Occupy Hobos

[GGT]

The fight for civil rights, be they for women, homosexuals, or minorities does not even begin to compare to the Occupy movement. It's more akin to the Teaparty movement, an organization I doubt you'd be so quickly comparing to the civil rights movement.

The Tea Party People do think of their movement as a civil rights issue, though. They simply frame if from a taxation standpoint (Taxed Enough Already), and claim that as their overriding moral imperative. <<ie, Taxes are bad, only gov't has the power to tax, ergo...gov't is bad!>> But hands off their SS or Medicare, and dammit who's going to take care of these potholes in the roads and bridges falling down?! Why are there so many illegal immigrants taking jobs away from Americans?! WTF, why do CA strawberries and GA chicken both cost $4.99 a pound?!

You want to rethink that?

Nope.

Great! I agree! So would many Americans. Yet somehow we aren't occupying buildings and terrorizing children on their way to school, pushing old women down stairs, defecating in the street, or trying to coverup sexual abuse. To say that there are problems in the system is understandable, even pedestrian. To spend weeks camped out in public parks acting as a human microphone is not.

What you're saying is....most of us don't like what's been going on for decades. Agreed! Even when we thought elections were the answer to change things up, and that didn't really work, we're still supposed to use the [failed] political process to address our grievances? How's that gonna work, when the people running for election are still pretty much bought and paid for by their biggest donors? When even an incumbent POTUS has to raise one billion dollars to fight for re-election?

You are confusing and misunderstanding the meaning of physical size and legislative scope. Sure, physical size can be a problem, but it clearly wasn't what I was taking issue with.

And I can say the same to you. I've mostly cared about the effectiveness of government, more than its relative size.

[Enoch the Red]

The Tea Party People do think of their movement as a civil rights issue, though. They simply frame if from a taxation standpoint (Taxed Enough Already), and claim that as their overriding moral imperative. <<ie, Taxes are bad, only gov't has the power to tax, ergo...gov't is bad!>> But hands off their SS or Medicare, and dammit who's going to take care of these potholes in the roads and bridges falling down?! Why are there so many illegal immigrants taking jobs away from Americans?! WTF, why do CA strawberries and GA chicken both cost $4.99 a pound?!

That certainly is a take on their politics.

What you're saying is....most of us don't like what's been going on for decades. Agreed! Even when we thought elections were the answer to change things up, and that didn't really work, we're still supposed to use the [failed] political process to address our grievances? How's that gonna work, when the people running for election are still pretty much bought and paid for by their biggest donors? When even an incumbent POTUS has to raise one billion dollars to fight for re-election?

If you think campaign finance is at the root of what is wrong with this country then do I have a bridge to sell you!

And I can say the same to you. I've mostly cared about the effectiveness of government, more than its relative size.

No, you can't.

[GGT]

If you think campaign finance is at the root of what is wrong with this country then do I have a bridge to sell you!

Well, money isn't the root of ALL evil, but it's a major player. Especially when money becomes the main motivator to so many people, because it means their own power. Power can be bought, and if you don't think so.....I have hundreds of failing US bridges that need maintenance to sell you! Even a few thousand OWS protestors can't walk across some those bridges, because they'd crumble under their weight.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Racists, terrorists, take your pick.

The representatives called them that?

They are a similar set of people though. Both want something that they don't deserve and they want to take it by force.

[Enoch the Red]

The representatives called them that?

Yes, and yes.

Well, money isn't the root of ALL evil, but it's a major player. Especially when money becomes the main motivator to so many people, because it means their own power. Power can be bought, and if you don't think so.....I have hundreds of failing US bridges that need maintenance to sell you! Even a few thousand OWS protestors can't walk across some those bridges, because they'd crumble under their weight.

Is there a point here?

[GGT]

Is there a point here?

Yes, actually. It's part of the OWS/99% protests. Our nation has so much debilitated public transportation infrastructure---roads, highways, toll ways, bridges, overpasses, train trestles, train tracks, river barge routes, river locks, levees, ship ports....

Most Americans support a large, national infrastructure policy. Perhaps using an Infrastructure Bank that melds private and public funds. Not only would that mean plenty of jobs, but also keep us modern and competitive. We haven't built a Hoover Dam type thing in decades.....but China has.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, and yes.

And I wonder sometimes where the rhetoric I read here sprouts from. You'd think that it's usual that the more inane, simple folk would utter moronic comments like this, but when the party-bobos lead by example like this, it's no wonder that otherwise reasonable people go along in this kind of drivel.

I think Sir Elton John said it best when he said: "It's sad, so sad, such a sad, sad situation".

[GGT]

Hobos vs Bobos! I like it

[GGT]

Hobo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo#Etymology

Bobo (bourgeois + bohemian): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobos_in_Paradise

[Nessus]

Great! I agree! So would many Americans. Yet somehow we aren't occupying buildings and terrorizing children on their way to school, pushing old women down stairs, defecating in the street, or trying to coverup sexual abuse. To say that there are problems in the system is understandable, even pedestrian. To spend weeks camped out in public parks acting as a human microphone is not.

I think it's a structural issue. To some extent, anyway. There's no Left left in the US dialogue; our brightest demagogue habitually equates any criticism of banking or financing business to the largest, most machined, racist mass slaughter in Europe. His message is hardly controversial!

The left that does engage in discussion in rational, evidence-based terms are ridiculed, minimized and ostracized. Their message is powerless; only the Austerity Zombies are perceived as Serious Thinkers. What main-stream left commentary there is, focuses on pointing out the horrors of the other side or argumentation founded on morality and other fluid things. The Tea Party (and Libertarian) movement(s) engage in this as well, but it doesn't matter because the emotionally charged arguments have been made to seem the sole rational choice! Their vision to save America is much more stream-lined and condensed compared to the mass of ideas (and confusion and blather) on the left.

Further, the OWS was heavily influenced by the Arab Spring (as silly as that might sound); young, maybe idealistic people saw something that resonated in themselves and attempted to emulate it to combat the wrongs they perceived around them. And then there's your history with the hippie movement, and yes even the civil rights movement. You see what I mean? I'm trying to say that these were motivators and things they're attempting to emulate, not (necessarily) that they're doing the same sort of God's work as the previous mass movements in the US.

Whereas the Tea Party has large segments of people used to furiously voting lock-step with their ideology. Some are now having buyer's remorse from what I hear, but never mind; the point is, the culture that created the Tea Party was vastly different from the one that spawned OWS.

Of course the Tea Party and OWS are not the only ways to attempt to fix America, but you seem to enjoy contrasting the two

My thoughts here were jotted down pretty quickly and may not be very coherent, sorry about that.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes, actually. It's part of the OWS/99% protests. Our nation has so much debilitated public transportation infrastructure---roads, highways, toll ways, bridges, overpasses, train trestles, train tracks, river barge routes, river locks, levees, ship ports....

Most Americans support a large, national infrastructure policy. Perhaps using an Infrastructure Bank that melds private and public funds. Not only would that mean plenty of jobs, but also keep us modern and competitive. We haven't built a Hoover Dam type thing in decades.....but China has.

At this point any and every issue can be part of OWS/99% protests. I think it was Wraith who noted that this movement, more than anything, is a Rorschach test for those both inside and outside of the movement itself. You want it to be about these things, so that's what you see.

Nessus, I've got less time than I'd like to properly answer your post, but I hope to get to it shortly.

[GGT]

At this point any and every issue can be part of OWS/99% protests. I think it was Wraith who noted that this movement, more than anything, is a Rorschach test for those both inside and outside of the movement itself. You want it to be about these things, so that's what you see.

If so, then what you see (or don't see) is your personal Rorschach test, too.

A majority of Americans reportedly "support" something of the Occupy/99% movement, even if the polling only taps into vague anger and frustration with the State of Our Union. Some of those surveys include questions about our trajectory (are we on the right track?), but are just as vague about causes and solutions.

There's a Left/Right and Up/Down axis---that's why there are so many elements involved, and explain the lack of one clear complaint, one clear leader, one clear agenda. The overriding point, which no one can deny, is that the American landscape is chock-full of a dissatisfied populace, with plenty of social strife getting close to its boiling point. We don't have to compare ourselves to the Arab Spring for proof or legitimacy....not if we're to accept American Exceptionalism, with our high standards as leaders of the free world.

In the US, we all know that money can buy power and favors, political positions, elections, even preferential justice. And that wealth is concentrated more in the top 1% "elite" (that includes lobbyists and legislators, as well as ex-legislators) than is healthy for our society.

Guys like Newt Gingrich probably wouldn't agree that's a problem. Not with his decades-long revolving-door political career, having pushed the [unfunded] Medicare prescription bill or Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, received million dollar payments for being a "consultant" to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac....not since it got him a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's, paid speeches at conservative events, and a line of books/DVDs to sell.

While Newt runs for the GOP nomination, all he can see is a bunch of hippies who need to take a bath and get a job, and suggest we should eliminate child labor laws so 9 year olds can replace school janitors. Yeah, those Occupy and 99% people are crazy, huh.

[Nessus]

In the US, we all know that money can buy power and favors, political positions, elections, even preferential justice. And that wealth is concentrated more in the top 1% "elite" (that includes lobbyists and legislators, as well as ex-legislators) than is healthy for our society.

I really wish Alan and Denny could have their piece about OWS.

[Echovirus]

I really wish Alan and Denny could have their piece about OWS.

That makes me miss that show even more.

[RandBlade]

There's a Left/Right and Up/Down axis---that's why there are so many elements involved, and explain the lack of one clear complaint, one clear leader, one clear agenda. The overriding point, which no one can deny, is that the American landscape is chock-full of a dissatisfied populace, with plenty of social strife getting close to its boiling point. We don't have to compare ourselves to the Arab Spring for proof or legitimacy....not if we're to accept American Exceptionalism, with our high standards as leaders of the free world.

I deny it.

I think most Americans, like most Britons, simply don't care too much unless asked. There's a huge, huge difference between making a response when asked (and people who refuse to answer getting ignored from those figures) - and being "chock-full" of dissatisfaction. Similarly the notion that social strife is getting close to boiling point. The reality is right now people are concerned about their own lives, their families and friends lives, Christmas, Thanksgiving (in your side of the pond) etc

Politics? Most can't even be urged to vote in most elections.

These 'great unwashed' have nothing to do with 99% of the population.

[Being]

I deny it.

I think most Americans, like most Britons, simply don't care too much unless asked. There's a huge, huge difference between making a response when asked (and people who refuse to answer getting ignored from those figures) - and being "chock-full" of dissatisfaction. Similarly the notion that social strife is getting close to boiling point. The reality is right now people are concerned about their own lives, their families and friends lives, Christmas, Thanksgiving (in your side of the pond) etc

Politics? Most can't even be urged to vote in most elections.

These 'great unwashed' have nothing to do with 99% of the population.

Says the man with nationalized health care.

[RandBlade]

Says the man with nationalized health care.

Yeah? If I lived over the pond I'd get insurance, same as most Americans too. Big deal. Doesn't make the slightest difference though - you're just as much of a lefty as Geegee is, maybe even more extreme, but if "99%" of Americans voted for nationalised health care you'd have it too. If 99% of Americans voted it'd be an amazing shock.

[CitizenCain]

Says the man with nationalized health care.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? He'd be more satisfied with the government if they forced him to get surgery from a doctor at the bottom of his class?

[Being]

Yeah? If I lived over the pond I'd get insurance, same as most Americans too. Big deal. Doesn't make the slightest difference though - you're just as much of a lefty as Geegee is, maybe even more extreme, but if "99%" of Americans voted for nationalised health care you'd have it too. If 99% of Americans voted it'd be an amazing shock.

Says the man who, by his own choice, lives in a country with nationalized healthcare and nationalized oil industry. Me a lefty compared to you? I think not.

[coinich]

Clearly according to Being, your political orientation is determined by the situation of the country you live in.

Spoiler:

Not a comment on geographical and social political norms...

[Being]

Clearly according to Being, your political orientation is determined by the situation of the country you live in.

Spoiler:

Not a comment on geographical and social political norms...

I'm just letting him know how hypocritical his argument about US hobos is. If he really wants to rag on socialist tendencies, he'd get a lot more milage by ragging on his own country. The US is still filled with cowboys compared to socialist Britania. Clearly his vote doesn't do any more to change UK than mine does to change US.

[RandBlade]

Says the man who, by his own choice, lives in a country with nationalized healthcare and nationalized oil industry. Me a lefty compared to you? I think not.

I live by choice in the nation of my birth.

Anyway: Nationalised oil industry? Wtf!?

As for my vote, at the last election I voted for a party that has been elected (with the Lib Dems in coalition) and last year introduced cuts in spending averaging 20% in all departments excluding Health and International Development. Your Congress can't agree cuts anywhere near that level.

[Being]

Anyway: Nationalised oil industry? Wtf!?

Oh, I see your government sold off all their holdings by 1989. Sorry for the error.

[RandBlade]

Are you referring to BP plc? Because hint: If you are then PLC = Publicly Listed Corporation.

Yes Thatcher sold off all government stake in that well over 20 years ago. In any case I think people who have worked for the Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell may be surprised to hear that the UK ever had a nationalised oil industry.

[Flixy]

Another hint: the Royal Dutch doesn't mean it's owned by the Dutch, or the Dutch Royalty (though they could have shares, but less than 5%). I don't think it ever used to be nationalised, but I'm not too sure.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think Enoch, and GGT are essentially interpreting the problem the same that perhaps teh Occupy Wall Street group has some relevant complaints but that they have not outlined any clear vision for reform/resolution.

[Being]

Are you referring to BP plc? Because hint: If you are then PLC = Publicly Listed Corporation.

Yes Thatcher sold off all government stake in that well over 20 years ago. In any case I think people who have worked for the Anglo-Dutch company Royal Dutch Shell may be surprised to hear that the UK ever had a nationalised oil industry.

Look under UK, 1974...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...United_Kingdom

"...made the UK Government directly or indirectly BP's majority shareholder..."

The point is that UK's list is much longer than that of the US for nationalizing business so why don't you bash away at that? I mean, you have no plans to live here so why is it such a concern to you that people here want change that you object to and yet you live with everyday?

[Enoch the Red]

I think it's a structural issue. To some extent, anyway. There's no Left left in the US dialogue; our brightest demagogue habitually equates any criticism of banking or financing business to the largest, most machined, racist mass slaughter in Europe. His message is hardly controversial!

The left that does engage in discussion in rational, evidence-based terms are ridiculed, minimized and ostracized. Their message is powerless; only the Austerity Zombies are perceived as Serious Thinkers. What main-stream left commentary there is, focuses on pointing out the horrors of the other side or argumentation founded on morality and other fluid things. The Tea Party (and Libertarian) movement(s) engage in this as well, but it doesn't matter because the emotionally charged arguments have been made to seem the sole rational choice! Their vision to save America is much more stream-lined and condensed compared to the mass of ideas (and confusion and blather) on the left.

There's also few true libertarian champions either. Those that promote truly free markets and a real limit on the role of government in the life of the individual make up a vanishingly small percentage of our Congress. In fact, I'd argue that a properly weighted ideological survey of our elected representatives would be disproportionately weighted towards Center-Left. I can think of two, maybe three members of Congress who would seriously support cutting entitlement benefits, even among those who campaigned under the Tea Party banner.

The choice between Right and Left, as you've noted, presents a false dichotomy, and often the outcome of the interplay between the two, either a fallacious golden mean, or a stunted, haphazard legislative lurch towards the Platonic liberal or conservative ideal produces legislation that benefits few. Often the beneficiary, the net gain of this legislation isn't a positive shift, ideologically in the direction of its adherents, but rather the interest group who has been the most vocal.

In short, I guess it would entirely depend on how you defined Left, Right, Center, and Other. What might constitute Left Lite to you is, I suspect, on the fringe of what would be the accepted Left in this country. Whether or not that is the root of the structural issues in this country, I somehow doubt.

Further, the OWS was heavily influenced by the Arab Spring (as silly as that might sound); young, maybe idealistic people saw something that resonated in themselves and attempted to emulate it to combat the wrongs they perceived around them. And then there's your history with the hippie movement, and yes even the civil rights movement. You see what I mean? I'm trying to say that these were motivators and things they're attempting to emulate, not (necessarily) that they're doing the same sort of God's work as the previous mass movements in the US.

I believe, and would agree that today's young people want to be a part of something. To counter the real and perceived errors of their parents, their leaders, and the country. I can understand and even empathize with that. I'd also agree that their inspiration might be found in demonstrations from generations past.

[RandBlade]

Look under UK, 1974...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...United_Kingdom

"...made the UK Government directly or indirectly BP's majority shareholder..."

The point is that UK's list is much longer than that of the US for nationalizing business so why don't you bash away at that? I mean, you have no plans to live here so why is it such a concern to you that people here want change that you object to and yet you live with everyday?

You missed off part of the quotation; "though commercial independence was maintained. The shares were all sold during the 1980s."

The oil industry was never nationalised. BP may have had government shares but BP is not the only company in the UK anyway.

Anyway I don't get what your point is because why would I bash away at the 1970s? Yes the UK used to have a lot of nationalised industries before I was born, yes they were privatised in the 80s when I was a child. What is your point? I think Thatcher was our greatest PM since Churchill. I don't get your point and think you're being a bit of an idiot and trying to play a distraction game here.

[GGT]

I deny it.

I think most Americans, like most Britons, simply don't care too much unless asked. There's a huge, huge difference between making a response when asked (and people who refuse to answer getting ignored from those figures) - and being "chock-full" of dissatisfaction. Similarly the notion that social strife is getting close to boiling point. The reality is right now people are concerned about their own lives, their families and friends lives, Christmas, Thanksgiving (in your side of the pond) etc
Politics? Most can't even be urged to vote in most elections.
These 'great unwashed' have nothing to do with 99% of the population.

How can you deny the main point, that a "majority" of Americans are dissatisfied with the 'state of our union'?

That can mean reasons economic, social, political, judicial, legislative.... Congress has a pathetic 9% approval rating, our education and healthcare systems are routinely ranked low (especially when compared by dollar-cost-to-results, and to other developed nations), Big Banks and Big Business rate lower in trust than used car salesmen, many/most youth feel disenfranchised, overwhelmed by debt, and can't find a job, many seniors feel their only option is to work until they drop dead, 1/4 of American children are living in or near poverty, 1/6 of American adults are poor or working-poor, 50 million have no health(insurance)care, 46 million are relying of food assistance, home values continue to decline in most areas, and a massive number are 'underwater' and/or in some stage of foreclosure. While our economy has been stagnant or grown at stagflation levels.

Over-the-Pond folks may not read our daily news, but there is social strife which used to be suffered in private, now coming out into the public forum. Whether it's Ohio or Wisconsin or Florida, there are protests to recall Governors and overturn voter registration laws. Whether it's CA or WA, there are students protesting tuition hikes and cuts to education budgets.

The Occupy and 99% protests are mostly an expression of long pent-up frustration and anger, but all are related to our ethical or moral failure to thrive---as individuals or as institutions. They've accomplished highlighting awareness of these things, and making it part of the national conversation, in public. It's not a Hobo movement. That's a ridiculous moniker assigned by those who want to dismiss or de-legitimize their valid complaints.

...Those that promote truly free markets and a real limit on the role of government in the life of the individual make up a vanishingly small percentage of our Congress....

Truly freee markets is a utopian dream, or at least something well before its time. Due to globalization, developed vs developing nations, variable standards of living and COL, and currency valuations. Perhaps our great-grand-children will have Freee Markets, after all nations have the same basic/base minimum requirements. And poorer nations aren't ruled by tribal-element 'economic terrorists' who control their nations' prosperity. [Or richer nations aren't selling them food aid or weapons in exchange for their oil reserves.]

The choice between Right and Left, as you've noted, presents a false dichotomy, and often the outcome of the interplay between the two, either a fallacious golden mean, or a stunted, haphazard legislative lurch towards the Platonic liberal or conservative ideal produces legislation that benefits few. Often the beneficiary, the net gain of this legislation isn't a positive shift, ideologically in the direction of its adherents, but rather the interest group who has been the most vocal.

Then we agree---that R vs L is a false dichotomy, just as R vs D is a false "choice"? And that interest groups (aka lobbyists) with the loudest voice can be those with the most money....due to the Citizens United decision that equated money with speech.

In short, I guess it would entirely depend on how you defined Left, Right, Center, and Other. What might constitute Left Lite to you is, I suspect, on the fringe of what would be the accepted Left in this country. Whether or not that is the root of the structural issues in this country, I somehow doubt.

I believe, and would agree that today's young people want to be a part of something. To counter the real and perceived errors of their parents, their leaders, and the country. I can understand and even empathize with that. I'd also agree that their inspiration might be found in demonstrations from generations past.

Although your reply was to Nessie, I want to reply to (and agree with) what you've said. First, that our youth want to be part of something that moves us forward as a nation; second, that our "structural" issues can't be blamed on L or R, D or R---but previous generations in general; and, finally---that after X amount of time of silent or background social strife, past methods of protest are being used.

I welcome the protests. Voting hasn't done a damn thing to change our structural deficits for decades. How could it--when we have a two party dominant structure that benefits those with monied benefactors, and our "choices" are limited between those two?