I'm interested in this documentary, but the trailer seems to bring about a tone of "We're the Fucking Greatest!"

It reminded me of a report I read about US students testing in Math being the worst comparative to the rest of the world...but our confidence being higher than everyone elses. That's what this already seems to me like these are a bunch of people quite skilled but with rather inflated ideas about who they are and how they effect the world. The Arab Spring comment REALLY makes me question how this group sees itself, because I'm pretty sure the people who were protesting and dying don't see it the same way.

So I'm approaching this VERY skeptically and I think they'd actually appreciate that.

>> ^Yogi:

I would like to add something about this mother who's working hard to protest and making her world better and getting crap for it. A woman named Asmaa Mahfouz did the same thing in Egypt, she sparked a youth movement with a video one week before the Egyptian Revolution. Her video is already posted on here...
http://videosift.com/video/Asmaa-Mahfouz-and-the-vlog-th
at-Helped-Spark-the-Revolution.
Or how about Tawakel Karman mother of three and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (first Arab woman) for her heading of the "Women Journalist without Chains" organization. As well as her involvement in the Arab Spring and being the public face of the Yemeni Uprising. Her family supports her even when she is away from home. A video of her on Democracy Now is here.
http://videosift.com/video/Tawakel-Karman-Nobel-Laureate-on-Democracy
-Now
What I'm pointing out is these women in Muslim countries are protesting and working hard to make their countries better. To fight a corrupt system, and I'm sure they're getting a lot of pushback for being women, sometimes needing protection because they're women. This is what's happening in the US as well, we are no better. We're mocking women for standing up and telling them this is not their place, their place is at home. Well No! These women didn't believe that and they succeeded in doing GREAT THINGS! This woman is fighting for something great as well and she needs our support but mostly she needs morons like the media to stop telling her where she SHOULD be. She knows exactly where she should be!


@Yogi,

I have never enjoyed a comment of your so much before.

Hear, hear and three cheers for Yogi!!

I would like to add something about this mother who's working hard to protest and making her world better and getting crap for it. A woman named Asmaa Mahfouz did the same thing in Egypt, she sparked a youth movement with a video one week before the Egyptian Revolution. Her video is already posted on here...

http://videosift.com/video/Asmaa-Mahfouz-and-the-vlog-that-Helped-Spark-the-Revolution.

Or how about Tawakel Karman mother of three and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (first Arab woman) for her heading of the "Women Journalist without Chains" organization. As well as her involvement in the Arab Spring and being the public face of the Yemeni Uprising. Her family supports her even when she is away from home. A video of her on Democracy Now is here.

http://videosift.com/video/Tawakel-Karman-Nobel-Laureate-on-Democracy-Now

What I'm pointing out is these women in Muslim countries are protesting and working hard to make their countries better. To fight a corrupt system, and I'm sure they're getting a lot of pushback for being women, sometimes needing protection because they're women. This is what's happening in the US as well, we are no better. We're mocking women for standing up and telling them this is not their place, their place is at home. Well No! These women didn't believe that and they succeeded in doing GREAT THINGS! This woman is fighting for something great as well and she needs our support but mostly she needs morons like the media to stop telling her where she SHOULD be. She knows exactly where she should be!

>> ^darkrowan:

For all the goofieness of this vid it does bring up a good question: Who's replacing them? Could be, like The Who said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?


Seems to be, unlike popular uprisings in some other countries which have resulted in the overthrow of a dictator by the people, this has been paid gangs of thugs backed by NATO airstrikes dealing with Qadhafi and any local resistance. What seems most worrisome is the National Transitional Councils decision to give policy decision making authority out to corporations, for example:
Monetary policy is handled by the Central Bank of Benghazi
http://www.ntclibya.org/english/meeting-on-19-march-2011/

..and oil policy is handled by... The Libyan Oil Company.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

Pretty much the same as if Bank of America were given full authority to handle all policy decisions for America's banking system, or if Exxon Mobil got to make all fossil fuel and environmental policy.

How is it that you can condemn me for condescension and self-righteousness, while being condescending and self-righteous, without a trace of awareness? I don't think I am better than anyone else. Yes, I enjoy a bit of flourish now and then, so perhaps I was overbearing in my criticism..however, as a movement, OWS is incoherent. No real message and no real solution. We are 99 percent? They don't represent the views of anyone I know. I think some people are hoping it will get violent and turn into an Arab Spring situation. Except it won't. Most people in this country, while fed up, are hard working people who aren't looking for a handout.

>> ^Fletch:
I see now that condescension and self-righteousness are actually personality traits of yours, and not just your attitude toward heathens and atheists. However, I think we were already well-aware of your inability to grasp simple, rational concepts and... well, English. No need to keep proving it. We get it.
Joe Pesci Bless you.
PLONK.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I see what you did there..and this is a movement without any cohesive message or objective..just seems like its bunch of college dropouts collectively shouting "WAAAAH!" It's first world problems on steriods. Everyone has a different sign with a different gripes, it's a cacaphony of inarticulate complaining. I agree with the general message that the rich run this country..To which I reply, no duh. This country, along with every other in history, follows the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. So long as we live in a fallen world, this isn't going to change.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.
Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.
>> ^ghark:
I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.
Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.
You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.
Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.
This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.
So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.
It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."


I think the argument has to go a little deeper than that - you are talking about improving the number of 'rational-acting' Democrats which is a noble idea, and one which I of course support. However, at some point (if things stay the way they are) people are going to be unhappy with the system so you're going to get swing voters voting Republican. So unless both parties are brought into line we'll just persist with the current system where, no matter what anyone votes, there will never be enough Bernie Sanders' to make a difference.

The answer to both your Democratic problem, and the Republican problem can be mostly solved by just one change, removing the money in politics.

I don't think it should ever be about which side is better, it should be about 'how do we get the results we want' - talk is cheap after all.

The reason I don't think you can just hope for more people to vote Democrat and expect change that way is Obama had a huge wave of support in the last election; you'd just had years of Iraq war, Afghan occupation, colonialism just about anywhere there was oil, corporate looting, disastrous economic decisions etc by Bush, 2008 was the moment where the Democrats could have made a difference. But what have they done? I mean seriously, while we debate this nonsense people are getting slaughtered all over the world in the name of oil, by your troops, by your private armies, by your weapons and often with other countries support (including mine). There is a time for debate, but we must also realize that we are destroying our own livelihoods and the livelihoods of our children, we need to fix the path we're on sooner rather than later.

>> ^ghark:
Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

Yes, I'm highlighting their hypocrisy, because they are actually being hypocritical.

Democrats are not. They are sympathetic to OWS. They are saying good things about OWS. They are not capable of issuing orders to the police protesters are clashing with, and they definitely are not ordering a violent crackdown on demonstrators who are largely arguing for Democratic proposals.

>> ^ghark:

I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election.

Let's do some quick math. Suppose the Democratic Party consisted only of clones of Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin. Further, let's suppose that in any given election, the Democratic party sends 80% Bernies, and 20% Joes to Congress. For simplicity, let's assume all the Joes always vote with Republicans, and that 100% of the Republicans vote against anything OWS wants.

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. How big does the Democratic Party's margin of victory need to be for there to be 60 clones of Bernie Sanders in the Senate? Answer: 75. You need Democrats to carry 75% of the Senate. That means a minimum of 25 of 50 states need to have both their Senators be Democrats. Are there 25 blue states? And that scenario also requires ALL the remaining states be purple, with no pure red states at all.

Now, if Republicans weren't filibustering everything and anything, then the math changes only slightly. Democrats could pass legislation with just 50 votes (plus Biden), but as long as the Republican party stays 100% unified against anything even remotely like what OWS wants, you need 63 Democrats in order to wind up with 50 Bernies.

This is my way of saying "Democratic purity isn't the problem" -- 80% Bernies would be a massive, massive leap forward in Democratic ideological purity, and it still wouldn't do jack shit for us, because the deck is stacked against us by a) the rules of the Senate, and b) lockstep Republican opposition to sane policy.

So, are you out there working to help give Democrats that kind of majority, or improve their purity, or at least doing something about Republicans? Fuck no, you're out there taking potshots at Democrats because you didn't get a pony from Obama.

It ticks me off, because it's part of what's killing this country. To quote Yeats, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

>> ^ghark:

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?
@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.
Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-li
bya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/
The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world
/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html
By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.


So your view on Libya is that Gaddafi didn't leave behind any mass graves, was not on the verge of prosecuting a genocide that he had publicly announced his intentions for, AND there are actual mass graves in Libya but only those dug by the rebels opposing Gaddafi?

So you support Gaddafi then. History won't remember your side well.

@NetRunner I agree that Republican obstructionism is not good, but if Dem's had the significant majority in both the house and senate would it make a big difference? I think in the past it might have, when the corporate influence in politics wasn't so great, these days... I think it's a very hard argument to make, especially considering the fact they didn't do anything significant when they did have the numbers after the last election. Besides, by saying the GOP made nice comments about Arab Spring then bad comments about these protests, aren't you highlighting their hypocrisy? So what's the big deal about highlighting hypocrisy when it comes from the other side?

@bcglorf Your 'protesters' were mercenaries paid for with oil profits, as I already mentioned (and verified with links) in our last discussion, it seems you do not learn. You also cannot decide what others can and cannot think, as you seem to suggest is possible. Part of the official mission statement of the OWS protesters is the recognition that America has "perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad". I would say that hiring merceneries to secure oil supplies and then installing a friendly dictatorship to ensure trade agreements is pretty damn close to colonialism. The most sickening irony of your statement is that, unlike your fairyland mass graves that don't exist (see below), the rebels actually have been killing government supporters and burying them in mass graves.

Your mass graves
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/06/rebel-claims-of-libya-mass-graves-come-up-empty-again/

The real mass graves
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/about-900-bodies-in-libya-mass-graves-20111006-1lbth.html

By all means, continue to spread propaganda like your life depends on it, you're completely transparent.

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf bombing a country into submission 'proactively' counts as taking action on behalf of demonstrators that are, in part, protesting against these immoral wars?


The Libyan Arab spring protesters would already be buried in mass graves were it not for the NATO air cover. The OWS crowd can NOT claim any manner of solidarity with the Arab spring protesters by claiming suffering and unjust use of their money to save the Arab spring protester's lives.

Okay, now you're just being ignorant. Nothing about these protests have ended the Republican obstructionism. They're dismissing or badmouthing these protests.

With Republicans standing in 100% opposition to everything Democrats try to pass (even the Republican-lite stuff), what can Obama do about anything the protesters are upset about?

So why not focus on the hypocrisy of the Republicans? They've been utterly offensive with what they've been saying about these protests, but they were saying all sorts of nice things about the Arab Spring.

Wouldn't that be more conducive to the protest's goals?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do

Do what?

Have they done anything?
Perhaps me and you can form a slightly-bi partisan committee and vote on what should be done?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^ghark:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^ghark:
I think it highlights the irony quite well, for example Hillary Clinton near the start of the video saying ..."leaders need to respond to these aspirations"....
I haven't seen any of the established political leadership rising up and responding to the democratic aspirations of the protesters. That's what the video is about, hypocrisy, so it makes the point it's meant to.

Really? You haven't seen anyone in Washington respond to their aspirations? Watch TV at all?
I'll admit it's mostly stuff like "they have legitimate concerns", but I'm sorta wondering what more you're expecting politicians to say at this point.

Do

Do what?

Have they done anything?
Perhaps me and you can form a slightly-bi partisan committee and vote on what should be done?


Obama basically destroyed all of his popularity and good will trying to put in publicly funded healthcare. He destroyed even more of his good will supporting the Arab spring opposition in Libya by using American air power to prevent their genocide.

Presumably both those actions show solidarity and empathy for the underprivileged.

Even without that, if you are advocating for change you don't get to shrug your shoulders when asked what change to make. Be as specific as possible too, or you'll be given the letter of what you asked and told to be content while receiving nothing like what you wanted.

If I'm to make my own contribution in a by-partisan fashion my only vehement request would be that we ask for nothing too drastic. For all the faults and failures in America's structures, they are still near the very, very top of what people have achieved for themselves in any nation anywhere. Don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water as the Tea Partiers are so eager to do.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Payback:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.

Never said I was talking about elected officials.

No head examination for you then!


Arg, Sylar has returned!

they arrest the 'I'm not moving' guy at around 3:52, you can see them holding him up by his pants if I'm not mistaken

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.

Never said I was talking about elected officials.


No head examination for you then!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Payback:
Please, the two situations are ENTIRELY different.
The one is a bunch of beaten-down, disenfranchised, angry people, trying to fight back against a tyrannical, all-powerful dictators, with groups of cronies and clandestine corporate interests, which are literally ripping money from the people and passing it around, enriching the tiniest portion of their populace and using violence and rights suppression to further their evil agendas.
The other one, Arab Spring, actually has a chance of succeeding.

So true, though anyone who thinks Obama and Hillary are the dictators really needs their head examined.


Never said I was talking about elected officials.