OWS Archive

0

Op/Ed of the month (last month, but still): “Guess Who?” edition

I’m not gonna lie: I was vaguely floored to learn the identity of the writer on this one. So in an effort to treat you to the same sort of cognitive dissonance I recently enjoyed, I encourage you to do your honest best to guess who penned the following WSJ oped last November 18 based only on the excerpt below. And yes, I realize absolute identification may be a tall order if you don’t know the answer to begin with, so work your way up to it: what gender do you believe the writer is; what political party do you think he or she belongs to; which news network is this person most likely to watch (or even contribute to); etc. Once you’ve formulated your theory, click the link and collect your marbles.

How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it’s sickening.

Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it’s easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

The corruption isn’t confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It’s an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It’s an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

(h/t Roger Ebert)

0

CBS, NBC, etc: Please release the helicopter footage of Foley Square last night…

I was watching the CBS stream: there were some great shots, panning across the entire area, really capturing the extent of the crowd streaming out of the square and down the street towards the Brooklyn Bridge.

I’m having a bitch of a time getting a substantiated crowd count that’d be relatively easy to produce given that footage.

OWS is running with 32,500, which, as far as I can gather, was an NYPD estimate overheard on a police scanner. Not sure who overheard this. Not a solid source. But, having seen the aerial footage last night, the number isn’t unreasonable.

But we could settle this, if CBS/NBC/Fox would just make the helicopter-captured footage, zoomed out to see the full extent of the crowd, available.

0

Preoccupied about #OWS

As the autumn leaves abandon their trees, never to return, so too are Occupy Wall Streeters being evicted from their parks and plazas by forces beyond their control — though in their case, “never to return” is less an inviolable law of nature than a squishy civil suggestion. (Which is to say, it ain’t working.)  However, at the two-month anniversary mark, I think it’s worth reiterating — if you missed it the first time around — this comprehensive article from Business Insider detailing What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About…

I think it’s also worth quoting in full five sterling, straightforward suggestions from Matt Taibbi last month about how to address many of the protesters’ painfully valid concerns:

1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called “Too Big to Fail” financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term “Systemically Dangerous Institutions” – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled; a good start would be to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it’s supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow.

3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer’s own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can’t do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress.

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year.

5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company’s long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.

(off camera hat tip to Kirk for recommending the Taibbi article)

0

Riot Police at my Alma Mater of the Day

Skip to 0:45 if you’re in a hurry.

God forbid people protest for lower tuition.

(h/t 2 Wes)

0

Karl Rove’s anti-Elizabeth Warren ad:

Similar:

Videos of poor police being victimized by protesters:

 

Rove’s attempt at rhetorical jujitsu is to set up a frame assuming that OWS is situated in opposition to addressing unemployment, then making an explicit argument that Warren isn’t serious about unemployment in terms of that assumption (which, because it’s presented as a frame, and not as an explicit argument, means that to respond, you need to reject the entire universe the ad is presenting… which is easy enough to do when the universe is so absurd). Because outrage over the failure of the government / fed to take unemployment seriously enough hasn’t been one of the primary rallying points for the movement? Because Rove’s allies in the Republican caucus (including Scott Brown) haven’t been fighting like crazy against any jobs-oriented legislation? Because Elizabeth Warren’s scholarship isn’t recognized as field-leading in bankruptcy, at the heart of which are issues of employment?

Here she is detailing the “coming collapse of the middle class” back in 2007. Watch it.

 

0

They Have Made Their Point, They Have to Go Now (or: How to Speak Fundamentalist)

The Global Occupy Movement has spread to over 1,000 cities. As days turn into months, the number of people on the street steadily increases. Momentum seems to be building, not waning. The Occupation has arrived in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I think that what we are witnessing with this movement, and the corporate media reaction to it, is the cultural retirement party for an old social map printed in black and white, lacking the interactive apps of the new maps — whereas the Occupiers serve as a welcoming committee for the arrival of options, of other ways to be in this world. It would serve us well, we human types, to address this cognitive gap. I believe that it is not only possible to communicate with the cognitively impaired, but, as we have allowed them to run amok through the halls of power, it is now imperative that we do.

I googled “They made their point,” and “They should go,” and “Occupy.” This is some of what came up;

“They made their point—only I’m not sure if they knew what that point was—no one else did. Apparently, it wasn’t all that important at the time of the start of the movement .” – Steve Rose, blogger/cop

“They made their point. Probably about time to go home.” – Otto Maddox, self described dork

“Maybe it’s time for the children to go home. They made their point, and they can continue their protests and activism, but the time for the campout is over.” – Rob Port, angry person

“They made their point, people acknowledged it, now why don’t they go do something useful?” – some forum commenter, being useless.

“That’s the great thing about this country, you can stand up and say what you want, but I think they made their point,” – Asian businessman that joked to a cop, “Bring out the tear gas and call it a day.”

“They made their point now get out and get back to living. Lets stop this NOW.” – Rosie

“They made their point, but now, they are overstaying their welcome.” – Larry

“They made their point…Which is they have none…Why the press covers this story is beyond me…Just kill ‘em.Time to move on…” – LiberalsRDopes, angry person

“They made their point,” – Sgt. Limbert of the Mission Police Station

“They made their point but are now becoming irrelevant, ok….got your message, now go back to work, school or your bong, but stop costing taxpayers money that has to be diverted from other programs to police these love-ins.” – rjag, Angry Canadian

I’ll venture to say that “their point” has not been made, nor will it be for some time, because of the difference in the way in which one interprets what a “point” is. On the one hand, the occupiers come from a place of realizing the wisdom of sustainable growth. Conversely, the naysayers, rather than admitting an inability to grasp the meaning or implications of something new and different emerging in the political environment, invoke a cultural banishment spell (such as “They made their point”) to put it out of their minds. It’s a recusal from the dialogue under the premise of some higher cultural authority, or sense of “normalcy.” I think that is my favorite response to the Occupations, and I hear it often. It’s that irony thing that I like so much. It reveals a lot about the person that utters it, and the cognitive maps in play. The purpose of slogans like “They’ve made their point” is to reduce and marginalize anything seen as a threat to the status quo or their bourgeois personal identity — which often, in these types of cases, are one in the same. “You’ve made your point” used in the examples above, translates roughly into “I’m tired of hearing your nonsense, and/or I’m ill-equipped to respond intelligently.” It can be seen as a self-defense mechanism employed by a threatened creature. If seen this way, compassion for the opposition comes more easily.

The rhetoric of 99% vs. 1% has a use. Of course, a Movement of 100% would be really nifty for a bit, but not possible, nor desirable. For those “We’re-All-One” purists that have a problem with the divisive function of the 99% slogan, may I remind you of the Red Vs. Blue wedgie that has had us on our toes for the past decade? I’d say surgically cutting out a 1% cancerous tumor is a big improvement over chainsawing the country down the middle. There’s magic in taking out and isolating just one percentage point. For a moment, the 99% have an opportunity to imagine that their individual causes can be joined with a greater cause. I see the 99% icon as symbolic of dethroning a monarchy, or aristocracy. We are “in the meantime” now. This is the moment when power shifts.

This is not a protest, and the people are not protesters. This is, as the name implies, an Occupation. The Occupiers are not there to do anything as much as they are there because of what has been done. This is a direct consequence of unchecked greedy causes. The people that just want this to go away are afraid. Of course, there is the fear of the “1%,” the CorportateBankerLobbyistMedia cabal and the authorities that serve them. That fear says Mission Accomplished. But there is another fear, on the other end of the spectrum, a fear and anxiety around daring to hope that real, meaningful change in the consciousness of the human endeavor is possible. Maybe not everyone would describe it that way. Here’s another way: who doesn’t want to live a more authentic existence? If given a choice between surviving and thriving, what would you pick? We can have this discussion now, and those choices are available. Endeavoring to understand how we live in the world together is the new sexy. “OMG, did you see how huge her ethnobotanical-socioeconomic comprehension was? That was hot.”

There are a large number of Americans that want what we all want, they just don’t want it to be complex. This condition of narrowness, which manifests as various forms of fundamentalism, has little to no capacity for irony, metaphor, or a spectrum of possibilities. Yes or no, good or bad, black or white. Think binary. The neocon revolution was only made possible by the crass manipulation of the fundamentalist mindset. The spectrum of possibilities that color the Occupy movement gets lost in the monolithic shadow of Good and Bad.

It might be helpful to imagine a kind of cultural deafness that monotheists, fundamentalists, and the like, suffer from, and like many that suffer a diminishing of one capability, another capability is enhanced. Those that seem the most resistant and/or uninformed about our socioeconomic/sociopolitical situation, will be the ones that muscle the corrections through, once it becomes clear that that is what MUST be done. Meanwhile, they will defend what they “know,” right or wrong. They want no part in “maybe” or “perhaps.”

Some people can change their mind easily. Some can try on a philosophy and take it for a test drive, and then just as easily step out of it. For people like this, it may be hard to imagine how a fundamentalist operating system works. But it’s really pretty simple: fundamentalists identify themselves with their beliefs and ideas, which are defended as a part of the self. Asking a fundamentalist to see something from someone else’s perspective is like asking them to exchange their eyeballs. But what they lack in adaptive facility, they more than make up for in manual effectiveness. They get’er done. Finding an appreciation for the form and function of the fundamentalist portion of the 99% serves everyone.

If the intellectual elite and and the progressive left are the brains and heart of the country, then the fundamentalists and their kind are the muscle and bones. The muscle and bones want to respond to correct impulses that lead to their strengthening and growth. They are not concerned with why or how. The neocons led them along by dangling a bible on a stick for thirty years. I think the muscle and bones need to be treated better than that (and that doesn’t mean taunting them by dangling Dawkins instead). Like we have provided handicapped spaces for the infirm, and braille on the elevators and ATMs to accommodate the blind, let us endeavor to translate the complexity and beauty of this Occupation into a simple binary message for the cognitively impaired.

For those planning to become more directly involved in the overhaul of American representative government, as well as any other cultural overhaul that might be timely, might I suggest learning to speak Fundamentalist, as translators are desperately needed at this time. Many Americans suffer the same cultural ills but cannot coordinate to correct them due to cognitive incompatibilities. I don’t think we can expect our frightened dichotomous brothers and sisters to be the ones to initiate a broader understanding of our condition. Do you?

0

What I found in my five free minutes

Are you all OWS-y like we here at B&S are? Do you tend to rile the man unnecessarily in your public displays of civil disobedience? Then the following app might be for you.

From the New York Daily News:

An Occupy Wall Street sympathizer created a free app called “I’m Getting Arrested” that lets protesters send out text messages to friends and family when cops swoop in.

Jason Van Anden, a Brooklyn software developer, said he came up with the idea when a colleague told him his girlfriend was about to get busted at a demonstration.

[...]

Users craft a text message in advance and program a list of recipients. Then, as cops get the bracelets out, they can hit one button and tell everyone on their list that they’re in danger of being pinched.

As of Monday morning, 9,000 people had already installed the app, but Van Anden doesn’t know if anyone has used it because he installed privacy controls.