# Unorganized Moron Protesting Has Gone Global



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

Yep, those "protesters" that are looked down upon by conservative pundits and fans alike. Have created a global event. Gee....look what a bunch of Obama loving, unorganized clues people who just what to protest for the sake of protesting caused!  Now I hope something comes of it. 



> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-protests-europe-asia_n_1012336.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2011)

View attachment 15536


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2011)

Protests and demos like this are actually fairly common in Europe, they've been doing it for centuries. It's quite common for people to take to the streets if they don't like something. It keeps European governments on their toes lol. We've had quite a few in the UK over the years too. We tend to have more anarchists than the States. We also like to come out onto the streets and let the idiots in charge know who's really in charge!
It can actually make governments change things ie the 'Poll Tax' got changed because we didn't like it, they didn't listen so they got riots. Messy? of course but hey it's better than lying down and getting shafted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

The recetn riots were not political they were criminal but that too are historical, many a monarch in our past has had reason to fear the mob.
While I'm sure the Wall Street lot are an inconvience people do seem to get their blood pressure up over them far more than they are worth.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 16, 2011)

This particular set of circumstances is a little less common in the USA.  I think the last time we saw anything similar to it would be the protests of the late 60s and early 70s, mostly related to the Vietnam war.  Most politicians were slow to catch on then that things weren't like they used to be.  I expect they will be this time too.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2011)

In the old days monarchies recognised that a bit of mindless violence by the mobs was carthartic as do governments now. From the public point of view it reminds governments of the French and Russian revolutions as well as the English Civil War, stops them getting too smug. Here of course the police and armed forces are loyal to the monarchy not a government so it keeps the politicians just that bit on edge. The other we do is satirise, mock and not treat politicians to any respect, that includes any Prime Minister.
I imagine the American government is quite pleased with the Wall Street demos if the talk on here is anything to go by, Americans are so busy condemning the demonstrators I suspect the politician's PR types are having a field day slipping out all the unwelcome news un-noticed as all focus is on Wall Street.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 16, 2011)

I think unfortunately because the Occupy Wall Street movement has no coherent voice (and which is naturally because protestors are not economic experts to provide either solutions or one common plan that everyone can get behind) it means that the whole shebang is apt to be hijacked by every which loudhaler-brandishing spin-doctor who themselves can be working for anyone from the media themselves (to rabble-rouse and create a little juicy violence) to all-and-sundry political interests (to further their "real" connections to the proletariat) to Michael Moores and Ron Pauls and this side and that side and various egocentric celebs and just everyone who thinks they can make something of it.  

I have said it before, Occupy Wall Street, because it has no forethought, could be something that could work for the genuine good of the working people, and but because there is no organisation, no voice and no plan it is now being hijacked for every nefarious end under the sun.

I have no time for sheep.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Now I hope something comes of it.



Something will.  But it won't be good.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2011)




----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2011)

Not all the worldwide protests were violent, pointless or done by morons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...against-corporate-greed-and-cuts-2371357.html


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Not all the worldwide protests were violent, pointless or done by morons.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...against-corporate-greed-and-cuts-2371357.html



This is a good point. Historically protests are important. If some people who are not in favor of the protests say they where the only ones specifically taxed over 10% of what they are now or their investments taken away, you would see protests by this people to be of total chaos, violent and wide spread. Far more unorganized and dangerous. Critics and opposition would be shot on sight. Sabotage and random attacks of communication, media, and other institutions would be rampant. It would not be peaceful at all. Not by far. It would be completely different than what is happening now. 

Tez you have made good points about protests in Europe and their effectiveness on government.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

Clearly the idea of the protests having one clear voice isn't a requirement. A collated of many reason to protest under one movement has proven effective.  As much as people complain, criticize, etc. it hasn't stop disgruntled people from getting together and voice their concerns as a protest. The current protest has one major theme that is supported by many, agains one major issue fault against many that created it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2011)

They *are* morons.  Violent, ugly, evil, morons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576633542169585716.html


> Holding signs reading *"debt is slavery,"* "in a gentle way you can change the world," and "We are not anonymous," the protesters stopped traffic in busy Midtown Manhattan streets and provided a new spectacle for tourists and New Yorkers amid the bustle of iconic Times Square.



Ah, so it's about debt and the fact that it is evil.  I see.



> It was one of the largest demonstrations yet from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has camped out in a Lower Manhattan park since Sept. 17 to *protest finance industry bailouts, unemployment*



No, wait, it's about the bailouts and unemployment!



> "It's a very impassioned important movement. The *country is being taken over by corporations*,"



Oh, never mind, it's about the evil corporations.

*There's "no worldwide anti-capitalist network, unfortunately," *Ms. Bogart said.

Whoops, it's about anti-capitalism.  I see.



> Around 6:15 p.m. there were three arrests at 46th St. and 7th Ave. of individuals trying to take down police barriers. As arrests were made, a *few began chanting "fight back"* but most did not take up the cry. *Some who tried to pull down barriers would run to the back of the crowd to avoid arrest, and also push the crowd from the back to confront police.*



Oh, so it's about...uh...cowardice?  I guess.

Yes, it's perfectly clear.  The protesters want...uh, what was it again?  Jobs, evil corporations shut down, capitalism ended, debt outlawed, no more bailouts, and urging their fellow protesters to 'fight' the police but then running away and pushing the others towards the police from behind instead.

No, those aren't morons at all.  What was I thinking?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2011)

The whole country is a group of unorganized morons.  Grab ten random angry people and as them why and you'll get ten different answers.  The difference between you and them is that when they are angry they get up and do something.  When you are angry, you get on the interwebs and waste your energy.  Tell me, how is doing nothing, or worse doing the same damn thing that made you angry, better then doing something different?

Where are the morons?  Look in the mirror.  Get off your ***.


----------



## billc (Oct 16, 2011)

Makalakumu, how is marching up and down on Wall street doing anything other than closing down sandwich shops and other small businesses who are being assaulted by the protestors on a daily basis.  Read my other post on actually Occupying somewhere useful, like capital hill and the whitehouse and ESPECIALLY, the homes of Reid, Pelosi, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and Dick durbin, and their offices.  They are the actual 1% of the wealthiest people in the country and they are the actual LEVERS of power in the country.  Occupy their neighborhoods for a month and you might actually see the actual greedy people, the politicians, who take the corporate money and then vote for the bad policies, change their votes.  Check out my other post.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> The whole country is a group of unorganized morons.  Grab ten random angry people and as them why and you'll get ten different answers.  The difference between you and them is that when they are angry they get up and do something.  When you are angry, you get on the interwebs and waste your energy.  Tell me, how is doing nothing, or worse doing the same damn thing that made you angry, better then doing something different?
> 
> Where are the morons?  Look in the mirror.  Get off your ***.



How is marching on a bank changing public policy?  Especially if you can't (or refuse to) say what it is you want the bankers and/or representatives to actually do?  Yeah, that's moronic.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280258/occupy-detroit-obama-paradox-henry-payne



> Occupy Detroit: The Obama Paradox
> October 16, 2011 12:09 P.M.
> By Henry Payne
> 
> ...



Oh, we hate the bailouts; of the banks.  The bailouts of the auto industry?  Well that was good.  It saved union jobs.  And while we're at it, bail out our student loans.  How about NO?  I paid for my student loan, every penny.  In fact, I make my last payment this December.  And that's bad why?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Makalakumu, how is marching up and down on Wall street doing anything?



It's being seen.  It's being repeated.  It gets people thinking about politics.  It's NOT throwing our anger into a ballot box to be dissipated by a corrupt two party system.  It's getting people to step outside the box and do something different, and I know that is the root of the scaring the crap out of certain people.  

I'm going today.  I've got a big Ron Paul sign with End the Fed on the back.


----------



## billc (Oct 16, 2011)

You should take that sign to Harry Reids house, his office and the home and office of Pelosi, Durbin, frand and Dodd.  That might actually get their attention.  Right now, you are standing out on the street, in the rain and cold while they enjoy their weekenc, accepting corporate cash and planning the next bad policy decision for the country over a tasty beverage and a nice dinner with their friends and family.


----------



## billc (Oct 16, 2011)

Thanks for that post Bill Mattocks.  It highlights the problem with OWS in a very concise, accurate way.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You should take that sign to Harry Reids house, his office and the home and office of Pelosi, Durbin, frand and Dodd.  That might actually get their attention.  Right now, you are standing out on the street, in the rain and cold while they enjoy their weekenc, accepting corporate cash and planning the next bad policy decision for the country over a tasty beverage and a nice dinner with their friends and family.



Actually, I'll be out there with my sign, standing in the sun by the ocean, watching some delectable surf roll in and enjoying the sea breezes.  I'm going to the corner of Kapahulu and Kalakaua, the heart of Waikiki, in Honolulu.  We'll have a BBQ in Queen Kapiolani park and enjoy some tasty beverages this evening.  Meanwhile, I'm going to target Lefties and connect the Occupy Wall Street issues to Local issues from a Libertarian perspective.  I think it's important for people in Hawaii (and everywhere else) to realize that Liberal governments are abused by the corporations as well.  For example, in Hawaii, we had a big local business, called the Superferry, a couple of large ships that provided a much needed alternative for personal commerce between islands.  When the Superferry started to eat into airline industries and cargo shipping profit margins, they started a campaign to "Save the Whales" and convinced all of the hippies that the Superferry was going to kill every baby whale between the islands.  Never mind that the shipping companies and the military are constantly driving boats to and fro.  The corporations got an injunction, the Superferry went out of business, and the Airlines and shipping companies jacked up their rates.  

Let's see how the "bleeding hearts" like being told about being tools of the corporations!!!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2011)

For a British perspective on this whole odd melange:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15326636


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> They *are* morons.  Violent, ugly, evil, morons.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576633542169585716.html
> 
> ...



I see your point, but your not seeing the cause of the effect. Why are people gathering? Why did they need unemployment? Why weren't they able to keep their homes. Why does the economy suck? You know, the causes.  When was the last time in your life-time these things all happened within a short time span? Or so many people protesting, once, twice?  It has to be pretty bad for us complacent lazy *** white folk to get our asses off the couch, or away from the keyboard and actually do something out of our comfort zone to protest something to this extent and magnitude.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2011)

> It has to be pretty bad for us complacent lazy *** white folk to get  our asses off the couch, or away from the keyboard and actually do  something out of our comfort zone to protest something to this extent  and magnitude.



I tend to agree with this.  I mean, this does require effort and most of the losers I've known lack the drive to protest, regardless of cause. 


I have 1 question for all the protesters though...."Do you vote"?
Because, 40-50%+ of the people don't.

So I want to know how many of those claiming they have no voice, don't vote. 
I'd also like to know, how many have written (not emailed) or -called- their elected representatives.
I've called Brian Higgen's office a half dozen times at least. Always had nice chats with the folks at the other end.
I've not tried to get an appointment to see him so can't say how that works out.
I've emailed (got form letters back), and snail mailed (got lots more info back).

You only have a voice if you use it, and waving a sign in a park may make you feel good, but it is inefficient, IMO, compared to going directly to the one best positioned to help you.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

I hear ya Bob. I know what you are saying I agree (with an exception) and it spurred these general thoughts.  How many of us keyboard critics have gotten down there in the heart of the protesting, and seen it for ourselves, got answers for ourselves?  That does change a person, when you have contact, when you share an experience, when personal bias is suspended it is a whole different perspective when you sit from afar.  Bob here is a slight divergent in our opinions,  getting down the with a sign (yea, agreed there is some stupid signs, but not all) is better than bitching on a forum about it.  That is inline with the idea of, if you don't vote, stop yer bitching. That, there ain't much room to complain if you haven't been down there. If you haven't seen it for yourself, if you haven't see or talked to the protesters face to face. 

*Am not saying I have been down there, I also sit from afar. I too depend on the media.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 16, 2011)

**The media is selective of what they show, based on politics, bias, and time. They learned as a result of their Vietnam coverage of one incident sparked social out-rage shifting public opinion strongly against the war. The hum of hippie anti-war protests was turned into a shot heard around the world. Sweeping the country like wild fire. The media also shift public opinion broadcasting the Kent state shooting of protesters causing protests; how the authorities try to squelch it. As a result these and other 60's events like the social protests for civil rights changed the media in it's covered such events and created a cooperative relationship with the government. The coverage of the protests- both verbal and visual coverage is a controlled view.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2011)

I once saw a piece of graffiti that said 'if voting changed anything the government would ban it'. 
Certainly many people feel that voting doesn't change anything, politicians still get in, 'real' people don't. The elected may seem alright to start with but the trappings of parliament/government/being elected/office whatever seems to kick in, they start claiming their expenses, they have underlings who toady up, they get to feel they are so much more important than the electorate and worst perhaps, they start thinking they know best. They all do it, they all get seduced by the feeling they are something so much more than the common people, it's almost a messiah syndrome. All politicians from all parties get this, that's why communism doesn't work, it's not the system it's the people. It's why capitalism doesn't work either, it's all down to people. So we vote, we just get the same from a different lot of politicians so perhaps it's no wonder there's a desperation about our government and our politicians.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 17, 2011)

Great point. And good observation. Tez what you said, is what I believe people know in the backs of their heads. I think those who are on Wall Street protesting it isn't the first form of action they have taken, such as emailing, phoning etc. their congressmen and got only lips service.  The last administration's mis-management and mis-handling of this country and the apathy of this administration to fix things, and the Government support those institutions which took advantage of this country and it's people. This has moved people to the streets. And has had an effect on the world, inspiring protest globally. All in all, showing the world wants corporate and financially accountability.  The protests are about influencing and getting change.  The constitution of these protesters are not board simpletons looking for an reason to hold a sign.   It is reasonable people globally not being heard or taken seriously that there has to be financial, corporate and institutional, accountability.


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Yep, those "protesters" that are looked down upon by conservative pundits and fans alike. Have created a global event. Gee....look what a bunch of Obama loving, unorganized clues people who just what to protest for the sake of protesting caused! Now I hope something comes of it.



Why would they love Obama?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/obam-a15.shtml


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 17, 2011)

I am just reiterating what some pundits have been saying about the protest. Many pundits slyly suggest the protester are a bunch of liberal Obama loving idiots.


----------



## crushing (Oct 17, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I am just reiterating what some pundits have been saying about the protest. Many pundits slyly suggest the protester are a bunch of liberal Obama loving idiots.



I see.  Well, the pundits don't seem to be paying attention, either that or OWS isn't.  It is interesting OWS would choose to occupy Wall Street rather than Washington D.C.  OWH (Occupy White House) may be more impactful.

2008 Securities and Investment Industry Sector Donations:

Obama: $15,798,904 *http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638*
McCain:  $9,220,990 *http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cid=N00006424*


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 17, 2011)

They didn't occupy Washington cause it was too far of a walk.  Seriously, you can't get close enough to Washington these days. Imagine the security threat and opportunity if they did. It is a good thing they didn't physically go there. Wall Street in my opinion has a strong influence and connection to the White House, Wall Street is good enough.  

I am not over looking the political symbolism of them not going to Washington, i.e. it is a liberal protest. That indication protesters are liberals and it is a liberal movement is used indirectly by some pundits. They yet have to come out directly, saying it is a liberal protest against Wall Street mismanagement. That would be too much disclosure to do so.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 18, 2011)

I can't believe I found this one before Mattocks...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 19, 2011)

*Let them march all they want, so long as they continue to pay their taxes. --Al Haig*


----------



## Big Don (Oct 19, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> *Let them march all they want, so long as they continue to pay their taxes. --Al Haig*


Yeah, but, they don't.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, but, they don't.



You know that for certain that every single protestor doesn't pay taxes?

It would seem there are employed people there who do pay taxes.
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-street/

_"Dan Halloran, a New York City councilman from Queens with an affinity for libertarians like Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, waded into the crowd and kept people interested in his views on the economy&#8217;s failings and the need for markets._
_&#8220;*From what I saw on TV I would have thought that everyone here would be a communist, under 30, never held a job,&#8221; he said, describing that media image as cartoonish. He said people with whom he had spoken, including those with whom he disagreed fundamentally, were both eager to work and afraid, not knowing what happened exactly, but insistent that they needed work and that their elected leaders seemed not to care."*_


----------



## crushing (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, but, they don't.



Isn't the money they pull out of their trust funds taxable?


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 19, 2011)

It is amazing the shallowness of thought that is being put into this topic. The inherent contradictions in some of the sterotypes are also quite startling.

I don't have the figures for the USA but here is the current thumbnail sketch on the cash balance of benefit-scrougers vs hard-done-by-millionaires in the UK:


£28B unpaid tax, mostly from the top 5% bracket of earners 

£20.8B housing benefit, most going to pensioners or disabled with 13% (£2.7B) to the unemployed 

£12.7B unclaimed benefits plays against £2.7B purloined by benefit cheats

So, looking at that, where does the fiscal problem lie and who are the ones who should have earned themselves some anger and derision from working people such as myself, who live their lives by the law and end up paying something like 50% tax one way or the other?

It should be noted that I cannot claim absolute purity of atribution to those numbers but even as simple exemplars of trend they still tell the tale.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 19, 2011)

It is funny how hard are the critics work to degrade the protestors, yet the numbers of protesters are growing and it has gone globally. The protesters are suppose to be clueless unorganized wealth hating idiots on the fringe of society, with nothing better to do but sleep on Wall Streets door step. Yet if that is true what is the reason for that? Why so many clueless unorganized wealth hating idiots on the fringe of society, and it seems that everyday there are more and more of them all over the world. 

Here is an unspoken issue. The wealthy don't give up their money up easily. Hence one reason for their wealth. They expect everyone else too give up their money, i.e. expecting everyone else to pay taxes. This creates a problem for people struggling and who are not part of that abstract 1% ers because higher taxes on the rich means they are the ones who really are picking up the tab via adjusted tax code for the 1%, and all those loop holes they get.  These people know that it will always be that way, and the wealthy if they are told to pay more, it falls on their shoulders. The result is well if you can't beat them join them in fear. So these poor bastards are trapped and have to side with the wealthy against the wealthy being taxed. They can't protest on their own concerns to have things changed, they know the trap they are in so when they see people who do protest they experience fear of being further taxed, and envy as they are unable to protest for their interest. This pleases the wealth as wealth makes you dependent on others to do things for you, so they expect other people to mow their lawn, manage their money, politicians to support their interest, and others to pay their taxes. And most of all have others fight for what threatens them, to protect their wealth with little or no compensation. Again,this was seen  thousands of years ago through up until today, and will be tomorrow.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 19, 2011)

The major common thread issue here is that the protesters are NOT demanding to be millionaires. That point is being bury with great effort under pundit's noise,  and their sophomoric criticisms.


----------



## crushing (Oct 19, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> The major common thread issue here is that the protesters are NOT demanding to be millionaires.



Has that been a claim people are making about the protesters?


----------



## granfire (Oct 19, 2011)

crushing said:


> Has that been a claim people are making about the protesters?



They are all about redistributing wealth, did you not hear that?!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 19, 2011)

one of the 1% goes undercover to see OWS.



> *First Impressions:* It looks like a street fair to me.  If I had been dropped off not knowing what it was, that&#8217;s what I would  think. People are buying cookies, musicians are singing, people are  eating. I talk to people about what they are protesting, but they can&#8217;t  say. If I had to guess, I&#8217;d say that 10% are protesters, 10%  journalists, 10% musicians and 70% are tourists. I spoke to people from  Switzerland and Israel. I expected thousands of people from what I had  seen reported in the media. It was probably 50 to 100 *people, many just  lying around.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2011/10/19/billionaire-visits-occupy-wall-street/

For a larger more indepth look at OWS:
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2011/10/independent-reporting-of.html

Some excerpts:


> I interviewed the hard-core protesters, those sleeping in the park  overnight. I found only propaganda. They could repeat word-perfect the  propaganda about the execution of Troy Davis case, but none of the details from the Wikipedia entry on the case. They could repeat the propaganda of Al Gore on Global Warming, but none of the science from the UN IPCC that declares the scientific consensus on the issue. They could repeat the economics of Michael Moore, but not that of Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, writer of the popular liberal/progressive blog &#8220;Conscience of a Liberal&#8221; at the _New York Times_ and author of a* college textbook giving an introduction to economics*. For example, the protesters say &#8220;the rich get richer but the poor get poorer,&#8221; whereas Krugman says &#8220;the rich get richer but the poor go nowhere&#8221;. This is due to a profound disagreement about a basic economic concept and the economic data.





> The protesters have been settling on the idea that the conflict is the  99% against the 1%. But since the country is evenly divided between  Democrat and Republican, they represent, at best, the interests of 50%  against the 1%. No matter how poor, Republicans don&#8217;t see socialism as  being in their own interests. Instead of chanting "We are the 99%" they  should be chanting "We are the 50%", but they seem immune to seeing  things from this perspective.





> I personally experienced this  duality between populism and totalitarianism. I had chosen a table in  an empty area away from the crowd to type up my notes. I didn&#8217;t realize  it, but it was near the General Assembly area that would soon become  crowded. Members of the Media Team came up to me and insisted I move, so  that they could set up a tripod and camera on the table to take  pictures of the General Assembly. I refused. I tried to do this as  nicely as possible, with a pleasant demeanor, but of course, I was being  a jerk. I didn't like they way they insisted, but also I wanted to test  them, to see what would happen when somebody didn't go along with their  demands.
> 
> Of the three people, one was nice. He smiled, shook my hand, and said  &#8220;peace&#8221;. I&#8217;ll bet he&#8217;s been to Burning Man. But the other two were  nasty. The second guy, visibly twitching in anger, made unspecified  threats that I had better move. The third person, tried to argue. She  claimed that the protest had prior right to this spot, since they had  been occupying the park for weeks (a fallacious argument, since the  owners declare the park open to everyone equally). She then argued that  this was for the entire group, to get the word out about the protest, to  which I answered that I&#8217;m not part of the protest, that I don&#8217;t share  their views. Her final argument was the totalitarian argument: this is  for the people. She then proceeded to say that she was going to setup  the tripod anyway, and that if I didn&#8217;t move, she would accidentally  step on my laptop computer, because her attention would be on taking  pictures and not where she was stepping.



About those 700 arrested?


> Back to reporting. I see it as a struggle between the &#8220;story&#8221; and some  sort of &#8220;narrative&#8221;. Take, for instance, the most reported event of the  protest, the arrest of 700 protesters as they tried to cross the  Brooklyn Bridge. However you treat the story, you have to struggle with  the &#8220;narrative&#8221; that &#8220;police oppress protesters&#8221;. Here&#8217;s what happened.  The occupation is of the park in Wall Street. Last Saturday they marched  from there intending to go to the park right on the other side of the  Brooklyn Bridge, then back again. The march was planned ahead of time.  The protest leaders talked to the police about it. The police told them  to stay off the roadway to avoid blocking traffic, and instead use the  pedestrian walkway one level above the roadway. The protest leaders  widely communicated this to other protesters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> By the way, while Wall Street may be responsible for bad things, it is  Wall Street who financed putting a million miles of fiber optic cables  crisscrossing continents and under oceans. It is Wall Street that  financed the thousands of cell towers. It is Wall Street from which  venture capital comes to finance startups like Twitter. Thus, tweeting &#8220;*Down with capitalism*&#8221;  from your iPhone for those around the word to read seems to be the most  ironic thing a person can do. The live stream from the protest site,  shared with 12,000 (at this moment) people across the Internet is a  testament to Wall Street's allocation of capital that these protesters  fight against. [Obligatory Monty Python reference]
> 
> That the protest is dominated by Internet savvy youths exploiting social  media is frequently mentioned. But what is not mentioned is the fact  that the protesters are overwhelmingly college students, or recent  graduates who still haven&#8217;t found jobs. They aren&#8217;t just any college  students, but the stereotypical sort that you might expect to be  involved in campus activism, such as graduate students in &#8220;Gender  Studies.&#8221; I found nobody with engineering or science degrees, but many  from arts and acting colleges. After talking with one guy for a while  about unemployment and his difficult in finding a job after college, I  found out that he was a &#8220;poet.&#8221; I&#8217;m not sure he understood that  employers aren&#8217;t looking to hire poets. The only person I met that had a  political science degree was one of the police officers &#8220;keeping the  peace.&#8221;


Who's protesting? Ahh, "Art" majors.



> The makeup of the protesters also led to amusement among the cops,  stationed in pairs on all four sides of the park. For some, their normal  beat is in the poor areas of New York City. The police, who daily see  the struggle of the real poor, had little use for protesters complaining  about jobs while they carried around expensive MacBook computers paid  for by their parents.



Yeah.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 19, 2011)

:chuckles:  I can't help it but chortle at some of those quotes above, particularly the one about the 'utility' of some of the supposed graduates ... that one could well have been me talking :lol:.  By the way, is it just that I don't understand the way the American higher education system works or are the so called degrees talked about really just a bit of a step up from a British 'A' level?  I think I've asked this question before and can't recall if I ever got an answer I could get a handle on.

In Britain, a degree is the result of ten years of study, the last five of which have been targeted towards the topic covered by the degree itself. So you have five years studying the breadth of the curriculum ('O' levels), two years of more advanced study ('A' levels) in three or four topics (one of which should be what your degree is going to be in) and three years for the degree itself.

The system may have changed somewhat over here but the basic core of it is still a ten year journey to graduating at 21.

How does the American 'path' go?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 19, 2011)

> the real poor



I love it. I love it. It is the greatest worn out propaganda ever created. It is like if the "real poor" were protesting they would be bums, panhandlers and drug addicts living on the street.  Stereotyping the protesters to that is a laugh! :lol: It isn't "the poor' protesting it is people disgruntled with the way Wall Street handled itself and screwed the country. It is just that these "protesters" are able to voice something most of us are upset about. The strategy by this CEO who went under-cover and his experience published in Forbes is making me split a gut in laughter. It is like he is going to side with the protesters pls. :lol:  Hell his kids are probably protesting. 



> I personally experienced this duality between populism and totalitarianism.


 :lol: If this CEO had it his way we all be under his medieval monarchy. He was probably hippy larva, whose hippy parents did the 180 dance and "sold out to the man" become the new rich that so many wealth people despised back in the day.  

Money for nothing!


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  I can't help it but chortle at some of those quotes above, particularly the one about the 'utility' of some of the supposed graduates ... that one could well have been me talking :lol:.  By the way, is it just that I don't understand the way the American higher education system works or are the so called degrees talked about really just a bit of a step up from a British 'A' level?  I think I've asked this question before and can't recall if I ever got an answer I could get a handle on.
> 
> In Britain, a degree is the result of ten years of study, the last five of which have been targeted towards the topic covered by the degree itself. So you have five years studying the breadth of the curriculum ('O' levels), two years of more advanced study ('A' levels) in three or four topics (one of which should be what your degree is going to be in) and three years for the degree itself.
> 
> ...


In America, most kids get a basic education, beginning in high school (about age 14 to 18) to think about what they want to do after they graduate.  I'd say it's typical for most to get as far as "go to college."  Many, many get into a college or university where commonly they dabble for the first couple of years while taking pre-req/general undergrad courses.  These are the basics:  writing courses, history, math... that sort of thing.  The things every student must take to graduate combined with the required classes necessary to declare their intended major.  For example, you would need lots of math before you could apply to the engineering college.  That sort of thing.  Then, by year 3, they declare a major and start to focus.  The next few years are probably what you'd consider "A" level classes in a particular discipline.

By 22 or 23, they graduate with an undergrad degree in whatever they majored in.  They either enter the workforce or go on to an advanced degree from there.

Edit:  I'll just add that I believe this is typical of kids who are college bound.  Many kids don't go to college.  There are trade schools or apprenticeships for many.  Also, the military is a common, respectable route to take into adulthood.  There are also many kids who are focused and aren't as aimless as I describe above.  But, I'd wager most, even many bright kids, are still pretty clueless about their future as they enter the university.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> It is amazing the shallowness of thought that is being put into this topic. The inherent contradictions in some of the sterotypes are also quite startling.



as I said in another similar thread:  written by and for simpletons.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2011)

And the _other_ side is always the propaganda. It does amaze me that people are falling for the stereotypes and the name calling etc.


----------



## crushing (Oct 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> They are all about redistributing wealth, did you not hear that?!



 Of course I have heard and read that, but that does not answer my question to what is apparently the common thread issue here.

JohnEdward posted, "The major common thread issue here is that the protesters are NOT demanding to be millionaires."
My reply, "Has that been a claim people are making about the protesters?"

Have you heard of anyone making the claim that the protesters are demanding to be millionaires?


----------



## crushing (Oct 20, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> And the _other_ side is always the propaganda. *It does amaze me that people are falling for the stereotypes and the name calling etc.*



This is exactly what the evil greedy CEOs want!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 20, 2011)

Maybe not in a directed global conspiracy kind of way but certainly it plays into the hands of the status quo {"Down, down, deeper and down ...."}.


----------

