Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Actually, let me say this first. Arlene or whoever you are, what in the hell are you talking about? Farmers markets? Urban gardening? The thread wasn't just derailed, it wound up in the Hudson River.
Now I figure you love yourself some serious Tea Party, and need to rabble rouse in the most flaming leftist topics on the board - but not cool. 90% of your posts in recent are here or the Election thread, and well... we know what eventually happens to people who do that type of stuff.
Sadly, while I like some of the ideals behind the movement, I haven't seen much growth in this regard.
LD, you've dedicated the last year of your life to this cause. I haven't followed it closely enough to discern what measurable results this has had. So tell me: besides people getting arrested (which can have negative fiscal repercussions solely to themselves, not to the establishment against which they protest) and the media coverage of Occupy events, how has this movement altered the country's political landscape?
The only things I can see are:
1. Increased mainstream cognizance of the terms "1%" and "99%" 2. Increased collective hatred toward concentrated wealth-holders 3. Perpetuated a "all banks & corporations are bad" mentality
But how have those things POSITIVELY IMPROVED the political landscape? From your perspective, as someone who's been entrenched in the movement, how has ANY of this has been worthwhile? Have any corporate policies changed? Have unions successfully negotiated better contracts for their members? Has this been a game-changer for the labor movement in any way at all?
A year later, how has this movement effected positive change? I'm genuinely interested, because from my perspective, I'm simply not seeing it. ???
Occupy in terms of the political scene is quite an oddball. It's a mixture of long time veterans of activism, anarchists, new activists such as myself, some organized labor, communists and socialists, and an assortment of disenfranchised people. Homeless and LGBT are in Occupy at much higher rates than what you find in the general public.
We do carry a lot of stereotypes: that we heart Obama and Democrats, that we don't have jobs and just want handouts given to us, that we just break things and have a knack for getting arrested, that we don't shower, etc... Most of them are either flat out wrong or greatly exaggerated.
If you follow the evolution of the movement just by the mainstream (corporate) media, we're near death and all we seem to do is get arrested. That's all that is ever fixated on: OWS not going anywhere, stirring trouble, and getting locked up in droves. We all know that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and is heavily biased towards an extreme right wing agenda. But the other networks aren't innocent either. CBS is owned by Viacom, NBC and Telemundo are owned by Comcast in majority, and ABC is owned by Disney. Univision is in partnership with ABC, so I consider it the same. In the before times, you never saw conglomerations of media interests held by so few companies. Nowadays six companies control about 90% of what you see on television - or at least what's not religious based. All of them have become very powerful due to de-regulation efforts within the last 15-20 years, which Occupy opposes staunchly. Occupy basically comes out and states that the entire system is flawed and needs to be changed, but that gets ignored because it's not in the media's best interests to tell that story. So then it becomes about scruffy kids sleeping in parks and getting their asses handed to them by cops all around the country.
Based on what I seen on Monday and early Tuesday, the MSM once again inaccurately portrayed a story involving OWS. I'm not entirely surprised by that. Every major TV outlet in the NYC market said that a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand protesters shown up, and gave emphasis to the high arrest count. The crowd estimate is very low. While not as big as events from last fall or Mayday this year, whatever the news said - the number was really 5x to 10x higher. And the total number of arrests include more people than just protestors. It also includes independent journalists, photographers, a volunteer legal observer, street medics, and even innocent bystanders.
In New York City, the NYPD's role is essentially spread fear and intimidation to control OWS. The more people you arrest, the more likely people stay away. The more people you beat up and harass, the more likely people stay away. The more cops you throw out on the streets for OWS events, it's so intimidating that people stay far away. All weekend long, you seen "white shirts" (supervisors, lieutenants, etc...) pointing to random people and within a minute having their hands in zip ties. A reporter for the Boston Phoenix was arrested, singled out by a white shirt for paying too much attention to the police, and then got roughed up in the process. A day trader from Connecticut took a picture of the arrest, and he ended up in the same police van a few minutes later. That's how out of control things got down there.
I and a few others in the Hartford delegation personally saw three people singled out by a white shirt and arrested for reporting near Zuccotti Park and not having the "proper credentials". The city and the NYPD give out press credentials to outlets like Ch. 2/4/5/7 and newspapers like the NY Times, Daily News, Post, and Newsday. If you don't have that, then you're essentially considered not a member of the press and subject to arrest. If you report on something the NYPD doesn't like revealed, they can have liberty to remove the credentials and therefore have reporters subject to harassment and arrest themselves. So you see groups like WCBS being good, falling in line, and basically reading off NYPD press releases and showing some street punks getting shoved into paddy wagons.
I would say the majority of Occupiers have a love-hate relationship with Democrats and flat out hatred of Republicans, especially the Tea Party. Many people in Occupy dislike or just flat out hate Obama, which has lit a fire underneath the ass of the Dem Natl Committee to pay more attention to the middle class and working folk of the world. I would argue the Green Party has significantly gained more attention simply because it raises awareness to many issues Occupiers speak of, that and Jill Stein is seemingly at every major Occupy related event. (I've met her twice, and know she was floating around NY on Monday.) You see Senate candidates talking with OWS language, especially Elizabeth Warren up in Mass. and to a lesser extent Chris Murphy in Conn. And then you see tiny third parties with strong ties to local Occupy groups - half of Occupy New Haven for example is supportive of the Party for Socialism and Liberation now, and have strong ties with the PSL chapter in New Haven.
Organized labor was a significant role in Mayday events, and I saw some as well on Monday. Some labor groups speak in tone with the Occupy message, but don't necessarily trust us. Groups like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) are heavily supportive of OWS and even use Occupy events as a de facto recruiting and information spreading tool.
What positive have we made? For starters, we have significantly increased attention to corrupt banking practices and to those who helped tank the economy thanks to deregulation. We'll probably see Elizabeth Warren become a US Senator. Americans for Prosperity (a Koch Brothers group) is scared of us, to the point where they are having a rally against OWS tomorrow in Times Square. We have been fighting against housing foreclosures nationwide, keeping families in their homes and not getting the rug pulled out from underneath them by huge banks. Millions moved their money out of the giant corrupt banks and into local banks or credit unions. (I dumped my last account with BoA and moved it to a credit union.) You even saw Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum start complaining about the overwhelming affect of money in politics, and how it's buying elections for the highest bidder. For as sluggish as the economy is, and Obama not being that popular - the fact that Occupy has highlighted bad business and corrupt/greedy politicians has probably sank Mitt Romney's chances indirectly. In New Hampshire and to a lesser extent South Carolina, we OWNED Romney and made the inequality gap the huge issue in the national dialogue. Or until abortion and gay rights got thrown back into the mix as a distraction.
There have been some successes and changes as a result of OWS. A lot of which most people probably won't see or recognize (in the short term). But if this keeps hold for years to come and people pick up on it, it can have serious impact. Or I hope so anyway.
There's probably a couple more things I can add to this on the top of my head.
There's kind of two schools of thought within the Occupy movement. There's the New York and the Oakland. The Oakland, predominantly found on the west coast, is the much more aggressive and radicalized. The west coast puts out some big scale actions, like the port shutdowns last fall to support union dockworkers. The west coast also heavily features black bloc anarchism, much more likely to engage and fight back against police rather than do typical civil disobedience tactics. Oakland, Los Angeles, San Fran, Portland, and Seattle are a different animal than the rest of the country.
Within Occupy, there are very very many agendas and issues on the table. Even within nearby Occupy groups, the focus of the different groups widely varies. And in large cities like New York and Boston, you see small groups each tackling several different things at once.
New Haven: had the physical encampment by far the longest, and somewhat divided after eviction. Heavily shows up to major actions in other cities, and gets arrested in frequency and higher ratio to other occupy groups. The most radicalized group in New England, excluding the anarchist types in Boston.
Hartford: Early on had infighting galore. Focus on banks at first, then ALEC, now mostly focuses on Monsanto and GMO food issues. Heavily supports GMO labeling efforts in Connecticut. Anarchist wing vanished once Turning Point Park was evicted.
Western Mass and Vermont: isolated from the rest of the region, decent amount of small groups. Focus on environmental issues predominant, especially the Vermont Yankee nuclear station.
Worcester: ravaged by infighting, power grabs, and interpersonal conflicts. Went dormant over summer, restart likely by mid October. Focus (before collapse) primarily on fighting home foreclosures in association with Worcester Anti-Foreclosure Team. Besides that was split between environmentalists, community education, and tin foil hat wearing crazies.
New Hampshire: ravaged by infighting and split between numerous factions - geographic and political. Free State Project (think Ron Paul supporters but nuttier) tried to hijack, then got pushed out. Liberals and Free Staters both have those who are upset with Mark Provost. He rubbed many the wrong way for going on a power grab and ego trips. Personally I don't have a problem with him, he's smart and does a TON for the movement. But I can see where people have concerns.
Providence: got the city to open a homeless shelter in exchange for leaving Burnside Park. Supports Verizon workers in Rhode Island to get a fair new contract. Strongly opposes state funded bailouts of Curt Schilling's failed company and other tax incentives to other ventures. Wants Brown to pay property taxes to the city, which would bring millions more to city coffers.
Maine: I've only met a few people in Portland, so I'm not quite sure what they're doing up there. I did go to their protest in March outside an Obama fundraiser, they have a pretty decent sized out that way.
An informal poll on who Occupiers support in the election. Who the hell picked Romney? And it's evidence there's a lot of angry people in the realm of OWS. Vermin Supreme got 10% support, enough said.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Sept 19, 2012 23:41:17 GMT -5
LD, I'm very proud of you for your continued involvement in OWS, and I am glad that you have had the opportunity to stay involved. Our's fizzled out so fast.
The greatest accomplishment that Wisconsin, and OWS and the Arab Spring and the world wild Occupations have had is in giving people a sense of empowerment. Often times we feel very helpless in the shadow of those in charge. Often times we feel voiceless despite the fact that, at least in our country, we have elected officials to be our voice. Fortunately we have reached a tipping point all across the world as the margin of disparity has become so tremendous that it is catalyzing action. Complacency has allowed us to look past the tension that inequality creates for long enough. As long as we can wake up and drink our clean water, and afford gas to drive our cars 2 blocks to the grocery store, and have a beer and get laid, most of us are content enough to continue walking the line, despite the fact that the cliff is in clear view.
However, as we start hearing the shouting in the streets, it wakes us up out of our stupor and we start to realize that the water we are floating in has started to boil. Because we see that others have become just as uncomfortable and are speaking up, we feel that we can too. Eventually it spreads into other "Occupations" or movements, and we feel that our voices have resonance now and so we speak up. Occupy Monsanto is going to have a real impact on Prop 37 in California. I think that small victories like that will serve as fuel to the fire and will set a real example for how tangible results can be accomplished.
I realize that we have become a culture of instant gratification, but I ask you to keep in mind that the Women's Suffrage movement started in the 1840's and we did not obtain the right to vote until 1920. The Civil Rights movement lasted over a decade. Changes in inequality do not happen overnight. One year is nothing.
I feel that this movement to take back the power that has been disproportionately placed in the hands of a few will continue down new and unexpected channels. It will have some successes and some failures. But I'm convinced that as long as people don't go back to their TV dinners and allow the corruption to continue, there will be real change. I hope everyone has taken their Adderall!
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Sept 20, 2012 16:13:36 GMT -5
I feed two familys {total of 9 people } by doing the things I've described . It only cost us $100 per week for necessitys . I make sue my family only buys items produced in america . Never shop where I dont know the owner. These are some of the things I've discussed on here and have been told that I dont have relitve ideas for you so I'm outta here turn out the lights when you leave.
Following up, to you & other Occupy people here, with Socratic brevity rather than point-by-point response:
What is your one demand?
That was, after all, the question Occupy teased in the run-up to last September 17th...
What is "Socratic brevity"? By definition if something is Socratic, it is usually batted around, drawn out through question and answer (often already known to the questioner), theorized and re-hypothesized, isn't it?
Not being a smart-ass here, just a big Socrates fan and politics guy and never heard the term.
Following up, to you & other Occupy people here, with Socratic brevity rather than point-by-point response:
What is your one demand?
That was, after all, the question Occupy teased in the run-up to last September 17th...
What is "Socratic brevity"? By definition if something is Socratic, it is usually batted around, drawn out through question and answer (often already known to the questioner), theorized and re-hypothesized, isn't it?
Not being a smart-ass here, just a big Socrates fan and politics guy and never heard the term.
I think he meant that he was replying to LD's response to his initial question with another singular question, rather than a several point argument addressing every facet of LD's post.
Socratic in that I ask questions to advance conversation. Brevity in that I kept it much shorter & sweeter than I would've in a point by point response I could've used.
I asked our resident Occupy guy a question originally posed by Occupy, and we all just saw the unsatisfying response.
How does a movement advance its agenda when that movement cannot even define its agenda? ^ Exactly why you guys get portrayed as a joke. Just sayin'.
Socratic in that I ask questions to advance conversation. Brevity in that I kept it much shorter & sweeter than I would've in a point by point response I could've used.
I asked our resident Occupy guy a question originally posed by Occupy, and we all just saw the unsatisfying response.
How does a movement advance its agenda when that movement cannot even define its agenda? ^ Exactly why you guys get portrayed as a joke. Just sayin'.
Following up, to you & other Occupy people here, with Socratic brevity rather than point-by-point response:
What is your one demand?
That was, after all, the question Occupy teased in the run-up to last September 17th...
Actually, it wasn't. While trying to be brief you could at least get everything right.
"What is OUR one demand" Which is clearly a rhetorical devise. It's really not that hard. Did it really take you a year to repeat the same Faux News line of thinking that was repeated over and over again?
I don't think I had just one demand when I first started about a year ago. And the more I learn in this past year, the longer the list grows.
Certainly I've learned a lot about Monsanto, it's disgusting amount of involvement with the US government, and the remarkable evil the company produces.
Certainly I've learned a lot about Monsanto, it's disgusting amount of involvement with the US government, and the remarkable evil the company produces.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
Post by LoveLuckLaughter on Sept 25, 2012 22:15:16 GMT -5
But really. I suggest the documentary "David vs. Monsanto", which outlines how Monsanto has been terrorizing farmers for decades now due to their litigious outlook. They do patent their seeds, and therefore farmers cannot reseed, they must purchase their seeds each year from Monsanto. If neighboring farmers are found with any of Monsanto's plants in their fields, they can be sued. And it ruins the seed that these farmers have been creating for years.
Part of Monsanto's claim to fame is creating plants that are super resistant to Roundup, which Monsanto makes. So now they have cornered the market on weed killer and seed that is resistant to said weed killer, so you can imagine how much of this shit farmers must be able to spray on their crops. Now, just as we have seen in the medical field due to anti-biotics, we are seeing "mega-weeds" that are resistant to Round-up. A recent study has linked Monsanto GMO corn to cancer in a study involving rats. Note that this is also the company who brought us cancer causing saccharine, as well as the demonic Agent Orange. They are unconscionable. We aren't talking a glorified Mendel here, this is truly Frankenfood.
There is concern that Monsanto's GMO products are responsible for Colony Collapse of honeybees. There are direct links to the die off on honey bees in locations adjacent to GMO fields.
You are consuming Monsanto products in many products you consume, from Pepsi to Kelloggs cereal. And they don't even have to tell you so that you can at least make a free choice as a consumer as to whether or not you would like to expose yourself to these products. They are likely breaking anti-trust laws, as their genes are currently responsible for 80% of the commercial corn supply and 95% of commercial soybeans. They are ruthless with their stamping out of competition.
They currently have dozens of previous staff members in many governmental positions, so are able to influence policy at their will.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
We're all a mess of paradoxes. Believing in things we know can't be true. We walk around carrying feelings too complicated and contradictory to express. But when it all becomes too big, and words aren't enough to help get it all out, there's always music.
That was, after all, the question Occupy teased in the run-up to last September 17th...
Actually, it wasn't. While trying to be brief you could at least get everything right.
"What is OUR one demand" Which is clearly a rhetorical devise. It's really not that hard. Did it really take you a year to repeat the same Faux News line of thinking that was repeated over and over again?[/quote]
Wait, what? You think I'm getting my information on that from Fox? Dude, I blow my vuvuzela at Mike Tobin and yell "Fox Lies!" when they're airing live.
How can you accuse me of hearing that line of thinking from Fox News when this exists?
I'm sorry, but if Occupy uses "our" in stating it, I am grammatically correct in using "your" when I ask Occupy about it.
Oh, and for the record, I did not wait a solid year until I started criticizing Occupy. I think the written record of this thread will show that, and the written record in my Scott Walker thread will show that I was writing about Occupy before it had its own thread here.
I'm standing by my original intent there, and I will be brief in restating it: Occupy is too unfocused to be effective.
Okay, now I'm going to go after one of the points I was getting at when I hinted at having a point-by-point response in me earlier.
Anarchists? Anarchists? C'mon, man!
You really mean to tell me having them on your side is good news?
I saw LD mention them however many times (in Oakland, in Boston, elsewhere) in his response. It sounds as if they're tolerated more than they should be. He used variations of the word four times in the same post he talked about Occupy kicking out the Free Staters from their movement. Not to mention the ideological incompatibility I see when there's a faction advocating no government within a larger whole advocating better government.
At least the Free Staters have a stated objective and a plan to change the status through electoral processes and (theoretically) leading by the example that their agenda will prove itself superior. I'll be damned if I see that from Occupy.
Now, LD shared a link which showed Vermin Supreme had the support of about half of the 20% write-in vote faction of the Occupy electorate.
Vermin Supreme? Vermin Supreme? C'mon, man!
A tenth of you people think the guy with a boot on his head promising free ponies is the way to go? I mean, yeah, it's good for some lulz... but still... And you wonder why you're not taken seriously?
You complain that people say you're like homeless people, that you're looking for handouts, that you don't have a job... let's talk about my friend Jenna for a bit.
Jenna is my friend by way of our Wisconsin protests, but recently moved to NYC to be involved with Occupy. Some of you may recall my posting about her and sharing some of her pictures about this time last year in my Walker thread. (Note to SFA: See? Early advocate criticizing you here.) I couldn't make it out there for OWS last year, but I knew a handful of people going from Madison. Jenna was among them. I sent her off to Wall Street with a care package. $150, a few ready-made gas masks in case of spray, some snacks, assorted pieces of camping gear I thought would come in handy.
I have not crossed paths with her since around the time of the recall election. We were, however, both in Charlotte for the DNC last month. Myself as a delegate, she as an Occupier there to protest me. I touched base with her ahead of time. We made tentative plans to meet for a drink or something. She said she couldn't promise to meet up because she was low on funds, but definitely made it known she wanted to sneak into my hotel for a shower if she could get one. She was employed (at a head shop, no less) back in Madison but these days styles herself an unemployed activist who earns her living via online donations. I'm not saying all of you Occupy people meet stereotypical criteria... just the one I personally know best.
From my eyewitness experience at the Democratic National Convention, you guys weren't there worth a damn. I couldn't get in or out of that convention center without having some pro-lifer wave a poster of a dead fetus in my general election. I was more likely to hear protesters say that Obama isn't American or not to believe the liberal media. I didn't see anything that even looked like an Occupy protest until the final day on my way in to the arena for the Obama speech. That event was originally scheduled to be in Bank Of America stadium in Charlotte, which is one of the biggest banking centers of the country outside of NYC and you guys had ample heads-up to prepare and plan. I have to admit you guys let me down. I had been hoping to cross a police line and talk to protesters while I was there, but there weren't any of you in sight. I talked to exactly two of you. I could pull a bigger protest out of my ass on short notice. Now, if all y'all in Occupy really did have your shit together, where the hell were you?
I know I've given the advice, I think even in this thread, that your local Democratic Party is likely ripe for the taking. I told you to Occupy the Democratic Party. And you know what happened then? I went and fucking did it. It's possible and, dare I say, necessary. Would've been nice to have had some backup...
I mean, you guys do realize these oligarchs you're railing against are in the midst of hijacking our two-party system with designs on replacing it with something even worse... right? I know it ain't perfect, but that oftentimes-lousy Democratic Party is all that stands between We The People and fascism at this point.
I'm writing you from about fifty miles up the road from the Wisconsin capitol in Madison, site of the Original Occupy in which I was a participant. We did things different here. We had people in the streets, we occupied a physical center of power - arguably a more relevant one than Occupy, we aired our grievances... and then we harnessed that energy, we put our agenda on a ballot - as did other states, and we tried to do something about it.
Madison has an Occupy too. Had? It's nowhere to be seen these days. It didn't take off, but didn't get busted up so soon 1. because Madison's a city that both knows how to protest and tolerate it, and 2. because it was in the parking lot of a vacant business. Rallies & marches for a week or two, then basically just camping out in the old car lot. Fizzled out pretty quick.
Now, I'm going to lay it out for you like this...
You know what? There in Madison? There was a clear choice between Occupy in that parking lot seven blocks from capitol and our other style of activism which forces ballot measures, ends careers and provides pushback which alters or prevents actual legislative outcomes. You know what? There in Madison? Occupy had their ass handed to them when activists had their choice of how to go about things. Call it the free market at work. This is in liberal Madison, which can protest with the best of them and is largely sympathetic to Occupy's aims. Give people of that mindset the choice, and they can and do choose a style of activism with more tangible results. There's activism which airs its grievances, and there's activism which seeks to redress grievances. I'm telling you, Occupy... be less of the former and more of the latter.
Put something on a ballot. Get a law overturned. Run some candidates. Do something.
You can't advocate for ending a system without proposing a viable alternative. Otherwise you're no better than those damned anarchists you shouldn't be pallin' around with.
Well, no fucking shit. We have both been apart of this thread from the beginning. Which is why I brought it up to begin with. Whatever, dude. I'll know better next time. I forgot I was dealing with a badass here. The best path is hide in the shadows and let you decide what is right and wrong.
P.S. You are being a dickhead to LD right now. Fuck you and I mean that.
I'm allowed to be disappointed in Occupy. I think we need something like this to succeed or else we're all fucked. Hence my disappointment.
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from activism so much as I am trying to advocate for certain approaches based on my somewhat similar personal experience.
I assure you I'm not trying to be a dick here even if I'm coming across as one, if that's worth anything. Not my intent.
So, Occupy isn't perfect. And yea there are anarchists and freeloading bums, but not all of it is. And we're don't always have a coherent focus.
You suggest that Occupy should take over the Democratic party. A lot of Occupiers distrust both parties, see Obama as Romney Lite and whoring himself out to the same bidders - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Monsanto, etc...
How do you get past that? How are Occupiers to believe that the Democrats will actually take us seriously and let us help change the system?
When I first found out about Occupy and joined, I was hoping to make a difference and some change for the better.
The longer I stay, the more disillusioned I've become. We're focused on a million issues. Sketchy people are all over the place. 9-11 Truthers are rampant. Nobody seems to really know what to actually do to stop anything bad, our direct actions suck. Hartford has one Sunday outside a fundraiser for Paul Ryan, the best idea we came up with was standing 3/4ths a mile away holding signs for people to see zipping up and down the mountain at 50-60 mph.
I got a letter from the town Democratic committee. I think we need to Occupy that. Nobody in CT Occupy wants to touch Linda McMahon, even though she stands against everything we're for. We're pretending to be non-partisan and I don't know why. The right mostly hates us, and we're mostly left of the Dems if not outright anarchist. And then there's Black Bloc which just fucks everything up.