Some in the Occupy Space movement seem to be turning on each other:
It's a den of thieves!
Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.
“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.
Comments
I also support the Tea Partiers for this same reason. There are lots of difference of opinions among and within the two groups, but overall, I think they are what will make the government decide not to go on another multi-trillion dollar frivolous spending spree anytime soon.
I stopped last night and today to talk with the local occupiers. Hardly any of them could articulate a full sentence on anything, let alone a clear political message. After getting the standard "We have no leader" response many times, I strted asking this:
"What are your personal reasons for being here? What do YOU want the government to change?" I think one guy gave a somewhat coherent answer. The rest either went way off subject (talking about how his son was falsely accused of molesting a child???), or simply walked away. One man a few years older than myself cautioned me about using big words/phrases like "the social contract." His impression was that this would be so over the head of most people there that it would alienate them from what I was saying about it.
My personal opinion is that any group that complains about the social contract without even knowing what it means will probably not go far. When I left last night, one guy was climbing in the rafters, a girl was dancing around in circles reading quotes from Hayek, and another guy claimed to have just called the Department of Defense to complain about the terrorist activities being conducted by the Oakland police. Seriously, if they had British accents I would have thought I accidently stumbled onto the scene of a Monty Python movie.
William, save your breath. Common sense and economics falls on deaf ears, these people are all about emotion not facts and will simply continue to wallow through life as no more than the teet-sucking parasites their idiot parents raised them to be.
THEY don't want to change the system, they want somebody ELSE to change it for them and then give them their free "stuff".
Tim, for someone so concerned with "facts" your responses sure are lacking them.
In fact, all you have is a lie as your last statement. I can tell it's something you desperately want to be true, but repeating it over and over won't make it that way.
Tim, there certainly may be some of that sentiment in this group. Their disjointed approach really makes it difficult to understand their message. But many of them are complaining about the government's recent bailouts.
On this point, what is so wrong with saying to the government "You stole from me and lied to me. Don't you dare do it again!!!" It's that part of their message that strikes a chord with me.
Anger is an emotion, and in this case I think it is well placed. But they definitely need to have more than raw emotion to make anything of this. My opinion, just from the small glimpse I've seen, is that they'll leave the area voluntarily within a week or two.
Christopher, are you at the Pavillion or going to be there later? I have seriously tried engaging in dialoge with several people there and was frustrated all the way. It would be nice to talk with someone who is actually able and willing to say what is on their mind.
Phil: what can I say. It's Fort Wayne. I'd like to think you stopped by at a low ebb, but you run into who you run into I guess.
As for the Oakland police, I believe he was referring to their use of semi-lethal weapons and managing to critically injure an Iraq vet. He managed to get through two tours in Iraq only to get felled by the police here in the U.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html
"UPDATE: 4:20 p.m. -- New video posted to YouTube suggests that Olsen was hit at close range with a tear-gas canister. After demonstrators rush to Olsen's aid, an Oakland cop waits a few beats before lobbing a second tear-gas canister at the crowd. They are attending to Olsen when the canister explodes, sending smoke everywhere."
Apparently those Oakland cops learned from snipers: wound one so you get a clearer shot at anyone that tries to help.
Phil: I probably won't be able to make it out there any time soon, sorry.
Granted, it was late at night when I first stopped by. And I was there for a while before I realized that many of the others I was speaking with had only recently arrived themselves. But there were several who were quite verbal about political matters. Anytime I tried to converse directly with one of them it was impossible. Shouting slogans is good for gaining attention to a movement. But if no one can actually give a brief overview of why they support this, why they think others should support it, and what their ultimate goals are, it will fade away quickly.
Martin Luther King's message could be easily summarized as "Stop treating black Americans like they are animals." That message got people's attention. Once they started listening, he said "You can start by allowing us to vote," a specific policy position.
I'll try to make it to the G.A. tonight to see if I can get a better understanding of things. Will you be there?
Saw your answer after I posted.
Chris, this is not to say it did not happen the way you claim, but there is absolutely nothing in that video clip to show this was the case. The guy is certainly in bad shape, but there's no way to tell exactly how it occurred. Why show such a video if it doesn't bach up what the article claims?
"On this point, what is so wrong with saying to the government
I take back my statement above because it was based upon the first video. The seconfd video clearly shows:
1) A man was lying still on the groun and appeared to be badly wounded.
2) The group who approched him was trying to attend to his needs, not act agressively towards the police.
3) An officer fired directly at this wounded man and the people who were trying to help him.
Good tactics for warfare, perhaps, but not a wise way to bust up a peaceful protest.
I think they are right to be angry at the large corporations who received this money. But I will agree with you and Larsen that it is wrong to portray it as though all businesses screwed us over. And I agree also that their anger would be better directed at the ones who stole from us (government) rather than the ones who simply accepted what they were offered.
Phil, Being angry at the "corporations" and chanting in the streets may make them feel better I guess, but it's just misguided. Corporations rely on one thing, CUSTOMERS. Without customers there are no corporations. Customers absolutely control the behavior of corporations. Don't you find it ironic as they guys rail on corporations while sipping a starbucks, listening to their I-pads, texiting on their smart phones and blogging on their laptops? Just screams "end capitalism" doesn't it?
Phil: the only people I consistently hear saying that OWS is against all business are people like Zank, Larsen, Morris, Leininger... and Fox News.
I'm sure if you questioned individual OWS people you'd find some that are against all business. It's almost impossible you wouldn't.
Just like I'm sure you'd find a few racists in any given Tea Party crowd, for instance.
It does not mean all of those people are that thing.
Most people, I believe, are angry at the people who did wrong - in government or business - and aren't the simplification that's being peddled.
And yeah, I think it's OK to be angry at the ones who "simply accepted what they were offered," because it doesn't make it OK to do something you should know is wrong just because some authority said it was OK.
As for Oakland: I think that incident is also a good indicator that it's not the best idea to hire military vets as civilian police. They behave as they've been trained. And I really question why Oakland police felt they could justify such use of semi-lethal weaponry in the first place.
And once again, Tim Zank hauls out a tired Fox News talking point designed to make himself look smarter than he actually is. A point that really doesn't make much sense when you think about it:
"Yes, as so many journalists seem obligated to point out, kids are criticizing corporate America while tweeting through their iPhones. The simplistic critique is that if someone is upset about corporate excess, he is supposed to abandon all connection with any corporate product. Of course, the more nuanced approach to such tradeoffs would be to seek balance rather than ultimatums. Yes, there are things big corporations might do very well, like making iPhones. There are other things big corporations may not do so well, like structure mortgage derivatives. Might we be able to use corporations for what works, and get them out of doing what doesn't?"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html
But then, simple works for someone like Zank, and nuanced (or simply thinking past the zinger) isn't to be considered.
Heh..
"And I really question why Oakland police felt they could justify such use of semi-lethal weaponry in the first place."
How about cuz maybe Oakland is a cesspool?
http://www.healthycal.org/archives/6339
In r/e your last remark, I'd also add there's a difference between nuance and obfuscation.
Sure, Tim. Why should the Oakland goons work on real crime when unarmed protesters are such easy targets?
Are you going to log into the online dictionary so you can look up the difference between nuance and obfuscation?
Swinger, you've thrown in with a real bunch of boy scouts you have!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/occupy-chicago-leaders-are-under-investigation-by-fbi-for-links-to-terrorism/
As I've said before, this won't end well.
Really, Tim? Right wing blogger smears of two people tangentially connected are the best you can do?
That links to a news story about an investigation from September of 2010?
Christ Zank, you are a moron. XD
Tim,
Why do the Tea Partiers carry large signs and protest loudly? Why don't they just vote and get the kind of government they demand?. These two groups have very different political goals on many issues, but their tactics of drawing attention to their cause are very similar.
And yes, I do believe customers control the corporations - about as much as I believe the citizens control the government.
Swing says: "And yeah, I think it
Let's say that "somebody" wrecked their car. Even though they have more than enough money to fix it themselves, they steal from you to pay for the repairs. So, you fire the guy who was holding your wallet and made the mistake of giving your money to somone who didn't deserve it. And then there is another wreck, and the new wallet-holder does the same thing to you.
Finally, a couple years later when you are having trouble buying gas for your own car, in large part because of the money they took from you, some of the wallet-holders begin talking again about how they might need to give more of your money to people who don't need or deserve it. You simply tell them not to even consider steeling from you again. You haven't made any demands for them to pay back what they took, just that they take no more. Their response is to claim you are asking for a handout. They say you should play by the rules now - even though they threw the rule book in the trash can a few years back.
And when you complain about this situation, you're told by others if you don't like people stealing from you, you should quit complaining and just hire another wallet-holder, even though the only other one available is the guy you fired the last time. Of course, you're not allowed to hold your own wallet. The professional wallet-holders alliance knows you can't be trusted with this type of responsibility so they mandate that you must allow one of them to hold your wallet. So, which thief do you go with? Will it really make any difference?
The somebody in this case is both big unions and big CEO's. And I can't for the life of me understand how so many people who were forced to pay for these bailouts only seem to recognize half the problem there. The wallet-holders are the Republican and Democratic politicians, and it amazes me how many people only seem to recognize half the problem there as well.
Phil: Except that I leave
"William, the problem with your defense of the rich is that when the corporations failed at their own game, they asked for and received a major change in the rules to their benefit and to the detriment of most Americans."
The number of companies that received government preferential treatment compared to the total number of companies are few (Auto companies and banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt and the losses taken by share holders instead of taxpayers, yet you and Christopher like to use the 0.01% of all companies and lump them all together.
"the social contract was totally shedded under the bailouts."
There is no social contract, but if you think there is, what is it and who signed it?
"Most of this money was given to people who didn
"There is no social contract, but if you think there is, what is it and who signed it?"
Oh good christ, not this libertarian jackassery. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who really believes this. Statements like this don't make you seem clever or deep. It's only good as a warning sign.
BTW: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#contract
Before all the standard points get rolled out.
I have heard the term "Social Contract" used more and more. First it was applied to Social Security by seniors who were looking at cuts in the 70's. By 1983, Greenspan and his cohorts were using it to push through higher taxes, base, increase in retirement age. They added the word "Earned" to the "social contract" in an attempt to give it more legitamacy.
When a person says
Oh and the insane re-iteration brings back another tired point;
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/09/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme
You're not likely to have a meaningful discussion with someone who insists on making that flawed analogy, either.
"You keep clarifying that it is only the banks and a few others,yet keep using 'Wallstreet.'"
It's the name of the thing because they started occupying a specific place, Wall street.
News flash: the Tea Party involves no literal tea.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just stupid, Larsen?
Hey Swingy, aren't your brethren in New York breaking their "social contract" by booting the homeless out of the occupied area and refusing to share food with them?
Holy crap Batman, they're stealing from each other, forming class-based cliques, refusing to redistribute "the wealth" with their own, forming their own security forces, it's going to hell in a handbasket boys!
Talk about ironic. And hilarious. Oh, an utterly predictable too.