>> ^aurens:

Yep, precisely my intention. It's my considered opinion that a tongue-in-cheek Videosift comment intended to highlight the silliness of self-defeating religious impulses is the moral equivalent of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish funeral pickets.>> ^Asmo:
[...] You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?



Both are insensitive and intolerant towards people who have not offered any overt offense. Both are self justified and self righteous. I don't see much of a difference, even if you pan it off as humour.

Besides, the humour would have been closer to the target if the guy had actually died from his "self-defeating religious impulses". As it stands, he lived versus incredible odds in spite of taking time for prayer. Kinda hard to argue with the results in this case... X D

Yep, precisely my intention. It's my considered opinion that a tongue-in-cheek Videosift comment intended to highlight the silliness of self-defeating religious impulses is the moral equivalent of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish funeral pickets.>> ^Asmo:
[...] You trying to out-douche the Westboro morons?

Writer Naomi Wolf attended a HuffPo event in NYC where Governor Andrew Cuomo was expected to attend, and which had attracted a group of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who wanted to address the governor. Seeing the demonstrators penned up far away from the area where it would be lawful to protest, Wolf asked the police to clarify what the demonstrators should be allowed to do. Once the police had clarified that it would be legal for demonstrators to picket out front of the event, providing they didn't impede pedestrian traffic, she led a group of protesters back to the sidewalk. A "white shirt" (senior NYPD officer) told her she was breaking the law in doing so, and when she asked him to clarify how this was so, he had her arrested. The NYPD continue to insist that the public sidewalk out front of the event was off-limits, but have not, to date, produced the alleged permit that established this.

source:http://boingboing.net/2011/10/20/naomi-wolf-arrested-at-ows-event-for-violating-terms-of-an-imaginary-law.html

I'd disagree. Most people doing protests for civil rights didn't have a draft of the Civil Rights Act in mind. They wanted "equality", which is pretty vague. They did have a pretty long and specific list of grievances that illustrated what kinds of equality they were looking for.

Same is true here. People want "fairness", which is pretty vague. But they also have a pretty long and specific list of grievances which illustrate what kind of fairness they're looking for.

I think the real issue they've got right now is that the civil disobedience they're engaging in isn't demonstrating the injustice they're fighting against.

>> ^rottenseed:

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.

I have no issues with people closing their accounts, in fact, I commend them.
But they should have been organized in their movement and done it quietly and peaceably.

The protesters yelling and picketing is where they went wrong. They need to realize that it is a place of business and there are other business customers. When they form and create the ruckus they did, they need to be refused service at that time.

I don't think the bank was having people arrested for closing accounts, just for causing a disturbance. They might close their doors if there was a line up out the door and down the streets with the sole purpose of closing accounts though. Those that close their accounts win, while those that wait until those measures are taken will lose out.

The bank can only operate while using your money. if all money is withdrawn or if it is withdrawn too quickly, the bank is in danger of having investments collapse and those with money still locked within the system will see the value of their money depleted and valueless.

In order to stop this from happening, the bank would be obligated to close it's doors to protect not only their investments, but other people's money.

It can only take massive amounts of people withdrawing their money to open the banks eyes. They will respond. They can't stop you from withdrawing but they will stall the process of closing the account.

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.>> ^NetRunner:

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.
Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

That's a pretty long picket sign. I'm just saying that they should focus. As an engineering student, the biggest thing I learn is that in order to solve a problem, you have to break any problem into smaller bite-sized problems. That's the only way to solve things without confusing the situation. I would totally jump on the protester's side if they started to make specific demands like: stop allowing government officials taking campaign money from lobbyists/corporate interest groups. It's clear, concise, and there's and end goal in sight. You can't just say "boo this system sucks!">> ^zombieater:

I'm pretty sure most of these people are the same ones who are going to farmers markets, avoiding big chains, and are supporting local businesses. The problem is that's not enough if only a minority of the population gets involved.
On that end, I think that OWS is more than just asking for change (which they certainly are doing in clear statements), it's about waking people up. Making people see the injustices that are taking place right under our very noses. In fact, many signs say that exact thing: "WAKE UP!" People should realize that they should be utilizing credit unions instead of banks, that they should be supporting local businesses as opposed to large chains, and that they should be buying products that are produced locally (your example of farmers markets is a good one for food).
As David Korten said, it's about dismantling large corporate power, especially those that produce nothing (read as wall street investment firms), and supporting local, more homegrown groups.
Now, granted, small homegrown companies grow into large powerful companies, and the cynic would say that it's a waste of time because it will happen all over again once these small companies increase in size. True, if things continue unchecked. But that's where the change part comes in - increasing oversight and regulation has the power to prevent this "too big to fail" bullshit.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.

I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.

I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.

One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.

I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).

Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.

My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.

To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Am I the only one here that thinks these people are useless? See a problem, sit around and do nothing. Ask for more stuff. Play the victim and "raise awareness." Right.
How about going out and starting a company and affecting change in a tangible way? How about creating jobs for your friends and giving back to society?

How will starting a company and creating, let's be generous here, ~20 jobs affect the situation?
The problem is that the big banks have been allowed do whatever the fuck they want (with the collusion of the government). Creating a company won't change that.


Small businesses are job creators. Office of Advocacy funded data and research shows that small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all firms, they create more than half of the private non-farm gross domestic product, and they create 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs.

People don't want to do business with these large companies anymore. There is demand for small, responsible companies to fill the gap. Picketing them does nothing. Government regulation does little long-term. Stealing money out of their pockets by providing competition drives them to compete on your terms and operate in a more ethical manner.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
Am I the only one here that thinks these people are useless? See a problem, sit around and do nothing. Ask for more stuff. Play the victim and "raise awareness." Right.
How about going out and starting a company and affecting change in a tangible way? How about creating jobs for your friends and giving back to society?

Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? How about the Vietnam war? Were you alive in the 50's when at colleges it was pretty much 99% white and male students? Have you been to a college campus lately?
Yeah idiot protesting and social movements start somewhere and have a purpose. You're uneducated about this subject...go and educate yourself.


You may be right. It may have to start in the streets before it can enact useful change down the road. I guess we all have our own parts to play, and that combination of everyone fighting for their own cause in their own way is what makes the world go 'round. I tend to be impatient and want to jump to solution, while others want to mobilize support for a cause. Not better or worse, just different.

Yes, I've spent plenty of time on campus as a student, as an employee, and as a teacher. There are some good eggs in there, but it always seemed to me that the majority of activists were highly-political, self-important children who liked the attention of being associated with a cause more than the cause itself.

One of my favorite experiences of late was meeting a woman who had just graduated from college. She wanted to start a clothing company that made college apparel. She was also distressed by the trend of off-shoring textile manufacturing into countries who had no regulation and did not pay their employees a living wage.

Rather than picketing, she went to Sri Lanka on her own dime and met local business people. She convinced one to open a textile factory that paid their employees a living wage of three times the national average, and she promised a certain volume of business to that manufacturer. They did, and she ran her clothing company in a responsible way. Once her margins were in order, she brought manufacturing back to North Carolina (her home state, a state that has been plagued economically by the loss of textiles).

She has taken more than 20% market share from the big 2 college clothing providers and continues to grow. Moreover, she has proved that clothing isn't always bought based on price alone, and that a socially-conscious business can afford to charge a premium to people who believe in its cause.

In my opinion, if you want to set an example, do it with success. Do it by proving that what you believe in is possible. Present solutions, and let people use you as a model.

>> ^bareboards2:

Looks to me like Westboro folks are getting bigger numbers and younger numbers. So they are "winning" some hearts and minds. Or idiots who like to be on TV and feel important.
or they keep reproducing..

Your video, Westboro Baptist Church picket The Foo Fighters, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

? dupeof = http://videosift.com/video/Foo-Fighters-sing-to-Westboro-in-counter
-protest


>> ^wormwood:

Not a dupe. This non-censored version is much better and also features pre-show footage.


Also from a different source.

The Foo Fighters' view of this:
http://videosift.com/video/Westboro-Baptist-Church-picket-The-Foo-Fighters