Visual source: Newseum
Nikolas Kristof makes comparisons between what's happening in financial districts across the country, and the Arab Spring—a thought that should rightly make conservatives nervous.
"Occupy Wall Street" was initially treated as a joke, but after a couple of weeks it’s gaining traction. The crowds are still tiny by protest standards — mostly in the hundreds, swelling during periodic marches — but similar occupations are bubbling up in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington. David Paterson, the former New York governor, dropped by, and labor unions are lending increasing support.
I tweeted that the protest reminded me a bit of Tahrir Square in Cairo, and that raised eyebrows.
Kristof is very complimentary toward the organization and energy of the protestors, but concerned that there's a lack of clear goals, which is something he tried to address.
Impose a financial transactions tax. This would be a modest tax on financial trades, modeled on the suggestions of James Tobin, an American economist who won a Nobel Prize.
...
Close the “carried interest” and “founders’ stock” loopholes, which may be the most unconscionable tax breaks in America. They allow our wealthiest citizens to pay very low tax rates by pretending that their labor compensation is a capital gain.
Protect big banks from themselves. This means moving ahead with Basel III capital requirements and adopting the Volcker Rule to limit banks’ ability to engage in risky and speculative investments.
Some of Kristof's goals may seem rather esoteric, but he's not wrong about the need to generate some clear demands. It's fantastic that, like the uprising in Egypt, Occupy Wall Street has been able to gain strength without depending on the charisma and leadership of any one individual. Those involved have stuck it out there days in the wilderness with little or no media attention. But now that attention is coming, and if you hope to capitalize on the spotlight, you best be ready with some clear ideas easily communicated in a few words. Otherwise, the media might go find people to talk to who can lay it out in ten second sound bites—like Tea Party members reading off Wall Street prepared talking points.
You've made them look, now make them understand.
Tina Susman also sees Occupy Wall Street as being at a crossroads (no pun, I assume, intended).
Nearly two weeks into a sit-in at a park in Manhattan's financial district, the "leaderless resistance movement" calling itself Occupy Wall Street is at a crossroads. The number of protesters on scene so far tops out at a few hundred, tiny by Athens or Cairo standards. But the traction they have gained from run-ins with police, a live feed from their encampment and celebrity visits is upping expectations. How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?
How about yes, yes, and no... unless you get that office space from a sit in at Goldman-Sachs.
Colin Moynihan in the NY Time's City Room blog notes that the old gray lady has fresh competition.
Some protesters have wished aloud for reporting more in line with their own conception of themselves.
Now, they have their own newspaper. It debuted on Saturday with a print run of 50,000, after two independent journalists in New York started a campaign using the online fund-raising platform Kickstarter.
“This movement has sometimes been misrepresented,” said Arun Gupta, 46, one of the two primary organizers of the project. “This paper is for the general public to let them know what is going on here.”
OK, so this piece is straight reporting, not so much an editorial piece, but this is one of my favorite developments in the protest.
And because I can't resist, how about some coverage for Occupy Maine, Occupy Asheville, Occupy Spokane, and Occupy Chicago. Please point out links to protests in your area.
Okay, back to actual punditry. Where people are worried about Real Important Things. For example...
Frank Bruni says Chris Christie is not running, but if he was, he's not too fat to be president.
Dana Milbank says that what Republicans now turning to Christie are really looking for is what Democrats were looking for when they elected President Obama—an agent of change who would shake up the system. Milbank also says that Christie would be a big disappointment.
Ross Douthat wonders why right wing "populism" hasn't made more inroads. Hint: maybe because there's no such thing?
Maureen Dowd is concerned that Justice Scalia said something stupid in a speech (which means she must be concerned a lot). In his speech, Scalia manages to push the hypocrisy meter to 11.
Scalia said: “If I thought that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign. I could not be a part of a system that imposes it.”
He said this despite messages from both the current and the previous Pope urging the court to intervene against executions. Apparently Scalia—who also thinks that as a member of the court he is a "minister of God"—has determined that his position slots in above the Pope in the Catholic hierarchy,
The New York Times says that the terrorist watch list has become a suspect motel—getting on the list is easy, getting off impossible. Even being dead doesn't clear you.
The Times editorial board also looks at the choices facing the "super committee" and has a clear message for Republicans whining that they're going to either face big curs in defense or tax increases
That is exactly the choice, and Republicans brought it on themselves by turning the routine debt-ceiling vote into a life-or-death struggle over the unrelated issue of taxes and spending. They have a way out, however. President Obama has given the supercommittee a clear blueprint for $3.6 trillion in deficit reduction through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. If the committee followed even half of that program, it could exceed its original mandate, wrap up its work quickly and accomplish a great deal.
How about we get big tax increases and big cuts in defense? We can dream, can't we? Of course, the Republicans are still saying that the only choice left it to cut Social Security, which may be the only program not adding to the debt.
Patrick Paxton looks into the most critical story of our time: did the Defense Department actually pay $16 each for some muffins. Answer: No.
The total cost of food and beverage for the five-day conference, with 534 attendees, was $39,360, including an automatic 20 percent service fee the hotel puts on food for conferences. That amounts to $7,872 per day for breakfast and snacks. Divide that by 534 people attending, and you get $14.74 per person per day for continental breakfast and snacks. That’s 2 pennies per person per day above the Justice guidelines on what can be spent each day on refreshments. Gosh, two cents.
So it was $14 for breakfast and snacks, a rate you'd be hard pressed to find on your own at any hotel in D.C. I will now await the big retraction from Bill O'Reilly. Any second now. Any second now. Any...
I guess Wall Street is going to have to order some of those suspiciously quick neutrinos, as it seems light is not fast enough for them.
This is because even though a computer can execute millions of instructions in a microsecond, the furthest light can travel in that time - even in a vacuum - is just 330 metres. That is an age if algorithms are competing to execute the best trades.
"The speed-of-light limitation is getting annoying," Andrew Bach, head of network services at NYSE Euronext, told the European Conference on Optical Communications in Geneva, Switzerland, last week.
I'm confident that Wall Street can afford the lobbyists to campaign for a change in the speed limit on light. In fact, I urge them to channel their funds in that direction rather than wasting them on candidates.