Chris Hedges: Why the Elites Are in Trouble

[marmar]

from truthdig:



Why the Elites Are in Trouble

Posted on Oct 9, 2011
By Chris Hedges


Ketchup, a petite 22-year-old from Chicago with wavy red hair and glasses with bright red frames, arrived in Zuccotti Park in New York on Sept. 17. She had a tent, a rolling suitcase, 40 dollars’ worth of food, the graphic version of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” and a sleeping bag. She had no return ticket, no idea what she was undertaking, and no acquaintances among the stragglers who joined her that afternoon to begin the Wall Street occupation. She decided to go to New York after reading the Canadian magazine Adbusters, which called for the occupation, although she noted that when she got to the park Adbusters had no discernable presence.

The lords of finance in the looming towers surrounding the park, who toy with money and lives, who make the political class, the press and the judiciary jump at their demands, who destroy the ecosystem for profit and drain the U.S. Treasury to gamble and speculate, took little notice of Ketchup or any of the other scruffy activists on the street below them. The elites consider everyone outside their sphere marginal or invisible. And what significance could an artist who paid her bills by working as a waitress have for the powerful? What could she and the others in Zuccotti Park do to them? What threat can the weak pose to the strong? Those who worship money believe their buckets of cash, like the $4.6 million JPMorgan Chase gave a few days ago to the New York City Police Foundation, can buy them perpetual power and security. Masters all, kneeling before the idols of the marketplace, blinded by their self-importance, impervious to human suffering, bloated from unchecked greed and privilege, they were about to be taught a lesson in the folly of hubris.

Even now, three weeks later, elites, and their mouthpieces in the press, continue to puzzle over what people like Ketchup want. Where is the list of demands? Why don’t they present us with specific goals? Why can’t they articulate an agenda?

The goal to people like Ketchup is very, very clear. It can be articulated in one word—REBELLION. These protesters have not come to work within the system. They are not pleading with Congress for electoral reform. They know electoral politics is a farce and have found another way to be heard and exercise power. They have no faith, nor should they, in the political system or the two major political parties. They know the press will not amplify their voices, and so they created a press of their own. They know the economy serves the oligarchs, so they formed their own communal system. This movement is an effort to take our country back. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_elites_are_in_trouble_20111009/

[dipsydoodle]

1. electoral politics is a farce

TRUE.

[Tesha]

7. ...that turns into tragedy. (NT)

[Demeter]

2. To Assert the Will of We the People

and to intimidate.

[Dover]

3. Wow...hadn't heard about the payoff to NYPD by Chase...

Not at all surprised, but I am disgusted that the police would accept it.


Excellent article.

[dkf]

4. Basically they don't believe this Democracy works.

Where it leaves them I have no idea.

[DocMac]

45. This Democracy does not work.

My understanding is that this is their point. I've known it for a while.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Ahhh..I love the sound of Hedges in the morning. Thank you.

[Dover]

6. LOL.....

Too funny (from the article):

“The undercover cops are the only ones who ask, ‘Who’s the leader?’ ” she said. “Presumably, if they know who our leaders are they can take them out. The fact is we have no leader. There’s no leader, so there’s nothing they can do.

“There was a woman . This guy was pretending to be a reporter. The first question he asks is, ‘Who’s the leader?’ She goes, ‘I’m the leader.’ And he says, ‘Oh yeah, what are you in charge of?’ She says, ‘I’m in a charge of everything.’ He says, ‘Oh yeah? What’s your title?’ She says ‘God.’

[Odin2005]

22. LOL!

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. This, the essence:

"What the elites fail to realize is that rebellion will not stop until the corporate state is extinguished. It will not stop until there is an end to the corporate abuse of the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick, children, those being slaughtered in our imperial wars and tortured in our black sites. It will not stop until foreclosures and bank repossessions stop. It will not stop until students no longer have to go into debt to be educated, and families no longer have to plunge into bankruptcy to pay medical bills. It will not stop until the corporate destruction of the ecosystem stops, and our relationships with each other and the planet are radically reconfigured.
And that is why the elites, and the rotted and degenerate system of corporate power they sustain, are in trouble. That is why they keep asking what the demands are. They don’t understand what is happening. They are deaf, dumb and blind."

[weeve]

25. The Grapes of Wrath

That quote reminded me of Henry Fonda's great "I'll Be There" speech to his mother at the end of John Ford's 1940 classic The Grapes of Wrath. What a great inspiration it'd be if someone could screen that film projected onto one of the buildings on Wall Street. Inspiring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yer4L1Uhayc

[defendandprotect]

48. K/R for your post --

Thank you --


:hi:

[mother earth]

9. Revolutions can be tricky, but they are always transforming.

That is what the politicians fear most, real change. Make no mistake, this is the beginning of a transformation into a new era. There will be hope and change afterall, ala we, the people.

[raouldukelives]

10. k&r

[zalinda]

11. The funniest thing about this, is

people don't have jobs or homes that tie them to a certain area at a certain time, so they can stay as long as it takes or til they give up. If they had jobs, people couldn't afford to camp out and protest.

zalinda

[customerserviceguy]

12. According to what I read above

what the protests really want is anarchy. I surely hope that's not the message that gets out from OWS, it will play right into the hands of the GOP.

Also, if you want to be taken seriously, call yourself something other than Ketchup.

[bemildred]

13. No government at all can be better than corrupt, illegitimate, and lawless government.

Which is what we have now.

[customerserviceguy]

15. Yeah, that's what the Tea Party wants, too.

They'd love to shrink government to nothingness and irrelevancy, but they'd rather do it through tax cuts than anything else. As such, they're slightly less threatening to the mushy middle than the way anarchists usually go about doing away with government.

[bemildred]

17. What's your point?

I don't give a shit what the Tea Party wants, do you?

I like big government, and lots of it, and high taxes, and regulations out the wazooo, and lots and lots of free public services, but it has to be honest, legitimate, and readily accountable to the governed.

[customerserviceguy]

21. My point is

Anarchy is not what any thinking person wants in the United States. The OWS movement has to be very, very careful to make sure that they don't give any red meat to the Rethugs running for the nomination, to label the movement as dangerous in any way.

You were the one who said that no government is preferable to what we have now. There are a lot of people in the mushy middle who completely disagree with you on this, and when the Repukes can convince them that we're more dangerous than the tea party, they win.

[bemildred]

27. OWS does not want anarchy, we want the rule of law, and rule according to the public will.

And if you think what we have now is the rule of laws, not of men, then you are not paying attention.

[customerserviceguy]

28. You are right about that

But I remember how people whose simple message was, "Get us out of Vietnam" became fully demonized by the reich-wing. They've all read the books on how to do it again. On the other hand, the civil rights protesters from the MLK era didn't suffer that same fate, although the race-riot burners of 1965-68 did get demonized.

There's nothing that the Repukes would love more than OWS protests at our convention in Charlotte, NC next year. They'd be glad to trot out old movies of Chicago 1968.

[txlibdem]

29. I take exception to every one of your posts in this sub-thread

Your posts are attempting to transform peaceful protest into some kind of false picture of a mob gone wild. You couldn't be more wrong. Even when the police maced two young girls the marchers remained peaceful.

Even when the police guided the marchers onto the Brooklyn Bridge then surrounded and arrested them for blocking traffic (the traffic the police guided them toward), they remained peaceful. Your story doesn't hold up to the facts.

In fact, it sounds like exactly the opposite of anarchy but I'd like you to explain exactly how you came to your conclusion.

[customerserviceguy]

32. My posts

are attempting to show the danger of reich wing media doing what you accuse me of doing. There are a half a dozen Repuke candidates waiting to demonize the protesters, and they have their own media arm, Faux Snooze, ready to help them.

It is absolutely imperative that the protesters continue to remain 100% innocent victims of what the police do to them, if they are to retain any credibility. It's the lesson of Gandhi, and of MLK.

[txlibdem]

38. Your earlier posts were calling the protestors Anarchists

Now you say they are and must remain pure as the driven snow.

I don't know what your position is.

[customerserviceguy]

41. I didn't specifically call anyone an anarchist

but there's a reich-wing media out there only too happy to do it. The OWS protesters must do absolutely everything they can to avoid that label.

Look, I think they're doing the right thing, but they are vulnerable to anyone joining them who wants to take the movement towards a violent or subversive direction. I also think that some leadership would help them focus their anger towards positive legislative solutions to what got us here, and how to fix it.

I'd much rather that Elizabeth Warren spent time articulating ideas for changing the system and channelling the energy of the OWS protesters, rather than get into a pissing match with Scott Brown about who takes off their clothes and how good of an idea that is.

[txlibdem]

44. "According to what I read above what the protests really want is anarchy"

Direct quote from your post #12.

Are you sure you didn't call anyone an anarchist???

[tama]

67. Not opposite of anarchy

but exactly anarchic, ie. leaderless non-violent self-discipline and fearless compassion. Civil disobedience of refusing to follow orders of hierarchical leaders is anarchy by definition.

It's those who fear anarchy and obey orders of psychopathic leaders that mace, hit and arrest peaceful people. When we are afraid we tend to act stupid, "Fear is the mind-killer...".

[txlibdem]

74. According to Webster's

No matter how many times I read the definition I just don't see your thought process. The police brutality is an attempt to incite anarchy as a justification of deadly force. The marchers want a functional government, MORE government, a just and equitable government: anarchy is the absence of any government. The marchers are still obeying the orders of the police and they are staying where they are supposed to be: again, the exact opposite of anarchy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Please show me where they are exhibiting the traits as defined in the link above.

[tama]

75. "Leaderless decentraliced movement of civil disobedience"

Gr. anarchy means "no ruler", as also webster translates. "Leaderless decentraliced movement of civil disobedience" is how this movement has defined itself from the beginning - in short, anarchy. What this movement wants is not defined by you or anyone else alone, but by anarchic decision making methods of general assemblies.

Police brutality against civil disobedience is an attempt to incite fear and anger and violence, not anarchy of disciplined non-violent disobedience.

When veterans of United States of America in Boston refuse to obey the orders of the police to go away from where they want to be, they are practicing disobedience aka anarchy. That is what civil disobedience means: I don't recognize you as my ruler, I don't follow your orders, I am free human being who follows the voice of conscience.

Obedience to authority is the mentality of a child. A real grown-up does not pull the lever in Milgram experiment, a real grown-up does not become concentration camp guard, a real-grown up does not defend his actions by saying "I was just following orders". A real grown-up takes responsibility of her/his actions.

You say you want MORE government. Is MORE police brutality, MORE assassinations by authority of POTUS, MORE persecution of drug users, MORE destruction ecosystems what you really want?

Or could it be that you want just more self-governance of listening to your heart, of taking care of each other, of respecting freedom of grown-ups to decide for themselves as long as they don't harm others, self-governance of cooperation instead of following orders of rulers?

[txlibdem]

77. Consensus decision making is NOT anarchism

Any of the marchers who have an opinion or a solution are free to speak, yes, but the group decision making is not anarchy; it is called consensus.

There are going to be very few DUers who agree with you, mostly because the M$M are trying to paint the ever-growing number of marchers as an anarchist movement. Say it in a thousand different ways if you like. It still doesn't make it true. Again: the Occupy movement wants MORE government involvement, not an absence of government.

By your definition, the GOP and Tea Partiers are the anarchists: they want to do away with the government and they want to be able to ignore the rules of the government as they see fit - as they did under BushCo. THAT is anarchy.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

30. Bring it on. We can learn too.

The 60s political movements went on for fifteen years or so. A great deal of GOOD sweeping legislation came out of those years, there is no reason to think we cannot do even better this time around.

[customerserviceguy]

33. Name anything significant after the 1964-65 civil rights acts

Oh, there's the legislation creating the EPA, but we were lucky that Nixon felt that he had to sign it.

Name anything that the 1960's political movements produced from 1966 to 1980.

[bemildred]

35. LOL.

And you expect to be taken seriously here?
:popcorn:

[customerserviceguy]

36. So, you couldn't come up with anything?

Me, either.

While the Vietnam war protest has been heavily romanticized, the reality is that it gave us twenty out of the next twenty-four years with Repukes holding the White House, with only Jimmy Carter picking up the pieces from the Watergate scandal. It should have ushered in the most progressive era in this nation's history, but it didn't.

The folks who were in the civil rights marches of the early 1960's "kept their eyes on the prize", and made sure that the media could portray them as 100% sympathetic. The race rioters and the antiwar protesters that followed them weren't as good at that, and besides, the reich wing managed to wise up. Nixon was able to sell himself as the "Law and Order" candidate, and even with George Wallace bleeding off the most very racist elements in this country, he still won.

I don't want 1968 repeating itself in 2012, and I'm issuing caution to anybody involved in the protests to not provide red meat to Faux Snooze. Some here want an Egyptian style revolution, well, unless you want the military taking over in the US, you had better be careful about what you wish for.

So, really, can you come up with anything that progressive protest caused to get enacted in the period I stated, besides the EPA legislation that I cited?

[bemildred]

39. Again, what is your point?

Is protest supposed to be useless unless it produces quick, sweeping legislative changes? Do you think that the 60s was the first time there were any complaints about the treatment of blacks here? Have you heard of the Civil War? I don't accept your criteria. If it amuses you to play chicken little worrying about all the many things that might go wrong and discouraging protest unless one is "expert" at it, then knock yourself out, but you won't find a lot of people here fascinated by that line of argument.

[customerserviceguy]

40. My point is:

While many people here see OWS as an unmitigated good thing, it has the potential to go very wrong, very fast. The people involved in it have a lot to lose, and unless they manage to focus their anger and concern in a 100% positive way, there may be very little to gain.

There is a need for a leader or two, someone to articulate just what "stop corporate greed" would look like if it were put into the form of a law that might be passed. The reich wing is looking for the first big slip-up, where things go horribly wrong for some innocent people put out by the protests, who haven't got a damn thing to do with keeping the 1%'ers in power.

I've already seen in my lifetime where a movement for peace was horribly mischaracterized in such a way that it set back progressive causes for decades to come. Any whiff of true anarchy from the protesters will be red meat for the Rethug hopefuls to gobble up on their way to the White House.

[bemildred]

42. Eh, that seems vague and fearful to me.

I think we have a DUTY to fix our broken political system, all of us, and I don't know anybody with experience that expects it to be anything but a donnybrook. You are quite right that the protestors must avoid violence, especially organized violence, but we all know that. Everybody with a brain knows that. Only adolescent fools think picking a fight with law enforcement is "fun".

I'm going to let this go for the moment, I don't have time to explore all this right now, but I have no doubt we will have further occasion to talk about it.

[defendandprotect]

51. Whoa .... what happened after 1963 had nothing to do with any movements going wrong ... in fact,

it was because they were so valid and right that the elites/corporations

acted violently against them -- !!

In 1957, we were given the model of Global Warming -- scientists of course knew about

it long before then -- even back to 1880's and the harm the industrial revolution was

doing to nature/trees.

We had Rachel Carson fighting the chemicals which were destroying nature and animal-life.

We had JFK who was made the Cold War laughable -- and worked for peace with Khruschev --

and we had a Pope John XXIII who was turning the Catholic Church into a democracy and who

told Catholics to decide for themselves whether or not to use artificial birth control -!!


Looked pretty bleak for the elite/corporates -- and they struck out as they always have

with political violence -- a coup on JFK which took not only our president but our

people's government. This is the only way that the RW can rise -- paying for violence with

their wealth -- paying for stolen elections with their wealth -- and paying for a Goebbels'

style press which protects them and keeps them free from challenge.


We've had more than 50 plus years of RW political violence -- unacknowledged by our press.

We have never yet found a solution to the few among us who will be violent to get their way.

But we'll keep trying --

Yes, we have to be prepared for their violence -- but we don't have to be paralyzed by it.

[JDPriestly]

58. Custoemrserviceguy. What we have right now is rule by oligarchy for everyone not in the top

1% and oppression and fear for everyone else. Your post reflects your fear.

Anarchy may be the only response possible to the regime of oppression and fear that anyone not in the top 1% has to be aware of.

These OWS people are simply expressing themselves, using their First Amendment rights. That is what it is about.

And by the way, what about women's rights? What about gay rights? What about the right to a lawyer?

A lot of things were accomplished during the 1960s. You just take them for granted.

[bemildred]

31. PS: you are seriously ignorant if you think civil rights protestors were not "demonized."

Demonizing is how politics is DONE in this country, and you must expect it and be prepared to counter-attack in appropriate ways.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Of course, they were demonized

I remember the term "outside agitators" being hurled by Southern sheriffs hitting freedom riders with fire hoses, full blast.

But it didn't stick. When the race riots of the late 1960's and the political protests against the Vietnam war began, they fought back, and were able to be vilified easier by the media. And we didn't even have Fox News back then running 24/7, trying to dig up every slanted 'story' it can.

[MaineDeadHead]

55. It didn't stick because...

the civil rights movement was right in the majority of American's eye. This movement will succeed because Americans know that the direction we are headed is wrong and the system itself works against correction. We voted for change and got more business as usual.

we want the change. we are the change we want to see.

[defendandprotect]

49. But ....

this is fear-based thinking which can stop us all from acting -- from

creating a movement --

It is the RW which deserves demonizing and we should concentrate on that and the

movement --

Naturally, they will try to disunite and dismantle the movement in any way they can --

expect it, but let's not live in paralyzing fear of it -- !!

We need to have the confidence that we very well understand what is going on and what

they will do to stop it -- and be prepared --

[JDPriestly]

57. customerserviceguy, you are far too cautious.

We tried the organized thing with Obama. It has not worked well. You and I might do things very differently than the OWS people, but this is their OWS, not ours.

[tama]

66. I'm thinking that

anarchy boils down to the confidence in heart that you pull the lever in Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Anarchism means fighting those who order you to pull the lever. E.g. POTUS that orders unlawful assassinations, judicial system that executes fellow citizens, etc...

I'm feeling that this rEvolution means that all 99,999... of us grow up refuse to pull the lever.

[groovedaddy]

16. I don't buy that everyone protesting wants anarachy. I protested at our local "occupation" Friday

night. There was a real mix of people there, ranging from, yes, anarachists, to socialists, to left leaning democrats like me. A lot of stimulating conversations happening.

[bemildred]

18. Stay tuned for fear-mongering about "black block" and other such distractions. nt

[Odin2005]

24. "Black Block" = Agent Provocateurs.

[bemildred]

26. "Never listen to your local FBI plant."

I remember.

[tama]

68. Black block

does not kill or harm people. POTUS and congress and those who obey orders do. Which one should really be feared?

[customerserviceguy]

23. Remember how the tea party was judged

by those carrying racist signs at rallies? The rest of the group was expected to repudiate them. Similarly, the OWS protests are going to be judged by the most outspoken in any particular group, and there are bands of reporters running around to give everybody a fair shot at a microphone.

Remember that old adage about a chain being as strong as it's weakest link? A leaderless movement runs the danger of every member of the group being picked as a spokesperson.

[bread_and_roses]

63. This is the third post in which you've brought up the need for a "leader(s)"

So I am guessing that that is the point that is really really worrying you? No doubt there are perils to leaderless-ness, but there are very real dangers to having "leaders" as well, and we ought to be quite familiar with them, as we've seem them in operation lo these long years since Vietnam.

I am reminded again of a very good article I read over at Commondreams about the calls for OWS to articulate its agenda. The author notes that:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/04-10

And in the recent past, even the most smoothly organized, expertly messaged mass demonstrations have not made a whit of difference in this regard. Consider the last big march on Wall Street this past May 12. The coalition behind it was admirably diverse, including unions like the teachers and SEIU’s 1199, as well as local community organizations such as Citizen Action NY, Coalition for the Homeless and Community Voices Heard. The “May 12 Coalition,” which turned out thousands of protesters on the appointed day, presented the Bloomberg administration with a proposal that exhibited great thoughtfulness in its rigor and detail, asking banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley to take a 20 percent cut in their contracts to handle functions like child support disbursements or income tax remittances for the city. This would have saved $120 million, part of $1.5 billion that could have been extracted from the banking sector to prevent the city from having to slash education and social services, according to the coalition.

The May 12 marchers were many things the OWS protesters are not. They were orderly; they truly represented ordinary New Yorkers. They were concrete: they had a plan. But needless to say, the Bloomberg administration did not immediately recognize their plan’s superior logic and fairness and adopt it as a new template. In fact, it received no attention in the wake of the march. It was such a nonstarter that the city didn’t even bother to respond to it. And the media snoozed.

Or consider another very well thought-out mass action in the age of Obama: the “One Nation Working Together for Jobs, Justice and Education” mobilization, which brought throngs of protesters to Washington, DC, on October 2, 2010. Garnering a turnout organizers estimated at 175,000, the march won endorsements from 400 groups, including all the major national unions, the NAACP, environmental organizations, gay groups and progressive religious forces. Organizers were explicit that their goal was to fire up the liberal base and showcase the diversity of the progressive movement. They also came brandishing a plethora of proposals. Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told the Washington Post, “The truth is there is a lot of focus on the march itself, but a march without a plan of action … is simply a one-day event. What this is about is using this march as a launching pad for policy change.” Shortly thereafter, of course, would come the devastating midterm elections, and President Obama’s cave on the Bush tax cut extension. In terms of media impact, One Nation was almost entirely eclipsed by both Glenn Beck’s rage fest a month prior and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s jokey “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” later the same month.

The article was not addressing leaderless-ness, but the same point could be made. All of these groups have "leaders." And while they are for the most part good people, and many of these organizations are not run in as autocratic, totally top-down, strictly hierarchical fashion as, say, a corporation, still, leadership has its privileges and its perks and its power.

Having privileges and perks and power opens the door for co-option, for bribery or blackmail, and most of all for valuing "a seat at the table" over real efficacy. It is no coincidence that it is these very organizations that have hushed and diverted their membership from really challenging this Administration over its many betrayals of principle and policy. They, after all, "sit at the table," are "in the room" with real power-brokers, a position from which they, personally - not their membership - derive many benefits. Not so much in their salaries, though those are often considerably more than either their workforce or especially their membership, but in access, connections, career mobility.

And then, of course, we have our pre-eminent example of the failure of the "leader" model - Obama. We - even old, cynical, anarcho-syndicalist (sort -of) like me - put our hearts and our faith in him as a "leader." We all know how that turned out.

So, no one can say we have not tried concrete lists of demands and solutions. That we have not tried formal leadership. That we have not tried working within the established political system.

Time to try something else. Like real communalism and democracy - which is what it sounds to me as if the OWS is trying to do. Nothing else has worked. Good for them, I say, good for them. Hierarchy, however benign, is inequality. Power over - which is what surrendering to a leader grants - however kind and well-intentioned, corrupts.

[tama]

69. Don't worry

about how OWS protests are going to be judged - by others than your self.

I'm not afraid of you being a spokesperson or weakest link, you speak well of the fear you feel.

[Cherchez la Femme]

37. Peaceful protest you say is anarchy? O rly?

:rofl:

[Doctor_J]

43. I don't see any call for anarchy in what I read

As a "centrist" you probably don't like the idea of the people actually running the country, but surely you can distinguish between the OWS and the teabaggers.

[mulsh]

64. you must have missed the paragraphs about OWS organizing

into assorted groups and committees, sounds like the antithesis of anarchy.

[tama]

70. Self-organizing non-hierarchically

and using ANARCHIC consensus methods including traditional hand-signs of anarchist meetings. This is what anarchy looks like and that is the real reason why people are joining, because this IS anarchy. Only problem is the common misconception of the word and what it means in practice. The fear-mongering propaganda from those at the top of the political hierarchy. Don't fear your self because that is what anarchy means, being your self instead of letting others to tell you what you are and what to do. It's the way of the heart.

[mopinko]

84. she calls herself ketchup because she is an artist.

i hope it works for her.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[Charronxyz]

19. There is no point in demanding...

There is no point in demanding new barriers to the power of banks and corporation when they have always found ways to ignore or go around the any regulations, the people who created and profited from this financial mess will not be the ones to fix it, nor will the two political parties that are owned by the 1%.

[Odin2005]

20. K&R

"The goal to people like Ketchup is very, very clear. It can be articulated in one word—REBELLION. These protesters have not come to work within the system. They are not pleading with Congress for electoral reform. They know electoral politics is a farce and have found another way to be heard and exercise power. They have no faith, nor should they, in the political system or the two major political parties. They know the press will not amplify their voices, and so they created a press of their own. They know the economy serves the oligarchs, so they formed their own communal system. This movement is an effort to take our country back. "

BINGO!

[defendandprotect]

46. "They have no faith, nor should they, in the political system or the 2 major political parties" --

It can be articulated in one word—REBELLION. These protesters have not come to work within the system. They are not pleading with Congress for electoral reform. They know electoral politics is a farce and have found another way to be heard and exercise power. They have no faith, nor should they, in the political system or the two major political parties. They know the press will not amplify their voices, and so they created a press of their own. They know the economy serves the oligarchs, so they formed their own communal system. This movement is an effort to take our country back. .............(more)

[Muskypundit]

47. Ketchup? Seriously? You want to be taken seriously, and you call yourself ketchup?

My eyes rolled so hard when I came over her "name" it hurt. I support OWS whole-heartedly, but Ketchup?

[plumbob]

53. But "musky" is okay? How about Newt? Adlai? Ike? Dick?

Atilla? Mao? Benito? Barack?

I really do support people's right to the name of their choice.

[Muskypundit]

56. Its not about you. Its about the reich wing media using the name ketchup

to manipulate most of America to dismiss an entire movement. Yea sure, name yourself whatever you want. If you want to be called moonunit 9019283127, fine. If you want to be called Ketchup, whatever. Just dont be surprised if the majority of this country judges you for it when you put yourself out there on the news.

[JDPriestly]

59. And Muskypundit? Doesn't sound like a real name.

Ketchup? Doesn't sound like a real name.

Who needs a "real name"?

Should she change her name to Publius?

Does that Latin sound suit you better?

There are times when an intelligent person doesn't use their "real name," and any name will do.

[Muskypundit]

60. An intelligent person wouldnt give their real name, I agree

An intelligent person would understand how faux news works and wouldnt give them needless ammo, however big or small, by giving a unprofessional immature name.

I know you all probably think I am nit picky and really petty, but comon. That is what fox news does; takes small things that dont matter and spin it into some giant.... I dont think I need to insult your intelligence by telling you the shit they do.

I work psyop for the U.S army. You NEVER leave a message out there with the potential to get hijacked. Shit; if I can do it, you dont think a major news network can change the debate and issue? They probably wont on this particular issue, but go watch fox for a good 30 minutes. You can find about 100 instances of stupid insignificant things being spun out of proportion to change the debate; things even smaller than a pet name.

[JDPriestly]

61. True, but OWS is taking place in spite of Faux News and the other

bland, foolish media.

The LA City Council is handling the challenge very well. With the authorities in Oregon, they are the only ones I know of who understand that joining with others who share you problems to express your discontent is a perfectly natural even positive turn of events.

The OWS, OLA, etc. movement should be promoted by responsible politicians, listened to and viewed as an invitation to dialogue about our priorities and values as a nation.

[tama]

72. Hi there friend!

I'm part of the 99% movement and my real name is Sampo Vesterinen. They can rule us only by fear and I refuse to be afraid.

[bemildred]

65. Not only that, you are banned in French cafeterias.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-france-ketchup-20111006,0,1095831.story

[tama]

71. Catch up! nt

[DeSwiss]

50. K&R

Whaddaya want!?!?! I can't hear you!!!!

[totodeinhere]

52. If this analysis is correct then the Democrats might be in trouble.

Most of the OWL people could potentially be a natural constituency for the Democratic Party. But if many of the demonstrators have a "pox on both of your houses" attitude then they might either sit out the election altogether or support a third party. But at the same time the Tea Party wingnuts are in the pocket of the Republican Party (regardless of their claim that they are non partisan) and can be counted on to reliably vote for the Republicans. This could spell trouble if the OWS movement continues to get traction.

[kestrel91316]

54. Agenda? Goal? Demand? ECONOMIC JUSTICE.

Dear "elite": Fear us. We have reached our collective limit of abuse.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. kick and recommend

[Syntheto]

73. 'Rebellion' or 'Revolution'?

Let's be clear instead of spreading our B.S. (P)iled (H)igh and (D)eeper... These crypto-revolutionary-anarchists who look around, nervously lick their lips and HINT that what they really want is REVOLUTION in the United States disgust me. What, shitting on a police car equates you with Che? Jesus Christ in a handcart, if you're that afraid of getting the shit kicked out of you by the police, before and after you're in custody, then quit with the posing. Either you work with the system or you don't, and it doesn't matter if a Abraham Lincoln or a Millard Fillmore is in the White House. Every American President's bottom line job description is to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Read 'Enemies to the Existing Government, both foreign and domestic'. Revolutions call for weapons. The only way this whole charade would actually work is if the Armed Forces jumped in with war-grade weapons, which incidentally, are a lot more effective than some silly sign asking Wall Street financiers how they sleep at night. The closest thing to the present situation in our time is what happened at Tienanmen Square. Look what happened then. To those too young, there was a rumor that some opposition general in the People's Liberation Army was on his way to Peking at the head of a tank column and that the protesters had HOPE on the way. It turned out to be only a rumor, unfortunately, but everybody understood at the time that it was going to take exactly that sort of military technology and manpower to overcome the status quo. How did that turn out? The CWA and Electrician's Union aren't striking, and their representatives service the data network infrastructure that underlies the Wall Street monolith. Why haven't they decided to strike and refuse to cross protest lines? If nobody maintains the network, then the network goes down. What, you say, it's won't go down unless 'Anonymous' makes it so? I'm sure there's at least one CWA person or Electrician who would laugh at that, knowing all it would take is to pull certain cables in sequence or introduce a virus into the system. Another case of elitism and class warfare. You see, the 'hackers' are uber-intelligent sentient beings who can toy with whomever they choose, while a telephone technician is, well, something of a Moorlock ya dig? Anyway, until members of the Armed Forces take over their commands and weaponry, as with the Battleship Potemkin and march into and fly over Wall Street arm in arm with dues-paying Electricians and Communications workers, this whole goofy slumber party will remain nothing more than a bunch of posers attempting to gain some liberal street cred and to indulge in some vanity blog posting. "Oh, I was at the Occupy Wall Street(r) thing." I'll bet there's even some snobbery going around. "Oh, well, you people at occupy Kansas City are, well, quaint, but, sniff, some of us were at the SHOW. Right on. I'll say it again, especially because it annoys some people here: in six weeks, the news will all be gaga over the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy. This posing bitch session currently referred to as 'Occupy Wall Street' (or anywhere for that matter) will be a distant memory. Goddamnit! Why didn't this happen in August-September 2012 when it might have actually done some good?

[tama]

76. It's good

to practice self-governance before over-throwing the government. It's good to get the heat of frustrated anger out of your system (e.g. in a futile riot like in London), so you can turn the feeling of injustice into cold rage against the ruling class and warm compassion toward their victims.

It's not really difficult to over-throw the government by sabotage and riot by urban industrial people and even lumpen proletariat, they could have taken down the system in Athens 2008. But what do you eat, how do you feed your children if you just destruct and have nothing constructed to replace the system? Urban destructive revolution that is not supported by rural people and constructive networks of keeping us fed and keeping us warm don't fly. Pizza solidarity is a beginning, the next step is united occupation with organic farmers markets and guerrilla gardening etc.

[txlibdem]

78. The Revolution will not be televised... because there IS no Revolution

Your posts seem to be an attempt to paint the Occupy movement with the broad brush of un-American, unpatriotic, evil plotters who want to destroy the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, the Occupy marchers want the government to start WORKING, not to overthrow or stop it. They want the government to stop taking the orders handed down by lobbyists and the top 1% and START to govern as if they are responsible to the 300 million OTHER people in this land.

[tama]

81. FYI

I'm not American, I despise American and any other imperialism and "patriotic" nationalist chauvinism in every form and I despise blind obedience to psychopathic and corrupt rulers and authorities.

I belong to indigenous people, I love my mother tongue and I love my children, I love this Mother Earth and all Her life in deep gratitude. I understand and accept that we are all in the same boat, mother-ship Tellus. That is why I'm part of this global movement of liberation from tyranny of greed and oppression that OWS is part of and I stand in solidarity with people who want to work together instead of getting lost in divisive and counter-productive partisan politics. And no, I'm not ashamed to call myself anarchist. Nobody else can define anarchy or rEvolution on my behalf, I do that by myself in how I am and what I do and do not. I am a free man and that is how I define my rEvolution: being free.

[txlibdem]

82. I don't hate America

I hate our economic system, our political system, our CIA, our government of, by, and for the rich and corporations. That's all.

[tama]

83. I love you nt

[txlibdem]

79. Did you actually write that post?

It reads like a quote right out of Faux News. Revolution? No. Evolution? Hell yes!

The Occupy marchers want the government to STOP working only for the lobbyists and the top 1% and to START working for the 300 million citizens who actually have the power in this country.

The marchers are sending a message that the majority of Americans agree with: Members of Congress and the President, you are on notice. You CAN be fired. Americans have the power and your time is short if you do not act to help the 300 million instead of focusing on tax breaks for the rich (that's worked so well under Bush and Obama, haven't they?).

Soon the snow will start falling and the number of marchers will diminish and finally there will be nobody on the streets carrying signs. That does NOT mean that we will have forgotten come November. And it DOESN'T mean that spring will not see the marches returning. The current government has a chance to keep their jobs. The chances aren't good that they'll be able to, IMO. I look forward to a LOT of incumbents losing their cushy jobs (but don't worry, they've voted themselves a cushy pension so they'll be set for life -- how about you?).

[Syntheto]

85. You're hopeful...

...but your wrong. That's my opinion. Evolution instead of Revolution? That's the same as the process of turning a T. Rex into Barney... That sounds nice and cute and there's a place for it on TV. But, as with so much of the stuff that gets posted here, it's silly nonsense, just like this whole Occupy paradigm. I find it hard to believe any thinking person actually believes this stuff is going to make a change in anything. The perennial protest eh? Just take it back up when the weather's better. Let's see, you'll have baseball season, basketball season, football and the Protest Season(r). I'm glad you covered your ass about how the snow is going to push the protests off the street. I guess after the posers and their media lapdogs leave, that'll just leave the homeless out on the street again. Faux News, eh? Take it up with the mods, sport.