|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 11, 2011 10:13:08 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=occupy-wall-streetOccupy Wall Street – grass roots or astro-turf? Published October 10, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain I’m kind of digging the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests because they’re so … well, I don’t know. Entertaining? Provocative? Clueless? Are they a genuine protest or just, as Doug Mataconis thinks, a collective temper tantrum? I’m not sure (a little of both? Percentage of the mix to be determined.), but what I am pretty sure of is “corporations and bankers” didn’t get us into the fiscal mess our government is in, politicians did. So I’m having difficulty understanding the current focus of the protest. And the 99% claim (they’re protesting the 1% with all the money and who, coincidentally, also pay most of the freight when it comes to income taxes). Look I understand the frustration of those who are out of work and who believe that we’ve been shafted. But the “shaft” didn’t originate on Wall Street. Of course all the usual suspects on the left, now that OWS has picked up a little steam thanks to the media, are trying to claim the mess as a reflection of their ideology and attempting to co-opt it. But I’m still at a loss to understand what it actually is all about and, if it is about what I think it is about, how misguided it is. While there’s certainly some reason to think Wall Street (to use the apparent OWS “generic” term, it seems, for corporate America and bankers) isn’t blameless in all of this mess, it is absolutely clueless to try to sell the premise that it is they who are solely or mostly responsible for it. I do know one thing, while they may claim to represent the 99%, that’s a claim that doesn’t include me, for many reasons, the top picture being one of them. On the other hand, I certainly understand the frustration that has driven people out into the street. The average length of unemployment is now at 40.5 weeks, the longest in 60 years. From June 2009, when the recession officially ended to June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen 6.7 % to $49,909. Lots of reasons to be frustrated, certainly. But, and here’s the question I see no one answering, why is it to the advantage of corporate America and the banks to have people unemployed and with less money to spend? How does that “help” them or advance whatever agenda it is that the OWS crowd would like to pin on them? That makes no sense does it? And, of course, the one thing corporate American can’t do is make you buy or use their product, so it would seem self-defeating to hurt you financially or alienate you. Yet if you listen to many of the OWS folks, that’s exactly what they believe those folks want to do. That said, ideologically and politically, this is perfect for a particular side. It’s exactly what the Obama administration wants to see happen as it helps underscore their class warfare pivot and it helps legitimize it while also helping, even mindlessly, to shift the blame – something this administration constantly seeks to do. But according to the Financial Times, the President himself is unofficially backing their cause. The paper wrote: ‘While not endorsing the protests, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have expressed understanding of the movement that has spread rapidly across the country. ‘Mr Obama said people were angry because Wall Street had not been ‘following the rules’. ‘His vice-president even compared the movement on Thursday to the Tea Party, the conservative movement which has upended national politics in the past two years.’ In fact, Wall Street has been following the rules – those outlined by government in their legislation and policies. See Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. See housing bubble. See what government facilitated. While we may find that to be intrusion into a market that distorted it beyond recognition and facilitated the collapse of the housing market and the consequent disruption of all other markets, but you won’t find Obama and the boys talking about that. There are no protesters in front of Fannie and Freddy. Instead we’re led to believe by people who know better that this is all a result of a plot by greedy Wall Streeters to cash in at the expense of the people and to collapse the economy – or something like that. Nope, this is a handy adjunct to a particular ideological argument. This is the result of political rhetoric that has targeted a certain group or class as the “bad guys”. Look through history, folks, this is an argument that at various times has resonated. I won’t bore you with the examples, but there are plenty. And for those that succeeded, they essentially diverted attention from the real evil that was either in the process of installing itself or further strengthening its hold. So my question, and it would actually take someone in the media who had a sense for getting to the bottom of something like this, is how much of this is really grassroots and how much of it is actually astro-turf? We have a president who is foundering. We have a political party in desperate trouble, electorally. We have a class warfare argument begun to attempt to distract the public and shift blame. And now we have the “popular” uprising to complement it. And, of course, the compliant lefty pundits to carry the water of class warfare and attempt to use emotional arguments to sell the blame shifting. Yes, a bit too convenient for me. But we’ll probably never know because there simply don’t seem to be any real investigative reporter types who have an interest in chasing down possibilities like this (following connect-the-dot relationships, tracking money, etc) at least when it might redound on the current administration. I remember their reporting about the Tea Party and how, without any proof whatsoever, they claimed much of it was a result of astro-turf. Now, there really seems to be no curiosity at all about what the roots of this little movement might be. Should people be frustrated and mad about where we are today? Sure. It’s a result of decades of bad decisions, poor policies and attempted social engineering. It isn’t a result of “Wall Street” per se. But admitting that or letting that meme establish itself would be fatal to the current administration. Diversion and blame shifting are necessary. Thus the rhetoric. Thus the convenient and properly themed protest. It is suspiciously like political theater designed to divert and earn re-election because there are few other options. Nothing more. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 11, 2011 14:19:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 11, 2011 15:04:15 GMT -5
At least members of the Tea Party Movement know what they stand for and believe in.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 18, 2011 8:30:33 GMT -5
Occupied by crazies By Jack Kelly www.JewishWorldReview.com | Ugly and pathetic. That's what you get when you combine envy with desperation and wrap them in hypocrisy. Democrats envy and fear the tea party, a grassroots movement that arose spontaneously after CNBC editor Rick Santelli's epic rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Feb. 19, 2009. There followed more than 300 rallies, including one in Searchlight, Nev. (pop 576), hometown of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, where police estimated the crowd at 8,000 to 10,000. Tea partiers turned their attention to the 2010 midterm elections, and helped hand Democrats their worst thumping since 1946. Envious Democrats tried to Astroturf a liberal alternative, the coffee party, founded by Annabel Park, an organizer of the United for Obama video channel. Ms. Park's affiliation with the Obama campaign often went unmentioned in media accounts of this "grassroots" organization. "Is the coffee party the next big thing?" asked Stephanie Condon of CBS last year. But despite massive media cheerleading, attendance at coffee party events was sparse. "Mainstream" journalists are trying again, harder this time. "The Occupy Wall Street protests are suddenly all that Washington can talk about," said Christiane Amanpour of ABC News. "Are we witnessing the birth of a new kind of tea party?" "These protests have been largely peaceful and their messages of economic inequality, social injustice and peace over war are beginning to take root in the nation's political debate," said reporter Ron Mott on the NBC Nightly News. "The seed of progressive activism in the Occupy protests may grow into something very big indeed," wrote Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. The movement "has spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries," enthused ABC anchor Diane Sawyer. That's remarkable, since there are only 195 countries on earth. (ABC later reported that she meant to say "a thousand cities.") Ms. Sawyer's accuracy is rivaled by those journalists who compare OWS protests to the tea party. • The OWS protests "are to tea party events as Pittsburg, Kan. (pop. 20,233), is to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (pop 305,704)," wrote columnist George F. Will. "So far, probably fewer people have participated in all of them combined than attended just one tea party rally, that of Sept. 12, 2009, on the Washington Mall." • Nearly all adults at tea party rallies are likely among the 53 percent of Americans who pay federal income tax. Many at OWS protests are likely among the 47 percent who do not but who think they're entitled to lots more free stuff anyway. Yet Mr. Robinson finds them "idealistic." • Tea partiers protested against runaway federal spending and Obamacare. There is little (other than their desire for more free stuff) that unifies OWS protesters. Some came for drugs and sex. Some are hiding out from the law. Some have been paid to protest, according to a report in the New York Post. • Tea partiers cleaned up after themselves. Garbage is strewn wherever OWS protesters march. The OWS encampment in New York City's Zuccotti Park last week "smelled like an open sewer -- with people urinating and defecating in public," according to the same New York Post story. • Tea partiers are law abiding. Hundreds have been arrested at OWS protests. OWS originated with Adbusters, a Canadian magazine that caters to the far left. But ABC News reported Monday that "Democrats Seek to Own 'Occupy Wall Street' Movement." Democrats wish to deflect blame for the economy from themselves to Wall Street. But at least as responsible for the housing market meltdown were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the now bankrupt "government-sponsored enterprises" whose reckless lending policies were protected by Democrats in Congress. The Wall Street investment banks most complicit with Fannie and Freddie were big contributors to Democrats. President Obama has protected them from bankruptcy and subsidized them at the expense of smaller, regional banks that had nothing to do with the meltdown. Their friends in the news media rarely call Democrats on their hypocrisy. But their embrace of OWS could lead to big trouble. Stunts like blocking the Brooklyn Bridge do not endear the protesters to the working people they inconvenience. Many protesters are openly Marxist. Some advocate violence. The last time Democrats so openly embraced the hard left was at their national convention in 1972. That didn't work out so well. The Democratic candidate for president lost by the largest popular vote margin in history.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 21, 2011 8:31:02 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=occupy-wall-streetOWS and NY neighborhood not getting along at all Published October 21, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain Yes the rabble that calls itself Occupy Wall Street has those that live in the neighborhood of Zuccotti Park less than receptive to them or whatever their still undefined message is: "They are defecating on our doorsteps," fumed Catherine Hughes, a member of Community Board 1 and a stay at home mom who has the misfortune of living one block from the chaos. "A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids." See, the rabble demand “rights” but they apparently can’t find it in themselves to respect the rights of others, such as property. Or the ability to walk down a street without being harassed: Fed up homeowners said that they’ve been subjected to insults and harassment as they trek to their jobs each morning. "The protesters taunt people who are on their way to work," said James Fernandez, 51, whose apartment overlooks the park. Or something as simple as keeping the noise in the neighborhood down: "It’s mostly a noise issue," he said. If people can’t sleep and children can’t sleep because the protesters are banging drums then that’s a problem." […] One elderly woman told a protester to stop screaming and was met with an even higher volume. "Get some earplugs!" retorted David Spano. "This is the street. I can say whatever I want! I can’t calm down, I’ve been struggling for 30 years!" Nothing more ignorant than a man who claims his “rights” preclude any responsibility to anyone else. Most understand that as both selfish and clueless. Respect the rights of others? Hey, this is a “revolution”, he’s been struggling for 30 years and that gives him better “rights”. At a standing room only Community Board meeting, members of the community voiced their anger, frustration and indignation to board members who essentially agreed. They want something done. Now comes the fun part for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. These people complaining are voters. They’re the people who put him in office. They want action. Stay tuned. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 24, 2011 14:57:31 GMT -5
Occupy Wall Street Parasites: North Korea Better than South Korea, Socialism to replace Capitalism
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 24, 2011 15:04:52 GMT -5
Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That's What He Wants
|
|
|
Post by leisuresuitlarry on Oct 25, 2011 11:29:46 GMT -5
Why not pay for their hookers too?
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 25, 2011 19:21:43 GMT -5
Exactly. This kid has likely never been responsible for anything more than putting his dirty laundry in the hamper. By what standard does he demand ANYTHING, let alone the wealth of someone else?
Local citizens and city officials are tiring of the nonsense. The Leftist politicians have hitched their wagon to a meteorite.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 25, 2011 19:27:27 GMT -5
Question: Has anyone seen any MSM reports on the overt, proudly-spoken anti-Semitism of many of this group?
Apparently, many protesters actually calling someone a Jew or Zionist pig with hatred doesn't rank up there with phony stories of Tea Partiers using the n-word.
|
|
|
Post by leisuresuitlarry on Oct 26, 2011 4:35:29 GMT -5
Well you know the Tea Party folk are all racists and that's big news that demands coverage from the MSM. These one or two anti-semites that filter into the OWS events are likely Tea Party plants put there in an effort to get on the news and make this grass roots movement look bad.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 26, 2011 6:24:50 GMT -5
Typical of most leftists; complain loudly about what you don’t like, but offer nothing to solve anything – attack anything you think is unfair and anyone supporting it without attempting to understand anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by leisuresuitlarry on Oct 26, 2011 14:30:24 GMT -5
Phil, I hope you got that I was joking. That's why I did the "wink-wink" at the end of my post.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Nov 10, 2011 12:09:04 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?p=11947Banks are bad … unless you need one Published November 9, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain OWS continues to expand its litany of hypocrisy almost daily, but this one may take the cake. A protest aimed at Wall Street and bankers, one would think that such a protest would eschew any connection with banks during its protest. No? No: Last week, one or more Occupy Oakland protesters smashed the windows of a Wells Fargo branch. This week, the group’s general assembly agreed — in a near-unanimous vote Monday — to temporarily place $20,000 of the group’s money in an account at the country’s fourth-largest bank holding company, Wells Fargo Bank. Yes friends, the “general assembly” of a protest aimed at banks and bankers has used a bank to protect their donations. In fact, the vote was 162-8. Apparently only those voting “no” recognized the absurdity of the decision given their position on banks. But obviously the majority feared the money wasn’t safe in and among the crowd of protesters. Go figure. As for the irony of the decision – missed it completely apparently. Some of their supporters, sounding off on Twitter, didn’t: “I am so disgusted right now. the hypocrisy of it all is just amazing,” wrote @givemethatjuice. “ARE YOU F—— SERIOUS?!,” wrote @graceface. “I can see the ad now: ‘People’s money is so safe here at Wells Fargo, even our sworn enemies use us for their banking needs!’” wrote @davidcolburn. You just can’t make this stuff up. Well, you can, but with this bunch there’s no need. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Nov 14, 2011 12:52:44 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=occupy-seattleOccupy Seattle: A funny thing happened on the way to the forum Published November 14, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain Or how not to make friends and influence followers. In a textbook example of messing in their own nest, members of Occupy Seattle managed to alienate most of those who turned out to support them at a recent forum. The story is written up in SLOG which is obviously supportive of the Occupy movement. But what Dominic Holden describes is a combination of a childish tantrum and totalitarian tendencies by a group so clueless they can’t get out of their own way and so ignorant that they don’t understand what they purportedly support. The forum: Organized by Town Hall (and co-sponsored by The Stranger), the forum was intended to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement, featuring three activists from Occupy Seattle and luminaries from labor, economics, and politics: Washington State Labor Council secretary-treasurer Lynne Dodson; Second Avenue Partners and progressive taxation activist Nick Hanauer; and GMMB political strategist Frank Greer. During opening remarks, JM Wong from Occupy Seattle declared that she wanted “no leadership from the Democratic Party or union bureaucrats. Nonprofits are trying to co-opt us." Dodson, however, politely explained that labor unions are part and parcel with the Occupy movement’s push for economic reform. "I like to consider myself a union activist, not a union bureaucrat," she said. "This is labor’s fight, this is our fight." Great … the Occupy movement on steroids. 6 folks there to discuss what’s going on with the movement to a pro-movement crowd, many of them there to find out more about it. So what happened? Whatever further insight the speakers planned for the 90-minute event was then cut short when the woman ran on stage. Activists had planned to interrupt the panel because, some said, they opposed the power dynamic created by speakers on stage talking into microphones. Although Occupy Wall Street uses the belabored people’s mic—which involves one person speaking and the crowd repeating everything—to amplify the soft spoken and encourage free speech, last night it was used to silence the panel. The call and-response created an echoing cacophony. Despite pleas from several older audience members who couldn’t hear well to let the panelists proceed, the Occupy activists demanded a vote to overtake the forum. That’s right – they weren’t doing it the way that particular faction of the Occupy Seattle movement felt it should be done, so it was tantrum time. The fact that this childish tantrum drove off pro-Occupy supporters? Meh. It’s all about the process man: Assembly time is precious," the man yelled without a hint of irony. "Assembly time is precious!" we all yelled back, wasting precious time. Then they insisted that everyone discuss the issue among their neighbors. If people opposed, they were drowned out by the people’s mic. So we talked about their proposal. One activist slept on the floor in front of the stage, spread eagle. The place reeked of BO. A man next to me worked through half a tin of chew. Eventually, we took another vote and activists demanded a count by hand. It was 8:30 p.m. at this point, one hour after the event began, and we’d only heard opening statements. The forum was supposed to conclude by 9:00 p.m. "We have only a half hour left," Licata announced. "This is very interesting." As the clock counted down, it was apparent that Occupy Seattle had repressed whatever thoughtful ideas the panelists brought to the stage and were willing to fill the time with chatter about unenlightening process. They wanted more power; they wanted to speak. They were also being rank hypocrites. Here is a group purporting to give people a voice and cut through the bureaucratic layers of government and capitalism. Instead, they silenced speech, quashed ideas, and replaced it with their own bureaucratic process reserved for a minority that wanted power. One gray-haired woman who was walking out put it like this: "It was very divisive. Now they are a little group, like the 1 Percent." The activists lost the second vote, too. So the forum sort of proceeded, but now with occupiers booing speakers on stage when they disagreed and giving them the wrap-it-up hand gesture. For instance, Greer noted, "We learned in the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement, you can attract support or turn of support, and basically fail, and I don’t want you to fail." Despite his support, many activists booed and gestured that he stop talking. Apparently some of them shouted out, “this is what democracy looks like”. Really? Shouting down those who oppose your point of view, drowning out people who tried to talk or respond? That’s “democracy”? That’s those totalitarian “we’ll do it my way or we won’t do it at all” tendencies coming to the surface. Result? Lots of people were leaving, angry—it was a stark contrast with stellar activism the week before. Wong justified the interruption, saying, "We need to respect the movement that uses this process. I stick to it because it is a democratic process." […] But the Occupy activists came off as disrespectful, hostile, and woefully misguided about what democracy looked like. The activists added zero new content, but in the process, prevented the speakers from sharing their knowledge (that’s some democracy). Let’s think if the tables were turned: These activists would be outraged if Town Hall set up a stack of speakers at the General Assembly and blasted them with an amplified panel discussion. It was equally selfish to destroy the panel with their People’s Mic. On his way out the door, Brian King added, "They think it is more important to purify themselves rather than connect with people who are not like themselves. They probably can’t get much further than they are right now." Process took precedence over respectful interaction and the cultivation of support. Anarchy took precedence over deliberation and debate. It reminded me of the insistence on process in totalitarian countries where they justify all manner of vile action based on “process”. There was no democracy at work at this meeting, it was a minority attempting to use its own process as an excuse to take over the gathering. And, of course, what they did was badly damage their potential support base: "I walked in supportive and left unsupportive," said 69-year-old Mary Ann, who declined to provide her last name. "I’m turned off by the negative shouts, repetition, and all I can think about is a cult. And I believe in every one of their damn principles." Paula and Brian King also headed for the door early. "It was frustrating to listen to people shouting and interrupting," lamented Paula. Brian added, "We are leaving because they are looking inward at themselves and their eccentric process rather than reaching out to people." I’ve seen all this before, from the radical 60s, the commune movement, etc. This is nothing new. It is the same old tired stuff in a new century and all it promises is an imposition of a failed ideology masked in words and phrases like “democracy” and “the will of the people”. They are now defined – by them – as the “general assembly’s procedures” and “the 99%”. Same crap, different buzz words, different century and a promise of the same outcome as with all the other times it has been imposed through out history. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Nov 18, 2011 20:02:56 GMT -5
Here's some truth and common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Nov 19, 2011 21:01:10 GMT -5
Move means move, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Nov 20, 2011 7:36:35 GMT -5
Time to break out the rubber bullets and fire hoses.
|
|
|
Post by leisuresuitlarry on Nov 20, 2011 7:51:50 GMT -5
So sad that parents across the country are going into deep debt to send their rotten little bastards to these schools to have them act like complete ass holes. I agree Phil, I was wonder the other day where the fire hoses were.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 2, 2012 8:25:27 GMT -5
America's Two-Faced Libs By Walter Williams www.JewishWorldReview.com | President Barack Obama and Wall Street occupiers, along with their allies in the mainstream media and on college campuses, have maintained an ongoing attack on high-income earners, people they call 1 percenters. Listening to their deceitful demagoguery, you would naturally think of them as 99 percenters, but you'd be dead-wrong. Last week, MSN Money posted a report titled "The richest counties in America." According to the report, residents of those 15 wealthiest counties "have median household incomes that are double the national average." Three of those counties have a median income of more than $100,000. The report goes on to say, "While many Americans struggle to find jobs, balance their budgets and get by with less, some folks are living high on the hog." Let's look at some of those counties. Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540, making it the nation's richest county. Virginia's Fairfax County is next, with a median household income of $103,010; the median price of a house is $507,800. Third is Howard County, Md., where the median household income is $101,771. These three richest counties have seven nearby high-income neighbors, which include Arlington and Montgomery counties. The nation's richest counties are close to Washington, D.C., where people come to do good and wind up doing well for themselves. These 1 percenters are not wealthy right-wing Republicans; they are Obama's liberals. How can one tell? It turns out that seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Washington area voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. These liberals portray themselves as 99 percenters when they are really 1 percenters. They're simply running a deceitful rope-a-dope, aided by the mainstream media, on the American people. During last year's Occupy movement, truly seedy-looking characters camped out on the streets and in the parks of several of our cities, causing millions of dollars of property damage. They committed robberies, thefts and sex crimes. Some of their lowlife acts, such as defecating and urinating in public and on police vehicles, were filmed. These people also portrayed themselves as 99 percenters. It turns out that they weren't that at all. Will Rahn, deputy editor for The Daily Caller, wrote an article titled "NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury" (Nov. 2, 2011). Nearly 1,000 protesters were arrested in New York between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15. Police collected information on each arrestee's name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The median value of the homes of the arrestees was $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied homes of the rest of us. Ninety-five of the arrestees lived in homes valued at more than $500,000. Those who rented paid a median rent of $1,850 per month. Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. One Occupy Wall Street protester arrested — presumably, if you listen to the mainstream media, penniless and from a blue-collar family — lived in an $850,000 home in the nation's capital. Recall that while on the campaign trail, Obama promised, "We will stand up in this election to bring about the change that won't just win an election but will transform America." Along with progressives, who formerly called themselves liberals, Obama wants to transform America into a European-like socialist nation. The Occupy protesters and their useful idiots in the media and on college campuses proudly display signs and banners revealing their preferences and affiliations, such as "Communist Party USA," "Democratic Socialists of America" and "Fight for Socialism." The American Nazi Party has issued an official endorsement of Occupy. The movement is also supported by White House leftist allies such as the Working Families Party, the Service Employees International Union — as well as most other labor unions — ACORN, the New Party and the Democratic National Committee. During the forthcoming elections, we can be assured that these people will do all they can, including violent protests, to help Obama have an additional four years to continue his transformation of our nation.
|
|