Wall Street Protests

[Spexxvet]

[DanaC]

*grins*

Oh yeah...

[Aliantha]

Just a quick note.

On the news last night I saw that people are starting to protest in Melbourne in a similar although possibly more aggressive manner in that they're holding up traffic and stuff, but basically, they're protesting about the big banks and industry.

[DanaC]

A view of Occupy London:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/tal...090450453.html

If that sounds oddly civilised for an anti-capitalist demo, then you should see the waste disposal centre, with separate bins for bottles, paper and rubbish. Or the kitchen, running entirely on donated supplies and volunteer cooks. Or the media centre, with running generators, work spaces and an embryonic video editing suite. The men and women in London's financial district aren't protesting. They're laying down roots.

"We've got church blessing," Giles tells me. He points to beautiful, morbid old St Paul's behind him, which offers us some respite from the wind. "In this building Rev Giles Fraser, who controls this square, has given us his blessing. This is a private square." He waves his hand across the scene, taking in a collection of around 40 tents and 200 activists all busily engaged in activities, from cooking to litter clearance to prolonged debates on the merits of the Tobin tax. "He's asked the police to go. If there are problems then we'll be thrown off. Our aim is to stay here peacefully. It might look like rag-tag operation but there's quite a lot of stuff going on here. We've got a ton of working groups gathered to get this message out clearly. We're encouraging people to come join us without being seen as a bunch of camping hippies."

Whichever way you look at it, it's impressive. I talk to Diaphel, who is running the media centre. Inside the tent, a handful of men are typing away on laptops while others charge their phones. All the wires lead to a generator outside with several cans of fuel beside it. They have another generator coming. He seems confident they can keep the power running indefinitely at the current rate of donation.

"A lot of people are donating," he explains. "People walk by and ask what we need. One person is donating pizza on a regular basis from Enfield. One person in a suit and tie just got a job with a power company. He's getting us some solar panels. The guy that got us the petrol was from a local pub. An unemployed architect is advising us on organising the accommodation."

Next to the media hub, a collection of tents serves as a health centre. Inside, an activist is getting some rest with a couple of volunteer first aiders. Bridget, a respectable middle-aged woman who you'd trust with your house keys, is a registered nurse and a practising midwife. She's running things while the doctor, who just pulled a two-day shift, goes home and gets some rest.

As we talk, a middle-aged man with a copy of the Telegraph pulls a bemused look as he surveys the scene. I ask him what he makes of it. "I'm surprised it hasn't happened before," he says instantly. "Been rather slow to come about."

Across the US, Europe and Australia similar camps are being set up, with a strangely neutral response from the press and the cautious sympathy of passers-by. Of course, something this diverse has no concrete aims. It is not in a position to write out a manifesto yet, beyond an opposition to bank bailouts and public sector spending cuts. But this is how popular movements begin, with generalised discontent. Sometimes they fizzle out. Sometimes they build to something bigger, especially when their anger is focused and resonates with the public. In London, the process requires protesters to maintain the camps as a focal point for the movement, as Zuccotti Park is for Occupy Wall Street. At the current rate of organisation, that seems entirely credible.

Let's just dismiss them as fools and we needn't give their constructive anger another thought.

[Trilby]

God damn fools.

[DanaC]

Ha!

[infinite monkey]

We treat all sorts of illness in this society. Physical illnesses, addictions, mental illnesses. The obvious reasoning is that illness and addiction is bad for society.

There's only so much money you can spend. At some point, the WHOLE point is having more money and making more money.

That's addiction. It's bad for society as a whole. We can dress it up as ambition, but what we're seeing is so far from ambition you can't even see ambition anymore. It's a sickness. Get ALL the money. As MUCH money as we can. At the expense of ANYONE or ANYTHING.

Why, if we care so much about smokers and overeaters and sex addicts and alcoholics and gambling addicts and shoplifters and shopaholics, do we not try to make these sick fuckers better?

Billboards! Betty Afford Money Addiction Clinic! A patch! Pills! Densensitization Therapy! Aversion Therapy!

Because even this extreme unhealthy greed is dressed up like so much pretty ambition, and because it carries so much power, it will never be recognized as such. They just keep saying "I got mine you get YOURS" without knowing they've left very little to "get."

Even normal folks with a normal like of money and a decent life won't have any left to get...not at this rate.

So I'm in favor of involuntary commitment.

[henry quirk]

HA!

The trick: forcing someone with a worth (power) exceeding that of a small nation to 'do' anything at all.

If he or she can't buy you, then he or she will have you ended and buried deep.

It would be nice if 'right makes/is might' but the reality is 'might makes/is right'.

*shrug*

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

HA!

The trick: forcing someone with a worth (power) exceeding that of a small nation to 'do' anything at all.

If he or she can't buy you, then he or she will have you ended and buried deep.

It would be nice if 'right makes/is might' but the reality is 'might makes/is right'.

*shrug*

The sad part is the wealthy-wanabees who don't realize they too are in 99%.

Then too, the wealthy need to keep in mind the line from the old westerns:
"There's always a faster gun"
.

[glatt]

.

[HungLikeJesus]

Is there a definition of the 1%/99%? I need to know which side I'm on.

[classicman]

...

[Lamplighter]

[quote=henry quirk;764830<snip>
"The sad part is the wealthy-wanabees who don't realize they too are in 99%."

If directed at me: I have no interest in being rich...too much work, too much baggage...
I prefer what I have: solitary, anonymous, minimalistic, autonomy...
I own little and am owned by little.

Your mistake, Lamp: assuming I admire the rich...
I don't admire them or find them distasteful...
they simply 'are' (and they're not going anywhere).
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

HQ, I don't think I assumed you "admire the rich", or even directed the comment at you, in particular.
But your assertions do, in fact, set up a fatalistic defense... (i.e., Be afraid, very afraid)
and so secures you to them, but still outside the 1% castle wall.

Advocating a solitary , anonymous, minimalistic, autonomy may be your preference... So be it.

But in a so-called real world, the other end of the distribution usually doesn't work out so well,
mainly because it's is not as "autonomous" as might be believed.

[henry quirk]

"...your assertions...set up a fatalistic defense...and...secures you to them..."

Acknowledging a hurricane is coming up the mouth of the Miss. doesn't bind me to the hurricane...acknowledging the hurricane's existence and what the hurricane is capable of allows me to realistically prepare for it, and, to realistically respond to what it leaves behind: so, no, not really.

#

"the other end of the distribution usually doesn't work out so well"

Meaning, I guess, all those folks who chose something other than autonomy.

Hey, one gets what one deserves: Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

He was wrong. Hanging together usually means you get hanged together.

#

"real world"

I live in the real world...am up to my neck in it...I believe, however, (and the status of my life is all the evidence I need) I have an awful amount of control over what 'I do' in the world (my actions, responses, cultivating and avoid certain consequences, etc.)...I understand many, perhaps most, folks don't share my perspective...that's okay...each and every one will do exactly as he or she likes and is able.

I just may be 'more' capable (of autonomy).

This is not a crime any more than someone being 'less' capable is a crime.

But: the lesser ability of the other is not my problem to correct or pay for (I have no interest in living in Harrison Bergeron’s world...if you do: more power to you...I, however, will not be hobbled).

The 'occupants', I think, would be very happy to live in Bergeron’s world...other folks would not.

#

"That's the whole problem in a nutshell."

No. The problem, as exampled by the 'occupants', is believing the 'rich' can made to care.

[Lamplighter]

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

By fatalistic assertions, 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.

By "other end of the distribution" I meant the 1% of the 99%... the poorest of the poor.

I did confirm your preferences for autonomy are yours to own.
Nothing was said about it being criminal,.
Only time will show if a competent, solitary life is sufficient.