Originally posted by Arbiter
The "risk" of spreading it? Don't make me laugh. Do you have any idea how much corporate money is being poured into spreading this little movement at this very moment?
If those in power wanted to put a stop to these little protests, it would be a trivial matter. At this point, however, that's the last thing they want. They'll continue to allow these protesters to play out their little fantasy, unaware that they are serving the very interests they intend to oppose.
:stongue:
nefardec
some of my phone pics from today
on the march up to occupy times square from washington square. this is 14th st and 6th ave.
MORE COWBELL
in the middle of times square. things got pretty crazy, mounted policemen, some violence, overall just lots and lots and lots of people
i found this video, but it was taken before everyone really got there
Sushipunk
I kinda lol'd at the third pic. The people advertising there, on all those screens and massive billboards, are getting MAXIMUM GLOBAL EXPOSURE right now :p
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
I kinda lol'd at the third pic. The people advertising there, on all those screens and massive billboards, are getting MAXIMUM GLOBAL EXPOSURE right now :p
there's advertising in literally every corner of experience. you look at these pics on a website with ads on the top of the page. most news sites have a third of the page devoted to ads... the fact that there are ads in the pictures has a negligible effect on exposure to those brands, and even so they are negatively affected by the fact that there are a bunch of protestors in front of them.
In any case, occupy wall street, as the name suggests, is about keeping the financial industry in check, not really victoria's secret or hyundai.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
What are you talking about?
I'm not sure how much more clearly defined it can be:
generally, corporate power needs to be checked at all times by the writ of the law of the people, since the goals of corporations are ultimately not aligned with goals of human beings, except for the few who sit at the top (and more importantly those who additionally don't give -all about anyone else), out of the splash zone (arbitrarily referred to as the 1%).
specifically, the speculative financial industry should be held accountable for their illegal/fraudulent/exploitative manipulations of money at the cost of the economic solvency of what amounts to 99% of americans.
corporate influence in politics needs to be eliminated - political funding should be on a limited, equal individual basis.
Before anything else, I should concede that I wasn't aware that a codified set of tents had even been drawn up in the first place, though I don't believe this existed from the beginning, and may have just been something that was concocted in response to the pressure stemming from protestors actually being asked to issue something other than a vague revolt against authority (feel free to document me wrong, though).
That said, I don't believe this is quite as neatly and coherently canonized in practice as it is in principle. Granted, I have mainly observational impressions to base this on, but all of this seems heavily divided among different political frameworks (or lack thereof). Yes, they would all agree, in spirit, with the above set of ideals should they be confronted with them, but there appears to be no end of people who are involved in this who are using at as a vehicle to facilitate a broader political ideology, which often aren't compatible, and by no means representative of the whole.
Sure, one of the benefits of a movement that's built upon such a broadly acceptable set of ideals is that it enables people from all walks of life and worldviews to participate, but that deeper lack of cohesion is what I feel will prevent this from ultimately being the revolutionary upheaval many want it to be.
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec Yes, of course there are some radicals who are part of the movement - why wouldn't they be? But this isn't about radical revolution as much as it is purely about justice and fairness.
Also, to be honest, from a conceptual standpoint, I find #OCCUPY to be kind of a misnomer - IMO it is more #LIBERATE than #OCCUPY - the occupation seems to me to be the anti-human corporate system that we've traded our souls to for stuff.
In any case, #OCCUPY is a powerful word that inspires direct action and enjoys wide usage, and that's only good for the movement.
I'm not talking about a fringe set of radicals. 'Occupation' has a sensationalist overtone to it that tends to resonate with that variety of individual who romanticizes the notion of 'revolution,' regardless as to whether or not their understanding of it has any meaningful focus, or if they're actually prepared to accept the unforeseen baggage that comes along with it actually coming to fruition.
I'm actually quite on board with the spirit of this movement, but it also happens to be the token protest for those with a vaguely defined sense of unrest that like the idea of being swept up into a heavily charged political fervor.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
the mayor is planning a 'cleaning' ruse whereby they kick people out 'temporarily' from parts of the park while they clean. then they are introducing a set of new park rules that state you're not allowed to either lay down or set up sleeing bags and tarps.
how do you end a revolution? take away their blankets
Or it could be that a mass congregation of individuals in a relatively confined area constitutes a public safety hazard, requiring sanitation of the immediate area, along with a proactive means of addressing and neutralizing the sources of it.
I'm not attempting to belittle your contention as speculatively cynical, but there's an alternative explanation that's worth interacting with. Even then, they may simply be intent upon putting an end to the constant need to ensure that these protests remain peaceful and orderly, as opposed to a desire to necessarily 'put an end to the revolution.'
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
[the advertising is] negatively affected by the fact that there are a bunch of protestors in front of them.
I don't believe that for a second.
I certainly don't disagree that there is advertising nearly everywhere, but all those brands on the screens/billboards just got world-wide exposure now, from the millions of cellphone pics that were taken and posted EVERYWHERE today - That's why they advertise in places like that.
Any attention is good attention, in this case. There's no way at all that this will negatively effect their brand(s). If anything, it negatively affects the protesters' choice of location. Every pic taken and posted by anyone, does something to promote what they want to fight :p
Fpcookie
quote:
Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it
By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN
October 5, 2011 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence.
Consider how CNN anchor Erin Burnett, covered the goings on at Zuccotti Park downtown, where the protesters are encamped, in a segment called "Seriously?!" "What are they protesting?" she asked, "nobody seems to know." Like Jay Leno testing random mall patrons on American History, the main objective seemed to be to prove that the protesters didn't, for example, know that the U.S. government has been reimbursed for the bank bailouts. It was condescending and reductionist.
More predictably perhaps, a Fox News reporter appears flummoxed in this outtake from "On the Record," in which the respondent refuses to explain how he wants the protests to "end." Transcending the shallow partisan politics of the moment, the protester explains "As far as seeing it end, I wouldn't like to see it end. I would like to see the conversation continue."
To be fair, the reason why some mainstream news journalists and many of the audiences they serve see the Occupy Wall Street protests as incoherent is because the press and the public are themselves. It is difficult to comprehend a 21st century movement from the perspective of the 20th century politics, media, and economics in which we are still steeped.
In fact, we are witnessing America's first true Internet-era movement, which -- unlike civil rights protests, labor marches, or even the Obama campaign -- does not take its cue from a charismatic leader, express itself in bumper-sticker-length goals and understand itself as having a particular endpoint.
Yes, there are a wide array of complaints, demands, and goals from the Wall Street protesters: the collapsing environment, labor standards, housing policy, government corruption, World Bank lending practices, unemployment, increasing wealth disparity and so on. Different people have been affected by different aspects of the same system -- and they believe they are symptoms of the same core problem.
Are they ready to articulate exactly what that problem is and how to address it? No, not yet. But neither are Congress or the president who, in thrall to corporate America and Wall Street, respectively, have consistently failed to engage in anything resembling a conversation as cogent as the many I witnessed as I strolled by Occupy Wall Street's many teach-ins this morning. There were young people teaching one another about, among other things, how the economy works, about the disconnection of investment banking from the economy of goods and services, the history of centralized interest-bearing currency, the creation and growth of the derivatives industry, and about the Obama administration deciding to settle with, rather than investigate and prosecute the investment banking industry for housing fraud.
Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher. What upsets banking's defenders and politicians alike is the refusal of this movement to state its terms or set its goals in the traditional language of campaigns.
That's because, unlike a political campaign designed to get some person in office and then close up shop (as in the election of Obama), this is not a movement with a traditional narrative arc. As the product of the decentralized networked-era culture, it is less about victory than sustainability. It is not about one-pointedness, but inclusion and groping toward consensus. It is not like a book; it is like the Internet.
Occupy Wall Street is meant more as a way of life that spreads through contagion, creates as many questions as it answers, aims to force a reconsideration of the way the nation does business and offers hope to those of us who previously felt alone in our belief that the current economic system is broken.
But unlike a traditional protest, which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Occupy Wall Street just sits there talking with itself, debating its own worth, recognizing its internal inconsistencies and then continuing on as if this were some sort of new normal. It models a new collectivism, picking up on the sustainable protest village of the movement's Egyptian counterparts, with food, first aid, and a library.
Yes, as so many journalists seem obligated to point out, kids are criticizing corporate America while tweeting through their iPhones. The simplistic critique is that if someone is upset about corporate excess, he is supposed to abandon all connection with any corporate product. Of course, the more nuanced approach to such tradeoffs would be to seek balance rather than ultimatums. Yes, there are things big corporations might do very well, like making iPhones. There are other things big corporations may not do so well, like structure mortgage derivatives. Might we be able to use corporations for what works, and get them out of doing what doesn't?
And yes, some kids are showing up at Occupy Wall Street because it's fun. They come for the people, the excitement, the camaraderie and the sense of purpose they might not be able to find elsewhere. But does this mean that something about Occupy Wall Street is lacking, or that it is providing something that jobs and schools are not (thanks in part to rising unemployment and skyrocketing tuitions)?
The members of Occupy Wall Street may be as unwieldy, paradoxical, and inconsistent as those of us living in the real world. But that is precisely why their new approach to protest is more applicable, sustainable and actionable than what passes for politics today. They are suggesting that the fiscal operating system on which we are attempting to run our economy is no longer appropriate to the task. They mean to show that there is an inappropriate and correctable disconnect between the abundance America produces and the scarcity its markets manufacture.
And in the process, they are pointing the way toward something entirely different than the zero-sum game of artificial scarcity favoring top-down investors and media makers alike.
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
I don't believe that for a second.
I certainly don't disagree that there is advertising nearly everywhere, but all those brands on the screens/billboards just got world-wide exposure now, from the millions of cellphone pics that were taken and posted EVERYWHERE today - That's why they advertise in places like that.
Any attention is good attention, in this case. There's no way at all that this will negatively effect their brand(s). If anything, it negatively affects the protesters' choice of location. Every pic taken and posted by anyone, does something to promote what they want to fight :p
nah, sorry it's NYC - there are ads everywhere, no one gives a .
Everyone has seen pictures of times square.
You somehow like to see the fact that the protest is under these advertisements as some kind of hypocrisy, but did you ever consider that the location was selected on purpose, because it draws attention the exact institutions the movement is targeting? - there are a ton of super visible banks and financial institutions right there - Chase, Bank of America, Nasdaq, to name a few. Not to mention an army recruiting station. It was pretty much the ideal place to protest. Yes, the goal was to bring attention to the surroundings, because it shows the protestors against who they are fighting.
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
Or it could be that a mass congregation of individuals in a relatively confined area constitutes a public safety hazard, requiring sanitation of the immediate area, along with a proactive means of addressing and neutralizing the sources of it.
I'm not attempting to belittle your contention as speculatively cynical, but there's an alternative explanation that's worth interacting with. Even then, they may simply be intent upon putting an end to the constant need to ensure that these protests remain peaceful and orderly, as opposed to a desire to necessarily 'put an end to the revolution.'
I think you're missing the fact that I go down to the camp, and I can tell you that the place is pretty much spotless. Cleaner than any other park in the city, at any rate. Beyond that it's private property, not subject to the same services as the municipal parks. At any given time there are around 15 people on cleanup detail, regularly hauling trash away.
By the way, the mayor called off the 'cleanup' - it never happened.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
I think you're missing the fact that I go down to the camp, and I can tell you that the place is pretty much spotless. Cleaner than any other park in the city, at any rate. Beyond that it's private property, not subject to the same services as the municipal parks. At any given time there are around 15 people on cleanup detail, regularly hauling trash away.
By the way, the mayor called off the 'cleanup' - it never happened.
Yes, I am aware of this, which is why I advanced this explanation as a mere alternative to the one that suggests the city is attempting to undermine the protest under the guise of sanitation, which is something someone with first-hand experience (such as yourself) can help to confirm or deny.
It also doesn't necessarily affirm that the city is using such an excuse as a means of subverting the protest on the grounds that it's a politically pernicious movement, which is what you're apparently suggesting.
LAdazeNYnights
great pics nef.
the cops face in the last one is all >.< somewhere between ' these hippies' and 'what do i do what do i do what do i do'
TranceArmstrong
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
absolutely there are places that are not serviced by fed ex. hence my point. the internet may find it difficult to send christmas presents to little tommy in bumville.
so Little Tommy is why we have to operate 30,000+ post offices at a loss and give special treasury loans to? Little Tommy requires hosts of employees and a 5 billion dollar pension shortfall this year?
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i already mentioned this in my previous posts; you also have a strange view of permanent. the entire sub prime debacle was due to lack of permanency.
yes, he (Greenspan) was a failure because he believed in self-correcting markets.
2. there is no such thing as "artificial" interest rates. rates are what they are.
Rates are not what they SHOULD BE if a central bank arbitrarily sets them. That's why I called them artificial. I used the term permanent because if a marketplace were truly "self-correcting", interest rates fluctuate based on market demand, not remain low because the Fed decrees it so.
For the decade leading up the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve policy of low interest rates encouraged bad investment/credit expansion into the housing sector. Not to mention a distortion of traditional safe havens (savings accounts, etc.). Not a self-correcting market in my eyes, but rather a recipe for a volatile boom and bust cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
1. too big to fail is a symptom of capitalism as far as it pertains to financial markets.
If this is true, then capitalism is a disease which will end up killing the patient. Which goes back to why I would rather take my chances with "crazy" Ron Paul and his free market of currencies, end all wars, reduce federal spending positions instead of having to always keep taxpayer funds on hand to bail out banks who invested too heavily in scam mortgages.
