There were only 50 people there? WTH?

Well, it is a weekday. I bet it swells in numbers a bit on the weekends. But I won't be able to confirm then, because I won't be downtown.

The DC government gave them a long term permit and isn't bugging them. I don't know who gave them the toilets. Maybe it's hard to protest when people are being nice to you?

It just surprises me because there are 5-10x that number in Philly.

I saw the Binghamton version today. I noted the big American flag and an anti-FED poster... Ron Paulists? A small cluster of tents in a downtown park.

For all the people complaining about the OWS protesters being vague, here's a sharper tongue:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...treet/?refid=0

"HQ, I hope your interpretations of my post were not intentionally askewed."

Not intentionally, no. Just a poor reading on my part, I guess.

#

"I meant that if the "hurricane" is coming, your assertions to others here are along the lines that closing and boarding up the windows will do no good. etc., etc."

That depends entirely on the hurricane and the individual facing the hurricane.

I'm not fond of generalizing things out to 'we' (unavoidable as it is from time to time).

Joe may have such poor circumstances, a mild tropical storm endangers him (run, Joe! Run!).

Jack may be so secure a Cat 6 hurricane would cause him no undue worry.

The same singular-ness applies to folks in a dynamic (and naturally amoral) economy.

#

"the poorest of the poor"

And who judges the "poorest of the poor" as that?

I'm bettin' a number of those so-called 'poor' don't see themselves that way (hell, by some standards, I'm poor, but I don't think of myself in that way, or act as though I am).

Numbers (economic stats) are clean: interpretations of numbers (that leave out subjective, idiosyncratic, self-definition) are muddy and misleading.

#

"Only time will show if a competent, solitary life is sufficient."

Show 'who'?

My assessment (made for me, by me): my competence, my autonomy, is sufficient for me to get through, to survive, and even thrive.

That's the only evidence I need, the only permission I need: I do it, it works, so there.

Again: not every one is up to the rigors of DIY...that's okay.

If folks need to huddle together then, please, huddle away.

But: not every one needs to huddle (cuddling, however, is another issue entirely... ;) ).

##

"Those protestors aren't talking to Wall Street. They're talking to Washington."

Some are, but many are taking every opportunity to scream at the uber-rich for their uber-blood.

#

"No individual can live entirely self-sufficiently and still be able to participate in and enjoy the advantages that technology and civil society have made possible."

I don't know that 'self-reliance' and 'autonomy' are strictly synonymous with 'self-sufficiency', but, let's say they are.

So what, Dana?

I live and work among you (cancer cell hidden among the healthy!) and I, at my discretion, participate and enjoy a great many things.

Operative words and concept: 'my discretion'.

Wants and needs are most definitely not synonymous.

As I said somewhere in-forum: being prepared (as I am) to take a one-way trip into the desert alone sets one apart from the greater workings of things.

"Well, bully for you, Quirk, but not everyone is like you!"

I get this, I really do. But because the many are incapable, I should act as though I am as well? Because so many 'must' huddle, I'm obligated to as well? Because so many have taken the bait (hook, line, sinker!) and now feel taken advantage of, I should join in their reindeer games? Because there are 'unfortunates' in the world, I'm obligated to care for them?

If my 'benefit' from the greater workings is small, then, it seems to me, the price I pay for the 'benefit' should be small too.

#

"Each to their own and nobody for the ones with noone"

I certainly never said or implied this!

I'm quite devoted, by choice, to several folks, each who I love dearly for reasons wholly idiosyncratic to each.

I, however, am a finite resource...I can't be all to all.

Since I had no hand in the unfortunate 'being' unfortunate: I can't see my obligation to raise them up (or advocate for them when, by their willing participation in 'the system', each got screwed royally...the occupants are prime examples of this, as is any one who takes the position governance and economy have moral dimensions).

If, however, folks (occupants, politicians, priests, activists, etc.) want to dedicate themselves to raising up the poor and tired and hungry, then, by all means, each should do exactly that.

They just need to quit pestering me (directly, indirectly, with force) to participate, cooperate, and pay.

#

"society as a jungle"

It's not a jungle: it's an anthill, fit only for ants.

I prefer civilization (which exists in pockets, but not as widespread or comprehensive...it may, in fact, be that civilization is impossible on the wide scale...*shrug*).

>"It's wrong," the sign said, "to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn't aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon."


The one who got taken: absolutely he or she believes it 'wrong'.

The one who perpetrated the scam and profited: absolutely he or she believes it 'right'.

Perspective: as I said elsewhere, 'competing values'.

Buyer/consumer/INDIVIDUAL beware!

Beware not only that the lion WILL eat you, but also beware of how YOU confuse 'need' and 'want' and how envy informs your (re)actions.

Simply put: do your own goddamned research, cover your own ass, don't lay yourself on the line via a contract you don't understand, only trust the ones who've personally earned it.

This all seems perfectly commonsensical...I, however, MUST be wrong, since so many do exactly the opposite of what I proscribe... ;)

So scams are fine? Making money is fine no matter how it is derived, whether it be through dishonesty, misleading advertising/statements, or outright cons? If anyone is stupid enough to fall for it, it's their own bloody fault? Really??

I think you're just spouting here, quirk. The client referred to above was not an individual but another institution. The people harmed by the transaction had no say.

"So scams are fine?...Really??"

I didn't say scams were 'fine'.

But scams happen all the time...and many (perhaps, most) are legal.

Buyer beware.

##

"I think you're just spouting here, quirk"

Probably.

#

"The people harmed by the transaction had no say."

I imagine each had the choice, from the beginning, of whether or not to transact with the particular institution.

Again: Buyer beware.

Just an update ...

A scary thing for the Mom, but otherwise ho-hummmm.

Unfortunately, the KGW headline on this story is:
"Police Crack Down on unruly element in 'Occupy Portland' camps."
.

Do you know all the institutions your 401K funds contain?

"Do you know all the institutions your 401K funds contain?"
 

I don't have one.

I self-employ: I'll never retire: I'll just die.

*shrug*

Am I mistaken in assuming that 401k programs are voluntary?

But they don't agree on the issues.