Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Clevelander17

"Occupy Wall Street" Movement

Recommended Posts

Ooohh; that's what all the people sleeping in tents were all about? I thought I just made a wrong turn and ended up on Parson's ave. *Shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooohh; that's what all the people sleeping in tents were all about? I thought I just made a wrong turn and ended up on Parson's ave. *Shrugs*

 

AND WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?  I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE (AND POSSIBLY BRAIN WASHED) BY OCCUPY CINCY OR COLUMBUS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new found respect for Gingrich!  I'm sure it will be short lived, but he sums up how I feel about the "occupy" people.

 

!

 

 

Well, you are the 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new found respect for Gingrich!  I'm sure it will be short lived, but he sums up how I feel about the "occupy" people.

 

!

 

 

That's the type of simplistic thinking that you'd normally rail against.  I'm surprised you would agree with that type of a soundbite political argument. 

 

In many cases the behavior of the OWS protestors has gone too far.  But their basic message cannot be ignored...unless you're part of the elite and want to protect the status quo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new found respect for Gingrich!  I'm sure it will be short lived, but he sums up how I feel about the "occupy" people.

 

!

 

 

That's the type of simplistic thinking that you'd normally rail against.  I'm surprised you would agree with that type of a soundbite political argument. 

 

In many cases the behavior of the OWS protestors has gone too far.  But their basic message cannot be ignored...unless you're part of the elite and want to protect the status quo. 

 

And what is the basic message?  And how is what they are doing expressing a solution or is targeted the audience that needs to hear that message?

 

According to the website, OWS "is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

 

It seems they have the major banks, multinational corporations, and Wall St protest down, but what about the other side of it?  What about the government officials that allow themselves to be influenced?  No protests outside of City Halls?  Congress?  Capitol Building?  White House?  Are they forgetting everyone in Congress/Washington are part of the 1%?  Why aren't they protesting them too?

 

It seems they are basically asking a portion of the 1% to take power from another portion of the 1% and distribute benefits accordingly to the rest of them.  That's a great solution; change corrosive power from one conglomerate (corporations) to another (federal government).  If you're really going to protest the 1%, then actually protest against the entire 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^hey after watching the browns game today i occupied harlem for a little while!

 

Ahhh...now I know what that stench was! :P :P :P ;)

 

I have a new found respect for Gingrich!  I'm sure it will be short lived, but he sums up how I feel about the "occupy" people.

 

!

 

 

Well, you are the 1%.

And you said that to say what?

 

I think the Occupy people had a message but since they have no true leader or mission the message is and "occupation" has lost its interest.

 

In addition, what have these occupy movements cost local governments?  Small businesses nearby? etc.?  I'm sick of the whining about not having a job, but you can sit you stinkin' ass down in a park with your ipad and post from an occupy movement.  Get a damn clue, life isn't mean to be easy and nothing should be handed to you just for the hell of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ Startle the Census

 

After a lost decade of flat wages and the worst downturn since the Great Depression, the findings can be thought of as putting numbers to the bleak national mood — quantifying the expressions of unease erupting in protests and political swings. They convey levels of economic stress sharply felt but until now hard to measure.

 

The Census Bureau, which published the poverty data two weeks ago, produced the analysis of those with somewhat higher income at the request of The New York Times. The size of the near-poor population took even the bureau’s number crunchers by surprise.

 

“These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” said Trudi J. Renwick, the bureau’s chief poverty statistician. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”

 

Also, a good graphic accompanies the article, but im not sharp enough to figure out how to post it here.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, having been to all these places, what do you think of the mainstream media coverage?

 

 

I have no idea, since I dont have a TV and I don't listen to radio news...not even NPR.  I get my news from googling stuff. 

 

From the online media, which I guess is akin the print media, it seems to be fair, but I think they probably have made more of a big deal of this than it warranted. I already commented on this thread about hyperventilating columnists (Chris Hedges, I think).

 

For print media, there is some differences in coverage between local papers, both dailys and those free weeklies.  For example the Rochester free weekly reported on their Occupy differently than the Dayton free weekly.

 

 

If there was media silence or minimal reporting it would have went away quicker, becoming just a NYC thing.

 

 

The real story is that this movement caught-on beyond NYC.  The original action was just to be a brief thing in New York, not a a national movement.  Seems this is a missed story.  It could be the coverage of the NY actions led people elsewhere to join in...rather than just consume the media spectacle emenating from Manhattan.

 

I think thats' the story.  That this caught on the way it did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel Sage Foundation reports....

 

....Growth in the Residential Segregationof Families by Income, 1970-2009

 

...links to a .pdf

 

As overall income inequality grew in the last four decades, high- and

low-income families have become increasingly less likely to live near

one another. Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while

affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common. In

fact, the share of the population in large and moderate-sized metropolitan

areas who live in the poorest and most auent neighborhoods

has more than doubled since 1970, while the share of families living in

middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent to 44 percent.

 

The residential isolation of the both poor and affluent families has

grown over the last four decades, though affluent families have been

generally more residentially isolated than poor families during this

period. Income segregation among African Americans and Hispanics

grew more rapidly than among non-Hispanic whites, especially since

2000 These trends are consequential because people are aaffected by the character of the local areas in which they live.  (a little foot-stomp for Urban Ohio, since we see this in our cities)

 

...as an aside, Russell Sage, whoever he was, must have had some affliation with Troy, NY, as there is a Russell Sage College in downtown Troy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, for an abridged version with some nifty graphics, here is the NYT take.

 

Middle-Class Areas Shrink as Income Gap Grows, New Report Finds

 

  The portion of American families living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined significantly since 1970, according to a new study, as rising income inequality left a growing share of families in neighborhoods that are mostly low-income or mostly affluent.

 

 

The study, conducted by Stanford University and scheduled for release on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation and Brown University, uses census data to examine family income at the neighborhood level in the country’s 117 biggest metropolitan areas.

 

The findings show a changed map of prosperity in the United States over the past four decades, with larger patches of affluence and poverty and a shrinking middle

 

If one is concened about urban decline this is one thing that leads to it...the concentration of wealth into the 1% or near-1% improvishes wide swaths of the population, with direct consequecnes for the health of neighborhood retail and the ability of people to keep up their homes or even own homes.

 

Another consequences is if homeowners become renters but ca'nt afford enough rent so the landlords can keep property up there will be declining conditions of housing due to deferred maintenance and deterioration, since the money is just not in the system anymore...it's concentrated in fewer hands vs being more widely distributed. 

 

So all this plays out in our urban landscapes, this stuff OWS talks about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what is the basic message?  And how is what they are doing expressing a solution or is targeted the audience that needs to hear that message?

 

According to the website, OWS "is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

 

It seems they have the major banks, multinational corporations, and Wall St protest down, but what about the other side of it?  What about the government officials that allow themselves to be influenced?  No protests outside of City Halls?  Congress?  Capitol Building?  White House?  Are they forgetting everyone in Congress/Washington are part of the 1%?  Why aren't they protesting them too?

 

It seems they are basically asking a portion of the 1% to take power from another portion of the 1% and distribute benefits accordingly to the rest of them.  That's a great solution; change corrosive power from one conglomerate (corporations) to another (federal government).  If you're really going to protest the 1%, then actually protest against the entire 1%.

 

I think you understand the basic message.  As for the money in politics part of the problem, there's a completely separate movement (as there should be, so as not to confuse people and give each piece due attention) that is focusing on that that has nothing to do with OWS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, what have these occupy movements cost local governments?  Small businesses nearby? etc.?

 

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.  :whip:

 

963d9bb7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one leaves ideology aside, OWS was the opposite of the Tea Party in a lot of ways.

 

The Tea Party held rallies to build a movement.  The rallies were short, tightly organized, and designed to get people involved in other, more effective ways.  The Tea Party expected the media to treat them in a negative way, so they made it tough to do that.  They made sure the rallies stayed on message (no internally divisive issues, let alone fringe ones), had all their permits, and perhaps most importantly, left the location clean.

 

OWS, on the other hand, built a movement to hold rallies.  There was no effective organization and no message control.  Anyone could show up, and pretty much “anyone” did.  Things were chaotic, and inevitably a mess.

 

The Tea Party had a message, and picked its targets accordingly.  Anyone involved in the government being too big, too expensive, and too intrusive was a target.  It was mostly Democrats, but the Republicans and the private sector caught grief too sometimes.

OWS had a target more than a message.  It was all about corporations and “the rich”.  Once their gripes with said targets were (more or less) listed, they weren’t very specific about solutions.  Also, if anyone from the right or center tried to point out places where government was complicit vis a vis said gripes, they went back on attack mode….against them. 

 

Eventually, the Tea Party faded and went away.  Why?  Because it was successful  It clearly had an end game, the 2010 elections, and it clearly had an impact.  The GOP’s power increased, and the tea party allies and ideas saw increased influence there.  There’s not much of it left, besides the kooks who figured out the name’s not trademarked, because it worked.

 

OWS, on the other hand, is going away because it had no coherent message, no organizational structure, and perhaps most importantly, no practical end game.  Even Gary Trudeau mocked their aimlessness.  Key potential allies (John Lewis) were turned away.  The lack of agenda let fringers and nihilists fill in their own.    The “entitlement” mentality at its root became apparent with the “Occupiers” attitude towards adjoining bathrooms:  “we need them, you have them, how dare you question our right to use them as we see fit”.  It never occurred to them that if you claim to represent Main Street, it’s best not to look like Telegraph Avenue.  Most importantly, they became a liability to the politicians who originally showed them tolerance,  particularly liberal Democratic mayors. 

 

In the end, the Tea Party was a classic example of what to do, OWS an example of what not to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK

 

By CANDICE M. GIOVE

Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011

Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011

 

Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.

 

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

 

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occupy Wall Street protesters stay at $700-a-night hotel

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK

 

By CANDICE M. GIOVE

Last Updated: 12:25 PM, November 20, 2011

Posted: 12:06 AM, November 20, 2011

 

Hell no, we won’t go — unless we get goose down pillows.

 

A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can “unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko,” The Post has learned.

 

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

 

$700?  I get they are trying to tie them into the W's audience but lets get the pricing right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.[/i]

 

I wonder what the age and gender of the protesters offered shelter was?    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one leaves ideology aside, OWS was the opposite of the Tea Party in a lot of ways.

 

The Tea Party held rallies to build a movement.  The rallies were short, tightly organized, and designed to get people involved in other, more effective ways.  The Tea Party expected the media to treat them in a negative way, so they made it tough to do that.  They made sure the rallies stayed on message (no internally divisive issues, let alone fringe ones), had all their permits, and perhaps most importantly, left the location clean.

 

OWS, on the other hand, built a movement to hold rallies.  There was no effective organization and no message control.  Anyone could show up, and pretty much “anyone” did.  Things were chaotic, and inevitably a mess.

 

The Tea Party had a message, and picked its targets accordingly.  Anyone involved in the government being too big, too expensive, and too intrusive was a target.  It was mostly Democrats, but the Republicans and the private sector caught grief too sometimes.

OWS had a target more than a message.  It was all about corporations and “the rich”.  Once their gripes with said targets were (more or less) listed, they weren’t very specific about solutions.  Also, if anyone from the right or center tried to point out places where government was complicit vis a vis said gripes, they went back on attack mode….against them. 

 

Eventually, the Tea Party faded and went away.  Why?  Because it was successful  It clearly had an end game, the 2010 elections, and it clearly had an impact.  The GOP’s power increased, and the tea party allies and ideas saw increased influence there.  There’s not much of it left, besides the kooks who figured out the name’s not trademarked, because it worked.

 

OWS, on the other hand, is going away because it had no coherent message, no organizational structure, and perhaps most importantly, no practical end game.  Even Gary Trudeau mocked their aimlessness.  Key potential allies (John Lewis) were turned away.  The lack of agenda let fringers and nihilists fill in their own.    The “entitlement” mentality at its root became apparent with the “Occupiers” attitude towards adjoining bathrooms:  “we need them, you have them, how dare you question our right to use them as we see fit”.  It never occurred to them that if you claim to represent Main Street, it’s best not to look like Telegraph Avenue.  Most importantly, they became a liability to the politicians who originally showed them tolerance,  particularly liberal Democratic mayors. 

 

In the end, the Tea Party was a classic example of what to do, OWS an example of what not to do.

 

 

I mostly agree with your analysis of the OWS movement, but couldn't disagree more with your "rose colored glasses" view of the Tea Party.  I suppose it is hard to objectively view something as a whole when you are caught in the middle of it.  If you were talking about a single tea party faction (particularly one of the more reasonable ones) I wouldn't have such a strong disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I mostly agree with your analysis of the OWS movement, but couldn't disagree more with your "rose colored glasses" view of the Tea Party.

 

I think his views of Tea Party are pretty accurate.  It wasn't really an outsider/radical group.

 

Tea Party was not as radical as it sounded, since they were pushing for something close to what was already being supported by elements of the policy elite; the push for austerity.  And, of course, there was that long-term project of reduction in taxation, regulation, and government in general...which used to be called "movement conservatism", operating as sort of a politico-cultural matrix from which Tea Party arose.   

 

So there was already a political culture and organization... in terms of think tanks, funders, advocacy groups, and elements of the GOP... in place to back up the populist side of the tea party.  The outpouring of right-populist oppostion on the right to Obama and his lukewarm 'New Deal' could easily find an outlet and support within the framework of movement conservatism.

 

OWS was a lot more snaggletooth than this.  Basically OWS was the losers and outsiders in society and the political world...that's what I got from what I saw in real life during my travels.  These people have no access to resources or power.  They were the fringe.  Even more fringe than me, and I'm pretty "out there" politically speaking.

 

OWS had no support outside of fringe political groups and the more lefty side of liberalism....people I call the "lost causers".  Also, OWS desire not to be co-opted meant it was never going to work within electoral politics (which wasn't an issue with Tea Party).  Yes, OWS got some support from some unions, but this was sort of minor and sort of depending on where you were at.  And that was "it". 

 

Then there was the unsustainable structure of the protests.  "Occupy", as in camping out or maintaining a physical presence always begged the question "For how long are you going to do this?".  No end date.  Not even a symbolic one.  People just had to question what the point was of this?  After awhile it just gets silly.

 

So, two months of generalized dicontent from the marginalized left, finding an outlet in colorful symbolic protest, a sort of activist temper tantrum, but without political effect.  Yet, for all that, any type of political push from the left would be without effect since left populism doesn't align where the power and money want to go re policy. 

 

With the Tea Parety there was that alignment, there was a move into mainstream electoral politics, and Tea Party ended up changing policy, to the point of even Obama supporting the cuts they want to see in the Federal Governemnt.

 

So, everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving.  I've got my bus tickets to Louisville and figure I can use the local bus to get to my folks house from the Greyhound station, yet will have to do some walking.  But I have  good pair of boots and the weather is supposed to clear!

 

Happy Trails!

 

Jeff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, two months of generalized dicontent from the marginalized left, finding an outlet in colorful symbolic protest, a sort of activist temper tantrum, but without political effect.  Yet, for all that, any type of political push from the left would be without effect since left populism doesn't align where the power and money want to go re policy. 

 

I keyed in on that part as I read someone else put it that way, this being only the second time I've seen it described as that. 

 

The point being made in the other instance I saw it was that nothing is "free".  Protesting with signs that seek "free" college degrees and "free" health care are common at these rallys.  Not to mention that overtime for police officers and municipal workers cleaning up after you aren't free either...that real people with real dollars are underwriting this civic temper tantrum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, two months of generalized dicontent from the marginalized left, finding an outlet in colorful symbolic protest, a sort of activist temper tantrum, but without political effect.  Yet, for all that, any type of political push from the left would be without effect since left populism doesn't align where the power and money want to go re policy. 

 

I keyed in on that part as I read someone else put it that way, this being only the second time I've seen it described as that. 

 

The point being made in the other instance I saw it was that nothing is "free".  Protesting with signs that seek "free" college degrees and "free" health care are common at these rallys.  Not to mention that overtime for police officers and municipal workers cleaning up after you aren't free either...that real people with real dollars are underwriting this civic temper tantrum.

 

 

 

Let's put it this way, when Jean Quan and Sam Adams find themselves forced to crack down on you, you know you're on the fringe and/or doing things completely wrong.  We're not exactly talking about Boss Daley and Frank Rizzo here.

 

My latest point was to take away politics and compare the two movements on a purely tactical basis.  In reality I wasn't involved with the original Tea Party, though I certainly sympathized with them (especially with their cultural neutrality).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tea party lost me when it lost its cultural neutrality very, very early on.

 

and Tea Party ended up changing policy, to the point of even Obama supporting the cuts they want to see in the Federal Governemnt.

 

I'm not sure which cuts he supported due to any change the Tea Party caused.  In fact, while he always has supported cuts in the Federal Government in general (which he always has despite what Hannity tells his audience).  He talked at length during the campaign about the fraud and waste we see in so many of these programs.  He tip-toed around the inflated defense budget.  But he never has and never will support the 'feeding a tic-tac to a whale' cuts the Tea Party seeks..... mainly cuts to Shaniqua's welfare and/or unemployment check as they may put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we've seen the last of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Perhaps they need a cooling down period this winter to get their house in order, then come back full force in the Spring (of an important election year, no less).

 

FYI, OWS is closer to what a real protest looks like.  The Tea Party was almost too organized, which is why the astroturf accusation may be more based in reality than some would like to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we've seen the last of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Perhaps they need a cooling down period this winter to get their house in order, then come back full force in the Spring (of an important election year, no less).

 

FYI, OWS is closer to what a real protest looks like.  The Tea Party was almost too organized, which is why the astroturf accusation may be more based in reality than some would like to believe.

 

The people out front were just more organized types, and knew they had to control their message to get it by a skeptical or sometimes hostile media. 

 

I'm not sure demonstrations have ever accomplished much in this country.  Civil rights legislation had more to do with JFK's legacy and LBJ wanting it for his own, and Vietnam was more exhaustion than the result of demonstration.  Consider that our involvement ended with Linebacker II (aka the Christmas bombing campaign), a not so subtle warning of what we could do if they didn't sign a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The people out front" in the Tea Party had one function: to delegitimize newly elected President Obama.  The Republicans had been thrown out of office for their incompetence and criminality.  The right wing had NO message and NOTHING to offer the public, so they went into "full insane" mode with a message to rally their base.

 

Just like Clinton / 1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure demonstrations have ever accomplished much in this country.  Civil rights legislation had more to do with JFK's legacy and LBJ wanting it for his own, and Vietnam was more exhaustion than the result of demonstration. 

 

You overrestimate the power of the President.  The Civil Rights Movement was a looooooooong struggle against inequality and hatred.  Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, a few average college students in Greensboro, and many others who relentlessly marched against the injustice of the day were not irrelevant.  The demonstrations they led and/or inspired is what eventually brought around the needed change.  Of course, they were aided by demonstrations and actions of the conservatives who didn't want to see that change..... like Gov. Wallace, the KKK, and other hateful individuals and groups that helped the movement win over the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t3

 

Occupy targets retailers on Black Friday

 

The Occupy movement is taking on the biggest retail day of the season, calling on protesters to occupy major retailers on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.

 

OCCUPY BLACK FRIDAY by occupying/boycotting large chain stores and publicly traded retail" is the message posted on the website stopblackfriday.com.

 

The movement contends that 1% of the country is making money at the expense of the other 99%.

 

"The credit cards the 99% overcharge will allow the 1% to enrich themselves gluttonously on the backs of hardworking people who simply want to provide a memorable time for their families," the website says.

 

Wow.  The credit cards the 99% overcharge.  Really?  Rich people are going to "enrich themselves gluttonously" but its OK for everyone else to buy crap they can't afford? 

 

I have an idea.  Grow some financial responsibility and maybe don't over charge your credit card.  Maybe you can teach your family that a "memorabile time" is not measured by the amount of crap you buy, but rather the people you share it with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/occupy-targets-retailers-on-black-friday/?hpt=hp_t3

 

Occupy targets retailers on Black Friday

 

The Occupy movement is taking on the biggest retail day of the season, calling on protesters to occupy major retailers on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving.

 

OCCUPY BLACK FRIDAY by occupying/boycotting large chain stores and publicly traded retail" is the message posted on the website stopblackfriday.com.

 

I wouldn't go near "Black Friday" under any imaginable circumstance (an attitude I suspect I share with most males), but are they *trying* to turn people against them???  This could be more counterproductive (and more dangerous lol) than getting in the way of traffic.  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a plan to Occupy Black Friday retailers will backfire.  They are inconveniencing ordinary folks who took time out of their weekend to do Christmas shopping and most people I know want to get in & get out & get done.  Having a bunch of protesters in the way will certainly get people talking and raise awareness, but I think the average joe/joe-ann will just be annoyed and feel like the whole thing was a nuissance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the average joe/joe-an will be seeing any protesters on Black Friday.  For most of the country, you have to go out of your ways to even catch a glimpse of this spectacle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't underestimate the power of the president either.  The demonstrations themselves did a lot to end the hatred and discrimination but it took 2 Presidents willing to go against their party and send in federal troops to back them up and help them succeed. The murder of the 3 civil rights workers or the church bombings wouldn't have been solved without the FBIs help which wouldn't have happened without JFK and LBJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the 1% live, courtesy of the policy wonks at Brookings:

 

1031_high_income_map1.jpg

 

(metro areas with at least 1% of high income tax returns)

 

source

 

...though that map is really the top 3%,

 

These very high-income households are disproportionately metropolitan. While about 85 percent of all income tax filers have metropolitan addresses, about 93 percent of the very rich live in metropolitan areas. The top 3 percent are highly concentrated in a relatively small number of large metropolitan areas.

 

Also, the New Yorker has an excellent backgrounder on the origins of OWS. 

 

Pre-Occupied

 

The article doesnt talk about Anonymous, but does say this:

 

Fifteen minutes after Lasn sent the e-mail, Justine Tunney, a twenty-six-year-old in Philadelphia, read it on her RSS feed. The next day, she registered OccupyWallSt.org, which soon became the movement’s online headquarters. She began operating the site with a small team, most of whose members were, like her, transgender anarchists. (They jokingly call themselves Trans World Order.)

 

TG Anarchists?  Who knew?

 

 

EDIT: Link to map fixed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...