*promote democracy

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 26th, 2011 9:07pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter geo321.

*news
*politics

Adding video to channels (News, Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

I think it's appropriate to be jaded. Mass protests only seem to work once in each country. After that, police learn not to use water hoses, and the public regards the whole thing with a "been there done that" attitude. I can't think of any major policy change brought about by street protests in the US since the civil rights movement.

On the other hand, using force to bring change to a democracy is trampling on the rights of the majority that supports the system. Even if you believe they are misguided to do so, people do elect the government that we have. They have the right to be governed by the laws written by their elected representatives.

>> ^shagen454:

I love it but I've been completely jaded by our government. I applaud everyone who is out there but this will not solve or inspire any change. Unfortunately, -in my opinion- the only way for change to occur is not through social means, civil disobedience or anything but brutal force.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

On the other hand, using force to bring change to a democracy is trampling on the rights of the majority that supports the system.


Well yes, but is the majority that supports the system also a majority of the people gouverned by said system? If we (rather simplistically) assume that people who vote support democracy, then we get the following: For the US (according to wikipedia) the percentage of registered voters who actually voted for a president has been sitting around the 50% mark since 1972. Doesn't take many non registered voters to make the supporters of the system a minority.

As a by-note, most of western countries are a republic, not a true democracy. There is at least one level of abstraction between what you vote for and what comes out at the top. The swiss are pretty close though.

Systems of government essentially reflect the consciousness of the populace. In other words, government won't change until people wake up. We are self-centered consumers. Our government promotes and feeds that mindset. It blinds us to everything.

The power and money grab by the top 1% can be seen simply as greed, but also as a realization that resources on this planet are dwindling fast, and those who control those resources are reinforcing their positions. With the emergence of a world market (cheap overseas labor) and automation, the large labor pools formerly encouraged in this country through a variety of means, are now irrelevant.

@shagen454: the government controls the force.

@mikus auralius: laws are written by lobbyists. the vast majority of them are corporate. this is not a democracy. it has the illusion of democracy. but that's it.

i think the question is whether change will occur because of an emergence of rationality, or whether it will follow the incredible suffering we are setting in motion through mass extinction and rapid depletion of the ecosphere.

the battle is in the mind.

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

Look, i am ALL up for a revolution, but what are they achieving? Are average non-protesting people like you or me going to go and camp out in wall street?

We're primed and ready for an inspiring figure to crop up as a spokesperson for this .. generation unsatisfied. Before that happens, there's no good aim or good goal, no centre of instruction/information/advice.

We're just a lot of people that are unhappy, and we probably can't explain clearly WHY we are unhappy. Everyone's unhappy about something, and everyone thinks it leads back to the government, but until someone links all of our unhappiness together towards a common goal, it's going to be quantity not quality when it comes to protests.

@dannym3141

That's the point of this occupywallst thing. It doesn't require an inspiring figure or a set of demands or goals to achieve. It's like when someone who's always thought there was something wrong with their religious beliefs meets an atheist and has that realization that there are other people out there who are having the same thoughts as they are. It's a pretty powerful thing.

I agree that protests seem more effective when they have specific goals, but why does this specific protest need a goal *today*. I think it's better to stand up and say the whole "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore". Work out the details later.

The Arab protest movements didn't start with any inspiring figures or well thought out sets of goals. Sure, they were probably a little more geared towards getting rid of their governments, but those governments had figureheads. Wall Street has no single figurehead at which people can direct their anger. How do you kill a beast with no head?

I think we're seeing something new here...a protest with no head to kill the beast with no head. A true battle of mindsets. This is the new culture war.

I know the guy at 2:27.. Took some classes with him in the 90s.

baby boomers... reap what you sow fuckers.

@mgittle

Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?

I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?

I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.

We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).

Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.

>> ^dannym3141:

@mgittle
Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?
I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?
I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.
We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).
Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.


It's not childish they wrote those rules that they live under. They designed this government and they set it in place to help themselves. So yes taking it to them makes perfect sense...and furthermore it works, it actually scares the crap out of them.

If we protest the government the people be protested are replaced with people who can do nothing. We protest the owners of the country and it's a serious threat that they worry about so they fold whatever bullshit they're doing.

Why do you think this is taking soo long to get any meaningful traction on networks...because it's dangerous.

>> ^mgittle:

@dannym3141
That's the point of this occupywallst thing. It doesn't require an inspiring figure or a set of demands or goals to achieve. It's like when someone who's always thought there was something wrong with their religious beliefs meets an atheist and has that realization that there are other people out there who are having the same thoughts as they are. It's a pretty powerful thing.
I agree that protests seem more effective when they have specific goals, but why does this specific protest need a goal today . I think it's better to stand up and say the whole "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore". Work out the details later.
The Arab protest movements didn't start with any inspiring figures or well thought out sets of goals. Sure, they were probably a little more geared towards getting rid of their governments, but those governments had figureheads. Wall Street has no single figurehead at which people can direct their anger. How do you kill a beast with no head?
I think we're seeing something new here...a protest with no head to kill the beast with no head. A true battle of mindsets. This is the new culture war.


The Arab spring had a very clear goal, to remove a dictatorship and replace it with democracy. They weren't just mad at the world and burn it all down. They had a very specific alternative already in mind that they were demanding. You demean their plight and deaths for the right to vote by claiming kinship between it and this vague, I'm mad cause I wanna be rich too rumbling.

Theoretically, you're correct. In America social change can occur by movements - like queer rights, gender equality, etc. But, we're no longer in the 60's - the right has dampered/tampered with every facet of our society to the point where when people are protesting on Wall Street they are not protesting for social change they are protesting for governmental change because the people on Wall Street and all of those corporations own the government. They will not stand for little peons whining about financial inequality because they own the news, they own the jobs, they own everything with a "let them eat cake" attitude; they will never let up with their class warfare.

I'd love to see a huge movement occur because then people would realize how serious they are in order to continue with the status quo. You'd end up seeing microwave technology used on the masses involved. I mean I've seen it before but only on smaller scales.

>> ^Yogi:

Anyone who says we can't change the government through social change, education, or civil disobedience is simply ignorant of history. It's not their fault though because we're instructed that the 60's were the "Time of Troubles" where we had drugs and free love and a war no one liked and nothing significant happened that wasn't brought about by learned great people. The change that occurred was massive and there have been other social changes as well. We threw off slavery in the US before we did that it was thought to be completely impossible...then we fought and African Americans got their just rights as well and that didn't take a civil war.

To add to that, sorry to always bring it up - but it was the last mass upheaval that I witnessed. But, before we went to war with Iraq people protested all around the world - in some places hundreds of thousands of people came out. Then after we dropped bombs & people made an even bigger stink the movement was basically stamped out with force. After that the movement lost the majority of its steam. They elected Obama for real change... people have to face reality. Direct Democracy fucking now! This republic, free enterprise bullshit just isn't working and no republicrat or fascistican is going to do anything for the majority.

Not a revolution because the American people want nothing to do with this bullcrap. The radicalism and marxism that is represented by this "Day of Hate" bologna is the province of a few fringe kooks and lunatics - supplemented by a small crowd of easily manipulated skulls-full-of-much fools who don't know jack squat and just want to be 'part of something'.

A revolution takes place when there is a real issue that the majority of a population supports. The anger at Wall Street isn't it. A far more likely revolution is something like the Tea Party, which actually has a large number of people in favor of its core beliefs of reduced government. Sorry guys. The "Day of Hate" is not the revolution. It's just a few malcontents who represent no population of any importance.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


It's just a few malcontents who represent no population of any importance.


Ah yes...the tyranny of the majority-minority. They should have the tea party and the occupywallst people battle on pay-per-view for who gets to start the revolution. Now THAT would be real America.

@dannym3141

Fair enough, but I'd rather (and think it more likely) that there'll be an incident that bands people together than an inspiring figure in this case. The people in this protest seem to be a little too anti-groupthink for that, hence my sentiment indicating my belief that this is different than other movements. We'll see if the numbers increase and/or it dumbs down from that.

Also, you think everyone who deserves to go to jail automatically does? Didn't the OJ trial teach you anything? Money talks...

As for this "thin veneer", that's just culture driving us apart. Humans are social animals...

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^mgittle:
@dannym3141
That's the point of this occupywallst thing. It doesn't require an inspiring figure or a set of demands or goals to achieve. It's like when someone who's always thought there was something wrong with their religious beliefs meets an atheist and has that realization that there are other people out there who are having the same thoughts as they are. It's a pretty powerful thing.
I agree that protests seem more effective when they have specific goals, but why does this specific protest need a goal today . I think it's better to stand up and say the whole "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore". Work out the details later.
The Arab protest movements didn't start with any inspiring figures or well thought out sets of goals. Sure, they were probably a little more geared towards getting rid of their governments, but those governments had figureheads. Wall Street has no single figurehead at which people can direct their anger. How do you kill a beast with no head?
I think we're seeing something new here...a protest with no head to kill the beast with no head. A true battle of mindsets. This is the new culture war.

The Arab spring had a very clear goal, to remove a dictatorship and replace it with democracy. They weren't just mad at the world and burn it all down. They had a very specific alternative already in mind that they were demanding. You demean their plight and deaths for the right to vote by claiming kinship between it and this vague, I'm mad cause I wanna be rich too rumbling.


Yeah, maybe it's a first world plight and it's not as "fight or flight" "life and death" as the Arab spring, but I don't think it's right to differentiate struggles against the concentration of power the way you're suggesting. That's like how people argue that soldiers with PTSD shouldn't get a purple heart because they didn't shed blood. Yes, it's different, but it's still an injury. You can argue that health care is a life and death struggle as well. Hell, I'd almost rather we were fighting for our lives in the literal sense...then maybe people would realize that dying from lack of health care is still dying. The fact that you didn't get shot or die in a terrorist attack doesn't change that. Dead is dead.

I don't think the wall st. protesters are just "rumbling", nor do I think they want to just "burn it all down". It's also ridiculous to say that they "wanna be rich too".

I think part of the problem is that there's a whole lot of people out there who can't quantify how much wealthier the people feeding them the "Creating Jobs" stuff are. See: http://videosift.com/video/Most-Americans-Unaware-of-Growing-Concentration-of-Wealth at the 1:40 mark. Everyone thinks they are middle class that's a 29k avg neighborhood and 140k neighborhood, 3:30 repeats it again....they think the majority of Americans are middle class.

I'd venture to say that many people in that crowd are there, not because they understand that the people working on wall street dwarf their salary probably by a factor of 4 or 5 in the lower paid white collar jobs and up into the 100+ factors when they get into the upper positions. They are there because they want what they had back, and they can now see that Wall Street or at least the mentality of Wall Street has in a very short period of time affected many aspects of their lives.

If they could still afford a place to live, food, and have a decent job, they probably would have never noticed the long term erosion of the system by those with the money and power...twisting it so they took more of the pie and left the middle and lower class to figure out how they will afford their house (debt which in turn shifts more money up the ladder).

I mean most people who have jobs right now, the only information they care about on unemployment is when it comes from someone they know who they consider to be a "useful employee" and not their stoner brother, etc. And even then it's probably "These things happen, you'll find another job." until they are still unemployed 6 months later....maybe they were just lazy. 12 months rolls around and they are still unemployed? Now it starts to scare the living shit out of people, especially when another friend or family lost their job a month or two back. When it looks like it might affect them personally is when they care, and by that time it's been 1-2 years of people they know going unemployed at various times...working at McDs or Walmart because there's nothing out there.

http://videosift.com/video/Food-Speculation-Explained

Showing another way the Wall Street mentality is just giving us all a good screwing. Instead of these folks taking their talents to create something, they leech off of the people doing the work and drive up costs while creating massive uncertainty for everyone involved.

http://videosift.com/video/Elizabeth-Warren-The-Coming-Collapse-of-the-Middle-Class

Shows that people were experiencing bankruptcy more often that you would assume, but were able to hide it. Plus the general fixed costs being increasingly higher over the years with no overall salary gains to offset them.

http://videosift.com/video/Paul-Krugman-Income-Inequality-and-the-Middle-Class

Showing that they have been on the union bust kick for 30 years now at least, and it's something unique to the US because Canada in a similar global economy still has the level of unionized work force as the US had 30 years ago. Education has nothing to do with the income disparity. And the income disparity was fixed by policies put in place during the 1930s and early 40s. Which have been removed layer by layer since then, with increasing frequency in more recent history. And he points out in the video that the highest paid hedge fund manager makes more in a single year than 88000 NY teachers do in 3 years, my recounting of it might be off a little it's near the end of the video.


http://videosift.com/video/Multi-Millionaire-Rep-Says-He-Can-8482-t-Afford-A-Tax-Hike

Then you have this knucklehead talking about 200k to feed his family and how he can't afford a tax hike because it will prevent him from investing in store improvements and openings (that make him MORE money, so yeah..). Jon Stewart covered this in a much more funny way and how stupid the argument being made is. I'll re-iterate my take on this though. If they can't create jobs with the money they have coming in now after all the other tax deductions over the years, and all the opportunities before this day to do.....they will not do so. It's a fool's bet to depend on some guy who can't demonstrate how he has created jobs in the last 2-4 years in some meaningful way and how those low taxes make it possible to do so. Taxes would pretty much force him to reinvest in his business because if he tried to take it in profit he'd be paying a chunk of it out in taxes.




I think the most profane thing about this country right now is that people who want to work can't find work. And those who are working, especially blue collar jobs have a bunch of white collar guys speculating on their production....every thing that blue collar guy makes/produces probably has 10 or more white collar guys trying to make a buck off of it. It's like a house of cards, except the support structures are the very few people who still put out useable materials. It's crazy how something like that was let run wild, with more and more of the regulation taken away so they could stack even more cards onto the mess. The money isn't to be had in production, it's made in speculating/futures/etc...and it's just massively crazy to realize that all the middlemen are allowed to drive up the costs of oil/food/etc instead of cutting that shit out through regulation.

>> ^mgittle:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^mgittle:
@dannym3141
That's the point of this occupywallst thing. It doesn't require an inspiring figure or a set of demands or goals to achieve. It's like when someone who's always thought there was something wrong with their religious beliefs meets an atheist and has that realization that there are other people out there who are having the same thoughts as they are. It's a pretty powerful thing.
I agree that protests seem more effective when they have specific goals, but why does this specific protest need a goal today . I think it's better to stand up and say the whole "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore". Work out the details later.
The Arab protest movements didn't start with any inspiring figures or well thought out sets of goals. Sure, they were probably a little more geared towards getting rid of their governments, but those governments had figureheads. Wall Street has no single figurehead at which people can direct their anger. How do you kill a beast with no head?
I think we're seeing something new here...a protest with no head to kill the beast with no head. A true battle of mindsets. This is the new culture war.

The Arab spring had a very clear goal, to remove a dictatorship and replace it with democracy. They weren't just mad at the world and burn it all down. They had a very specific alternative already in mind that they were demanding. You demean their plight and deaths for the right to vote by claiming kinship between it and this vague, I'm mad cause I wanna be rich too rumbling.

Yeah, maybe it's a first world plight and it's not as "fight or flight" "life and death" as the Arab spring, but I don't think it's right to differentiate struggles against the concentration of power the way you're suggesting. That's like how people argue that soldiers with PTSD shouldn't get a purple heart because they didn't shed blood. Yes, it's different, but it's still an injury. You can argue that health care is a life and death struggle as well. Hell, I'd almost rather we were fighting for our lives in the literal sense...then maybe people would realize that dying from lack of health care is still dying. The fact that you didn't get shot or die in a terrorist attack doesn't change that. Dead is dead.
I don't think the wall st. protesters are just "rumbling", nor do I think they want to just "burn it all down". It's also ridiculous to say that they "wanna be rich too".


Your missing my central point. The Arab spring protesters were not just opposing something worse and more sinister, the equally important point is that they were protesting to advocate for something better.

Please articulate for me what it is that the occupy wall street crowd wants. Do they have a solution they are advocating for? Without advocating for a solution to the problem, they are just rumbling and lobbying to fix the problem by burning it down. Or maybe in terms that you'd more willingly agree with, without advocating for a solution, they are leaving it in the hands of the elite to come up with the solution. That kind of paternal attitude though is at the heart of the problem.

Wealth disparity is a red herring. It is one economic indicator out of literally thousands. Neolibs like to harp on it, but when the poorest schlub in the US has 2 cars, 2 flat screens, air conditioning, and more food than they can possibly eat then it holds very little meaning. I'm a statistician, and there is always a curve in wealth with extreme ends. Deal with it.

Again - they're focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is a corrupt and powerful government. Lobbyists push for bad laws, but bad laws can't get passed without corrupt legislators. In the past, the robber-barons just did what they wanted and government was too toothless and feckless to stop abuses. Today the robber-barons are back, but they are aided and abetted by a powerful, corrupt government that creates a maze of loopholes, exemptions, and laws to pick and choose which company gets to be the one to get away with murder.

The first thing that has to happen is that government needs to be reduced in size and power so that they cannot be the kingmakers. Then you pass a set of simple reforms that are clear and basic so everyone knows 'the rules'. Companies get away with crap because government passes laws that allows it (like the repeal of Glass/Steagall). Peel the lobbyists out of such a system, and all you do it create an all-powerful government that crushes (or blesses) specific industries according to its whimsy.

For example - Obama has been literally shovelling cash at the 'green' industry. Solyndra (and others) have shown that it was all a subsidy-scam. There was no possible way these solar companies could possibly turn a profit. Not to mention ethanol subsidies, et al... They all lobbied big time and got a pile of political payola. It is modern day patronage. Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to slap down oil and coal. The government is picking some industries to grow, and others to punish. That is totally bogus. And (just so you neolibs don't get mad) it is bogus when it happens to companies like Exxon or Haliburton too.

The government should not be this power broker that picks and chooses which industries get favoritism, and which ones get the thumbscrews based on the political preference of the legislators in power. That creates an unpredictable, uncertain, arbitrary system where industry is more beholden to politicians than the public. Who cares if a company makes a lousy or unprofitable product when they can just pay a lobbyist, or donate to a candidate, and end up getting piles and piles of taxpayer cash?

THAT is the real problem here. Wall Street, Solydra, Enron - all these companies are just symptoms. The disease is the government.