside the point, this refers to 1 city only. They were expecting 700 odd protestors in Sydney and decided they needed 25 committees to co-ordinate them all. This to me shows an apalling lack of organisational ability.

 

2. Tactics. There are certain psychological tactics that you use to achieve different goals. For example, to gee up a crowd or a footbal team the tactic is roughly the same; "Are we going to let them win?" "NO", "Can we beat them?" "YES", etc, etc, "Now go out there and WIN". Different groups, but the methodology is the same. Asking the yes/no questions will motivate a team or a group of protestors to action. Yes, you are leading them, but toward the defined goal of action on a specific point. It's used to get the adrenaline pumping and the group ramped up for action.

 

The affirmation technique is totally different. It is used to get people conditioned to repeat the words of the leader as truth. You use it (using the "Me Too" factor) to make it appear that more people actually agree with what you are saying than really do, and that they agree with you 100%. (If they didn't, then they wouldn't be repeating your words, would they?) This technique ensures that when interviewed by the media, people will parrot what the leader has been saying. In the case of general protests it's a short term conditioning, but you only need it for the 6 PM soundbites. It is brainwashing at a very basic level and doesn't last long but it can be "improved" on with longer exposure. Some sort of "Sit in" with your own agents going around and talking to people is a great reinforcer. It is the tactic you use to create a cult or similar.

 

This isn't to say that the ows movement is a cult, I doubt that it is. However I find it very worrying that the organisers of the movement are using this particular tactic, as its sole purpose is to produce "Groupthink" and a mindless acceptance of the leaders position. That is indoctrination and not Democracy.

 

The thing to be understood is that it doesn't matter what is said, it's how it's said that is important for that betrays the techniques, and the techniques betray the purpose. The best example I can think of here is the technique used to increase membership in an organisation and to gee up the members at meetings. So let's compare a Revivalist/Fundamentalist chuch and Amway. It goes like this;

 

1. Organise your meeting. This brings the disaffected plebs to you without much worry. You immediately know that they are unhappy about something (spirituality or money) because they wouldn't be there otherwise. A nice, pretty much locked in audience with your agents spread throughout the group.

 

2. Open by welcoming them and telling them their answers are "here". (Appreciative murmours from the agents.)

 

3. Make them think about how crappy their life is. Make them feel sad and hopeless.

 

4. Tell them there is hope. Begin the hard sell.

 

5. Call up "witnesses". "I was a drunk before I found God"/ "I was broke before I found Amway". 1 or 2 will do the trick here. (I haven't said that the witnesses are telling the truth, have I?"

 

6. Promise future rewards. Go to heaven/ Attend conference in Bali/ End your financial problems/ Whatever.

 

7. Bring up main "Witness" who has totally turned their life around and is no longer bothered by the worries that brought your audience to the meeting.

 

8. Tell them they can have this too.

 

9. Break up for coffee/tea with your agents freely circulating and "witnessing" themselves.

 

10. Sign them up.

 

Now if I go to a meeting and see this technique being used my BS detector goes off immediately and I think ""scam". Because this is the technique you use to rope people in to your group.

 

Which brings me back to my main point. It's not the protests per se that concerns me, it's the tactics being used at the protests that are a worry. Just as a magician recognises magical techniques so too does a salesman recognise selling techniques (and yes, I'm a salesman).

 

Which is as good a place as any to answer this from Toasty;

Another thing, why do approach as if you are from a position of authority on all these issues? You continually imply that you know what successful protesting is, you aren't going to listen to the protesters (as if that invalidates them to anyone else but yourself), the protest leaders use crowd control brainwashing (are you an expert on this subject?).

 

Expert? No. Experienced, quite. In my many and varied occupations over the years I have met and trained under some "interesting" people. Unlike the practitioners of your Ponzi schemes, my instructors are still free. I must say right here that I never participated in scams, my sense of ethics wouldn't allow it, however I did make a study of how to set up and run them. How to set up the scam, how to get the suckers in, what to say and how to say it. A complete course in how to get 150 middle class and up suckers into a room and walk out with $200k at the end of the night. I learned how to sucker "astute" businessmen and exactly why the more highly educated are easier to con than a mum and dad. (Less work too, mums and dads have less disposable income) I learned what appeals to make to which groups and how to make those appeals. Even how those techniques can be applied to create a cult.

 

The best defence is to be able to recognise and identify techniques that can be used to influence you. If you doubt this, then go buy a book on sales techniques and read it cover to cover. Then go around a couple of car yards looking at cars. You'll sometimes find that you know exactly what the salesman will say next (or a variation thereof) and you'll know why he is saying it. Knowledge is strength.

 

On to specifics and remember I'm talking from the Australian perspective. I'm not (except for the bit about techniques) commenting on the American protests.

 

Phi;

1) You're complaining that this isn't a major protest.

 

It's a protest started half a world away from you. I was surprised when it spread to other cities in the US, and now you're telling me it only has 70 supporters in Australia (btw, articles like this one suggest the numbers for Oz are in the thousands)?! And I think you're keyed on so many committees for 70 people, but what about the workload those 70 people are sharing? 25 committees isn't outrageous for 70 people who are planning on spreading a movement they hope will encourage tens of thousands. Think about it, you're saying it's stupid for them to anticipate growth.

 

I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact. You can get 700 boofheads to protest "Saturday" if you needed to. 700 in one city is not a major protest by any account. Support may be in the thousands across the nation, but that is still a very tiny percentage. It's an odds on bet that more people voted for the "Australian Sex Party" at the last election. Nor is there anything wrong with anticipating growth, provided it is tempered with realism. I anticipate growth in my company, does that mean it's sensible to lease an office block in the city for when I get bigger? To create so many committees in the hope that your protest will "encourage tens of thousands" strikes me as classic "delusions of grandeur". I often find that protest organisers, schooled in Leninist/Marxist theory as they are seem to believe that their protest is the one that will spark the "Greak Workers Uprising" that Lenin promised 100 years ago. Ego 100% - Interest in Nation 0%.

 

2) You're complaining that "People should get involved and join and guide the political parties".

 

I think these people ARE getting involved. They certainly aren't sitting in their homes watching it on TV. Perhaps none of the current political parties represent their stance very well. How do new parties start? How can people who aren't keyed into party politics let their representatives know that they are dissatisfied? You seem to be saying that protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules. I don't know about Oz, but in the US we have the right to assemble and associate and express ourselves through free speech, we're encouraged by our constitution to do so to influence the way we're governed. We can't always wait until elections to vote in better representatives, especially when the ones we voted in last time are listening to money instead of us. "I can't afford a lobbyist so I made this sign!"

 

We have the right to protest and all the rest too. I don't think the protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules, nor do I think it's wrong per se. But I do think that doing it this way is pointless and is nothing more than letting off hot air. History shows us that there are only two ways of radically changing a system of government, either from within the prevailing structure or with a gun. Nothing else has ever worked so why think it will this time? That just isn't logical to me. It's been my experience that protestors are, in general, gutless cowards who try to use the group to bully others, so they won't pick up a gun because they might get hurt, really, really hurt. (Again a difference in our systems, but I can guarantee you that for all the screams of "Police Brutality" every aussie protestor knows that the law will come down on any cop that takes it too far. The law protects them from harm.)

 

The other method, of change from within requires patience and no ego. You don't get the ego boost of "I'm doing my bit to change the system" and your face on the 6 O'Clock news. You have to work hard and quietly, but you will achieve your goals. That the low profile approach has so little appeal to the general protest organiser tells me that their ego and desire to be "visible" is more important to them than to actually achieve change. Meanwhile, of course, while they are throwing their tantrums the professional lobbyists who are working wihin the system will continue to get their own way.

 

Put it another way. Didn't both our nations have far larger protests about Iraq? How well has that worked out? If the various govs didn't take any notice then, what delusion makes some people think they will listen this time?

 

3) You're drawing a generalization between protesters and cults because their tactics look the same.

 

Tell me you don't see the same thing happening in any other group formations in our society. Clubs, associations, even businesses use team spirit and controlling tactics to affect the way the individual sees the group. As you say, these tactics work, whether you're whipping your teammates into a winning frenzy, focusing your protestors into a chanting force, or honing your workforce into a cohesive unit of efficiency and profit.

 

See the start of my post for this. The bottom line is that th tactics I'm seeing used are never used for the benefit of the crowd, they are tactics to ensure the power of the leader. I'm stating this as a concern and a warning. I think the valid concerns of the majority of protestors will be hijacked for other purposes. To use the football analogy. You want the companies penalised 10 yards, just be careful that someone doesn't use the impetus to change the referee while you aren't looking.

 

Toasty;

 

Jumping to conclusions about my beliefs. I never stated the above nor was it implied by my comments. Furthermore, why would you exclude someone from giving you advice on government? Simply because you don't like their organizational skills? Furthermore, why should you exclude anyone from giving you advice? That seems like a rather ignorant position that does not correlate with such concepts as: freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, and democracy. I mean even I watch Fox despite the fact that it is clearly biased.

 

I didn't jump to a conclusion, I asked a question. There is a difference. I do realise the current fad is to be inclusive, but it's such a waste of time at times. If I want advice on organisations I will take it first from those with proven skills in the area and secondly from those without proven skills (but may have good ideas). Why would I waste my time listening to someone who has proven they have no skills in the area? It's about being practical rather than idealistic. "Freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, democracy" do you design bridges that way? Do social workers advise on the structure of the bridge? Of course not. So why don't we listen to them? Do you get child rearing advice from the person with a couple of kids or from the person with 6 kids, all of whom have been removed and are now wards of the State? Ignoring "Octomoms" opinions on the US rail network would seem "like a rather ignorant position that does not correlate with such concepts as: freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, and democracy", wouldn't it?

 

Why do you listen to your professors and not the guy that flunked out? Surely his opinion is just as "worthy" as the professors? Or isn't it, due to his proven lack of skills? Now do you see my point?

 

Actually there are tens of thousands of protesters rallying around the OWS movement worldwide. I do understand your point about the committees, but again that only proves that the protesters have many committees. One may go to the extent of saying that such a system is redundant. But it is not wise to make broad, overreaching conclusions based on a very small detail, which this is.

 

See the beginning of my post. How many people are involved worldwide is immaterial to the point. This was about the city of Sydney, Australia only.

 

False choice. Why are there only two types of people to side with on this issue? Those with an 'level of knowledge' and those who have never had a job. Or is that all there is to you?

 

The irony of this statement is that for years the finance industry and the public took the advice of those who were often considered to be knowledgeable in the field of finance. Do I need to remind you how that turned out? But I suppose your point is that you don't take advice from anyone unless they are knowledgeable in the field. Again very broad point. What level of education is considered knowledgeable? And again it seems really close minded and anti-democratic to simply shut out a group of people out from giving you advice.

 

Almost a strawman. Anti-democratic, oh please...... Yes it was a broad point, but even then you seem to have missed it. The difference here is that "taking advice" doesn't mean doing what you are told. A reasonable person gets advice from people in the field and makes up their own mind rather than just blindly following orders. But by all means go and get your medical advice from your plumber in the interests of "democracy" and let us know how that turns out.

 

Similarly please don't confuse "ends" with "means". Far more than the aussie ones (we aren't in as bad a state) the American protestors have a series of extemely valid points. The grievances are very real. In that context I could certainly listen to them as to what the problem is and what the desired outcome should be. (The "ends") However that doesn't mean that I have to listen to them on how it should be accomplished. (The "means") I'm referring specifically to means here and not ends.

 

So slogans you consider part of politics in general are okay and you have no quibble? Again, your point is vague and obviously biased. Then it seems that your are trying to argue that protest leaders using words like democracy and consultation to empower protesters is a bad thing. From my understanding most people go to protests to change policy and vent frustration. I think the examples you are making to marginalize the whole occupy wallstreet movement are really examples you could apply to many different protest groups throughout history.

 

I mean you are making the argument that if leaders of political protests/movements use slogans to make protesters feel empowered, included and special amongst other usually positive emotions that it is and only can be brainwashing.

 

The truth is your post is just a vast generalization of one group of people. Then you compare that group of people (ows protesters) to another group of people you deem brainwashed (environmentalists). And your evidence for brainwashing is that the leaders of the movement chant empowering mottos that make protesters feel special. Finally all of that aside, you just accuse the protesters of being brainwashed and hardly attempt to address what they are protesting.

 

See the above about "tactics". I didn't address what they were protesting about because I have no quibble with it, as I said the protestors have very valid points. I was only addressing the tactics. If that doesn't suit you, well....tough luck. You're trying to make out that I think the protestors are wrong and are trying to argue this point. But I don't think that they are wrong. I simply think that the tactics being used on them are worrisome and that in the end the protests will be ineffective anyway. Totally different things.

 

Really, you think starting a political party and/or infiltrating an active one is not difficult to do?

 

Many banks committed fraud amongst other things, yet its the protesters who are at fault for not working hard and brainwashing each other by using inclusive slogans.

 

I mean really to what extent are people allowed to spout intellectually dishonest debate on the politics forum. It seems the whole point of your topic doesn't even address the protesters message instead it just attacks a select few of the protesters in an attempt to marginalize them. Furthermore you frame your whole theory off of pure conjecture and one video.

 

Remember the differences in our two systems. It isn't hard to do down here, it might be much harder in the US, I don't know. My comments on this were from the Australian perspective and concerned Australian and not American political parties. Also, please don't try to so simplify things that meanings get distorted. If the lobbyists control Congress it's only because the people let them, so in that repect yes, the people didn't work hard enough to keep control of their government. You have to ask the basic question: "How did it come to this?" The answer is simple, people didn't care. They let it go on while they grumbled occasionally, they let the two parties distract them with the Red/Blue circus to the extent that the best political commentator you have is a bloody comedian. Then when it hit the GFC, they realised that they had lost control and now they want "somebody" to do "something" about it. The problem came about because they didn't do anything concrete and will continue until they do.

 

Furthermore do not make assumptions as to what I know or have watched, you will get a nasty surprise.

 

And what are you doing? sitting down at your computer complaining how you don't like that the protesters are not getting off their butt. . . Yet they are out protesting. I mean if you applied the above logic to yourself one could say, "Stop being lazy get off your butt and go show the protesters how to protest effectively or stop complaining about it.

 

Actually I am a member of a political party down here and am working for change from within. (Along with others) Yes, they are out protesting, just like they did over Iraq. Have the allied troops withdrawn and I somehow missed it? Of course, how silly of me...The protests were sooooo effective that allied troops never went there. Yes, the protests were so effective, weren't they? How the hell do you think I know what the Aussie organisers are wanting and what they are or are not willing to do? Because I've bloody talked to them, that's why. I've tried. But they don't want to do the hard yards, they want the soundbites and the noise and the publicity. Every organisation has them, the "Gloryhounds", the ones who step up for the accolades and the media but who view the hard, long slog as almost beneath them and only fit for the plebs.

 

Try it this way. If protests have rarely worked in the past as a political tool for great change, why continue trying? Why keep using the same old failed methods? There has to be a reason for doing the same, failed thing over and over again, what is it? Because the change isn't important, the act of protesting itself is what is important. or The real change they want isn't the one they are protesting about.

 

Think about it.

 

Edit: About the whole "getting involved" thing. From my POV, a protestor is not really more involved than the person who goes and casts his vote every 4 years. If protesting is "being involved", then so is the voter. The way I see it, being involved means more than just casting a vote or protesting, it means actually getting out there and getting involved. Going to the meetings, pushing the agenda and yes, lobbying people to back your policy change ideas. To me the protestor saying "I want change" or whatever is as meaningless as the person that says "I've voted, I'm involved in the running of my country."

 

Being involved in a Democracy isn't a once every 4 years thing, it's not a hobby that you do every couple of months for a day of protest. It's more than that, it's wanting your government to be the best it can be and be willing to take the time and spend the nights arguing for your values, convincing others that the changes you want are good and right. Convincing people by fact and argument, not by yelling loudly and annoying them, but getting them onside. That's Democracy, but it's hard work, you've got to want it bad.

Edited October 18, 2011 by JohnB

[FutureBeast]

Everyone likes to talk about how we need free healthcare and by that they mean tax-payer funded health services. I believe that this is because it is a seemingly simple answer to a big problem. I implore people to reexamine their premises however. The government is massively inefficient and politicians are not trustworthy. Long lived government programs have a tendency to get very corrupted over time and since we have such high healthcare costs currently in terms of dollars paid for drugs, nutrients and services, it seems like we should focus on reducing costs rather than the federal distribution of funds to overpaid doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Government seems to be more efficient at mobilizing vast sectors of he population for completing specific projects. Why not drive down costs of healthcare by building state of the art hospitals in every county or providing tax and other incentives to pharmaceutical and nutrient manufacturers and dramatically increasing the supply? That may drive down costs to a reasonable level for everyone.

 

My father almost died following the advice of doctors when he got cancer. They cut out a piece of his lung and the cancer came back. They wanted to cut out more and part of his urinary track as well. It wasn't until he gave up on the doctors and completely changed his diet and life that he went into remission. He made a miraculous turn around and now is cancer free and healthier than he was before.

 

I believe the answers that we are given are not sufficient and not equal to the problems we face, but I believe that it is in our capacity to solve our problems if we think outside of the paradigm which put us in these positions to begin with.

 

The protesters should focus on nationalizing the fed and increasing interest rates. We have to encourage saving and loans. A reasonable rate of return is what encourages loaning, not a bunch of aimless stimulus.

[toastywombel]

Everyone likes to talk about how we need free healthcare and by that they mean tax-payer funded health services. I believe that this is because it is a seemingly simple answer to a big problem. I implore people to reexamine their premises however. The government is massively inefficient and politicians are not trustworthy. Long lived government programs have a tendency to get very corrupted over time and since we have such high healthcare costs currently in terms of dollars paid for drugs, nutrients and services, it seems like we should focus on reducing costs rather than the federal distribution of funds to overpaid doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Government seems to be more efficient at mobilizing vast sectors of he population for completing specific projects. Why not drive down costs of healthcare by building state of the art hospitals in every county or providing tax and other incentives to pharmaceutical and nutrient manufacturers and dramatically increasing the supply? That may drive down costs to a reasonable level for everyone.

 

My father almost died following the advice of doctors when he got cancer. They cut out a piece of his lung and the cancer came back. They wanted to cut out more and part of his urinary track as well. It wasn't until he gave up on the doctors and completely changed his diet and life that he went into remission. He made a miraculous turn around and now is cancer free and healthier than he was before.

 

I believe the answers that we are given are not sufficient and not equal to the problems we face, but I believe that it is in our capacity to solve our problems if we think outside of the paradigm which put us in these positions to begin with.

 

The protesters should focus on nationalizing the fed and increasing interest rates. We have to encourage saving and loans. A reasonable rate of return is what encourages loaning, not a bunch of aimless stimulus.

 

What does anything but the first sentence of the last paragraph have to do with the protesters?

[FutureBeast]

What does anything but the first sentence of the last paragraph have to do with the protesters?

 

It is all about what I think the message of the protesters should be.

[iNow]

To the thread topic, it seems that despite claims to the contrary, the message is still not getting through to the US populace. From a Gallup poll two days ago:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150164/Americans-Uncertain-Occupy-Wall-Street-Goals.aspx

 

Protesters have demonstrated in and around Wall Street for nearly a month, with the movement spreading and appearing to gain momentum around the U.S. At the same time, Americans are not highly familiar with the movement's activities or its goals. Those who are familiar with the movement tend to be more approving than disapproving of Occupy Wall Street, though with limited public knowledge about it, its supporters represent roughly a quarter of Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

As for it's spread globally, more great pictures below. Things in Rome appear most tense.

 

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_global_prot.html

[amanda more]

To the thread topic, it seems that despite claims to the contrary, the message is still not getting through to the US populace. From a Gallup poll two days ago:

 

 

http://www.gallup.co...reet-Goals.aspx

 

 

 

 

As for it's spread globally, more great pictures below. Things in Rome appear most tense.

 

http://www.boston.co...lobal_prot.html

 

scientology

[iNow]

scientology

Speaking of lacking a clear message, WTF?

[ydoaPs]

To the thread topic, it seems that despite claims to the contrary, the message is still not getting through to the US populace. From a Gallup poll two days ago:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150164/Americans-Uncertain-Occupy-Wall-Street-Goals.aspx

 

 

 

 

As for it's spread globally, more great pictures below. Things in Rome appear most tense.

 

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_global_prot.html

Is that surprising given the main news sources for the majority of Americans?

[imatfaal]

To the thread topic, it seems that despite claims to the contrary, the message is still not getting through to the US populace. From a Gallup poll two days ago:

 

 

http://www.gallup.co...reet-Goals.aspx

 

 

As for it's spread globally, more great pictures below. Things in Rome appear most tense.

 

http://www.boston.co...lobal_prot.html

 

I wonder if people are just being honest to a simple question. A decent percentage of the pop would agree with the republican (democrat) views before an election - but how many would understand them? But they might believe that they understood them or would not dream of admitting that they have little idea of what "their" political party stands for apart from tiny sound-bites . This is a new paradigm and they do not feel any compunction or pressure to claim to understand - a third of a population understanding a political movements goals might not be that bad.

 

Great photos - I was sceptical throughout the Arab Spring and I am still sceptical that any change will be forthcoming here; but I am beginning to think I might be wrong

 

 

Speaking of lacking a clear message, WTF?

 

I had a go at your last abbreviated message (STFU) - so I have to say I completely agree with WTF

[jeskill]

Have any of you read this yet? Thoughts or comments? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[ydoaPs]

Were the goals of the TEA Party more or less vague than those of OWS?

[toastywombel]

Were the goals of the TEA Party more or less vague than those of OWS?

 

It appeared to me that it was not vague at all. The tea party's goal, singular was to disrupt anything done by the federal government under Obama, with some exception to the military and faith-based initiatives. However, that being said there was a vagueness about what the 'Tea Party' was so upset about. Big government? High taxes? Obama is a Nazi? I'm not sure.

 

The OWS protesters actually seem to have many tangible things to be upset about. Bank fees, wealth disparity, the fact that wealthy individuals often don't pay as much in taxes as middle class individuals, corporate-government corruption, and 'for-sale' democracy. But an overlapping goal? It is still hard to discern what the goals of this protest are but I think that the reasons they are upset are not nearly as vague as the Tea Party's.

 

It is all about what I think the message of the protesters should be.

 

And really? You think that this thread is for whatever you think the message of the protesters should be?

Edited October 18, 2011 by toastywombel

[Phi for All]

Speaking of lacking a clear message, WTF?

I had a go at your last abbreviated message (STFU) - so I have to say I completely agree with WTF

 

WTF FTW!

 

 

 

Were the goals of the TEA Party more or less vague than those of OWS?

One of their earliest protests, right after Obama took office in January 2009, was regarding an 18% tax NY state wanted to impose on non-diet soft drinks. They were all about unfair taxation to begin with. And they didn't like Bush's TARP or Obama's stimulus bill, but shortly after protesting both of those, they got an influx of money, advisers and media coverage thanks to Fox. From then on in everything was Obama's fault and they even criticized income tax in April 2009, even though for most of them Obama had lowered taxes on income.

 

Later they moved to attack Obama's health plan and they've been focused on that and privatizing Medicare ever since.

[mooeypoo]

scientology

 

!

Moderator Note

Amanda, we're not here to trade suggested personal attacks and banters, we're here to discuss ideas and share our knowledge and opinions with one another. Stick to the topic, and please understand that when people ask you to clarify, they're not attacking you, they actually want to understand what your point is. Political discussions are hard enough in a scientific forum without these "jab" posts or subtle (and not so subtle) personal attacks. Enough.

[amanda more]

!

Moderator Note

Amanda, we're not here to trade suggested personal attacks and banters, we're here to discuss ideas and share our knowledge and opinions with one another. Stick to the topic, and please understand that when people ask you to clarify, they're not attacking you, they actually want to understand what your point is. Political discussions are hard enough in a scientific forum without these "jab" posts or subtle (and not so subtle) personal attacks. Enough.

 

My apologies. It wasn't at poster. Do -they- lack a clear message? A slightly veiled comment on one teensy tiny group in a small area of the country = they. Let's see .00001 scientologists = bummer so message is hopefully not their clear. Stay tuned.

[Realitycheck]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?stop_mobi=yes

 

Finally got a load of this case. This one just about says it all. Investigation after investigation killed by SEC higherups over and over before they really get developed. Big investment banks hiring key SEC personnel to cushy jobs to get the inside track and help perpetuate above-the-law dealings. All culminating in what should be a landmark case involving Goldman Sacchs starting next month? Next up, I'm trying to figure out how overstock.com is involved, proudly displaying the news involved of this case.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Phi for All]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817?stop_mobi=yes

 

Finally got a load of this case. This one just about says it all. Investigation after investigation killed by SEC higherups over and over before they really get developed. Big investment banks hiring key SEC personnel to cushy jobs to get the inside track and help perpetuate above-the-law dealings. All culminating in what should be a landmark case involving Goldman Sacchs starting next month? Next up, I'm trying to figure out how overstock.com is involved, proudly displaying the news involved of this case.

Very interesting, and certainly more worthy of protest than some of the OWS mandates. I was talking to a friend of mine last night, very conservative, who was putting the protests down completely. He thought it was absurd to protest about a redistribution of wealth in society. He didn't like hearing that people who had worked hard to earn wealth were being blamed for society's woes. That's all he was hearing about the protest.

 

But when I pointed out that they also wanted to hold the financial institutions responsible for their crimes, he was quick to cite some of the worst offenders. I said OWS is also concerned about some of the regulations which have been eroded in the last thirty years and, to my surprise, he started listing them going back as far as Reagan (I would've thought he'd start with Clinton).

 

Then the greatest thing happened. My friend also said he was concerned with how workers in the US were being treated in the past thirty years, how hard work and honesty were no longer enough to prosper and loyalty was demanded but not reciprocated or even respected. I told him OWS was very concerned with how workers have been manipulated through fear into maximized work for minimized compensation, and he agreed wholeheartedly.

 

I hope our talk made an impression, and I hope next time he sees an article about OWS he'll look beyond the 1% vs 99% argument and think about how OWS can answer some of the other things he's concerned about.

[jeskill]

Very interesting, and certainly more worthy of protest than some of the OWS mandates. I was talking to a friend of mine last night, very conservative, who was putting the protests down completely. He thought it was absurd to protest about a redistribution of wealth in society. He didn't like hearing that people who had worked hard to earn wealth were being blamed for society's woes. That's all he was hearing about the protest.

 

But when I pointed out that they also wanted to hold the financial institutions responsible for their crimes, he was quick to cite some of the worst offenders. I said OWS is also concerned about some of the regulations which have been eroded in the last thirty years and, to my surprise, he started listing them going back as far as Reagan (I would've thought he'd start with Clinton).

 

Then the greatest thing happened. My friend also said he was concerned with how workers in the US were being treated in the past thirty years, how hard work and honesty were no longer enough to prosper and loyalty was demanded but not reciprocated or even respected. I told him OWS was very concerned with how workers have been manipulated through fear into maximized work for minimized compensation, and he agreed wholeheartedly.

 

I hope our talk made an impression, and I hope next time he sees an article about OWS he'll look beyond the 1% vs 99% argument and think about how OWS can answer some of the other things he's concerned about.

 

That truly is an amazing story. I think it suggests that keeping OWS as non-partisan as possible for as long as possible may actually be a better tactic than pushing partisan policy options right now, because it's likely there are people out there who are on the right and actually agreeing with many of the grievances.

 

It also seems like OWS has had a hand in changing the political and economic discourse in the U.S. and globally. For example, This article discusses how the various U.S. media outlets were focused on discussing the deficit in the summer, whereas now they are focusing moreso on unemployment, jobs, and Wall Street. The importance of this is that a fear of the deficit makes it easier to make social service cuts. Discussing unemployment and the causes of unemployment probably make it harder to justify social service cuts.

[Phi for All]

That truly is an amazing story. I think it suggests that keeping OWS as non-partisan as possible for as long as possible may actually be a better tactic than pushing partisan policy options right now, because it's likely there are people out there who are on the right and actually agreeing with many of the grievances.

My friend is very well off, but I wouldn't put him in the 1% financially. He owned his own business, and when he sold it he was retained as a consultant to oversee their IPO. His work was so good they promised him the CEO position after the transition. They later recanted and totally screwed him on a technicality, and while he won a suit against them, he refused to help them any further.

 

I think there are lots of people like my friend who consider themselves conservative but agree that regulation of business matters is crucial to keeping the market viable. And no one really benefits from the psychological stress that mega-corporate employers use to marginalize their workers. Just having a job is not the same as job security, and if the prerequisite to employment is being happy with the feeling that you're just hanging on by your fingertips, then we need to re-examine the whole corporate structure.

 

It also seems like OWS has had a hand in changing the political and economic discourse in the U.S. and globally. For example, This article discusses how the various U.S. media outlets were focused on discussing the deficit in the summer, whereas now they are focusing moreso on unemployment, jobs, and Wall Street. The importance of this is that a fear of the deficit makes it easier to make social service cuts. Discussing unemployment and the causes of unemployment probably make it harder to justify social service cuts.

It will be interesting to see what their effect on the elections will be as we enter 2012.

[kitkat]

There are so many problems that contributed to the state we are currently in that I have difficulty in believing that a solution can be found without bloodshed of war. There is no way that our government or the elite are going to say, "We are sorry that we have been corrupt, greedy, and power hungry and although we have been working since the 1980's or before in creating laws to work in our favor and have been in bed with wallstreet, banks, etc to achieve our goals in destroying America's economy, we will change and do it honestly and fairly now."

 

They are high on their power trip and they are not likely to give it up without a fight. It is an illusion when it is often stated that they care about the american citizens while their actions do the complete opposite that reveals their true intentions. By voting yet another member of their mentality and shares their goal oriented plan that supports government mafia is not ever going to work in our direction of the public's best interest. State elections are just as corrupt as Federal elections and they experts on brainwashing the masses of what they want us to believe and not on what is actually is going on in reality.

 

We need to change the laws to reduce the lopeholes that enables them to be corrupt in the first place. laws should be voted on individually by the public and not by the people in power. Get rid of lobbyists and other middleman entities that make a living on investing our money while giving as little as possible (insurance companies). In fact we need to throw out all laws and start over with news ones that do not make the legal system a profitable business. I could go on and on but it would take too much time.

[iNow]

There are so many problems that contributed to the state we are currently in that I have difficulty in believing that a solution can be found without bloodshed of war.

Bloodshed and war do not solve problems. They displace them. Not the same thing.

 

 

There is no way that our government or the elite are going to say, "We are sorry that we have been corrupt, greedy, and power hungry and although we have been working since the 1980's or before in creating laws to work in our favor and have been in bed with wallstreet, banks, etc to achieve our goals in destroying America's economy, we will change and do it honestly and fairly now."

Actually, there is, and it's by these very people expressing this need for a greater good, more fairness, and increased honesty to exercise their power of democracy and BECOME the government and people in power.

 

 

We need to change the laws to reduce the lopeholes that enables them to be corrupt in the first place.

Agreed.

 

 

laws should be voted on individually by the public and not by the people in power.

Here I tend to disagree, as this can very quickly lead to problems of tyranny of the majority, wherein minority positions are not well enough protected.

 

 

Get rid of lobbyists and other middleman entities

Agreed again. I'd also add to that list the need to get rid of massive contributors to campaigns, and the influence of the most powerful on our election cycles and legislative actions.

 

 

In fact we need to throw out all laws and start over with news ones

Here again we disagree. There are a great many very positive and helpful laws that protect all of us, and throwing them out is no help to anyone. You must first clearly understand and articulate the problem to offer a useful and productive solution. Simply speaking in broad generalities and sweeping hyperbole will not get the job done. It may sound good, but it's ultimately too unfocused to achieve an improved end.

[swansont]

laws should be voted on individually by the public and not by the people in power.

A few months ago I saw a preacher say something like this concerning recent votes about gay marriage. He pointed out that when left to the voters they have mostly (narrowly) defeated the measures, but when voted by legislature, there has been more passages. He was black, and I don't think he recognized the irony. If left to the voters, would the US have passed the civil rights act? If left to the individual state voters, would there have been civil rights laws in the south at that time or possibly even today?

 

I can perhaps see a majority deciding if something is a right, but not whether certain people should be permitted to exercise the right. Whether e.g. marriage is a right can be decided by all. Excepting people from that right is not something a simple majority should decide, and should not be considered an enumerated power of any level of government.

 

The other objection I have is a matter of scale and practicality. How many laws get voted on by various levels of government? I fear what you'd end up with is a minority of individuals holding a lot of power because they are motivated and organized. What would happen to voter turnout if there were more elections?

[imatfaal]

Slightly offtopic - and without pushng the argument either way - perhaps it is worth noting that the London version of OWS has now resulted in the two of the most senior clerics of St Paul's Cathedral in London resigning. Both the Dean and the Canon Chancellor of St Pauls have tendered their resignation over the handling of the occupation by anti-capitalist demonstrators of the area immediately outside the Cathedral (btw the London Stock Exchange is a matter of yards away from the St Pauls which is in the heart of the city of London).

 

Many Churchmen in the UK are finding it hard to support "the City" in this contre-temps - there are just too many resonances with money-lenders and temples!

[iNow]

Resonant?