How this can be read and not seen as a goal is beyond me (unless one thinks that the current impasse will be solved by sitting at home, instead of getting out + getting involved to bring about change):
It's not going to happen overnight.
Real financial overhaul will only happen if we reclaim our elections. We need real campaign reform, and we need to elect the people who will enact it. We do that through running and winning in primaries, where the party's pick usually prevails with the most money.
I am on their side, believe me but that is NOT a goal, it is a call to action for some unknown party; a request that someone else develop the agenda. What specific reforms are they seeking? Where will the leaders come from and what are they asking for? What types of reform?
End the war is an objective. Take the money out of politics is an objective. Remove special interests and lobby groups access to legislators is an objective. They need an agenda. Still this is a great start.
It's not a goal to elect properly representative politicians? It's not a goal to get campaign reform where corporations aren't allowed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get their cronies elected?
Maybe they're not voicing the goals you want, but those are goals which = objectives.
It is more of a call to action. Aspiring to elect representative politicians is not a demand of people in power or government. It is an appeal to the masses not consistent with a protest movement which typically targets groups in power or Govt, people who are in a position to influence policy. And it is not very tangible.
End the war is a tangible objective and a demand placed on Government. Elect properly representative politicians? Who exactly are you asking that of and how is protesting in Wall Street going to accomplish that?
That's exactly what it is.Originally Posted by eddhead
The protest movements of the past went nowhere until they reached critical-mass, and that doesn't necessarily mean a body count of the protesting group. It didn't matter how many black people marched for civil rights in the 1950s; no one was going to listen to their demands. Things changed when white people became uncomfortable with what was on TV news. Before that, they were just a bunch of malcontent colored folk.It is an appeal to the masses not consistent with a protest movement which typically targets groups in power or Govt, people who are in a position to influence policy. And it is not very tangible.
Before Lyndon Johnson "lost Walter Cronkite", they were just draft-dodging hippies. No one listened to them.
So who is going to listen to people camped out in public squares? What's the "or else" for their demands?
exactly. equally to the point, who are they making their demands to, and what are the expected outcomes? Hopefully, they'll get there.
Camping out in public squares gets you media attention, which is what can eventually get you everything else.
There's nothing visual, no element of public spectacle, about some internet group like "Move On" asking for online donations or meeting in members' living rooms. You have to put bodies out there.
Think of how the Tea Party started...all those rubes wearing hats with tea bags hanging down, and the most outrageous signs. What did they want? Lots of things. And the media couldn't resist them. It's a VISUAL thing. A bunch of frustrated Americans carrying flags, laptops, signs, and food donations, just steps from the nation's financial nerve center, looks like a good place to start. Just like with the Tea Party, first you have to make the whole nation aware that you even exist...media attention makes other sympathetic people see a movement, join in, and get involved everywhere...on many different levels. They feel there IS something to join into. That's what eventually creates a juggernaut that has to be acknowledged.
Think of a bee hive with different bees working on different cells. Taking care of the hive is the overall objective, but there are lots of elements to that.
Or, let's just all sit back and criticize a multifaceted entity for not being single celled?
Do I have kids? No. I wouldn't want them is this environment.
And no i don't think everything is fine. I just think different things are wrong then you do.
As far as the Occupy Wall Street crowd, they think someone can wave a magic wand and fix everything, and wonder way no one had done it already. Wall Street's not the problem (or at least one of tthe major ones.) The fact is that large parts of the American population is economically obsolete and unnecessary, and we're losing in a global competition that isn't going to go away. And all the huffing and puffing in Liberty Plaza is not going to change that.
Do you mean this environment?Would you want kids if we "eliminate" this problem?The fact is that large parts of the American population is economically obsolete and unnecessary,
Just make sure your kids aren't the ones eliminated.
Jon Stewart: How Is Occupy Wall Street Not Like The Tea Party?
Huffington Post
Previously, Jon Stewart only touched on one incident at the downtown Manhattan protests known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS), but on Wednesday night's "Daily Show," he spent nine minutes comparing the 2011 protests with 2009's birth of the Tea Party, and the media's disparate reactions ....
VIDEO
^ totally inappropriate.
Why resort to personal attacks? Why bring things down to such a petty, infantile level? Why explain to us what BBMW thinks?
Make the "issue" the discussion ... and not the poster.
I disagree with BBMW.
But I am interested in hearing his viewpoint. He certainly has as much right to post here as any one else.... and I have not heard him here get personal.
Twitter Feed for Jesse LaGreca
His profile image:
BBMW wrote: "the fact is that large parts of the American population is economically obsolete and unnecessary,"
I agree. It's the sad truth.
But isn't it then the governments job to provide training and incourage the private sector to train? Isn't it more the reason to invest in schools?
Calling out BBMW on ideas he has posted is not a personal attack. It's an idea / mindset attack.
No one at WNY is censoring his ideas, just pushing back on what he espouses.
Now if you want to propose a WNY rule where no reference can ever be made to any poster by name in any reply, citing only the idea or position posted, then be my guest.
"He thinks everything is fine, except a few social adjustments. Like get rid of everyone except "law abiding citizens."
We've gotten a glimpse of the society he wants."
^ Sorry Lofter, totally inapproproiate. The cute 3rd person business is not good.
We don't need posters explaining to us what another really thinks.
Calling out another poster on his ideas is cool.... but doing it this way is not.
Imagine if someone did to you: Lofter thinks... Lofter believes... We've seen what Lofter wants... oh c'mon.... not cool.
Last edited by Fabrizio; October 7th, 2011 at 12:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks