Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Occupy Wall Street and the sad state of American protesting (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  18  19  20   
Author Topic: Occupy Wall Street and the sad state of American protesting
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It sounds weird without the chalkboard charts-it needs sole context, then it's perfectly rational!

Right. Just throw in some circles, hand-waving, some speech ticks, garbled swallowing and panting, and it all makes sense.
Posts: 9350 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
As opposed to what, green-blooded Americans?

Is the Romulan vote really that big a constituency? Lord knows all the Vulcans are liberals up there in their ivory tower.

You forgot Andorians, Hortas, and several others.

Specieist. [Razz]

I bow to your superior knowledge of Star Trek xenobiology. [Smile]
Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Black Fox:
Many modern Americans have this odd misconception that early Americans were against taxation and regulation of any kind. They were not, their main dispute was that they wanted that taxation and "regulation" to come from their own elected assemblies.

Well, to be fair, you're talking about people who might also form a political movement named after a group of costumed rioters who broke onto private property and destroyed a year's supply of valuable tea, no doubt bankrupting whatever merchant had been unlucky enough to import it, because they disagreed with the (nominal) imposition of duties they would be required to pay in order to purchase it (which they hadn't). And this same group of people who might, within the same year of forming, denounce peaceful public protests by the unemployed... for no specific reasons.

But if people actually think the opinions and specific practices of the forefathers has some special enduring relevance and ever-present application to the way things are done today, then I say bully to you. And while you're at it, you can also live according to 18th century social customs, medical practices, diets, and daily activities- if you put so much stock in the way the founders did things.

Posts: 9350 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More than 100 arrested in Boston when protesters refuse to vacate a recently renovated park

Some video from the event

Police say that they weren't allowed to be there. It was a second camp established after the first camp became overcrowded.

OccupyBoston says that they got permission to be at the park so long as they agreed not to damage any of the plants that were recently planted for the expensive renovation project. They also say the police, more than 200 strong, lined up in full riot gear, though that doesn't appear to be the case from the video of the arrests.

Be interesting to see if they try to occupy the same area again tomorrow. The arrests happened around 1am local time in Boston, early Tuesday morning.

Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Black Fox
Member
Member # 1986

 - posted      Profile for Black Fox   Email Black Fox         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Black Fox:
Many modern Americans have this odd misconception that early Americans were against taxation and regulation of any kind. They were not, their main dispute was that they wanted that taxation and "regulation" to come from their own elected assemblies.

Well, to be fair, you're talking about people who might also form a political movement named after a group of costumed rioters who broke onto private property and destroyed a year's supply of valuable tea, no doubt bankrupting whatever merchant had been unlucky enough to import it, because they disagreed with the (nominal) imposition of duties they would be required to pay in order to purchase it (which they hadn't). And this same group of people who might, within the same year of forming, denounce peaceful public protests by the unemployed... for no specific reasons.

But if people actually think the opinions and specific practices of the forefathers has some special enduring relevance and ever-present application to the way things are done today, then I say bully to you. And while you're at it, you can also live according to 18th century social customs, medical practices, diets, and daily activities- if you put so much stock in the way the founders did things.

I wrote quite a bit and decided it would be rather pointless. I generally dislike talking about history with people that have a poor grasp of it or have a strong desire for one particular flavor of it to be universally true.
Posts: 1752 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.

I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Posts: 7290 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Occupy Denver appears to have had a decent turnout over the weekend.

Looks like a couple hundred people maybe.

Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are they repeating every statement so that the entire crowd can hear what is being said?
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes.

It started in New York because they aren't allowed to use bullhorns.

Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.

I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Well, he wasn't rejected, they just said that he had to wait, like everyone else, for the time when the floor was open to contributions from everyone.

Even Lewis has said that he didn't feel slighted, he just didn't have time to sit around and wait for the appointed time.

I don't think it was a slight, but it strikes me as kind of silly. In the time it took them to make their decision, they could have just let him speak and been on their way. I'm a big fan of everyone having a voice, but geez, what a mess. Sometimes you have to make compromises for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. If I had to sit through that crap all day, I'd be gone pretty fast.

Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.

I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Quick recap for those who didn't watch the video:

Announcer introduces John Lewis, Georgia congressman, Civil Rights hero, and recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. However, before Rep. Lewis can take the mic, the group leader asks if anyone is opposed to his addressing the group. A "block" politely objects, since "the point of this general assembly is to kickstart a Democratic process in which no singular human being is more valuable than any other human being." The leader then spends eight minutes trying to determine whether there is consensus within the group for having Rep. Lewis speak. In the end, since no consensus emerges and since "this group makes its decisions by consensus", Rep. Lewis is not allowed to speak.

My take: 1) alienating prominent Democrats might not be strategically wise, 2) making decisions only by consensus in such a large group, particularly decisions of such immediacy, is a good way to generate irrelevance, 3) the human megaphone and the lecture on using hand signals (rather than clapping or speaking) are...I don't know, kinda weird in a techno-utopian, Esperanto-like way. It seems like something that sounds good in the abstract in a dorm room late at night, but when translated to a real human experience doesn't actually work very well.

Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well, he wasn't rejected, they just said that he had to wait, like everyone else, for the time when the floor was open to contributions from everyone.
... If I had to sit through that crap all day, I'd be gone pretty fast.

Basically the same result, knowing that their process was this slow, they told him to wait knowing that he'd be gone.

It's like when the phone company puts you on a really long hold.

Posts: 7290 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it's the same thing. Yes, it had the same result, but that doesn't mean the method is irrelevant. You're assigning intent to them.
Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Their intent seemed pretty clear to me, based on the speech of the "block" and the girl who proposed to make Lewis wait until after the agenda had been completed. They didn't specifically not want him to speak, they just wanted to maintain the "everyone is equal" vibe of the protest, even if that meant offending someone who has significant political power and relevance. It seems a simple matter of ideology trumping practicality.
Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You're assigning intent to them.

*shrug* Sure. I think people are smart enough to reason out the likely results of their actions even if the details are couched within bureaucracy and procedure.

Maybe they did learn a lesson or two when the police let the protesters onto a bridge and then arrested them for blocking traffic [Wink]

Posts: 7290 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.

I gotta say that the optics of such a white crowd throwing out the black guy doesn't look good.
Quick recap for those who didn't watch the video:

Announcer introduces John Lewis, Georgia congressman, Civil Rights hero, and recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. However, before Rep. Lewis can take the mic, the group leader asks if anyone is opposed to his addressing the group. A "block" politely objects, since "the point of this general assembly is to kickstart a Democratic process in which no singular human being is more valuable than any other human being." The leader then spends eight minutes trying to determine whether there is consensus within the group for having Rep. Lewis speak. In the end, since no consensus emerges and since "this group makes its decisions by consensus", Rep. Lewis is not allowed to speak.

My take: 1) alienating prominent Democrats might not be strategically wise, 2) making decisions only by consensus in such a large group, particularly decisions of such immediacy, is a good way to generate irrelevance, 3) the human megaphone and the lecture on using hand signals (rather than clapping or speaking) are...I don't know, kinda weird in a techno-utopian, Esperanto-like way. It seems like something that sounds good in the abstract in a dorm room late at night, but when translated to a real human experience doesn't actually work very well.

I think this is a great assessment.
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's worth noting that this is not some new, wacky, unusual way of running large conversations at protests. I've seen it used as a mechanism multiple times over the last decade. There are reasons for the hand signals, for example. [Smile] It actually works far better than someone only seeing it from the perspective of a hostile outsider might guess.
Posts: 36761 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hostile? Who's hostile? [Razz]
Posts: 3491 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the first post-march New Orleans General Assembly, a young man who has been participating in Occupy Wall Street made himself available to teach the human microphone and hand signals. In our smallish crowd, the microphone could have been avoided if people would have agreed to sit closer together and last I'd heard, our city hadn't prohibited the protestors from using electrical audio equipment. I DID like the hand signals and it made it convenient to "applause" someone's ideas without cutting them off with actual applause.

But it is a HARD, and possibly inefficient system when used in such a diverse group. For example, in order to practice the general assembly tactics of submitting a proposal, keeping the discussion on track, and reaching a consensus...the Occupy Wall Street guy had everyone vote on whether the movement should be violent or non-violent. Should have been really easy to vote and reach a consensus, right? Nope. It took an HOUR with people demanding their chance to speak and question any number of finer points, like whether the vote prohibited a person from striking a police officer if they were struck first. *sigh* This was followed by ANOTHER hour long discussion of whether or not the New Orleans team accepted the Occupy Wall Street guidelines and techniques for reaching a consensus.

Another example, a "block" is meant to signify an objection so strong that an individual would leave the movement even if the majority of protestors were in favor of the proposal. The idea is that majority rules with the exception of "blocks." A "blocker" is usually given the opportunity to make his/her case with the hopes that an adjustment to the proposal would satisfy the blocker and the group. But in the case of the New Orleans General Assembly, "blocks" were being used by anyone who felt like they objected and wanted to voice that objection. And in a leaderless movement made up individuals to often lead their own charities and outreach programs, there were ALOT of people who wanted their chance at the "microphone." I don't know if our local general assembly has worked the kinks out yet and I don't know if this works better in HUGE crowds,

Its a great system for letting people make their voices and their opinions heard, but it does invite individuals to derail an action that could better the group as a whole.

However, there may be a slippery slope when it comes to dealing with politicians. Around here, the Ron Paul supporters have been especially aggressive when it comes to promoting their candidate every time they're given a chance on the soapbox. They were often chanted down with "people not politicians" which is more in line with the ideals of the group. The Tea Party has courted politicians with mixed success, so I imagine that many with the Occupy movement are concerned that a revolution by the People and for the People, could be hijacked by politicians looking for a soundbite. What would be best would be if the politicians would settle for speaking in solidarity with the Occupy movement, rather than taking the microphone and speaking for them.

Posts: 1699 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The editors of The New Republic are deeply skeptical of the occupiers.

quote:
[I]t is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.

<snip>

[W]e are hard-pressed to believe that most Americans will look at these protests, with their extreme anti-capitalist rhetoric, and conclude that the fate of the Dodd-Frank legislation—currently the best liberal hope for improving democratically regulated capitalism—is more crucial than they had previously thought.

It seems like many of the editors' expressed concerns are informed by the video that Dan_Frank posted earlier (which is linked to from the article). They refer to the human microphone as "genuinely creepy" while recognizing its logistical value, and find the single-minded focus on consensus decision making as betraying an anti-democratic impulse. Coupled with the radically negative views expressed about capitalism (even the sort of regulated capitalism establishment Democrats support) the editors label the occupiers as being "out of sync with [liberals'] values."

(h/t Ben Smith)

Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
[qb]Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.

I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.

Actually, a good review of the historical data is found in this book: http://amzn.com/0300178123

(Note: I am a personal friend of Professor Carp)

Interesting (though not necessarily relevent) points include the 50 years of silence on who participated was potentially out of fear of getting sued by the East India Company for damages, that the tax would have made tea cheaper, and that the Boston Sons of Liberty were considered wimps and not dedicated to the cause by their New York and Philly brethren.

Posts: 6856 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.
*blink* Liberals should be troubled by good-faith efforts to ensure minority voices are heard and consensus is reached?

Man, I hate when conservatives try to tell liberals what they should be like.

Posts: 36761 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals.
*blink* Liberals should be troubled by good-faith efforts to ensure minority voices are heard and consensus is reached?

Man, I hate when conservatives try to tell liberals what they should be like.

(Psst, TNR is a liberal mag. The writers are liberals, not conservatives).
Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah. The New Republic calls itself liberal. But it's been contrarian and anti-liberal for ages, with the exception of Galston. It's a mag that's deeply concerned with the mechanisms of power and thoroughly entrenched in ways to manipulate the system; that some of its ends are liberal can't disguise the fact that its methods are as traditional as they come.

(Edited to add: that's not to say that I'm not sympathetic to arguments of practicality. But they're hopelessly lost when it comes to trying to understand a protest driven by the hatred of corporatism, since they long ago confused corporatism with professionalism and professionalism with respectability.)

Posts: 36761 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh my god. Marty Peretz has controlled TNR for God knows how long. It is not a liberal-leaning publication.
Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just reading something about Occupy Wall St:

"[T]he whole essence of the movement is to reject the game’s rules as it is being played, to produce change that includes each of these demands but goes much further to question the structures that make those demands necessary. The analogy to the heart of the Arab spring uprisings, to the civil rights movement, to the counter-cultural protests of the 60’s, are striking. They all believed they were operating under a system that needed to be changed in the way it functioned before their specific demands could be realized; their power lay in the evidence of the mass support they provided for change, the evidence that things could not go on as they were, that those that held the levers of power had to use them to implement deep changes or get out of the way and let others that would do so get at it."
http://pmarcuse.wordpress.com/

The analogy with the 60s civil rights protests made me realize how comparatively tough a task these protestors face. Unlike the freedom riders or the people who did sit-ins at white restaurants, the OWS people don't have unjust laws they can flaunt through civil disobedience. One of the things that made the civil rights protests powerful is that people were getting the shit beat out of them for drinking at the wrong fountain. There's nothing these contemporary protesters can do to similarly underscore the injustice in the system they're opposing. It's not like they can get themselves arrested in front of cameras for drawing needed unemployment payments, or for getting health care they don't have insurance for.

Not that I have a better idea, but this is one reason why I don't expect this kind of activity to do much good unless the number of activists gets truly huge. And it's a bit of a catch-22, because without inspiring news stories this is very unlikely to happen.

Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay. I would call TNR liberal based on its consistent support for Democratic policies (particularly fiscal and domestic policies) as well as the editors' self-identification as liberal. If you don't want them in your liberal club, though, I guess that's fine.

Still, I think calling the editors of TNR conservatives is fatuous.

Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://gawker.com/5848488/the-right+wing-version-of-we-are-the-99-percent-heartbreaking

quote:
[W]hat makes "We Are the 53%" so heartbreaking isn't that its contributors are enormous jerks—it's that so many of them could just as easily be writing in to We Are the 99 Percent. Like the guy on the left, who can "barely afford" his rent. Or the "former marine" in the center who hasn't had "4 consecutive days off in 4 years." The phrase "I don't have health insurance" pops up frequently on "We Are the 53%," but not as a cry for help or an indictment of a broken system. Here, it's a badge of pride.

Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TNR isn't conservative, for sure. It's centrist. Like the Democrats.

It's a magazine that embodies the ideals of what Krugman and Greenwald mockingly call "Serious People" -- the kind of pundits who often support Democrats but knew for certain back in '03 that opposing the Iraq war was a sign of fringe lefty naivete. People like Joe Lieberman. The kind of people who often say, "David Brooks/Tom Friedman has a good point..."

Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
TNR isn't conservative, for sure. It's centrist. Like the Democrats.

I would characterize it as Obama-centrist rather than, say, Bloomberg-centrist. It's not Brooks and it's also not Krugman (Friedman is a pretty good exemplar, though). Personally, I'd call it "liberal" and I think most people would agree with me, but I'd be fine with "center-left."

To Tom's point, though, this isn't a case of conservatives telling liberals what to be like. It's "serious people" of a center-left ideological bent telling "liberals" (in which they include themselves) what to be like. It's rather like the perpetual hectoring David Frum gives conservatives while maintaining his self-identity as part of the group.

Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I basically agree. I guess I just don't like Serious People. Not since Iraq. As I see it, they have a lot of blood on their hands and hardly any remorse about it.

One quibble: I wasn't saying TNR is like Brooks, I was saying they're the type who often "see Brooks's point," perhaps while respectfully disagreeing, as opposed to thinking Brooks is almost always entirely off base.

Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SenojRetep, for an example of what I would consider a liberal mag, try this one.

http://motherjones.com/

Posts: 10411 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate-

I have, at times, read Mother Jones articles. And Salon. And TPM. It doesn't change my opinion that TNR can reasonably be considered a liberal mag, especially if you ignore the foreign policy aspects.

Again, just because David Frum isn't Andrew Breitbart doesn't make him not a conservative. Just because Richard Just is not Josh Marshall doesn't make him not a liberal.

But, again, I'm fine with "center-left." I termed it a liberal mag because that's obviously how the editors see it, and I was referencing their opinion given in the article I linked to.

Posts: 2799 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I listened to Limbaugh yesterday at work! He was even more limbaugh than usual. He called the occupy protestors meaninglessly small and meaningless and pure genuine trust fund nobody kids obsessed with not being meaningless, but it's meaningless because they're meaningless so there.

He also I believe flat out literally said that Obama is purposefully setting up riots using occupy wall street as a front.

Well, at least the conservative response to the protests ought to keep things entertaining.

Posts: 13057 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's my problem: the Tea Party, avowedly right-wing fringe, garnered instant attention and now commands real political clout.

Occupy Wall Street, which is being labelled as fringe left, was slow to garner attention and is still not considered a "serious" or legitimate movement.

The whole conversation in the US has shifted so that the centre is on the right, and the left wing is now considered a radical fringe.

Posts: 10878 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, let's be fair; the Tea Party took a year or so to really get traction, and that was even with corporate sponsorship and the support of a major media outlet.
Posts: 36761 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's my memory of things as well. As time passed though, the...group impression?...of them changed pretty quick as far as fringe or not.
Posts: 16008 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why resort to memory, when Nate Silver has put together convenient graphs? [Big Grin]
Posts: 10878 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks twinky.
Posts: 12583 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.
Posts: 10411 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speed has not been a problem with the Occupy movement. Exposure was, but that was fixed thanks to the police (see: my comments to capax earlier) and now it's sustainability. They've been helping themselves to a surprising amount of spotlight, so you're seeing a new phase: conservatives already feeling very, very threatened by them, and we move on to the PR war.

Occupy is regarded very favorably by the public. The tea party is not. Anywhere this goes hinges on the maintenance of the Occupy message as something people in general like, versus how the tea party says stuff that hardcore conservatives like but which scares off everyone else.

Gruh??

Posts: 13057 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gruh??
What?
Posts: 4347 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
talsmitde
Member
Member # 9780

 - posted      Profile for talsmitde   Email talsmitde         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This could get interesting. The owners of Zuccotti Park want everyone out of the park by 7 a.m. tomorrow morning for cleaning, and many of the Occupy Wall Street protestors are refusing to move, as 1) they've been trying to work with the city on sanitation and 2) the owners have established rules (banning tarps, sleeping bags, etc.) that essentially prohibit the protestors from returning as full-time occupiers.

They're calling for all those in the New York area who can to come down to the park by midnight tonight.

Posts: 99 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem here is that the police have blocked the protesters from using public property to protest, so they wound up on private property. Public property should be available to the public. America should be a free speech zone.

I just don't understand why the police have worked so hard changing this from a protest against economic injustice to a referendum on police abuse of power.

Posts: 3656 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And apparently Tony Bologna should have been removed from his post as far back as 2004.
Posts: 3656 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by talsmitde:
This could get interesting. The owners of Zuccotti Park want everyone out of the park by 7 a.m. tomorrow morning for cleaning, and many of the Occupy Wall Street protestors are refusing to move, as 1) they've been trying to work with the city on sanitation and 2) the owners have established rules (banning tarps, sleeping bags, etc.) that essentially prohibit the protestors from returning as full-time occupiers.

They're calling for all those in the New York area who can to come down to the park by midnight tonight.

Haven't those been the rules from the start though? They've flouted them for weeks now and nothing has been done about it.

I wonder why they're all of a sudden changing their minds, and if after a cleaning, they'll let them back in. If the police want to remove them, they'll remove them. I think we've learned that much.

Posts: 21045 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.

http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Posts: 13057 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
talsmitde
Member
Member # 9780

 - posted      Profile for talsmitde   Email talsmitde         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It appears that Brookfield Properties has withdrawn their request for the city's help in clearing the park, as they believe they'll be able to work with the occupiers to maintain the property.

They decided this late last night, though it just broke about 40 minutes before the cleaning was supposed to begin at 7 EDT this morning. Following Occupy Wall Street on Twitter, it seemed that the crowd at the park got quite large overnight and early this morning.

Posts: 99 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.

http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Those fatcats!
Posts: 857 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So handy to have your own pet "news" corporation.

http://www.imgur.com/Kb72R.jpg
Those fatcats!
According to HUD statics, 0.75% of Americans are homeless. Combining this with the FOX News stat, there are nearly twice as many people without homes than without refrigerators. I wonder where all those homeless people are storing the fridges.
Posts: 12583 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 20 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  18  19  20   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2