"This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head."
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Could it have been a "journalist" using the time honored tradition of "just asking questions"?
I only heard a news report about it, so I don't have anything to link, but the reported justification for linking them to OWS comes from some information that they found on the Facebook pages of the accused. It may or may not be anything concrete, but it doesn't sound like they are pulling the charge out of thin air at least.
According to the affidavit, Wright (who described himself to an FBI source as an anarchist of long standing) had recruited other young men to his circle who were planning to set off smoke bombs at a bridge in Cleveland as a diversion while they brought down the signs atop buildings in the city. The complaint said while the group had not figured out how they would demolish the signs, according to Wright, "the signs are the most important part [of the plan] because they need to make sure everyone knows that the action was against corporate America and the financial system, and not just some random acts."
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
These FBI-created conspiracies always turn out to be a joke. The Feds pay some informant or undercover type to find trouble, and they end up cobbling together some group of losers and the mentally ill to talk about a plot that they have neither the skills, resources or motivation to pull off.
And, lucky for the FBI, the initial arrest makes front page news and the inevitable fizzling out of the case barely makes the news.
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Among those arrests was Arbuckle, charged with disorderly conduct for standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic, even after police had repeatedly told protesters to get out of the street. That's the story told in the criminal complaint against Arbuckle, and it's the story that the officer who arrested him told again under oath in court on Monday. The protesters, including Arbuckle, were in the street blocking traffic, Officer Elisheba Vera testified. The police, on the sidewalk, had to move in to make arrests to allow blocked traffic to move.
But there was a problem with the police account: it bore no resemblance to photographs and videos taken that night. Arbuckle's own photographs from the evening place him squarely on the sidewalk. All the video from the NYPD's Technical Research Assistance Unit, which follows the protesters with video-cameras (in almost certain violation of a federal consent decree), showed Arbuckle on the sidewalk.
...
Arbuckle's arrest is particularly ironic because he wasn't on 13th Street January 1 to protest -- he was there to document the cop's side of the story. (Here's his Flickr page.) A junior at New York University majoring in political science and journalism, Arbuckle doesn't identify with the Occupy movement, but was working on an assignment for class to document the officers assigned to police it.
"I felt the police had been treated unfairly on the media," he said. "All the focus was on the conflict and the worst instances of brutality and aggression, where most of the police I met down there were really professional and restrained."
So, y'know, the cops committed perjury. And there is video evidence of this. Odds on them getting prosecuted, anyone?
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Among those arrests was Arbuckle, charged with disorderly conduct for standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic, even after police had repeatedly told protesters to get out of the street. That's the story told in the criminal complaint against Arbuckle, and it's the story that the officer who arrested him told again under oath in court on Monday. The protesters, including Arbuckle, were in the street blocking traffic, Officer Elisheba Vera testified. The police, on the sidewalk, had to move in to make arrests to allow blocked traffic to move.
But there was a problem with the police account: it bore no resemblance to photographs and videos taken that night. Arbuckle's own photographs from the evening place him squarely on the sidewalk. All the video from the NYPD's Technical Research Assistance Unit, which follows the protesters with video-cameras (in almost certain violation of a federal consent decree), showed Arbuckle on the sidewalk.
...
Arbuckle's arrest is particularly ironic because he wasn't on 13th Street January 1 to protest -- he was there to document the cop's side of the story. (Here's his Flickr page.) A junior at New York University majoring in political science and journalism, Arbuckle doesn't identify with the Occupy movement, but was working on an assignment for class to document the officers assigned to police it.
"I felt the police had been treated unfairly on the media," he said. "All the focus was on the conflict and the worst instances of brutality and aggression, where most of the police I met down there were really professional and restrained."
So, y'know, the cops committed perjury. And there is video evidence of this. Odds on them getting prosecuted, anyone?
You might want to try reading the article. There's a vast difference between Wilkinson's speech and the one that TED dropped.
I did read the article and a couple of its links, I am just confused at TED finding Hanauer's controversial while Wilkinson's made it up and has been up for a while. Why not just say something like "Oh, we got one of those already."? What I read didn't seem all that controversial or the speech itself.
The article made is sound like they are trying to maintain a semblance of non-partisanship during the elections. Don't want to get labeled as one of them damn liburals after all.
Why not? What is to be feared by this or that label? The willfully ignorant are going to call you things anyways.
It's quite sickening how many people and organizations in America are afraid to be called liberals in public. The right wing have managed to make it a dirty word for far too long. The sad part is that prominent Democrats are included in this.
The only semi-legitimate reason I can come up with is that it limits your reach as an organization. If you're pigeon holed as a liberal establishment, conservatives will quickly dismiss your ideas or something along those lines.
That's just a guess mind you. I think it's pretty dumb personally.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It's a problem. Look at the recent instance where Politifact managed to destroy its reputation overnight by choosing "The Paul Ryan plan would gut Medicare" as it's Lie of the Year. A statement, which is not false, chosen as Lie of the Year because of a desire to appear balanced.
Don't know TED's funding model, but you see a lot of this kind of squeamishness in organizations that rely on big donor support. In this case, the talk is not just controversial, it is actively supporting policies that would fuck with the money.
From what I recall most TED talks are market/capitalist based presentations, barring a few exceptions here and there that aren't striking out any super controversial opinions. I remember watching one about dinosaur genetic engineering and cloning, and at the end of the presentation the dude was like "so this is where you can start by making money off of this shit." Seemed to encapsulate the TED mindset.
Tangent: I get really weary when people i know keep throwing TED videos at me to watch, because the people who are harping on checking them out are basically the type of people who try to use it as a symbol of how informed and worldly they are, when they're honestly just too damned lazy to research stuff in other more intensive (and traditional) ways.
Also the Chomsky has an OWS related piece. Basically the sharp stratification and financial inequality between classes is directly correlated with most of the US' wealth being concentrated in the financial sector since the 70's which subsequently resulted in the financial sector's concentration of political power - i/e why Citizen's United is a real thing now. Also the trend of decline we are in now could become irreversible, bringing us to that Gilded Age utopia the Paul Ryan's of the world want to gut this country into. OWS is the beginning of people's resistance towards this, and their future may lie in drumming up popular support for more worker-operated/owned businesses and operations to reverse the stratification in wealth and living standards. Honestly something that makes more sense than the usual "THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
From what I recall most TED talks are market/capitalist based presentations, barring a few exceptions here and there that aren't striking out any super controversial opinions. I remember watching one about dinosaur genetic engineering and cloning, and at the end of the presentation the dude was like "so this is where you can start by making money off of this shit." Seemed to encapsulate the TED mindset.
From my Facebook and elsewhere I see TED talks discussed or linked, I'd venture that TED's audience is highly liberal. This may be a Komen moment where an organization's primary audience gets slapped in the face with the fact that their favored organization does not represent what they though it represented.
You might want to try reading the article. There's a vast difference between Wilkinson's speech and the one that TED dropped.
I did read the article and a couple of its links, I am just confused at TED finding Hanauer's controversial while Wilkinson's made it up and has been up for a while. Why not just say something like "Oh, we got one of those already."? What I read didn't seem all that controversial or the speech itself.
You might want to try reading the article. There's a vast difference between Wilkinson's speech and the one that TED dropped.
I did read the article and a couple of its links, I am just confused at TED finding Hanauer's controversial while Wilkinson's made it up and has been up for a while. Why not just say something like "Oh, we got one of those already."? What I read didn't seem all that controversial or the speech itself.
You might want to try reading the article. There's a vast difference between Wilkinson's speech and the one that TED dropped.
I did read the article and a couple of its links, I am just confused at TED finding Hanauer's controversial while Wilkinson's made it up and has been up for a while. Why not just say something like "Oh, we got one of those already."? What I read didn't seem all that controversial or the speech itself.
Wow. If the folks at TED are smart, they will rein in Anderson. Accusing a weathy venture capitalist of blackmail is not something you want to do lightly.
"THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
I thought that WAS the policy of OWS?
EDIT
Chomsky's use of "prectariat" is shameful.
Maybe I'm also mistaken about OWS, but I thought they were trying to do things other than become the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, which people seem to be near-screaming for them to do. While I could probably conjure my own laundry list of criticisms about the movement since it started in earnest last fall, I personally think they should remain distant from the Beltway culture - at least for the near future.
"THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
I thought that WAS the policy of OWS?
EDIT
Chomsky's use of "prectariat" is shameful.
Maybe I'm also mistaken about OWS, but I thought they were trying to do things other than become the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, which people seem to be near-screaming for them to do. While I could probably conjure my own laundry list of criticisms about the movement since it started in earnest last fall, I personally think they should remain distant from the Beltway culture - at least for the near future.
Can't influence the Beltway very much by not participating in the game.
"THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
I thought that WAS the policy of OWS?
EDIT
Chomsky's use of "prectariat" is shameful.
Maybe I'm also mistaken about OWS, but I thought they were trying to do things other than become the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, which people seem to be near-screaming for them to do. While I could probably conjure my own laundry list of criticisms about the movement since it started in earnest last fall, I personally think they should remain distant from the Beltway culture - at least for the near future.
Look at their rhetoric.
They bend over backwards to make sure the system doesn't get riled. They don't have a problem with Capitalism other than wanting it to be a little nicer, more control over private industry, less imperialism (well, that one depends on whether a D or an R is in office), health care, free education, etc.
That involves participating in the system "that is actively against their interests".
There's little chance of actual reform. Any concessions will be handed out piecemeal and in the meantime they'll continue robbing us blind.
0
Options
Lord_SnotЖиву за выходныеAmerican ValhallaRegistered Userregular
"THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
I thought that WAS the policy of OWS?
EDIT
Chomsky's use of "prectariat" is shameful.
Maybe I'm also mistaken about OWS, but I thought they were trying to do things other than become the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, which people seem to be near-screaming for them to do. While I could probably conjure my own laundry list of criticisms about the movement since it started in earnest last fall, I personally think they should remain distant from the Beltway culture - at least for the near future.
Look at their rhetoric.
They bend over backwards to make sure the system doesn't get riled. They don't have a problem with Capitalism other than wanting it to be a little nicer, more control over private industry, less imperialism (well, that one depends on whether a D or an R is in office), health care, free education, etc.
That involves participating in the system "that is actively against their interests".
There's little chance of actual reform. Any concessions will be handed out piecemeal and in the meantime they'll continue robbing us blind.
I think that depends on which Occupy movement you ask. Occupy Wall Street probably don't, but most of the Occupy movements in Europe most certainly do.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The stories I've heard about Occupy Edinburgh were similar. I was going to go check it out, but too much bad press from friends who had gone and only saw a bunch of bickering beardos in Che Guevara shirts.
Posts
This one doesn't mention OWS.
Could it have been a "journalist" using the time honored tradition of "just asking questions"?
Fuck the Cavuto Mark.
thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
"This has to happen if America is to remain strong and true to its ideals. It’s a practical necessity and a moral imperative. Last year during the Occupy movement, the conservatives who oppose tax equality saw the first real ripples of discontent. Their response was either Marie Antoinette (“Let them eat cake”) or Ebenezer Scrooge (“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”). Short-sighted, gentlemen. Very short-sighted. If this situation isn’t fairly addressed, last year’s protests will just be the beginning. Scrooge changed his tune after the ghosts visited him. Marie Antoinette, on the other hand, lost her head."
I only heard a news report about it, so I don't have anything to link, but the reported justification for linking them to OWS comes from some information that they found on the Facebook pages of the accused. It may or may not be anything concrete, but it doesn't sound like they are pulling the charge out of thin air at least.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
I thought they wanted to destroy a bridge...
And, lucky for the FBI, the initial arrest makes front page news and the inevitable fizzling out of the case barely makes the news.
But in reality, there were a bunch of protests that look to have turned to the worst:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQKuTAiGzAJCs4Gu1pQP_0Mx-Yow?docId=cf1d94aec175477cb802b1350a23db27
Highlights:
So, y'know, the cops committed perjury. And there is video evidence of this. Odds on them getting prosecuted, anyone?
1:50000000?
http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516
http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php
You might want to try reading the article. There's a vast difference between Wilkinson's speech and the one that TED dropped.
I did read the article and a couple of its links, I am just confused at TED finding Hanauer's controversial while Wilkinson's made it up and has been up for a while. Why not just say something like "Oh, we got one of those already."? What I read didn't seem all that controversial or the speech itself.
It's quite sickening how many people and organizations in America are afraid to be called liberals in public. The right wing have managed to make it a dirty word for far too long. The sad part is that prominent Democrats are included in this.
That's just a guess mind you. I think it's pretty dumb personally.
Tangent: I get really weary when people i know keep throwing TED videos at me to watch, because the people who are harping on checking them out are basically the type of people who try to use it as a symbol of how informed and worldly they are, when they're honestly just too damned lazy to research stuff in other more intensive (and traditional) ways.
Also the Chomsky has an OWS related piece. Basically the sharp stratification and financial inequality between classes is directly correlated with most of the US' wealth being concentrated in the financial sector since the 70's which subsequently resulted in the financial sector's concentration of political power - i/e why Citizen's United is a real thing now. Also the trend of decline we are in now could become irreversible, bringing us to that Gilded Age utopia the Paul Ryan's of the world want to gut this country into. OWS is the beginning of people's resistance towards this, and their future may lie in drumming up popular support for more worker-operated/owned businesses and operations to reverse the stratification in wealth and living standards. Honestly something that makes more sense than the usual "THEY NEED TO BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS ACTIVELY AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS" bitching that most people throw at the movement.
From my Facebook and elsewhere I see TED talks discussed or linked, I'd venture that TED's audience is highly liberal. This may be a Komen moment where an organization's primary audience gets slapped in the face with the fact that their favored organization does not represent what they though it represented.
http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405
I thought that WAS the policy of OWS?
EDIT
Chomsky's use of "prectariat" is shameful.
The link to the recording of the talk was in there, among other tidbits. Thanks for the link.
Wow. If the folks at TED are smart, they will rein in Anderson. Accusing a weathy venture capitalist of blackmail is not something you want to do lightly.
Maybe I'm also mistaken about OWS, but I thought they were trying to do things other than become the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party, which people seem to be near-screaming for them to do. While I could probably conjure my own laundry list of criticisms about the movement since it started in earnest last fall, I personally think they should remain distant from the Beltway culture - at least for the near future.
Can't influence the Beltway very much by not participating in the game.
See how easy it is to throw out tired cliches?
Look at their rhetoric.
They bend over backwards to make sure the system doesn't get riled. They don't have a problem with Capitalism other than wanting it to be a little nicer, more control over private industry, less imperialism (well, that one depends on whether a D or an R is in office), health care, free education, etc.
That involves participating in the system "that is actively against their interests".
There's little chance of actual reform. Any concessions will be handed out piecemeal and in the meantime they'll continue robbing us blind.
I think that depends on which Occupy movement you ask. Occupy Wall Street probably don't, but most of the Occupy movements in Europe most certainly do.
Blog
Twitter
The indignados, while not an occupy "branded" movement are new, at least in their current form.
But there are, yeah Occupy London Stock Exchange is one such group.
Blog
Twitter
The indignados, while not an occupy "branded" movement are new, at least in their current form.
But there are, yeah Occupy London Stock Exchange is one such group.
Blog
Twitter