In the news today about a load of hobos in the US having their dirty tents removed.
Don't see why, people shouldn't expect that by acting like slobs in public areas they'll get what they want.
Occupy Hobos
In the news today about a load of hobos in the US having their dirty tents removed.
Don't see why, people shouldn't expect that by acting like slobs in public areas they'll get what they want.
You neglect to mention that at least a third of the people in these camps are hobos.
Hope is the denial of reality
I understand the idea of random generators being thrown together in a small space being a reason for concern, but I'm not ok with the police trashing everyone's stuff, like a library of donated reading material, or as Loki has pointed out (even if he pulled the figures out of his ass), some of the only possessions these people have.
This is only in the news because its was coordinated between cities to all be done together, NY even went through the extra mile to make sure the clearing was done with as little media presence as possible.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-16-2011 at 11:05 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's a global movement, not something specific to the US. There are Occupy London protests, too.
Probably due time that it "evolved" beyond encampments in public spaces anyhow. American blacks that used to "Occupy" public buses or lunch counters eventually had to "move on" and evolve as well....but they could rely upon legislators who began Civil Rights Acts laws. Anti-War "hippies" in the 60's knew their protests would eventually lead to legislators ending the VietNam War.
Today's troubling quandary is that protestors don't/can't rely upon legislators to do ANYTHING. Not just because it's a do-nothing congress, but because all of our elected officials are acting on behalf of their biggest donors and special industry lobbyists. See, Citizens United is the law of the land, and money IS speech. Therefore, those with the most money and deepest pockets have the biggest mouths. Even if they don't speak for the majority.
No idea how the Occupy movement folks will move forward from here. If I had my druthers, it would begin with a total revamping of campaign financing---and using teh evil gummint to even the playing field by making all elections publicly financed, with strict advertising windows. It's absurd that we begin "electing" our legislators by them campaigning years in advance, knowing they'll have to raise one million for a state spot, and multi-millions for a federal spot.
It's outrageous that an incumbent POTUS will have to "raise" one BILLION dollars for his re-election. I'd continue with more of my opinions about party politics, and the American Way of throwing money at shit....but, well, if it's related to money it's probably considered a tangent, huh.
Are you really trying to create a moral equivalency between Occupy Wallstreet and the Freedom Riders?Originally Posted by GGT
Really?
We've gone over this before, but I'm still not understanding. You don't think people should be able to use their money as they see fit? Again, where do you draw the line? Can someone self-publish a book? Buy a domain name? Create a website? What makes you think that only the majority opinion, and only those who claim to speak for the majority, should have a voice? Isn't that the antithesis of everything the first amendment stands for?Today's troubling quandary is that protestors don't/can't rely upon legislators to do ANYTHING. Not just because it's a do-nothing congress, but because all of our elected officials are acting on behalf of their biggest donors and special industry lobbyists. See, Citizens United is the law of the land, and money IS speech. Therefore, those with the most money and deepest pockets have the biggest mouths. Even if they don't speak for the majority.
Do you really think that spending even more money that the government doesn't have on any and every candidate is a viable idea? I can't foresee any problems with it.No idea how the Occupy movement folks will move forward from here. If I had my druthers, it would begin with a total revamping of campaign financing---and using teh evil gummint to even the playing field by making all elections publicly financed, with strict advertising windows. It's absurd that we begin "electing" our legislators by them campaigning years in advance, knowing they'll have to raise one million for a state spot, and multi-millions for a federal spot.
Glod, it's so unfair that the POTUS has the bully-puppet. At the snap of his fingers he can have all the media, all the news organizations, all the cameras he could ever want at a press conference, at a time and place of his choosing, in prime-time, for free. What is more, he can campaign on the tax payers dime. If you want to talk about campaign finance reform, let's talk about muzzling the sitting president for the two years before elections.It's outrageous that an incumbent POTUS will have to "raise" one BILLION dollars for his re-election. I'd continue with more of my opinions about party politics, and the American Way of throwing money at shit....but, well, if it's related to money it's probably considered a tangent, huh.
Or, you can realize that it's not the government's place or within it's power to make life fair. Life isn't fair.
Social movements can't have "moral" equivalencies when culture and society are always evolving. We don't even know yet where the OWS movement activism will lead, anymore than activists in the 60's knew what would pan out.
I draw the line at our elected officials, the ones who make our laws, being "subsidized" by those with the most money. Beholden to special interest industries and lobbying groups "lording" over policy. That's nothing more than buying law makers. Disgust enough voters, who pretty much know their vote doesn't mean a damn thing, and we've got the legislators bought by the most money. Is that your idea of how a democracy, or a republic should work?We've gone over this before, but I'm still not understanding. You don't think people should be able to use their money as they see fit? Again, where do you draw the line? Can someone self-publish a book? Buy a domain name? Create a website? What makes you think that only the majority opinion, and only those who claim to speak for the majority, should have a voice? Isn't that the antithesis of everything the first amendment stands for?
I think it's a symptom of a structural and fundamental problem, when even an incumbent POTUS is expected to raise One Billion Dollars to get re-elected.Do you really think that spending even more money that the government doesn't have on any and every candidate is a viable idea? I can't foresee any problems with it.
Glod, it's so unfair that the POTUS has the bully-puppet. At the snap of his fingers he can have all the media, all the news organizations, all the cameras he could ever want at a press conference, at a time and place of his choosing, in prime-time, for free. What is more, he can campaign on the tax payers dime. If you want to talk about campaign finance reform, let's talk about muzzling the sitting president for the two years before elections.
Or, you can realize that it's not the government's place or within it's power to make life fair. Life isn't fair.
That's not what moral equivalency means. You are arguing that the means are the ends, and not the inherent value or justness of the ends in and of themselves. Protesting against private and public (see governmental) discrimination based on race is never going to have the same moral equivalency to nebulous protesting about Wallstreet and the 1%.
Because corruption didn't exist before Citizens United? Or has it gotten demonstrably worse since? You seem to be wanting the government to legislate competent and moral legislators, and that's simply not how it works.I draw the line at our elected officials, the ones who make our laws, being "subsidized" by those with the most money. Beholden to special interest industries and lobbying groups "lording" over policy. That's nothing more than buying law makers. Disgust enough voters, who pretty much know their vote doesn't mean a damn thing, and we've got the legislators bought by the most money. Is that your idea of how a democracy, or a republic should work?
It's also part of the reason why I boggle that you want this selfsame government to have an ever expanding role and powers in your life. Corruptible, power seeking people will naturally gravitate towards the areas they can have the most power. Further increasing the size and scope of government isn't going to scare away corruption, it's going to invite it.
I did mean bully pulpit, but I rather like my Freudian slip.
I'm not arguing the means are the ends.Only that protests in our modern times probably won't be "comparable" to things that occurred during previous centuries---when things like slavery, racial and gender discrimination were norms---or people still used outhouses or didn't have electricity. Over time, as societies evolved, what we call moral or just has changed, too.
<I'd say those fighting for gay rights and marital equality think their cause is as important as women's suffrage was in its time.>
From what I've read, OWS or the 99% isn't as nebulous as you make it out to be, just that they don't have specific leaders or demands yet. It's pretty clear they're protesting about an economy that isn't working the same for everyone, or using the same rules for everyone. That private ("Wall Street") and public (government) connect in self-serving and corrupt ways, exploiting money and power, that hasn't benefited anyone but themselves.
That's got nothing to do with "size" of government, but abusing (or dis-abusing, depending on one's view) their powers, and not truly governing. Even a tiny few in power can wreck a whole nation, so it's not just the size that matters but also the quality. Yes, I'd say the "soft" corruption and the revolving door between uber wealthy and congress has gotten worse. In the very least, things set in motion decades ago are only now showing the damage done....to real peoples' lives, and they're angry.
Who expects the gov't to legislate competency and morality among themselves? Obviously, self-regulation has been proven to be ineffective.We have massive, systemic institutional failures, and the distrust they've bred is marching in the streets.
Why didn't the police shoot all caught on scene? If they're not interested in working with the system, eject them. Useless tuberculosis that they are.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
We're working on it Ness, but the police state isn't upon us just yet.
Occupy Seattle finally has a single cause to rally behind.
Thats an 84 year old police pepper spray victim.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Look who's been reading a piece of tripe by Norman Tebbitt.
Congratulations America
Uhuh. People don't give a shit about unarmed, innocent citizens getting gunned down by the cops, but someone getting pepper sprayed will matter.We're working on it Ness, but the police state isn't upon us just yet.
Occupy Seattle finally has a single cause to rally behind.
Thats an 84 year old police pepper spray victim.
Who? And what's a Tebbitt?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Norman Tebbit was in Thatchers cabinet back in the 1980s. What he has to do with something being read today I have no idea about.
Most famous mis-attributed quote to Tebbit is that he told the unemployed to "get on yer bike and look for work". This is what he really said, after someone said following riots that people rioting was the natural reaction to unemployent:[quote]I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it.[/qutoe]
Norman Tebbit was a politician and cabinet minister circa 1980s who is mainly known for explaining about how the "loyalty" of recent, e.g., Pakistani immigrants was determined by whether or not the cheered for Pakistan on England during cricket matches.
Norman Tebbit is a conservative intellectual.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
While that may seem laughable to some, I actually find that an interesting concept and analogy.
Personally both myself and my fiancée and her family have all travelled across the world and lived in different cricket-playing countries. The "cricket supporter" analogy works well for us I think.
I moved to Australia, and always supported the English cricket team while there. Moved back to the UK now, I always thought of myself as English.
My fiancée was born in South Africa with her father Scottish and mother South African. She has both a British and SA passport, travels solely on the British passport (for convenience) and now lives in England. She's no cricket fan but will "support" the South African teams, has a South African rugby top etc - to be fair though, that is also the Scottish influence perhaps not to support England.
Her parents have moved from SA to Canada after she moved to England. Her dad despite living for decades in SA and now in Canada still thoroughly supports Scottish sporting teams, has his loyalty to Scotland and calls me a Sassenach.
Her younger sister despite only moving at age 15 (now 18) to Canada seems to have straight away become a Canadian. She picked up the accent immediately (I moved to Aus at 10 and kept my English accent for 7 years), supports Canadian teams and is giving up her South African passport for a Canadian one ... to be fair that is also for convenience, she can only have 2 and already having both British and SA has to give up one to get Canadian, it makes more sense despite her mums horror at the idea of giving up her heritage to have one where she lives and will be able to vote etc, and one which allows you to travel to all of Europe etc unimpeded.
Her mother is South African, despite living in Canada still supports the South African teams, views herself still as South African.
Her aunt and their family moved from SA to Australia too. They have adopted Australian citizenship and she supports the Australian cricket team - even over the SA one.
He is a conservative who wouldn't know intellectual if he had a brain transplantation. The other day he had a dig at the occupy people in front of St. Pauls pretty much putting them on a par with illegal aliens and other scum.
Congratulations America
We had one of our Republican representatives from New York call them rapists, losers and dirtbags.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
And what did Democrats call "Teabaggers" again?
Rapists seems a bit harsh.
I've not heard that, but it seems a bit unfair to illegal aliens.
Rape-enablers would be the more accurate term. Fuzzy and I discussed why before.
Hope is the denial of reality
What? That's an outrage!
Oh I see. In that case it's fine to call them rapists, losers and dirtbags.
I am curious though, what did the Democrat representatives call "TeaBaggers"?
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 11-17-2011 at 10:16 AM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
It's probably equally as accurate a generalization. I also note that it's something OG is getting his panties in a knot about, whereas he didn't seem to mind when the shoe was on the other foot.Oh I see. In that case it's fine to call them rapists, losers and dirtbags.
Racists, terrorists, take your pick.I am curious though, what did the Democrat representatives call "TeaBaggers"?
That is pretty unfair. Rapists aren't all whiny, entitled twats who feel entitled to a luxurious lifestyle for no reason whatsoever.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
They are a similar set of people though. Both want something that they don't deserve and they want to take it by force.
Today our EU minister called for re-arranging the power structure in the EU so that countries with the best economies (highest market ratings) would dominate. Our prime minister commented on this by stating that Finland's AAA rating is a national asset that must be protected at all costs.
It's official, the finance markets are the new USSR.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The first part is a bit silly - market ratings aren't a measure of economic strength, but of the government's financial stability. The second part, the prime minister's comment, is smart, though.
It's just funny in a historical context, where foreign policy was used as a cudgel in internal politics. Or, that's what our prime minister's party was always crying about...
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Hobos vs Bobos! I like it
Hobo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo#Etymology
Bobo (bourgeois + bohemian): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobos_in_Paradise
Clearly according to Being, your political orientation is determined by the situation of the country you live in.
Spoiler:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
