Questions for our American friends

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ubu_roi

I, for one, think that most of the protesters would go home if the marijuana supply dried up. They have no clear-cut plan for a solution, as far as I can tell. They just want to get high, get laid, and say that Wall Street/capitalism is crooked and the world is unfair. Well, duh.

It sounds sensible to me; cannabis, free love, protest against the system...has quite a familiar ring to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UcQDUR-fU

Actually, I think the Occupy Wall Street brigade are fulfilling a useful purpose by bringing attention to the way politics has failed the ordinary people thanks to the power of money; the politicians who are supposed to represent the interests of their citizens are essentially prostitutes (though neither as useful nor as honest as prostitutes) and the core point of the protest is to draw attention to who it is that is paying the prostitutes fees.It is an extremely valid use of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and I am quietly relishing the discomfort of the politicians as they seek to deny the validity of the protest.

As long as the protest is peaceful, the heavy handedness of the NYPD will embarrass others as well as the NYPD. I do not foresee the overthrow of the establishment but I do foresee that some concessions may have to be made in favour of more honest governance and the suborning of elected officials by wealthy people being made slightly more difficult. It isn't a bad thing IMHO.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by keefriff

...the majority of the people look at the protestors as young, idealistic, naive and ineffectual

Perhaps, but it is not clever to underestimate them. 'Draft card burners' were young, and idealistic too, but they f***ed the US military for almost two decades

[palo5]

Originally Posted by awboy33

Even though I do not agree with many of the people who have been interviewed at the Occupy Wall Street protests, I think it is wonderful because it is the US system at work

It has nothing to do with the 'US System'. It has to do with human beings, and there's nothing uniquely American about it

America has only had one Revolution and it was about an über-power exerting force on them. That time they won. Will they really lose the next Revolution against the 1% of themselves?

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by palo5

It has nothing to do with the 'US System'. It has to do with human beings, and there's nothing uniquely American about it

America has only had one Revolution and it was about an über-power exerting force on them. That time they won. Will they really lose the next Revolution against the 1% of themselves?

The US has had at least two other revolutions that I can think of.

The American Civil War was a genuine revolution as well. It was basically two different countries both calling themselves the United States and fighting over which way of life would prevail. Was it about slavery ultimately- sure, Is slavery wrong- absolutely, but as a Southerner I can say there is also a perception that still exists that it was also about weather a people or a state can determine their own fate or weather they should just accept a mandate from the central government. Alot of the negativitivity in this country about "Big Government" stems from this feeling of arbitrary oppression. Where in the small print of the Union does it state that joining the United States is alot like joining the mafia?

The 60's in the USA is widely regarded as a time of revolution. Maybe not in the full-bore bullets flying, division on division kind, but there were genuine casualties. As far as the social impact goes the fallout governed our lives and perceptions for at least a generation. Even now I would venture to say that the intractibility of the two main social ideologies in this country in terms of dealing with each other stems from the 60's revolution. Most people in this country are in fact moderates, but the far left and the far right have long standing grievences with each other that were never resolved, and go back at least two full generations now. Both are more than willing to tank the country rather than let the other side make a point or score a victory.

[deepsepia]

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement, like other American insurgencies, is more "conservative" than revolutionary.

I view these folks as very similar to the Tea Party-- except the Tea Party is the co-opted version.

Middle income folks, even well-to-do folks have been ill used by the system, and there is a growing recognition of that fact, even if folks aren't really sure "what should be done".

The financiers have everyone by the short hairs, a kind of hostage situation where they put the loaded question to the rest of us: "Would you like your cash card to work Monday morning? Because it might not, you know . . . "

I think we're struggling to find some way to render ourselves less vulnerable to finance, but somehow the only solutions we come up with increase the concentration of power in a few banks.

[smutwerx]

Originally Posted by ubu_roi

I, for one, think that most of the protesters would go home if the marijuana supply dried up. They have no clear-cut plan for a solution, as far as I can tell.

Howard Stern sent his guys Sal and Richard out to interview protesters in New York; the results were abysmal.

Howard Stern is a shock jock whose reason for being is to make everyone look stupid. He finds stupid people everywhere he looks. It's his job. And if he's good at it he'd be able to make a conference of physicists look bad. You just have to film long enough and do some creative editing. Isn't isn't, pardon the pun, rocket science. But it has no bearing on reality, and we should not be fooled into thinking, "most OWS people are like that." From what I've seen, they are mostly very articulate.

Regarding their lack of a clear-cut plan, I don't know how intentional it is, but it's actually brilliant, in my opinion. As the press waits for some manifesto to appear that they can spin or rip apart, the protests grow and all the media can do is wait. Any statement OWS makes will give its powerful enemies something to attack. The rightness of what OWS says won't matter. We've all seen this done many, many times, so I think they are smart to express only deep dissatisfaction.

By the same token, as yet they have no leader. Same thing. The moment there is a figurehead that person will be torn apart. Everything they ever did will be aired out. They'll be vilified for everything from bad credit to a college paper they wrote. It's smart not to choose a leader. A movement's enemies know that to tear apart a leader discredits the movement but also saps the energy of the people within the movement. With OWS leaderless, the press can only report and wait. I think OWS have been really smart so far.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

I was wondering what the average American chap thought of the anti-capitalism protests on/in Wall Street?
Small, isolated and irrelevant?
Or something bigger?
Cheers,
Miz.

I haven't paid much attention to the Occupy movement because I've been too busy trying to get a job and keep a roof over my head but I caught a couple of snippets about them that lead me to think they are either not too bright, didn't do their homework or something. First was their "occupation"/protest of Wells Fargo Bank because the Federal Government gave them money as part of the banking bailout. Wells Fargo was the one major US bank that didn't need bailout money, they hadn't participated in the massive bundling of questionable mortgages and didn't become financially insolvent when that shite blew up, and paid the money back as soon as the law allowed them to. They actually tried to turn the "bailout" money down but the way the law authorizing it was written by Congress they couldn't. So that's strike one.

Strike two was their claim that their "occupation" of a major city park was covered by the freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution and the police could not evict them in the course of enforcing long-standing curfews. Their claim was that preventing them from living in the park 24/7 was an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech. *rude noise*

Strike three was seeing several of the "occupiers" trying to tell a news camera crew that they could not legally film people in public areas. Uh, yea, not a chance.

In short, IMO, complete idiots. Their complaint (the continuing concentration of wealth, and therefore power, into a small mega-wealthy "elite") is IMHO legitimate and I agree that is a bad trend. But their method of protest is, at best, poorly thought out.

[Warren G]

The Wall Street protests have now spread to 100 US cities and four continents. 7 out of 10 New Yorkers agree with their protest and say they can stay as long as they want. The NY movement alone has recieved $435,000 in donations, besides clothing, food, tents, etc. Not what I would call small, isolated, or irrelevant.

[tommytimp]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Yours are probably the Soros funded union members.

As opposed to the Koch-funded union busters? I know who I'd rather have building my car. Or my computer. Or printing my porn.

[grossnex]

The question I have for the OWS detractors is what movement ever had a precise message in it's infancy stages? None that I can think of. The Tea Party's main gripe in the beginning were the Wall Street Bailouts. Once Fox News & the Coke Brothers began bankrolling the movement, the message suddenly changed to Obamacare, Government spending & gun rights. The right wing co-opted a movement for political purposes. I give Democrats at least that much. They haven't tried to turn OWS protesters into future political candidates.

This movement is really no different than The Arab Spring, Europe's austerity protests, or what we saw here at home as Americans in Wisconsin earlier this year. The tactics are different, but not the message. People are waking up & are PO'd as well. We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this is just a young person's political/economic view of our current state of affairs. Retirees lost pensions because insurance firms were rewarding executives golden parachutes with money from pension accounts & also borrowed from pensions to finance their Wall Street gambling habits. Everyone is effected by the many financial sector abuses. The young people have the desire & energy to hit the pavement & protest, while older people try to keep everything together. That's no different than any other peaceful uprising anywhere in the world throughout history.