Forum Post: A Bitter-Sweet Victory
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 28, 2012, 12:35 a.m. EST by GypsyKing
(8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The article below is from the oldest news magazing in the USA. In it's entire piblishing history, I know of no article it has published that hasn't been substanciated by verifyable fact. Because facts tend to have a liberal bias, it has also been pilloried for exposing those facts.
This article explains how by far the biggest donor to Ron Paul's campaign builds surveilence technology for the CIA.
After this has come to light, we should hear no more of Ron Paul on this forum, and genuine liberatarians will have to reaccess where their views truly fit into the existing political spectrum.
I honestly respect the views of many liberatrians. What we have been trying to say to them is that their alligence has been coopted by the corporate right, who's aims, I believe, are in stark contrast to those of actual liberatarianism, and that is why I call this victory for the truth of how things stand, bittersweet.
http://www.thenation.com/article/166421/ron-paul-wants-abolish-cia-his-largest-donor-builds-toys-it
History is filled with people who speak loudest against the very things, they do, after all who can best talk about the dangers than someone manipulating those dangers.
Absolutely. Ron Paul is a classic demogogue of the worst order. Everyone in a democracy should become very familiar with the word demogogue. We have had a whole string of the in recent decades.
As DKA suggested we must follow the money and vote for those who's records are clearly on OUR side.
And the real danger probably comes from the son. When you take the two together, they are very scary. I agree people just look away after the election and you see all kinds of trickery. The 2001 Bush tax plan is an example they didn’t really screw the working class till the Friday night conference meeting when it came out, instead of lowering the 15% to 10% as they had been promising all along, they created a new bracket that covered like 20% of the 15% bracket, ripping off the working class and they got away with it, D and R alike.
There really is a concerted effort out there right now to destroy our democracy, and we'd better not be one bit delluded about that.
It's like they're using 1984 as a play book, enternal war, control of 24/7 propaganda, (fill the air with worthles info) change the lanage to change the minds, remember "freedom fries" what is sad is that educational system has gotten so lame that people are falling for it. I think that is part of their plan as well, stop teaching people how to think, just teach then to remember what you want them to, at least the teachers are fighting back, but everybody wants to blame them.
Yeah, I know, it's really CREEPY.
If the activists, who got this thing going, believe what they say then we will win this. So many times we see people spout out things like democracy and the people’s power. But what do they mean? Will they let the people create the platform from the widest possible discussion or will they decide, in small circles, what the message will be? Ego kills all things good, this will be our toughest fight since our first one, or our last one depending on how you look at it, if we have enough people who put movement before ego we win, if we don’t, we don’t.
Very perceptive. I agree completely about the ego, and I think we need to stand up to that whenever it presents itself. The ego really is the enemy, and to a great degree it is why we are in this mess in the first place.
That is why many of us have been saying what's necessary for our collective survival is nothing less than spiritual transformation. Too many people are caught up in a "us Vs. them" mentality. And that is exactly what the trolls here are constantly pushing. Only when we let go of our egos can we see through this illusion.
Think about the very symbols from the beginning, Anonymous, it’s not just a cool mask. Yet I see people trying to parse out who is really part of the movement and who is just an armchair supporter. (maybe I’m biased here) I feel the minute we start judging ideas by the dues paid by its contributor then we start to lose because we are giving up on our own concepts. Now actions are the heart, without actions nobody cares what we say, the heart gives life giving blood to the movement, but the mind cannot be trapped in a park if this is going to work.
Agreed, and some also say we should work either from within, or outside of the political system. Why? Why should we limit ourselves to one or the other? The trolls fuel these divisions because they think creating such an artificial division will make us fail.
We have to let go of our egos and see things objectively, for the sake of all concerned.
I do think they are a bit exposed, when their all, like it's cool to sit in the park for months at a time, but taking 15 minutes to vote is not worth the time. I mean really? I will say this if after Nov. if there are less than 40 GOP in Senate and around 150 in the house, then news crews will be tripping over themselves to get to the GAs and find out how they did it. While if the the GOP take over the Senate and the GOP keep control, it will be all, well I guess the OWS thing wasn’t that big a deal.
You are absolutely right here. To the degree that anyone in this movement doesn't plan to vote in the upcoming elections, they are just the dupes of the 1%. There's simply no other way to look at it - if change is what they want - and not just some ego trip that will let everyone down in the end, even themselves.
Look at how every yahoo with a colorful hat got on the 24/7’s after 2010 when the media thought the TEA party had pulled off a landslide. (I think if you look at it first term/midterm it wasn’t that bad), but anyway if you want them to listen let them know you can touch them.
With this kind of connection between the CIA and Ron Paul coming out, I would suggest we vote for an Article V convention . Then use some real strategy. I heard about Article V here for the first time a month back. Can't believe I had never realized that such a power existed with the people of the states. After hearing about it I found a bunch of sites that were do-nothing sites. this one has some real strategy that makes sense.
I love the idea of fixing free speech. Media is so disgusting. See the forum on amendments. There's a thread about layers of priority. Start at the top. Duh, makes sense.
http://articlevconvention.org/
Thank you! I really mean that! Thank you for joining this diologue to save our nation! Yes the article V approach has a lot of advocates here. Please stay with us and contribute your views! Together we will triumph over this dark cloud that has overshadowed our democracy!
Thanks for the info on Pauls contributor! I was searching relating to Article V on Ron Paul, I heard he was against it, and found this letter from his office where they sent a citizens letter to the citizens congress person rather than answer it. Apparently the letter was seeking support for ending the abridgement of free speech that our society suffers from. I'm still trying to find out more.
http://i51.tinypic.com/eipj0l.jpg
I'm really sorry to disapoint true liberatarians, but the more you search the more you will come to the realization of who Ron Paul really is. I'm old enough, and have been long enough aware of the US political spectrum, to tell you with CERTAINTY that Ron Paul is NOT what he is representing himself to be.
I think that letter shows a lack of accountability. Basically we can say that the public is being manipulated from one extreme to the other, not exactly opposite, but appearing to have somewhat opposite or standing in society. bush clinton bush, obama -paul?
The more I read the truly cogent posts here proposing solution, the more I conclude those that are fighting for an Article V convention are the ones we should be supporting in order to protect ourselves and our futures.
In searching this out I found that the same poster who wrote that letter was here, Christopher A. Brown, and also is at a forum focusing on Article V. I don't know what's up but the place is empty. All those who may be sincere, or appear that way that are here, should be at least posting some in this place too.
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-constitutionAmendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent
This is a very important goal, and I thank you for the support of it and the link. My position is that we must push in many directions at once, in order to prevent our opponents (like the" guy corralled99", or whatever his very revealing username is) to corrall the movement by limiting it's scope. The truth is that we need to expand this movement to hit on all fronts in order to succeed, and given the obvious widespread support, I think that is achievable.
The Article V group at that site have a point. There is only one front that gains the needed authority to see demands met, or that which can gain a convention to propose amendments.
There are many problems, and each has its own front. Our job is to prioritize them and address them one at a time as a mass. That is why we must abandon this chaos with no clear plan for at lest a time, perhaps each day, to work on cogent solution. Then come back here for outreach involving more and more in solution as they become awqare of the many fronts of the problems.
Many of theose problems can be solved just by making constitutional government, so, get that done first. In reading there, I became aware that the formula for getting rid of the fear of Article V is in the preparatory amendments so the convention is filled with constitutional intent.
Goodness gracious!
Not to forget comparing action against words. Plenty of lip service politicians around.
Damn right. We absolutely must get the corporate checkbook out of our politics, and make laws with teeth, that include maximum security for those who violate them.
I tweeted this for Marlow. It is time urgent. Can you also forward? The petition link ( inside of the link below ) is the important part. Spread the word.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-active-be-proactive-unite-in-common-cause/#comment-656881 Can you save the world? Start with stopping corruption. Here is direct action. Take it & forward it.
Thanks, will do.
Knew I could count on you. Thank you.
You have said it much nicer than I would.
There was an article recently about the necessity of the Libertarians to disengage from Ron Paul and the Republican party in general. I'm sure this will move them right along.
Well, those of integrety anyway. There must be many that are simply predending to be liberatarian in order to further Paul's Fascist agenda. After this revelation, I don't think any still supporting Paul can be taken seriously as real liberatarians.
I don't. You will have to look for those with integrity.I haven't seen one in a really long time.
Well . . . I've known a FEW. The great majority though seem easily misled. The majority that is, who aren't just espousing liberatarianism because their views are actually too far to the right to be acceptable in the minds of the majority of Americans.
I have met a couple. Not here. However, there are other forums that I go to. There is one that, so help me, I disagreed with him to the bitter end over economic policy. But, there are some items that surprised the hell out of me when we agreed. I know of one for sure.
Yes, there are a fair number of them out there. I have known a number of Liberatarians, and actually gotten along with them fairly well. Real Liberatarians believe essentially I think in freedom. Ron Paul does NOT believe in freedom.
Well, I haven't seen any floating around lately.
Nor I!
[Removed]
This must be why we pay you the big bucks. Or at least buckets of gratitude. The truth is the best blade to sever the Gordian knot.
When I was young we evolved from libertarianism to something we called autarchy. It was social libertarianism combined with a sophisticated court system. When we realized that it would only work with people as perfect and idealistic as we were, and how short the supply was, we sort of sobered up and started trying to fix the existing system. Hard to say we accomplished any thing there either.
I don't know if you are reffering to me when you say "big bucks," but if you knew then truth of my situation, you would be lauughing as hard as I almost am!
Humanity is filled with many potentialities. I think in America, for a long time, we have been encouraged to indulge our our lower aspirations - envy, greed, competition (even within families, the most destructive form of competition imaginable) and so forth. But I think we have the ability to grow beyond that view to something more noble.
The 60's were a catalist for that kind of spiritual growth. Even though they did not fundamentally transform our society, they have laid the seeds for that transformation, and that was no small accomplishment.
The sixties were, in fact, the period in which my merry band was doing interesting work on the Apollo program (40-60 hrs/week), doing entrepreneurial things on the side and I was also carrying a full college schedule and we were all taking these private classes from some libertarian types. Ahhh, youth and idealism, wasted on the young. Burning candles at both ends and in the middle.
One of the guys I took classes from was the mentor of the Koch bros daddy. One, my wife typed a manuscript for his first best seller novel. He later ran for president on the libertarian label. Another was Rand's protege before the schism. So you can see I was running with a bad crowd.
Just Damn! Did you run into Roy Cohn by any chance, or the Devil himself while you were at it? Wait a minute, maybe Roy Cohn was the devil!
I believe that the Devil was using another name at the time, avoiding the Viet Nam draft ,you know, He was also spending a lot of time in Canada, eh?
There were some actor types, naturally, John Russell, Elke Sommers, the Randians, Peter Crosby, Murray Rothbard (economist), Greenspan, Nathaniel Brandon, Barbra Brandon, the Autarchists Andrew J, Galumbos, Alvin Lowi, etc. Then there were the Austrian economics types, von Hayek, Greenspan, and the Freedom School/Rampoart College folks that brought us the Koch's, Bob Le Fevre et al. Pretty unsavory, what?
Those who avoided the draft did it on principle, not cowardice. Make no mistanke they were heros. Those who went to war were honorable, but not as informed as those who evaded the draft. The soldiers soon learned their lesson, and the vast majority came out of that war opposed to it, and spoke out against it. Please don't let youself be befuddled and retreat into pre-concieved thinking.
I believe they also blamed hippies for putting flowers in the soldiers guns and giving them post traumatic stress disorder.
Didn't mean to imply aspersions on the evaders. There were evading heroes and there were evaders for not so clear reasons which included getting the National Guard to hide them.
I was neither, (avoider or participant) I was married, two kids, going to school full time, and working in a defense contractor (North American Aviation. I took no deferment, was Classified III-A and was never called.)
I opposed the war, which wasn't popular in NAA, but nobody retaliated against me. Those are my facts.
Yes, I have every respect for those who evaded Vietnam for moral reasons. The ones who evaded it and also supported it, not so mucht. Thanks for saying.
Good lord! A veritable murderers row. Almost literally.
While there may be questions re the Koch's who I never met. None of the others ever engaged in violence to my knowledge. So, so your point was?
And who did you hang out with? And how much time did they (will they) do?
Neither von Hayek nor Greenspan ever needed to pull a trigger. But Elke Sommer never advanced an anti-social theory or manipulated the monetary system. So my bad with the broad brush.
I hung out with a reporter from ITAR-TASS once. That's about as close as I got to any think tank. ;-)
In the indirect responsibility category, Greenspan would be the top ranking culprit and he still doesn't get it. I doubt anyone who is responsible for a major is ever able to assume full personal responsibility. It is too psychologically damaging. Do think Bush can personally accept the full impact of Iraq and feel the appropriate level of loss?
I honestly don't think W has the capacity. Greenspan surely knows and simply doesn't care. I think sociopaths continue to be the biggest factor in the course of human history. Sad as that is. It seems there's a thousand Cheneys for every Ghandi or King. I may be underestimating that ratio. ;-)
Speaking of sociopaths, an article in Financial Times said some thing like, "If you work on Wall Street you are either a sociopath or you report to one. Probably 8 out of 10 Wall Streeter's are sociopaths.' Which means they absolutely do not care what the consequences of their actions are on other people.
Yeah, Greenspan was stunned that his "model" was wrong, but he was oblivious to the consequences on people's lives.
I'd suspected as much but never seen a study that nailed it down. I found this based on your comment. It might be a different article but it makes the same point.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/818a8630-490d-11db-a996-0000779e2340.html#axzz1oP5c58xH
I've had those bosses. And I had a sociopath for stepfather in my life for several years. I can see them coming from a mile away. And never let them out of my sight.
I get a "page unavailable" but that is probably it. Roger on the bosses, I've had plenty of them. They operate from different algorithms, identical in principle, varying only in degree. Pretty predictable. You can avoid becoming a target but the stress level is very high.
The fact that I could add to that list for hours is a little disconcerting to me.
Nobody's perfect.
True, but there is something of a real spectrum there.
I'm not saying this is true but has it ever occurred to you that some people/businesses have enough money to manipulate the media/public ? Its like playing monopoly to them.
The Nation is the oldest newsmagazine in America. It goes back to the 19th century. It is also the only one that in all that time has been unblemished by corruption. Furthermore, it opperates on an endowment that enables it to be unbeholding to vested interest.
I don't always agree with it's opinion pieces, but it's investigative journalism is outstanding, simply the best in America.
If a news story appears in The Nation, it is true.
I'm saying maybe this company did it to discredit Paul. The company has that much money and brains not the journalists reporting it.
So he'd allow a company to become his biggest contributor without checking them out first? I don't know what to say about an idea like that.
I'm under the impression the Super PAC's are (supposedly) independent from the candidate's thats how they can accept large amounts of money without harming(supposedly again) the candidate by making it look like they independent the candidate can collect the maximum and have money to spare.....read the election rules...honestly maybe they didn't check to see what all this contributor was involved in business wise.
And I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Just because you read an article doesn't mean you solved a riddle - corporate America hates Ron Paul and any enemy of my enemy is my friend
Ron Paul's major backer builds spying technology for the CIA. He is anti-liberatarian and a complete fraud.
Actually, not only the views, but the very name libertarianism was not simply co-opted, but was stolen outright from the left by the Chicago School in a very conscious (and frankly open) act of intellectual theft.
When I was a kid, libertarianism was always considered an extreme left wing doctrine, somewhere between council communism and anarcho-syndicalism. To this day the Libertarian Book Club in Great Britain is a left wing publishing house whose views are about as far away from what Americans now call libertarianism as can be imagined. The most left wing tendency in the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL) in the early 60s called itself the Libertarian Tendency.
American libertarianism today has nothing to do with any of that, but it is pretty much analogous to classical liberalism, which had been pretty much a dead doctrine until these modern day "libertarians" came along.
It seems to me that the logic of that way of thinking would be a Hobbsian war of each against all. No thanks.
Liberatarianism is analogous to liberalism? Man you like to hear yourself talk, and whether what you say makes sense at all doesn't seem to slow you down one bit.
But of course you never denied being a troll.
The word libertarianism has a curious history. When I was a kid it was considered a very democratic, very radical, very left wing versionof socialism. That's still the case today in most of the rest of the world where it is viewed as a political tendency somewhere between anarcho-syndicalism to its left and council communism to its right. To this day a left wing book pubisher in Great Britain is called the Libertarian Book Club. In the early 60s the most left wing faction in the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL) was the Libertarian Tendency.
Then a curious thing happened. The Chicago School made a very conscious and to an extent very open and ultimately successful effort to steal the term libertarianism for the Right.
It seems to me that there is a convergence between libertarianism and classical liberalism to the extent that both are hostile to the state. Indeed hostility to the state is one of the outstanding characteristics of Jeffersonian liberalism, which is why it is so difficult to consider both Jefferson and FDR liberals as the former was hostile to the state and the latter used the state and extended its power more than had ever been done before. More accurately I think the two Roosevelts, Wilson and others from the first third of the 20th Century should be characterized as progressives to distinguish them from the hostility to the state which is so characteristic of both classical liberalism and libertarianism. By no means do I feel intellectually wedded to these views as the continue to be matters of ongoing debate and I am most open to having my mind changed.
BTW what I never denied was being a computer moron and I also never denied having much affinity with or even understanding of neologisms. I'm really not sure what a troll is. If by troll it is meant people who are hostile to OWS and who make hostile posts about OWS to this web site I do not think that characterizes me. I have work and health issues, but I was at Wall Street on September 17. I have been an OWS activist ever since and I spend as much time at occupations as I am physically able to do
I wouldn't consider a discussion about the relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism detrimental to the movement or for that matter even particularly relevant to it, at least not in terms of its day to day operations.
Conservatives have nothing to do with conservatism. Since they want to "return" to a time and set of policies and circumstances that have never existed, "radical," reflecting the degree of change that they seek, would objectively be a more accurate label.
Conservatives don't seem to want to conserve much. I think liberalism is long dead as an ideology, but those who think of themselves as liberals don't seem to want to liberate much. Progressivism is a much more dynamic philosophy than liberalism, but it is unclear exactly what progress means in this day and age. Technically to be radical means to go to the roots. Many schools of political philosophy seek to find the roots of social problems, the point, however, is, as Marx put it, to change things.
I would say, look at what has worked, try to improve on that in small increments and when you think it is sustainably good, have a naming contest.
Moderation is a fine program most of the time when the social compact is in place, but when discrepancies between wealth and poverty reach heretofore unrecorded stages, moderation can be both the least realistic and the most dangerous position to take from a personal point of view. So far the barricades are only metaphorical, at least here in the US, but the crisis shows every sign of being systemic, which is to say it will not go away because of the good intentions of moderates.
I wouldn't characterize my position as moderation. If you distill out what has worked and build from there, I think you can minimize the disruption.
The disruption bears some relation (probably direct) to the size of the change. When you get to changes that have never been tried managing the risks is important. If you want to throw everything out and try something brand new. I'll pass. Try it somewhere else.
Have you brought this point of view up at your local GA? If so, what has been the response? Just the home page of this very web site suggests the kind of social change that goes well beyond anything typically envisioned as moderate. It says that we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better world. That, it seems to me, is a fundamental rejection of both the financial system that organizes the world and our political system. I really don't know how else it can be read.
But more important are the actual conditions of life. The middle class are the natural bearers of moderation. That is what it means to be "middle." But it is also true that the middle class is disappearing. Half the population is at or below the poverty line. We have never seen a situation like that before in our nation's history. To the extent that the middle class disappears or is even seriously weakened the possibility of moderate solutions also tend to evaporate regardless of what anyone, from any social class, personally desires and in such circumstances, to insist on moderation rather than choosing sides solves nothing but only puts the people adopting such a position in great personal danger. In times of such social crisis the most physically dangerous position is to stand above the fray "objectively" observing both sides.
Maybe I missed the part about the blood oath?
How about we rebuild the middle class? How about regulating the financial services industry?How about we fix the tax structure, How about we get the money out of politics and governance? And then tomorrow we do some heavy lifting. Sound good? Too moderate? Well I have been sick. Have to take a little easy.
To take what someone says and extend it by hyperbole does not strike me as a moderate position. I neither wrote nor implied anything about a blood oath, whatever that means, and to suggest such is a gross distortion of my position.
What I am suggesting is that by definition the very possiblity of moderate positions is based on the existence of a strong middle class and to the extent that that middle class is weakened (and it is severely weakened in the US) the possibility of moderate outcomes is circumscribed regardless of what any of the players might want personally.
It is also the case that it seems to me if you actually look at what little is written and approved by OWS bodies, it tends to be quite radical.
The hard copy on this very web site says noting about regulating the financial services industry. In fact it says quite the opposite-=it says we don't need Wall Street.
I don't think it was a drive and desire for regulation that has brought 10s of thousands of people into the streets internationally. It is about a social system, an entire social system, that is grossly unfair and unjust to the vast majority. Building a new society is a vast project that will undoubtedly take decades and probably several lifetimes, but it goes well beyond mere regulation. When the Declaration of Independence listed a series of grievances against King George and the British parliament it did not expect Parliament or the crown to either want or be able to resolve its grievances. There was nothing left but to be rid of them. Likewise, I do not think there is any expectation of either Wall Street or the corporate state to either have the desire or the capacity to resolve the grievances of the Declaration of the Occupation. Like the Declaration of Independence, there is no expectation that the ruling elites will have either the desire or capacity to resolve the grievances of the Declaration of the Occupation. Those grievances are tools with which to organize not just a political opposition, but a whole culture of oppostion to the status quo.
It was you who inserted the term moderate. I didn't embrace it or reject it. Then you start qouteing, as if from some gospel that I have subscribed to. The blood oath comment was sarcasm over the implication that what is/was written at the time of the founding of the OWS movement is the guiding principle of any significant number of people whose posts/comments have appeared here since. That is true even if you discount the trolls. Well meaning people who are concerned about the problems of broad disenfranchisement of the 99% by the concerted effort of a segment of the 1% have been and are in dialog on a broad array of subjects with a range of frustration levels and acceptable responses to the issues. To reference the home page statement is if there is general agreement with all of it by a majority or even a plurality of the posters is, I believe unrealistic, and while some may have access to a GA if they want to access it, I believe most actually don't. Then there are those of us who are not near a GA. and don't trust the judgement of the nearest one, who has acted irresponsibly in the past.
No one owns the grievances, they shared by the victims. We all act for ourselves judging the actions or absence there of by others. You do not speak for me nor I, you. It appears that the sarcasm was extremely appropriate.
The first Declaration of Independence was signed by a town, a town of my ancestors, which was evenly split and no doubt the majority DID expect the British to resolve the issues acceptably to us. It was signed a month prior to the one you know. later the property of half of the residents was confiscated and the owners deported. Expectations are personal. You do not set mine for me.
The number of people who self identify with the cause and issues of this movement are very large and the number who would accept without reservation the radical tactics to which you refer are very small.
One of the reasons why so many supported NOT identifying a leader, as I did, was concern for what that leader might attempt in our name. That concern was well placed.
A strong leader makes a weak people. A strong people don't need a leader.
Are "well meaning people who are concerned about the problems of broad disenfrancisement..." and OWS co-terminous? Even if defining the boundaries of what is and what is not OWS is an elusive project I don't think so.
Occupations throughout the nation and for that matter throughout the world look to the NYCGA for leadership and guidance in terms of where the movement is going. That makes its few political pronouncements quite important for the movement as a whole no matter when they were made, especially as they have not been repudiated.
I did not reference the home page of this web site to imply that posters to this site agree with it. I referenced it to point out the values of this site (and by extension OWS), about which, it seems to me, posters to the site should at least be mindful, even if they don't agree with it...probably especially if they don't agree with it.
Excepting for a very few people who are severly disabled or people living in exceptionally isolated situations, everyone has, or ought to have access to a GA. This is of primary importance as local GAs are at this point the only decision making mechanism which the movement has. If there is no GA within easy commuting distance people are encouraged to help organize on in their own community and there are links on this web site as to how to do that. This does not require quitting your job. Many GAs meet only once a month or so. Most meet weekly. Of course if they become linked to an occupation more frequent meetings undoubtedly are necessary. Millions of people go to a religious service on at least a weekly basis without disrupting their family life or their careers. There is no reason why attending a GA regularly should be any more time consuming.
Sarcasm is never appropriate. We want to build a new society where eveyone can be honest and sincere with each other. It is only my opinion, but it doesn't seem to me that sarcasm has any place in truly loving relationships. I have been to more than 6 encampments. I have seen people have great disagreements with each other at those encampments, but, unlike electronic communication, I have never seen them be sarcastic with one another.
I am in complete agreement with what I understand to be your position on the leadership question.
I have lived in all of the continental times zones (and been in every state) I don't mean to we sarcastic, but there is this thing we call the west. It's big. There aren't a lot of GA's in rural areas, and where there are some, they are far apart and some of them don't match the style and do or don't support the techniques some people find acceptable or abhorent) so there isn't always a convenient match. That doesn't mean there aren't people with fairly similar view of the problem set and a solution set and probably some compatibility on techniques of resistance.
When I lived in New Jersey I found people to be rude and loud, and obnoxious, and pushy and generally insulting and that was if they liked you. After they lost their hearing, reflexes, sight, and drivers licenses they moved to Florida , where I also lived.
In the west people are quiet, polite, friendly, independent and ...sarcastic. There are also millions of people who don't go to a religious service once a week This being the 21 century according to my watch, if the decisions are being made by ONLY those who physically show up in a few locations and the rest are shut out, we will have two movements very quickly. This little "show physically" movement and a much larger "virtual meeting" movement. I don't see them being intimidated the faithful show ups who are championing anarchy, pure socialism, Ron Paul libertarianism. I have, as I a said, been in every state in the union, half of them many times, and I don't see the majority in brown shirts. Stay tuned, film at 11:00.
I don't think sarcasm is ever an expression of love, especially among people who do not know each other well and most especially among people who have never actually met in person.
County seats were specifically designed to be within a days horse buggy ride. In an age of automobiles they are much closer. There is no reason why a GA that meets weekly could not be established in every county in the nation excepting for the will of the people who say they support such a project to do so. While church going and union membership (and for that matter Grange membership and membership in most clubs and voluntary organizations) is down, the point is, people choose today to hang out in front of their TVs and computers rather than socialize with their fellows. This development has undermined our capacity to physically engage with each other and to organize ourselves but one of the most important aspects of OWS has been (if only in a very small way) to counter that trend.
I am sure driving between county seats in Southern California at an average speed of 11 miles per hours, would be informative.
Of course we no longer live in a horse and buggy age and getting to a county seat is much easier. The irony is that people, consumed by TV, computers and increasingly private lives, do it less. One of the greatest things about OWS is that it got people out of their homes and interacting with each other on a personal physical level for the first time in a generation. Unfortunately so far this has engaged only a tiny minority of the population, but again, one of the great things about OWS is that it provides us with a model of how to do that. 150 years ago 90% of the population was rural, yet the irony is we were much more social then and our democracy was stronger for it.
true
Here is one I found some months ago, but hadn't shared.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/24/latest-hacker-release-reveals-feds-domestic-spy-program-grown-wildest-nightmares-30221/
Thank you. I've never seen this one!
That these things have been discovered and posted and have provoked little notice is remarkable. I have been waiting for a broad awareness and a discussion. This is credible to me, personally, because of experience and involvement in years past.
Well, that settles it. :D
Yes, it does. Whenever someone says Ron Paul, all we need to do is say, "Yeah, doesn't his major funding come from a company that makes surveilance equipment for the CIA?"
Yeah!!! How unfortunate.
Goodness gracious!
what a joke, who is going to believe TheNation? 'Facts tend to have a liberal bias' is that a fact or just a liberal bias?
When you live in a democracy under assault, as ours has been for several generations . . . yes, facts do have a "liberal" bias. If by liberal that is, you mean they tend to reveal the mechanisms of that assault, when anyone bothers to dig them up.
Big deal? What's 2.6 million dollars compared to what the Obama's have pocketed and from whom?
Nothing.
I'll just let that comment stand for what it is.
NO WAR
I don't understand? Who's saying anything about war? I'm in complete agreeement with you about pacifism.
that's what Ron Paul was pushing that no other republican or democrat will discuss
Ah, I see. But I don't believe anything RP says.
me either
but Ron giving voice to the issue of NO WAR is a good thing
Yes, it is. This new sabor rattling with Iran is just unbelievable, considering they're cooperating with international weapons inspections. I'm sick and tired of these unjustified foreign conquests.
I know a lot of Jews won't agree with this, but I think that shows a lack of vision towards their own future saftey. If they think we will be able to back them up through the long passage of time, I think they aren't looking realistically at the history of the rise and fall of empires.
Not to mention that under international law Iran is perfectly within their rights to develop nuclear power as a signator of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The bs justifications for war in our Orwellian world are getting more laughable with each iteration.
As for Israel, I'm not so sure they're in that different of a boat from us here. They've had plenty of protests last year, but probably even less coverage than here. Just another case of the 1% and their insane greed.
Not always the best news source, but they did get decent footage of the protests near the beginning. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7891
Thanks for that link. I have been pro-Israel all my life, but they MUST have justifiable, verifiable, proof of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon before I would stand behind them in yet another Middle Eastern War!
If they don't, and we back them, it will just further tarnish our credibility and deplete our treasury, not to mention stain us with the blood of yet another Moslum country. Most Arabic people are simply struggling to survive, and their irrational hatred of Israel is doing them no favors in this regard. But my personal views about the Moslums intollerance of liberty really aren't really a factor here. It is up to the Irainians to lead their own lives unless they are proven to be a threat to our security.
My suspision is that this is just another pretext for obtaining oil, when both Israel and the US would profit far more, and help the global environment tremendously by making an all out effort to convert to solar, wind, and tidal power.
What we have here, I believe, is an attempt at global hegemony by a handful of oltra wealthy, ultra cynical oligarchs
Yep another good argument for follow the money. Another example of look at who my friends are before you listen to what I say. The practice of clothing in light to cover the darkness. Janus in fact. This is another reason to get money out of politics. This is another reason to end corporate person-hood. This is how precarious is our present Democracy.
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks GK.
How you doin today?
I'm doing pretty well. Thanks.
Good. You look to be in good form.
Well, I'm hanging in there:)
[Removed]
My post has nothing to do with fantasy, only with fact. The fantasy involes people who want to believe their leader is one thing, when in FACT he is another.
[Removed]
How does that rediculous question apply to the case at hand? Fact is generally a matter of one case at a time.
[Removed]
Well, one of us isn't anyway.