Skip to main content

As some of you know, I'm not a supporter of the OWS protests. So why then, am I telling you that you have a problem and offering a solution? It kinda sounds concern trollish, huh? Well, here's the thing. I think there are problems with our economic system that need to be improved. I want to support you. But right now, that's damn near impossible, because there is no plural "you," as a group, when it comes to what you think.

Take these two quotes from your forum:

We are against those that abuse capitalism. We are not against capitalism itself.
Capitalism is an evil system based on the exploitation of the workers by the bourgeoisie.

The bottom line is that these two views are not compatible (unless, of course, the second person is not against the evil system). The protest cannot be in favor of both sides of such disparate viewpoints. And these aren't the only contrasting viewpoints held by OWS protestors. I picked this example because I think a significant number of protestors are on both sides of this issue. I know there are fringe elements that shouldn't be given much attention, but I don't think either of these are fringe viewpoints of OWS. As long as the protest incorporates messages that stand in stark contrast to each other, here are some problems you have:

1. Forget the polls.
You know that 54% favorability rating OWS got in the Time poll a few days ago? Forget about it. It means nothing. I can guarantee you that 54% of the population does not agree with both of those statements. As long as the protest is a blank canvas (or a canvas with everything on it), people will project their hopes on it (in a manner comparable with what many did with Obama in 2008), because they are unhappy with the status quo. The polls don't mean America is with you.

2. What change is good change?
Ultimately, the goal here is to change the system for the better. But people evaluate whether or not a change is "better" by comparing that change to their desired system. So, as long as people's desired systems are so different, the OWS crowd cannot unite behind a change. I think this struggle has been why there has been so little progress made by OWS protestors about what to actually do about the problem.

3. You will be marginalized.
Identifying symptoms and/or problems isn't enough. In the words of my boss, "Don't bring me problems. Bring me solutions to problems." Your role is not to sit back and veto everything that everyone else comes up with. It seems to me like that's the role you want to play in designing our economic system. You don't get to play that role. Nobody gets that role. I have projects in which there are team members who want that role. I remove them from my teams because they are not helping. You have to propose a solution to be taken seriously. You just have to. If you can't propose a solution, you are throwing a tantrum. And you will be ignored, because really, that's about all that can be done with you.

So, what is the solution? I'm sure some people want to start with a platform of big bold ideas, while others would prefer a more targeted approach. Here's my advice. You will not be able to agree on new big bold ideas right now, so your best course of action is to focus on simple impactful policies that the vast majority of people can agree on (things like "tax dividends and capital gains as normal income"). Then make a thousand signs that say that one thing and hand them out. Yes, you'll piss some people off, and some people will leave. That is inevitable. Let them go. A goal of yours should be to minimize that. But not at the expense of developing good, simple policies the vast majority of people can get behind.

Developing these policies will do a few good things for you. First, it will help get people like me (and those in the media) off your back. Second, it will build trust and foster bonding among your group. You'll need the stronger social bonds this creates when you have to tackle larger issues down the road. Finally, with thousands protesting for a simple policy, there will be pressure for politicians to just implement that policy. If they do, you get to claim success which will rally people to your group. If not, you've got a policy just about everyone in America agrees with (and can hear, and can join the fight for), so people will sympathize with you and support you, and your group will continue to grow - which in turn will put more pressure on politicians to implement the policy.

As you should have learned in the movie Inception, for an idea to really take hold, it needs to be positive. Right now, OWS has a negative message. You need to stop fighting against something, and start fighting for something.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 1-)

    The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

    by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:42:58 AM PDT

  •  Although your diary is well argued, I disagree. (42+ / 0-)

    I think a key distinction is what I expect from OWS, which is to raise awareness and radicalize people.  It is succeeded there.  

    In formal logic, one cannot be both a capitalist and anti-capitalist, but in coalitions that exist in the real world, one can work together.    

    OWS is about the 99% getting screwed.  On that, many capitalists and anti-capitalists agree.

    More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

    by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

    •  In addition, marginalization (29+ / 0-)

      is not as fatal to OWS (even though it seems to have hit a chord with the mainstream).

      OWS is many people.  It's not a candidate.  By expressing the frustration of millions with the system as it is, it already has suceeded.  It is awakening people.  

      More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

      by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know, I had a discussion with a very (9+ / 0-)

        conservative person today. The usual back and forth. But at the end of it, he asked a question that I had neither considered, nor had an answer. He asked "Well, Hillbilly, when this thing goes on for a few more months and nothing has changed, what then?"

        The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

        by Hillbilly Dem on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:56:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Troll Atheistben is working on his MBA... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        Probably to work in the financial sector on Wall Street he so readily defends. He denigrates OWS at every oppurtunity. Here is just one of his previous comments TomP.

        "I just think you all are deluding yourselves about what your protests can actually accomplish regarding improving the lives of Americans." by atheistben

        Indeed, I think we're going to become a nation where our primary business is defrauding each other with people like him.

        "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

        by Mr SeeMore on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 10:20:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, let's criticize education! (0+ / 0-)

          Because graduate level courses in accounting, economics, management, statistics, finance, operations, marketing, etc make one have less accurate views on the economy. Please...

          I always find it funny and sad when people here talk about how we need to educate our people, and how there's so much respect for education around here. But when it comes to the educated? All bets are off. The average person who failed out of their freshman year of art history has just as much knowledge as the guy with the engineering degree and the finance masters. And we need to treat their opinions as equally plausible. It's bullshit.

          And it brings up another point about why I don't think the OWS protests will work. They can't advocate for good wide-reaching policies because they don't know what they are. The average person doesn't know the difference between bond amortization and a call stock option. And you want all these people to fix the financial industry? Good fucking luck.

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 12:17:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But do you think raising awareness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psilocynic, rcnewton

      and radicalizing people is enough? I don't think those two objectives will necessarily lead to positive change. Raising awareness and radicalizing people doesn't put more money in the hands of the middle class. It doesn't provide a path out of poverty to the poor.

      I understand your viewpoint on coalitions. That's a big part of why I think OWS should start small on policy to strengthen those coalition bonds so it's harder for the differences to tear them apart. Still though, the capitalism/socialism debate has been going for ~100 years now, so it's a pretty big obstacle to overcome.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:58:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a start. (21+ / 0-)

        Is it enough?  No.  But OWS cannot do that on its own.

        It takes a change in the conversation, which OWS has helped create, a change in people's minds, an electoral path to change Congress, pressure on issues even after Congress is changed, etc.  

        I do not look to OWS to change the world by itself.  It is part of a multi-faceted struggle.  

        I don't think differences over socialism and capitalism will tear them apart.   By pitching their arguments at a high level of generality ("the 99% are getting screwed"), it's easy to keep people together.

        The issues you identify might be problesm if OWS was the only path to change, but it's not.  It's an important piece, but not the only thing.

        More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

        by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We are the 99% (24+ / 0-)

          Best branding in decades.
          1) Grow an organic movement- check
          2) Branding- check
          3) Keep it big tent-check
          4) Change the conversation-check
          5) Scare the crap outta the 1%-check
          6) Totally confuse social conservatives-check
          7) Finally people in the Streets-check
          8) Send Jesse LaGreca on a road show to 6 cities-check
          9) Watching something bigger than a polictical party sweep the nation-check.

          FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your "namesake"*, FOX Knews? created a monster (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, MadRuth

            Ironic, ain't it. . . . By ignoring Jesse, they gave him a bigger voice. . . .

            [*I keed, I keed.]

            We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

            by Samer on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  A Major Problem For OWS... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atheistben, divineorder, rcnewton

            is the demonization of the police (which are Union).  You cannot demonize the police for enforcing local ordinances and expect millions of Union members to support the cause.  A Diary posted shortly after this one claims that the police are NOT part of the 99%.  If a police officer is not part of the 99%, then who is?  Apparently many people feel that only a few people are part of the 99%.

            This type of talk is using bad judgement and will quiclkly turn the 99% inot the 10%.

            •  OWS is not demonizing the police (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, SpecialKinFlag

              The police and those giving them their orders are doing that.  

              “Never argue with an idiot. He’ll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.”

              by MadRuth on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:30:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of Course OWS Is Demonizing The Police... (0+ / 0-)

                I watched a You Tube video showing the Occupy San Francisco protests.  The OWS police were very calm while protestors yelled at them and were totally disrespectful to them.  The protestors treated the police poor;y and the plice stood their calmly.  How can the protestors expect the Unions to get behind them when teh protestors that are clearly breaking the law by violating city ordinances, demonize Union brothers and sisters?

                •  All I can speak for is St Louis (0+ / 0-)

                  and so far, aside from ten arrests early on we have had no problem with the police.  We have a decent enough working relationship with SLPD which did get a bit tarnished last Friday by the actions of some anti-union agitators that managed to partially co-opt one of the groups of marchers.  

                  The point ahs been made to #OCcupySTL that the police are there to keep us as residents of St Louis safe.  So far the social contract has held.

                  Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered." Member of the Liberal Gun Club

                  by ErikO on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:14:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I do agree that it's easier to keep people (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psilocynic, Justanothernyer, rcnewton

          together when arguments have a high level of generality. The problem is that actions and changes require a very small level of generality. I don't see how one leads to the other.

          I also don't see the facet of the struggle that will actually lead to change. To me, that's the most important facet, and it is curiously missing. So, I guess my question is if OWS isn't going to propose changes, who is?

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course people living in parks or marching is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe, vacantlook, TomP

            not going to bring jobs back from India or China, stop home foreclosures, get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or lower the price of gasoline.

            That will take legislative action - getting rid of some of those loopholes and tax credits, for instance.

            And, the discussions camping and marching starts may motivate people to start threatening to withhold votes from candidates who refuse to reflect the REAL will of the people, not whatever crap Cantor and Boehner bleat about.

            As I understand it, OWS will evolve. They are a fabulous first step, and I eagerly await this evolution.

            Do you have ANY helpful suggestions of your own? Since you don't think OWS is getting the job done, what do you propose???

            •  I proposed in the post that OWS focus on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rcnewton

              a few simple policy goals that have broad public support, as a start. I even mentioned a policy I think is good.

              After those policies are accepted, come up with more policies and repeat. But focus on a small number of things at any one time. And stay on message.

              The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

              by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your proposal means nothing (5+ / 0-)

                if you don't join the movement and engage in the process. It is a ground up, horizontal approach. You don't have a say from the sidelines.

                By the way, the #OWS movement is comprised of everyday people, and there are a plethora of views present in the movement. This is why it takes so much time to coalesce these views into policy. People have to discuss and come to agreement first. The disparate views you mentioned reflect the spectrum of views.

                This is, in short, a misguided criticism made by a person who has little understanding of this movement.

              •  "And stay on message." (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, Chinton, trumpeter, MadRuth

                Staying on message isn't the problem. There is just more than one important message. Some people are concerned about foreclosures; others, jobs; students, student loans; some care about the wars; always jobs; racism; environmental issues; health care; jobs; LGBT issues; sexism; primary education; higher education; greedy bankers; jobs; fire fighters; police and police violence; unions.

                Of course these things will have to be separated and articulated. But I'm happy to see the OWS warriors in the parks until every one of the 1% pees their pants when they see the news on TV or the headlines in the paper. Let the message against inequality sink in deeply.

                You are trying to blunt the impact by having everyone 'play nice' and not rock the boat, it seems to me. Luckily, the OWS has their own agenda.

                •  The 1% is not peeing their pants (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rcnewton

                  They will not care about what you do until there are votes taking place in Congress. Until bills that impact them negatively stand a moderate chance of passing, they will view your presence indifferently.

                  The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

                  by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:02:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i agree (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FG, atheistben

                    it's hilarious that the protesters think that the corporations are runnings scared - these protests are, unfortunately, just a sideshow for them.

                    In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

                    by rcnewton on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:59:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Give it time. (0+ / 0-)

                      11/05/11 is a date to wait for.

                      The next is 07/04/12, in Philadelphia.

                      Then after that is 11/04/14.  Everywhere.

                      The system isn't broke, just has unfair rules.

                      If the rules won't get changed then the players will have new advasaries.

                      Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered." Member of the Liberal Gun Club

                      by ErikO on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:17:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Change requires more than proposed solutions (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gustogirl, SoCaliana, TomP, Chinton, MadRuth

            What has been sorely lacking is enough people demanding a change at all.  OWS has made a beginning on addressing that problem, but there is much more to be done and if they do nothing else but awaken a big enough sleeping giant that will be admirable.

            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:11:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Relax, atheistben (7+ / 0-)

            Was watching some author and expert on social change/social movements from a prestigious (forget which) university on PBS last night.

            She said the big movements always start out amorphous, unfocused.  It isn't the solutions that bring people out on the streets - it's the discontent with the present, the problems that bring us out in droves.

            OWS will evolve, quit being in such a big hurry.  It is still in the "gaining momentum" phase.

            As for me, I'm really happy to see that left and right are again actually having person-to-person conversations, rather than isolating themselves inside Fox views or the left echo chamber.  This engineered division between us that was designed to prevent an effective populist movement is crumbling as we speak.

            That will just add to the momentum, and that's all we care about for now.  Getting the 99% on board, shining a light, awakening the drones.

            Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

            by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gustogirl

              Social movements are fun to watch but basically unpredictable. Ordinary people are fed up but don't think the political system will respond to their needs so they are expressing their discontent.

              Politicians will respond by trying to steal some energy (negative or positive) from the movement. Some politicians will try to coopt the movement; others will criticize the movement.

              But, as of now, no one knows where this movement will end. But I will personally enjoy the movement and try to help it become politically productive.

      •  Permit me to ask ... (8+ / 0-)

        ... What do you mean by "radicalizing"? Read the Declaration of their grievances (NYC). Are those ideas "radical"? Because they sound like just, fair ideas to me.

        "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

        by highfive on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:06:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OWS has already done more (19+ / 0-)

        to change the conversation about what is going on in this country than any other group/movement in America.  I think that is quite an accomplishment.

        “Never argue with an idiot. He’ll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.”

        by MadRuth on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:11:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I'd unfortunately argue that the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer, rcnewton

          Tea Party has had a bigger impact. They sponsored a Republican presidential debate. And that sucks for a better conversation...

          But there's certainly still room for a liberal movement to outgrow the Tea Party.

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We have certainly outgrown the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SallyCat, MadRuth, Chinton

            tea party in sheer numbers and scope.  OWS is a GLOBAL movement with occupy operations in more that 1,500 cities.

            You sound like the tea party people I chat with in our local LTE blog.  They are all full of the superiority of the tea party, but of course that's the line of crap they are being sold by FOX.

            The tea party slowed to a trickle as TPTB on the right began to co-opt and try to direct them.  I'll never forget the planned tea party demonstration in DC, replete with prominent tea party affiliated congressmen - for which more media showed up than demonstrators.  That was a hoot.

            So, I obviously disagree that the tea party has had a bigger impact.  OWS has resonated much more broadly with the populace, and it hasn't allowed itself to be co-opted by any political party or organization.

            Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

            by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:21:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am confused by this term (5+ / 0-)
        radicalizing people  

        The most radical idea to come out of #OccupyWallStreet is that the majority of the people should have a say in the government and that the government should be working for the people.

        I am having a very hard time understanding why you consider that radical.

        You cannot cherry pick some individual viewpoints to say it represents everyone in the movement.  this movement is very inclusive of many different political views.  What the movement clearly represents is giving the power back to the people.

        As far as #OWS presenting policies....I have argued this until I am blue in the face.  It is NOT up to #OWS to create policy.  #OWS is asking a basic question which is as I wrote in a comment on another diary:

        But this movement goes even further in that it is questioning our entire values system, not just specific politicians and legislation.  It is questioning why a small group of very wealthy people and global corporations are considered to have more value than humanity.

        We have to get past our old way of thinking which is very top down to understand that this is a laterally organized movement which is empowering all of us to ask these questions.  We cannot change the system without a mass movement such as this.  The old political parties and organizations no longer work because they are part of the problem.

        We have been saying that the only way change can be effected is through us and that is what #OWS is setting into motion and building right now.

        The United States is not just losing its capacity to do great things. It's losing its soul.--Bob Herbert. gulfgal98's corollary- We are fighting back to save our soul. Thank you, #OWS for empowering us all.

        by gulfgal98 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:44:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think "radical" is good. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gulfgal98, glorificus, T100R, trumpeter

          You think the word is "bad."

          This system need radical change.  Don't be afraid of truth.  Don't try to hide the sickness of this system by running from the term "radical."  

          More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

          by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the context of his comment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            and in the context of this diary, I interpreted his use of radicalizing as negative, particularly in political context (capitalism vs marxism).

            When it comes to #OWS movement, I was one of the first here at dkos to completely embrace it.  It is a radical new way trying to effect change, as I stated in my comment above.  But many people still are questioning the movement in the traditional context.

            IMHO, the people who seem to be having the most difficult time understanding #OWS are those who cannot let go of the old paradigm of top down organiztion and accept the broad empowerment that #OWS brings to everyone who wants to embrace it.  

            So if I misconstrued the comment to which I was responding, then I apologize to the diarist.

            The United States is not just losing its capacity to do great things. It's losing its soul.--Bob Herbert. gulfgal98's corollary- We are fighting back to save our soul. Thank you, #OWS for empowering us all.

            by gulfgal98 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:07:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think I thought you were being critical of my (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe, katiec, gulfgal98

              comment, but now I think you were replying to the diarist.  :-)

              My use of "radicalizing" was as a good thing.  To me, radicalizing means learning to understand that the system is flawed, that exploitation underlies it.  

              I think many of those who participate and those who learn of it will be radicalized: they will no longer see the world as they did before it.  

              That's good.  Systemic problems require systemic change.  

              So I think you and I agree for the most part.  

              More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

              by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:17:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A lot of people are scared (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP

                of the word, "radicalizing".  It might be semantically appropriate, but I see no reason to alienate people unnecessarily when there are other semantic choices.

                Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

                by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:23:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OWS is not the Obama campaign. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  T100R, SpecialKinFlag, trumpeter, katiec

                  Sometimes one dissembles in a political campaign.  

                  I disagree about using "other semantic chocies."  Fear so riddles people on the left.  Being afraid to say "radical change" means the policeman in your head, the tool of the 1%er that you internalized, is winning.   OWS is not seeking to be invited to the table; they want to overturn the table.

                  Conversely, a politcial campaign seeking to obtain the votes of many will aim more "mainstream."  Different goals; different things.  

                  OWS is a people's movement.  It's not "Get Clean for Gene" (1968).  If people start being afraid to say things, then it is the beginning of the end.

                  In any event, I used the words, and I do not represent OWS, just myself.

                  More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

                  by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:47:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  RA & RP are just a start (0+ / 0-)

        They must be followed by coalition building and a big picture focus. There are some crazies and moles in all protests and the media will sniff them out and emphasize what they say.
        OWS and its offspring are not guaranteed to succeed. Look what happened in Egypt. But the answer in Egypt was not to  continue with Mubarak and military dominance. The answer for us is not to continue with our two parties, their ad campaigns and misleading spokespeople.
        US per hour inflation-adjust3ed wages peaked in 1974. Of course there's no money to support community resources, schools and services. There must be a Tobin tax and shrinkage of the financial and corporate sectors. The details will have to be hammered out.

      •  Obama Was So Damn Foolish About 'Yes We Can'!! (0+ / 0-)

        I told everyone at the time!!
        Candidate Obama was dead wrong in presenting himself as a blank slate we 'could project our hopes on' during his campaign!
        I sent David Axelrod email after email!
        I suggested Obama should have issued some small, targeted pre-capitulations as his campaign theme, especially in Iowa.
        That would have grown Obama-mania for sure, and we could all 'rally' to his side with our sensible shoes on, and a copy of 'Robert's Rules of Order' in hand.
        I told Axelrod if Obama wanted to get people like me, you, and the media off his back, he should put a lid on all the vague hope and change crap, cut it with the big, inspirational speeches, kill that 'yes we can' music thing, and foster stronger social bonds by suggesting some small changes to mortuary law in Ohio.
        I am emailing OWS leadership and forwarding the emails I sent to Axelrod.
        We both want to grow this OWS movement!!

        •  Allowing that improved his favorability in the (0+ / 0-)

          short term. It did get him elected. But it set him up for what you've observed on DailyKos for the last year - disaffection. That's the last thing you want taking over major factions inside OWS. It will kill the movement. Like I said, I'm not a big supporter of this movement. A big reason is that this is the end that I see coming.

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:32:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The New Deal and social progress (8+ / 0-)

      last century grew out of tension between capitalists and anti-capitalists. Not a problem. Quite the contrary.

      •  Right. But they found real things to agree on (3+ / 0-)

        My point isn't that capitalists and anti-capitalists can't coexist. My point is that they need to spell out where they agree so they can fight for those specific changes. The New Deal wasn't a piece of legislation that said "The Great Depression sucks," it was a set of policies. You need the policies.

        The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

        by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:51:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chris Hedges.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R

          there's a great video clip of Chris Hedges on Truth Dig at the NY Occupation.

          According to his experience, movements are about articulating "fundamental truths".  He didn't say they're about articulating fundamental policies.

          I think OWS is doing pretty well at the truth thing.

      •  Excellent point, David. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        david mizner, MadRuth

        Many people do not know the role of CPUSA, socialists,  and other leftists in organizing unions and pushing the New Deal left.  

        While CPUSA often functioned as the Soviet Union told it to, there were many within it who fought and even gave their lives to organize, especially with respect to the CIO.

        More jobs equal less debt, even our kids can understand that.

        by TomP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:00:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  People are not going to get radicalized. And if it (0+ / 0-)

      ends up like London stuff a few months ago, it will only produce backlash.

  •  Truck too.... nt (0+ / 0-)

    "Ich bin ein Dachs!"

    by PvtJarHead on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

  •  As you should have learned from the movie (25+ / 0-)

    inception, there are dreams folded within dreams here.

    Dream your own dream and stop dreaming mine.  I'm okay with the dissonance.  It feels like democracy to me.  

    •  Agree w/Bindle. (13+ / 0-)

      I'm ok with the dissonance.

      And think it's very unfortunate that such a thing leads the poster to not support OWS.

      To me the solution to all you've written is simple:  Make your very own sign and get out there with them.  Let YOUR voice be heard.

      And yeah, the pro-Capitalists and anti-Capitalists probably need to work together if change is going to happen at all.

      And if change doesn't happen, then in a generation or 2 it won't matter because the earth probably won't be supporting much of any life -- good or bad -- anti or pro-Capitalist.  Dem or Repub....

      We're near the end game, small differences need to be put aside.

    •  Thank you, and I'd like to point out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter

      the recent studies of the brain that indicate liberals are far better at coping with ambiguity than conservatives; whereas conservatives are more protective and fear-based.

      Dissonance/ambiguity is usually quite a fertile pond!

      Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

      by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:25:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think Fitzgerald was joking when he said (27+ / 0-)

    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

    As for the "What are you for?" bit, which part of "The wealthy and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes" isn't clear? You might hear other ideas bandied about by OWS fans, but I sincerely doubt you'll find one who disagrees with that premise.

    •  But the devil is in the details there (3+ / 0-)

      What is fair? Define "fair," and I'll likely be with you. The point is that you have to define what fair looks like. 35%? 80%? What? Is it fair to vary tax rates by sector?

      And how much do we have to compromise "fair" to be practical. If we set Boeing's tax rate at 80%, investors will pull out of the company, lowering the equity:liabilities ratio. They will not be able to get the loans for new construction projects. They will be outcompeted by Airbus and will go bankrupt, costing the US billions in income and tens of thousands of jobs. What do you do in this situation? It's a very tough question.

      The point is that your quote is still vague. It's still the blank canvas. It isn't clear.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:00:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is ONE aspect of "fair": (5+ / 0-)

        Set the rate on dividend income equal to that of payroll income. Why people pay less taxes on money "earned" by having money is beyond my understanding.

        •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crashing Vor, rcnewton

          It's the example I give in the post of a simple policy OWS should advocate for.

          Considering that companies can repurchase stock, they can essentially get the profits of the company into the hands of their shareholders in the form of dividends or capital gains at will. So those two tax rates need to be linked. And I think it's a great idea to tax both as normal income.

          The reason they're currently lower is to encourage people to invest rather than spend everything they have. Honestly, I wouldn't want to do away with this encouragement for most people. I'd probably advocate for a tax exemption for dividends and capital gains at a level of something like 20% of other normal income, capped at $200k or so - possibly increasing as one ages, to encourage continued investment as investment income begin to outpace other normal income. But all this doesn't have to be on the signs.

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  People Coming Together-Affirming Their Humanity (35+ / 0-)

    ...in the face of a ruthless and amoral and often criminal financial-political system.

    OWS is just the beginning; not an finality.

    Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

    by frandor55 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:57:02 AM PDT

  •  I suggest the role of money in politics (9+ / 0-)

    pretty much covers all the complaints.   Every OTHER idea being considered and implement depends on that one idea being considered and implemented.  I wouldn't have said that prior to Citizens United and the subordination of the republican party to the role of being a front for "independent" expenditure, but it's true now.

    Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

    by Inland on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:57:40 AM PDT

    •  So what do you do about it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      Current court rulings say that money is free speech. That means that even legislation won't fix the problem. You need a constitutional amendment. And does that really stand a chance at passing? I doubt it, but I don't know.

      I guess that's one of the issues I'd hold off on addressing until you get some small wins under your belt.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:03:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for the advice (11+ / 0-)

    I disagree about a number of these points, most importantly that small proposals will be helpful. If we go for these small proposals it will be the death of this movement. The press and the public will think we got what we want and start telling us to go home. I think that is true of any demands that aren't far reaching. At the same time you are definitely right about the problems with agreeing on bold proposals, it would be difficult if not impossible.

    One of the things I think is important about this movement is the method of organization and what that means for the future, not just in terms of what battles we win but also in terms of making changes to how Americans think of political organizing. A lot of people outside the occupations don't really get this aspect of it all. We really are doing something fundamentally different, if only on a small scale. We are in the process of trying to do that on a larger scale and that is where our movement will really succeed or fail.

    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59:06 AM PDT

    •  You go! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, glorificus

      All the best, and if you're one of the campers -- hats off to you.

      Stay warm.  Lots of love.

      K.

    •  Thank you, AoT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      I tried to explain that above.  

      The United States is not just losing its capacity to do great things. It's losing its soul.--Bob Herbert. gulfgal98's corollary- We are fighting back to save our soul. Thank you, #OWS for empowering us all.

      by gulfgal98 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:49:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, to counter the perception of "we gave (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      you what you asked for, now go home," I'd be up-front about this being a process. I'd say you want to make decisions based on data, and you can only get data by trying out ideas. Maybe hold the protests for a couple months every year, and make proposals with increasing boldness as things go on.

      I don't know, I'm kinda speaking off the cuff on this...

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not a bad idea (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atheistben

        Perhaps not getting reasonable demands passed, as in demanding and not getting, would be a better way. And we know nothing reasonable is getting passed with the GOP controlling the house.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:55:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  speaking without first hand knowledge of actual (0+ / 0-)

        process, lack of the experience to build and carry thru some action, event or policy that grows the Occupy movement in your local area, if not at the Wall Street camp.

        Yeah, that is a tough nut to overcome, just to make cogent rational, fact based arguments on advancing the movement when you don't have any facts about what is truly going on on the ground. Too bad. you have it right, you have a good approach, except you have no idea how poor or how effective your ideas will be because you

        simply refuse to participate and thereby leave yourself a sideline critic.

        This diary conversation is about as good as it will get for you, unless you step up your own actual , not virtual/blog effort.

        If you think that you and a bunch of other people can just show up on Wall St, camp out and have any effect whatsoever, you're dreaming. *YUP!* h/t Hamden Rice

        by BeeDeeS on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 03:20:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely right! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat, katiec, AoT
      these small proposals it will be the death of this movement

      Like I said above, the movement is still gathering momentum.  In the meantime, people who wouldn't normally converse are talking like crazy, sharing information, opinions, solutions, the whole she-bang.

      It's a marvelous time, but a lot of people just seem to feel the need to CONTROL things more.  And that, my friends, would be a bad thing.

      Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

      by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:28:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Occupy Together counts 1,527 cities in OWS. (25+ / 0-)

    So, if you think it's possible to meld all these people into Stepford protestors, all thinking and talking the same, good luck with that. I like to think of this movement as a fruit tree. It started one month ago as a seedling. It is still growing. When it matures, it will bear fruit. IMO.

    "It does not require many words to speak the truth." -- Chief Joseph, native American leader (1840-1904)

    by highfive on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59:07 AM PDT

  •  BTW (12+ / 0-)
    the vast majority of people can agree on (things like "tax dividends and capital gains as normal income").

    I'd be really happy if MOST people even KNEW that cap gains are taxed at lower rates.

    Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

    by Inland on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59:34 AM PDT

  •  I hope they don't take your advice (20+ / 0-)

    It's a discussion - it's education, it's consciousness raising. I disagree that the "capitalism is evil" is a widespread view, but even if it were, it can certainly be part of the discussion.

    Whether bold and broad, or specific, any proposed solution would get nit-picked to death and become "the" sole story. They need to stay broader than broad solutions. Things like "we are the 99%" and "they got bailed out, we got sold out". Attached to each of these is the implicit (or could be explicit) question - "what are you going to do about it"?

    You see, fortunately the movement is not paid by your boss to come up with solutions - the movement should be an expression of us as the boss to those we are paying to provide solutions.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:00:18 AM PDT

  •  It Is What It Is. (13+ / 0-)

    You want a different approach, take it, or throw in with someone who's already taking it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:04:52 AM PDT

  •  But OWS hasn't created World Peace and Ponies!!! (6+ / 0-)

    and therefore it's completely worthless.

    Alarm clocks don't create World Peace or ponies, but they have a useful purpose.

    One step at a time. Solving all the world's problems is gonna take time.

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
    I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

    by Leo in NJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:12:07 AM PDT

  •  Love the Orgaic Dynamic (12+ / 0-)

    Makes it sound like on big massive uprising of a bunch of individuals all fed up and tired with generally the same stuff.

    Which it is.

    If we wanted a crystallized highly-marketable sound-bitten message, we have our lobbyist backers hire professional political operatives to gin-up just enough grassroots support to thinly cloak our otherwise predetermined and carefully crafted attack message.   ...but then we'd be the Tea Party, wouldnt we?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:13:14 AM PDT

  •  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little (7+ / 0-)

    minds."  RW Emerson.

    Ordinary political process is dead. The Supreme Court killed it. In Chambers. With a gavel.

    by Publius2008 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:14:48 AM PDT

  •  OWS is not a top-down decision making process (7+ / 0-)

    That is antithetical of what OWS stands for.

    There is, in fact, a democratic process at play that is currently refining the actionable items and which ones to pursue first.

  •  I think the 99% should enjoy the same socialism (7+ / 0-)

    as the big banks did when they got bailed out.  

    Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment." Ansel Adams........................................................ "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers

    by Statusquomustgo on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:23:43 AM PDT

  •  What this lady said: (20+ / 0-)

    Woman at Occupy Wall Street

    It's not terrible if you don't "get it," but please don't confuse your not "getting it" with the "it" that you're not getting. We'll just continue on doing our own thing and we thank you for your . . . concern.

  •  Barney Frank on OWS (4+ / 0-)

    Barney Frank had a point on Rachel Maddow last night. His point: that OWS doesn't translate into votes. Votes are what we need to get the Republicans out of office.
    If the OWS put the same energy into getting votes all across the country, that would be more effective. And that's what the Tea Party did.
    If poor people voted their self-interest, Democrats would be in charge in House, Senate.

    Apparenly I'm a sanctimonious purist!

    by mattinjersey on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:24:44 AM PDT

    •  Barney Frank makes the mistake of assuming (8+ / 0-)

      that being fed up with the status quo equals supporting Democrats. OWS is not a partisan movement, in that it is not a pro-Democratic movement. Neither is it a pro-Republican movement. Nor a pro-Libertarian movement. It is a pro-People movement...it's the conscience and consciousness of the 99% waking up and smelling the cold, gritty coffee grounds that the 1% let slip through their floorboards for us.

      If the Democrats dump their fealty to their bankrollers, actually listen to OWS and change their policies to harmonize with the end of economic injustice, then OWS will welcome them. If the Republicans dump their entire ideology and actually listen to OWS and change their policies to harmonize with the end of economic injustice, then OWS will welcome them. I admit that one is slightly more likely than the other, but that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is, as a national party, in harmony with OWS's goals.

      A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R. Murrow

      by jayjaybear on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:33:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you've just doomed OWS (7+ / 0-)

        to dust.

        We have a two-party system, one that will outlast you (unless you plan on spending a generation in creating a third party).

        The type of demands you are making must come from entrenched power - you will not overthrow it.

        So, in the end, OWS will either choose - D or R - or become inconsequential. The unions understand that, which is why they are able to throw their weight around in races at various levels.

        So if you're interested in a primal scream that dissipates in the wind, hold this attitude. If you're interested in actually getting something constructive done, you'll have to work within the system. That's the truth.

        •  "Working within the system" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jayjaybear, SoCaliana, cdreid

          was the death knell of the 60's movement.

          Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

          by Gustogirl on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Like (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atheistben

            the mainstreaming on the "end the war" movement, the removal of Nixon (wategate), a twenty year democrat majority and the legislative accomplishments that ensued?  

            Sorry that pot wasn't legalized...still hope though, right?

            Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

            by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:19:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You have a nice (0+ / 0-)

              comfy revisionist memory there.

              The protestors, the hippies, the democratic  party did not end the war.. it was in the end Nixon who ended it. Or more correctly.. the middle and uppermiddle class as they realised that it wasnt just working class and minority kids dying.

              Nixon was brought down by the Post. More accurately by Carl Bernstein and his editor. The democratic majority was achieved by the exposure of the sheer depth of GOP criminality.

              Dont let mere reality get in your way though.

              PS the civil rights movement happened because civil rights leaders including MLK and the rest wouldnt just "shut up and trust" Kennedy, the democratic party, the government etc to change things. And Lyndon Johnson muscled through the safety net over the objections of that "entrenched power" the authoritarian fanboys worship so dearly.

              A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

              by cdreid on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, parties can change. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MadRuth

          The rumors of #ows death have been greatly exaggerated.

          They are affecting the discussion as we speak. The visible discontent of the 99% is being watched by many.

          •  Oh, i agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atheistben

            And I think this movement could give force to an energized abor movement, and that OWS and such a movement could energize the more liberal Democrats and drive those less liberal further to the left.

            I also suspect that there are more than a few "centrist" Dems who aren't really centrist, but moved that way because, well, they want to keep their jobs. Push them and offer an alternative that is truer to their core beliefs, and I think this movement could create some tremendous shifts in policy.

            I really do.

            •  Like you perhaps? (0+ / 0-)

              I also suspect that there are more than a few "centrist" Dems who aren't really centrist, but moved that way because, well, they want to keep their jobs.

              The biggest problem the democratic party has right now is people like that. People like you. Like the president. And your hysterical, blind adulation of the president merely increases the problem. Obama wouldnt be in trouble right now if he had fought for the Progressive principles which a supermajority of americans  support instead of tacking to the center as his fanatical supporters cheered. He needed every single democrat pushing him to do what was right... instead of a percentage lauding his every move no matter how far right and suggesting he should move even harder right.

              A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

              by cdreid on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 01:27:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That was not his point (3+ / 0-)

        at all. He was saying it is important that OWS eventually channel its energy into policy changes- that means getting candidates who represent your values elected, and pushing them to create legislation that will transform those values into laws. He did have a point about there being no groundswell like this when Dodd Frank was being debated.

        I like that OWS is ostensibly non-political right now, but I worry that it is veering over into becoming ANTI-political. For example, why is there so much of a pushback against registering voters? We have an unprecedented attack on our right to vote happening in the states right now, but registering voters at OWS events is somehow "too political".

        We need some way to translate this powerful movement into lasting change, and that is the big debate that is going on right now at many of the GA's.  FWIW, I've made my case for more organization and more concrete demands, but I know it is up to the consensus process to decide.  

        R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
        October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

        by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prove your assertion (0+ / 0-)

          that there is organized pushback against registering voters. Post a credible link to prove this.

          •  . (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atheistben, Catte Nappe, trumpeter

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            By the way, did I say "organized pushback"? No. I've read numerous anecdotal accounts of people being told that registering voters is not in the spirit of this movement, including this one, and I've been told this in person. And, read the comments this poster got in response then tell me I'm wrong.

            R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
            October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

            by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:27:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is not evidence (0+ / 0-)

              It is the unproven anecdote of one person. I've been to these events, and I've not seen any organized pushback against voter registration. And yes, for a criticism such as yours to be credible and have validity, you would have to show that the organization has endorsed preventing voter registration, not just a few people walking around the events. Anyone can go to these, so if one or two people had some issue, that doesn't reflect at all the voice of the entire group.

            •  Okay... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe

              So you want the OWS movement to engage in the activity of voter registration, is that it?

              That is different than suppression of voter registration. What you're suggesting is that they don't want to directly engage in voter registration. While that is not the same as suppression of other groups from voter registration, it is likely true that most in these groups are not yet willing to turn the movement, at this early juncture, into another arm of one of the political parties. The group must first find more consensus of views before deciding on votes or on endorsements, which is what voter registration is all about.

              I submit that you haven't grasped that the movement is not a traditional party apparatus. And that non-traditional approach, the potential to move beyond old style political movements, is a big part of what makes it attractive.

              •  First of all... (0+ / 0-)
                I submit that you haven't grasped that the movement is not a traditional party apparatus. And that non-traditional approach, the potential to move beyond old style political movements, is a big part of what makes it attractive.

                You are being extremely condescending. I "grasp" what this movement is about, thank you. I'm there, I'm participating. Please stop lecturing.

                Second of all, NOBODY, least of all me, is suggesting that we turn this into a political arm of any party. What I am saying is that democracy is under attack right now, and millions of people are on the verge of losing their right to vote.

                Voter registration has nothing to do with endorsing any political party,

                I am quite frankly floored that you would even suggest that. It is the most basic, fundamental part of democracy, it is a right that my grandmother was spit on and thrown into a jail cell for, and that people in other countries have died fighting for, and it is a right that is more at risk now than at any other time in recent history. I am submitting that we fight tooth and nail to not let them take the last shreds of our democracy away from us.

                If Occupy Wall Street cannot get behind THAT, they yes, we do indeed have a problem.

                R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
                October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

                by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to clear up a monumental misunderstanding that you created.

                  I explained my view clearly. The movement, thus far, is not about traditional party politics and the electoral process. Registering voters is part of that. This does not mean the movement is working against that.  There is a difference. The movement is young, and there is a spectrum of people involved, with some commonality but also differences of views. In time, this will coalesce into a consensus that could more more precise, with certain goals vis-a-vis the electoral process. But the movement isn't there yet, and that will take time. THAT is what you're not understanding.

                  That is what I'm trying to clear up.

          •  There have been anecdotal stories (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atheistben, SwedishJewfish

            on the web,in the media and here on dKos.  

            To ask SwedishJewfish to prove an "organized" push back from and a dis-organized movement seems disingenuous.  

            I think his/her point was

            We need some way to translate this powerful movement into lasting change

            Just saying'

            Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

            by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:29:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rcnewton

              Change is the goal. Change that results in a better quality of life for a majority of Americans is probably a somewhat better stated goal. I'm sure some here can do better.

              The alternative is no change. There is no third option.

              The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

              by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:35:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Some people construe everything as an attack (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe, atheistben

              on the movement.

              I'm done trying to convince people otherwise. Anyone can read my comment history and know how much support I have given OWS. I consider myself to be a part of this movement. It's only here that I get treated like someone from the enemy camp.

              R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
              October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

              by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:37:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Deep breath (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SwedishJewfish

                All is not lost.  I value your comments and perspective (as I am sure do others).  It's still dailyKos and not dailyOWS.  Too soon to back off....

                Peace

                Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

                by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:44:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If it's an unsubstantiated rumor (0+ / 0-)

                it's only purpose can be to promote a bias against the movement.

                •  So the people who responded with... (0+ / 0-)
                  I can see why they were hostile (8+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:cybrestrike, ohmyheck, Johnathan Ivan, PhilK, schnecke21, flowerfarmer, gooderservice, Agathena
                  by encouraging people to register to vote you are sending a message. Vote for one of two nearly identical choices, a corporate dem who is president or a corporate repub who wants to be president.
                  Chances are you are a democrat and an Obama supporter. Endorsing your advocacy means endorsing your candidate and the democratic party which is just as culpable for this mess as the GOP.

                   is a NON-political movement. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:flowerfarmer, gooderservice, Agathena, ZhenRen
                  If you cannot view life through a non-political lense, and you haven't followed the intentions of OWS, which has made it very clear that it does not believe that party politics has a place in the movement, then you should have been better prepared and better informed before you went.


                  One of which you recc'd, are also trying to discredit the movement? Who else is in on this?

                  R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
                  October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

                  by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:51:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  See my reply here: (0+ / 0-)

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Okay... (0+ / 0-)

                    So you want the OWS movement to engage in the activity of voter registration, is that it?

                    That is different than suppression of voter registration. What you're suggesting is that they don't want to directly engage in voter registration. While that is not the same as suppression of other groups from voter registration, it is likely true that most in these groups are not yet willing to turn the movement, at this early juncture, into another arm of one of the political parties. The group must first find more consensus of views before deciding on votes or on endorsements, which is what voter registration is all about.

                    I submit that you haven't grasped that the movement is not a traditional party apparatus. And that non-traditional approach, the potential to move beyond old style political movements, is a big part of what makes it attractive.

                    by ZhenRen on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:01:22 PM PDT

                    When you alleged "voter registration suppression," it seemed as if your comment had undertones of OWS wanting to impede electoral politics akin to what right wingers try to do. That is not at all what is occurring in the OWS movement. There is no oppostion to people going out and registering to vote. Thus, there is no suppression of registration or of voting. Does that help you understand?

                    •  Check my comment (0+ / 0-)

                      I never used the words "voter registration supression"

                      I talked about VOTER supression, which is exactly what registering voters is meant to combat. Also, please stop talking to me like I'm a child, I'm a grown woman with a child of my own.

                      Thanks.

                      R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
                      October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

                      by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:19:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I checked your comment per your request (0+ / 0-)
                        For example, why is there so much of a pushback against registering voters? We have an unprecedented attack on our right to vote happening in the states right now, but registering voters at OWS events is somehow "too political".

                        "Pushback agianst voter registration." That's about the same thing.

                        But now you use the term "voter suppression" in the context of the #OWS movement?

                        I talked about VOTER supression, which is exactly what registering voters is meant to combat.

                        Stop this. This is not helpful. And it distorts the purpose of the OWS movement.

                        •  Unbelievable... (0+ / 0-)

                          Keep twisting my words. I'm done with this conversation.

                          R.I.P. Troy Anthony Davis
                          October 9, 1968 - September 21, 2011

                          by SwedishJewfish on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:46:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  When you use certain phrases and terms (0+ / 0-)

                            in the context of a movement, you run the risk of creating a distorted meme about said movement.

                            I understand your concern, and I understand why you want voter registration.

                            I strongly disagree, however, of describing the group as somehow opposed to, or pushing back against voter registration. I think putting it that way that mischaracterizes the intent of the group.

                            I've invested a lot of time in this group. I don't want false memes, no matter how noble the intent, to fester unchallenged. I'm sorry you're upset.

                            You're free on this site to keep pushing the meme, as you have done repeatedly in several different threads. But I am free to offer my own view as well.

                •  Cave ti-bi obsecro (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Catte Nappe, SwedishJewfish

                  "Look to yourself, I beseech you"

                  Disagree if you will, but no ill-willed aspersions on the character of a fellow Kossack. Yes?

                  Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

                  by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:09:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nonsensical accusation (0+ / 0-)

                    I did not cast aspersions. I'm merely pointing out an observation and what I consider to be a logical conclusion. When people misrepresent the intentions of a movement a lot of us are involved in, that, as well, could be considered casting aspersions, especially if the claim is a distortion of the facts.

            •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

              Anecdotal stories? Prove them. Prove there is more than just a few about this. So far, the reference is another unproven DKos comment. Patently ridiculous.

              There is no organized pushback by the #OWS movement to prevent voter registration. You need direct evidence to make this more than some made up rumor.

          •  "Organized" pushback? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SwedishJewfish

            "Organized" hardly seems the term to use regarding anything coming from OWS. There is some cconsiderable discussion as to whether voting at all is meanignful in any way. There is also discussion that doing registration projects  would put the "politics as usual" stamp on the movement. Then raises the nasty matter of what party is the person/group conducting registration - and are they in a position to unfairly influence the registration drive in favor of their party. So I can see a number of potential causes for voter registration to not generating a lot of OWS enthusiasm.

            from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:31:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You obviously know little about the process (0+ / 0-)

              It does have organization. And not  engaging in voter registration is not the same as pushing back against it. The purpose of the movement, so far, does not extend to voter registration. But that is not the same as being against groups doing that.

              •  You are being needlessly defensive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SwedishJewfish

                You've glommed onto the phrase "pushback" with a meaning the original commenter did not necessarily intend, and has indicated as not intending in numerous responses now. I have outlined several valid reasons why voter registration is not a high priority for many OWS participants(and in fact would not be  a desirable activity to many), and now I'm getting "you obviously know little" responses from you. Please believe me, I am not intending to kick your puppy! I don't think SwedishJewfish is either. Our opinions as OWS supporters are as valid as yours.

                from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                by Catte Nappe on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:23:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Having reread your previous comment in the thread (0+ / 0-)

                  I see that you agree more with my views than I'd realized. I thought you were quoting a side of the debate rather than expressing your own views. Sorry for too quickly reading.

                  I'm trying to prevent a misunderstanding that the phrase "pushing back against voter registration" could generate.

                  And I will continue to do so.

        •  I think the reason people are so resistant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish

          to the interpretation that OWS is a Democratic movement is the fear that the Democratic Party will end up co-opting OWS and then...fuhgeddaboutit. It's over.

          A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. - Edward R. Murrow

          by jayjaybear on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:41:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This is precisely where the Tea Party (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, trumpeter

      comparisson fails.  "The tea party"  didn't chase votes, Koch and Demint and a lot of ugly big money or government astroturf thugs did.  "The tea party" -- if they can be at all separated from their owners -- kept insisting that they weren't Dems or Repubs, just regular folks who really really liked Glenn Beck and really really didn't like Muslim Socialists and stuff.  Or spellcheck.

      •  Just curious? Your explanation for 2010? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

        by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:52:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, they went to the polls. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, trumpeter

          Mostly for a bunch of new candidates that showed up to cater to their desires.  And there's tremendous infrastructure in Republican circles, from the statehouses to the governorships on up.  

          Sometimes the teabaggers screwed things up, too.  Nevada.  Delaware.  Elsewhere.  There was just enough disconnect with the puppeteers to cause some problems.

          Of course, the big story about 2010 was that the average democratic voter stayed home.  Not the activists or the lefties, mind you.  We held our noses and did our duty.  But the wind was out of the sails for the party, what with the economy and the gridlock and the fact that not enough was happening.

          OWS is young.  There will nodoubt be attempts to harness this energy for electoral purposes.  You gotta hope that the way it goes down is an attempt to match some policies/candidates/messages to the frustration out on the street.  But it's not likely that the DNC will play this that well.

          •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Justanothernyer, atheistben

            So if OWS doesn't go to the polls, and the DNC can't figure out how capitalize on the general frustration of the people then we're left with what?  

            I am generally confused with the awesome "political" action of occupying 100's of cities and institutions around the world yet no "political" course of action.  I guess, I need to wait.  And, I will.  

            Thanks again.

            Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

            by EdMass on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  he also had point (0+ / 0-)

      when he said that those who do not vote have abandoned their right to bitch about the results of the election.

      But that is not the point of OWS.  This is not a partisan political movement - it cannot be, when members of both sides are  guilty (though the right is far more egregiously guilty than the dems - no false equivalences here).

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:59:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Tea Party Started With A Televised Rant.... (16+ / 0-)

    from Rick Santelli on CNBC on February l9, 2009.

    Their first national electoral victory wasn't until 11 months later in January 2010 when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

    OccupyWallStreet is one month old.  It has inspired protests in over 1,100 cities across the United States & thruout Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia & Canada.

    In one month it has changed the conversation from the national debt & the need to gut entitlements to Wall Street & corporate greed.  Eric Cantor & Paul Ryan must be so pissed.

    Grover Norquist is going after Cain's 999 video inspired tax scam.  To say there is turmoil in the GOP is a massive understatement.

    Thanks, OccupyWallStreet.  Live long & prosper.  

  •  Weak (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Of Limeyland

    Is there capitalism afoot in China?  Of course.  Does the Chinese Government believe that capitalism, as a system, is good?  No.  

    The light/dark duality of your premise is without nuance.  Do you think that those in OWS who disfavor the capitalism system are against small entrepreneurs?  

    Jedermann sein eigner Fussball!

    by Lochbihler on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:34:28 AM PDT

  •  I disagree (5+ / 0-)

    The message isn't people parsing the merits or demerits of capitalism on OWS message boards.

    The issue is the extent to which it engages the latent base.  Thus both statements are compatible in terms of the short term policy prescriptions that follow: whether you think that the abuses of capitalism should be corrected or whether you want more radical solutions, reining in casino/faith based economics is a good start.  And usually the two trends on the left tend to compromise well with social democratic capitalism.

    Oh, yes.  Words have context.  "Capitalism is an evil system..." really means, "let's heighten some contradictions.  Take that, tea party!  And, you, Goldman Sachs, we're gonna get you, suckah!"  And "We are against those that abuse capitalism..." means "we're for capitalism as long as none of the capitalists are named David Koch."  

    I know damn well what OWS is trying to say and it's a pretty clear message.

  •  Great Conversation... (5+ / 0-)

    from everyone.  Thanks.

    I quit coming to DKos several months ago because there was just too much bickering.

    But this has really been wonderful!

  •  These people just listen to the media (7+ / 0-)

    and go outside and repeat their programmed concerns designed to discredit.

    I've made 10 posts and liveblogged the whole beginning of this on a local website in Texas. You can explain everything in precise detail, graphs, charts, facts, you could go on for hours, they still don't get it. They just turn on Fox or CNN and there is someone instantly saying "It's not like they're actually going to do anything, how are they going to put money in the pockets of the middle class?"

    "It's all la la land and pixie dust", "Moochers want a school debt bailout while protesting bailouts", "No clear message, losers, blah blah blah"...

    I'd say 1,500+ cities and 82 countries is doin' pretty good, seems like the whole world gets it, those that don't repeat simple news stories scripted with the sole purpose of discredit.

    They had to break through the TV illusion first and bring issues to light, that's the first purpose, check.

    I guess this guy hasn't seen the solutions they propose. Guess they do leave that off the 'ol tee vee screen...

    Fighting for something? How 'bout "Invest in America and Americans", which is pretty much their mission statement. Seems pretty positive.

    •  Then make that the central message. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer, rcnewton

      Write up how much to invest. Who it goes to. For what what tasks. Then advocate and fight for that. I have no problem with that. But so far, I don't see that as a common theme in this comment thread, which tells me that OWS is not on the same page when it comes to policy. Get on the same page.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:30:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a growing organism, you don't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen, katiec, trumpeter

        need to worry about it.

        This is bigger than any clear message or same page. It's a global problem. The grand illusion.

        What if every single sign in the country said "Invest in America" on it? It wouldn't matter.

        It's a miracle any messages at all broke through the media bubble, now it's in 82 countries and being discussed on every tv channel, every news website, everywhere on Earth.

        Evolving and growing like little hotcakes, changing the entire discussion and breaking through myths, making people look silly talking about baths and shit like that. They got a million myths to break through. "OWS isn't confused, America has a lot of issues".

  •  Simple. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, Thomasina

    Combining the two quotes one may arrive at:

    We are opposed to the evil use of the capitalist system.

    eom.

    eod.

    H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

    by Knarfc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:11:49 PM PDT

    •  I am sorry. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Thomasina

      I failed to thank you for your concern.

      H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

      by Knarfc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:19:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So then what's the solution? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      Destroy capitalism or reform it? Both quoted people would probably not agree on an approach, much less an answer.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are many views present in the #OWS movement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, katiec

        Note that the post you cite says "user submitted." You're expecting the usual linear consistency of more hierarchical organizations which can create a uniform message by the mere fact that such organizations have an appointed executive leader who can simply dictate what the message will be. The #OWS movement is allowing the different views to coexist for the moment as the movement coalesces over time. It's actually quite refreshing approach, but people who are more comfortable in a top down style of governance probably will have some trouble understanding this process.

      •  Probably doesn't matter what you think (0+ / 0-)

        people you quote would agree to. Meaning, and making this whole diary merely the latest attempt at the putting of the cart before the horse.

        H'mm. I'm not terribly into this, anymore.

        by Knarfc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:55:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some context on where this diarist is coming from (6+ / 0-)

    I was reading the comments section of a diary a few weeks ago and this diarist was defending Wall Street all the way through, insisting that the bankers had "built the economy".

    Just to give you some context on where this diarist is coming from.

  •  Diarist thinks OWS is "throwing a tantrum" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen, MadRuth, ehrenfeucht games

    Here is that diary I was talking about in my comment above:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...(literally)#comments

    And here's a couple of their hidden comments:

    And get us the names of that 13 year old's parents(0+ / 9-)

    so they can take that kid away from them.

    Seriously, who brings a 13 year old to participate in civil disobedience. Get a fucking sitter.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    No shit...(3+ / 26-)

    Personally, I think the OWS stuff is almost entirely a distribution of people in the bottom 40% throwing a tantrum about other people doing better than them, financially.

    I know we don't agree on that. But what we should be able to agree on is that certain statements made by those in the OWS crowd are misrepresentations and rumors at best, or worse, outright lies.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Holy $&%*! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Of Limeyland, ZhenRen
      And get us the names of that 13 year old's parents(0+ / 9-)
      so they can take that kid away from them.

      Seriously, who brings a 13 year old to participate in civil disobedience. Get a fucking sitter.

      "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

      by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:49:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The first quote (0+ / 0-)

      was in reference to marching a 13 year old out onto Brooklyn Bridge in traffic. Taking the kid away was a bit hyperbolic. But seriously, if you're going to commit illegal acts, you shouldn't bring your 13 year old along to participate. Is that so crazy a viewpoint?

      And as for the second quote, the context is about OWS making representations that aren't accurate - a diary that came from an OWS supporter, not me. I elaborated to say that while you claim to represent the 99%, many more of your people lie under the 50% line than above it, so the 99% message isn't necessarily all that accurate. That was the point. As for my use of the word "tantrum," that's what I use to describe yelling about situations that you don't like, but aren't presenting any alternatives to. This diary continues to demonstrate how negative a thing that is. And it calls on OWS protestors to resolve this problem.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:46:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My thoughts on giving advice to OWS. Unless you (4+ / 0-)

    are THERE, at one of the protests, running the risk of having your ass thrown in jail, you have zero right to criticize. The rest of us should only offer support, not pontificate on how WE would do things differently.

    •  I don't have a right to criticize? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton

      Because I think there's an amendment somewhere that says I do.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may have the legal right to criticize or the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        trumpeter, MadRuth

        constitutional right to criticize. I just don't think folks sitting at home watching on TV have the right to judge those who are living through the situation. Arm chair quarter-backing is fun, but it doesn't score any touch-downs does it?

        •  Coaches call most plays from the sidelines (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rcnewton

          Coaches and coordinators design most plays from their offices. The players are rarely the brains behind the team.

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:34:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You want to tell the folks at OWS that you are (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trumpeter

            going to "coach" them from the sidelines? That they are not the brains behind the team? Good luck with that.

            •  I was simply turning your example to show that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rcnewton

              people on the sidelines can still play a role. In football, that example is most obvious in the coaching done from the sidelines.

              The point is that ideas are ideas. They can come from anywhere. They can come from the protestors or they can come from the sidelines. Regardless, they are ideas, and they should be evaluated on their own merit. And no one group has a monopoly on the giving of ideas.

              The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

              by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:42:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, so you're (0+ / 0-)

            "the brains behind the team?" And you think the bankers built the economy and OWS is throwing a tantrum.  Oh yes, the people getting maced in the face should listen to you.

            “Never argue with an idiot. He’ll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.”

            by MadRuth on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:55:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  What Occupy is doing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialKinFlag, ZhenRen

    is - whether by design or not, breaking the tribalism that has permeated political conversation and activity for far too long.

    This isn't Alabama vs. Auburn. In the state of Alabama, there's the unspoken rule that if you're born there, you must either adopt as your chant "ROLL TIDE!!" or "WAR EAGLE!!".  You are not allowed to abstain or go with another option. You MUST choose one of the two.

    If what comes out of this is that you're no longer viewed as suspect politically simply by not having a "D" or "R" after your name, that would be, I think, a leap forward. Occupy is people expressing themselves without their grievances being filtered through the traditional red vs. blue process.

    And some folks just cannot countenance that.

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:36:24 PM PDT

  •  The two viewpoints set forth are quite... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen

    ...compatible in a movement of this type.

    "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

    by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:43:29 PM PDT

  •  54% sympathise with the protests (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen

    According to the poll in Time.

    It looks like they're not doing too badly and don't need your concern.

    •  Did you read the post? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rcnewton, Justanothernyer

      Because I talked about that poll and why its results don't matter. When you ask poll questions that rely on an understanding of OWS views (particularly when you imply that they are somewhat uniform), when the reality is that OWS views are in conflict to each other, those polls don't hold much value.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:58:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No true at all (0+ / 0-)

        The basic commonality of the views within the OWS movement are that the 1% has disproportional power and wealth, and has used that power and wealth to create a political environment in which the system favors the continuing dominate role of a small minority in the American economy, resulting in 99% of the population being disenfranchised.

        Whether or not capitalism is the cause of this is a view that may vary among the group members, but the one singular theme is the lack of economic fairness in the system which favors the accumulation of wealth of a small percentage of people at the expense of everyone else.

        You're using the posts on the web site to distort. The logical fallacy is the implication that those two views have been agreed upon by the totality of the people who are on the ground in the OWS movement in NY.

  •  HR'd for this: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen
    And get us the names of that 13 year old's parents (0+ / 9-)

    so they can take that kid away from them.

    Seriously, who brings a 13 year old to participate in civil disobedience. Get a fucking sitter.
    The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

    by atheistben on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 11:21:09 PM CDT

    [ Parent ]

    And I don't give a flying fuck if it was written in a comment two and a half weeks ago.

    "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

    by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:57:32 PM PDT

    •  For something I wrote weeks ago? (0+ / 0-)

      That's really your fucking justification for a tip jar HR?

      Should I go read through your old posts and see if I can find an excuse to HR this particular comment of yours?

      You're just HRing because you don't like the content of the post. And that's against site rules.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:24:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup. I missed it when you first posted it, ... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and the HR button on that comment is no longer visible.

        Some comments are so vile and so disgusting that they retain their HR worthiness for weeks.

        There are very few comments in that extreem category, but the comment in question was one of those.

        "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

        by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:36:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  wow. grudge! nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atheistben
      •  We don't need our children kidnapped. (nt) (0+ / 0-)

        "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

        by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:55:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, we also don't need them walking out (0+ / 0-)

          into traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge. For fuck's sake...

          And the 'taking them away' was hyperbole.

          Ridiculous...

          The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

          by atheistben on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:22:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When engaging in hyperbole, it is best to... (0+ / 0-)

            ...keep in mind that many of us actually have children.

            And some of us will react very, very negatively to suggestions that the State start engaging in the threat of kidnapping children and breaking up families as a means of intimidating protestors and squelching dissent.

            You are playing with fire when you lend your vocal support for such tactics.

            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

            by ehrenfeucht games on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 06:34:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, that doesn't mean your reactions are (0+ / 0-)

              justified. Seriously, HRing a tip jar for not understanding hyperbole in a comment I made over two weeks ago? Pretty ridiculous, still.

              The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

              by atheistben on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 09:08:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  perfectly compatible (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, trumpeter, priceman
    The bottom line is that these two views are not compatible

    They are perfectly compatible in a movement.  What isn't compatible is your requirement that a movement's members have a monolithic set of views.

    I supported HCR.  Others did not.  That doesn't mean we can't both support Obama's reelection.

    Your mistake is in believing that OWS is necessarily about capitalism.  I think that reveals more about your beliefs than anybody else's.

  •  Your understanding of history is very poor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gooderservice

    there were all sorts of contrasting views that went into the New Deal from communists, socialists, and anarchists as well as many from the Union ticket and the Share the Wealth platform which did shape the New Deal(and wanted to fix capitalism) which was a response from the massive outcry.

    Oh and somehow we're supposed to trust your judgement on what the people think of OWS? Do tell the numbers you pulled out of your ass where you know 54% of Americans don't really approve of OWS.

    I don't care what you think and neither do most Americans. that I can promise you.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

    by priceman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:13:34 PM PDT

    •  Oh, well actually I'm part of the bottom 99%, (0+ / 0-)

      so if you don't care what I have to say, you better change your fucking slogan, because you do not represent me.

      The obvious answers are wrong. That's why we aren't doing them already.

      by atheistben on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 09:10:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site