Occupy Wall Street and Media Blackout

Originally Posted by Party Rock

I have no particularly strong stance on the matter, but "I want to do this" is not an excuse for not thinking things through in an economic sense. The point of a job is to do things for someone else in return for money. Even in a reasonable world, people might have some sort of burning desire to do something that very few find value in, like some artists these days. If someone wants to follow their dream without prioritizing financial security, then they take the risk of all of this blowing up in their face.

There's also no excuse to not include a "safety net" (system that provides basic needs, quality standard of living, and education) for those whose aspirations didn't take off and to help those who want to do something with their lives.

I can't recall how many times I've seen plenty of people that would like to contribute to society or develop original ideas, but won't do so because of the risks involved.

"You know.. I'd REALLY like to go to college and obtain that Engineering degree.. but I think I'll stay as a cashier in this Drug Store. I just can't take the risk of some disaster that would put me hopelessly in debt or on the streets.."

Imo, if you invent this "safety net", I think it would inspire those not willing to take the risk of becoming homeless or hopelessly in debt to go on with their dreams and do something original and significant for society.

Originally Posted by John

No, US media is ludicrously far right. It probably doesn't help that Rupert Murdoch owns some ludicrous portion of it.

Your argument sounds a lot similar to what those on the right say all the damn time about the media in America, only you are claiming a right-wing bias rather than a "liberal bias". After all, the media will swing to anything controversial, politics be damned, if it means more ratings.

I don't see anything ridiculous about it. I'm all for a world where sexual-reassignment surgery was government-funded, and mental healthcare should definitely not be something one has to pay for out-of-pocket.

I wouldn't even define sexual-reassignment surgery as a mental healthcare issue. Hell since it is a very personal issue, I would rather they pay for it themselves, for it is their body and well, they should pay for the choice they want to make. It wouldn't be fair to pay for someone elses choice. I don't fund someones tattoo or piercing, for its their body and its what they want to do.

Originally Posted by Nox

Your argument sounds a lot similar to what those on the right say all the damn time about the media in America, only you are claiming a right-wing bias rather than a "liberal bias". After all, the media will swing to anything controversial, politics be damned, if it means more ratings.

The fact that two people claim different things does not mean that the truth must be exactly between them. FOX is the most-watched news source in the US, and is unashamedly so far right that they make Mussolini look leftist. I mean, they ran a week-long mock-Obama-fest because he used a paperclip to hold a document together.

I wouldn't even define sexual-reassignment surgery as a mental healthcare issue. Hell since it is a very personal issue, I would rather they pay for it themselves, for it is their body and well, they should pay for the choice they want to make. It wouldn't be fair to pay for someone elses choice. I don't fund someones tattoo or piercing, for its their body and its what they want to do.

How do you feel about government funding of grafts for burn victims? Plastic surgery for those born with too many fingers/toes? Eye surgery for conditions that glasses can correct for? Surgery for people with non-life-threatening disfigurations?

All of those would fall under modifications that a person makes to their body, and most probably count as personal issues. I'd also argue that all of those should very much be covered by government funding.

And sex-reassignment is very much a mental health issue. Pre-op trans people suffer a significant amount of mental anguish, even if they're still "in the closet", due to the mismatch of their body and mind. After coming out it gets much, much worse due to discrimination and bigotry.

Anyone else talk with any of the protesters on their website's chat for Occupy Wall Street? I did.

It was pretty fun, too. Most of the ones I talked to agree with me about how you should do work, or get no money.

The protest only, as of now, has four main things.
1) Get the troops home
2) Stop federal auditing or something with that (I can't remember 100%)
3) Stop deficit spending.
4) Repeal the Patriot Act.

That's really what the group, as a whole, has agreed upon for their main platform it seems to me.

Most of them are coolbros who just want everyone to have equal footing, and want everyone to work for their money. They don't want the rich to do nothing for everything, but don't want to give money to a hobo with no job. At least the ones I talked to were like that.

Personally, the way I see it, even if they get all they want we'll have problems. New problems, old problems, a mix. That's what'll always happen.

Way I personally see it though, a lot of the problem is that companies are going to China and paying $1 an hour there, when they should be here paying $7.25 an hour at minimum and making us jobs.

After all, if you're on the street poor and jobless, you have no room to complain about getting min. wage at a job you just got. That's $7.25 for every hour you work. If you're tight with your money, you can better your life quite a deal after a bit of working that way. And then eventually you get pay raises.

But people have to expect low wages to start with, I figure. You don't start with a big income. You work up to it.

Just saying how I see things.

Oh, the irony of protesting capitalism when we haven't even had a truly capitalist system yet...

The 4 things America just mentioned sound a hell of a lot better, though. The Patriot Act is an unconstitutional abomination and should never have become law.

Originally Posted by John

The fact that two people claim different things does not mean that the truth must be exactly between them. FOX is the most-watched news source in the US, and is unashamedly so far right that they make Mussolini look leftist. I mean, they ran a week-long mock-Obama-fest because he used a paperclip to hold a document together.

Just because FOX is the most watched news source doesn't automatically make the media as a whole biased. You're picking and choosing.

How do you feel about government funding of grafts for burn victims? Plastic surgery for those born with too many fingers/toes? Eye surgery for conditions that glasses can correct for? Surgery for people with non-life-threatening disfigurations?

All of those would fall under modifications that a person makes to their body, and most probably count as personal issues. I'd also argue that all of those should very much be covered by government funding.

I dunno how much Medicare/Medicaid funds, but plastic surgery is definitely not one of them. Grafts for burn victims is obviously covered because having skin over a damaged area is not only a cosmetic, but a health issue. Eye surgery would count too, even Lasik treatments.

And sex-reassignment is very much a mental health issue. Pre-op trans people suffer a significant amount of mental anguish, even if they're still "in the closet", due to the mismatch of their body and mind. After coming out it gets much, much worse due to discrimination and bigotry.

Since you put it like that, having psychological treatment funded for any problems is fine yes and we already have that for vets. I'm all for having a public health option (mainly expanding Medicare and Medicaid, but that's a different topic), but when it comes to modifying your body for non-life threatening issues (as in physically) it should be funded by yourself because that is your choice so thus, you pay for it.

Honestly curious. Was this just what a few people on a chat told you, or has anyone released a manifesto saying, "yeah forget the eight hour work day, and big bankers, we're mad about the war and the patriot act". Or are these just a couple voices in the crowd?

Originally Posted by 8bit

I have, and I have explained the logic. You are holding a shorter work day to a much higher standard than you would hold any other legislation. To return to the DADT example, I feel its safe to assume that you supported the repeal of DADT, and that you did not stop to question the indirect impacts of DADT on small businesses. Why are you making a special exemption for this?

Because this specifically targets economic issues for economic reasons. DADT did nothing of the kind.

I do, generally speaking. I do not on an individual, case by case basis.

Generally speaking? Are you familiar, in general, with all types of industry contained under the umbrella of small business? The nuances that they require for sustenance of said industry? Do you think a general knowledge of small businesses as a whole is conclusive enough?

They do, however, have the ability to raise the exchange value of their products/services.

Raising prices combats the effect of the shorter work day.

Not concretely, that is why it is an abstract value.

Okay. So you cannot objectively show that a CEO is not working 262 times as hard as his employees. Why then do you call that an inefficiency when you yourself state that you cannot assess the value of labor with an objective standard?

Via the same methodology you would use to solve any Fermi problem. We can make accurate estimations based on the information we do have: The money supply, the working population, the percentage of the working population within the field in question, the number of work-hours contributed by the worker or organization in question, etc.

Well, the only real problem with Fermis is that they cause house fires.

Of course. But there are so many different conclusions to come to.

That just means the labor value is an abstract quantity, and can not be measured accurately, without changing the measurement. That does not mean that we can not come to approximations regarding value. Given a generalized context (such as the weight of a hypothetical car, the speed of a hypothetical plane, the labor value of a hypothetical worker, etc...) we are working within the context of approximations anyway.

Hence, the reason there are a multitude of economic ideas and theories.

No, a value being abstract does not mean that we can necessarily assign it whatever value we want, it simply means that it is not measurable.

Different variables mean different things to different people.

Originally Posted by mattj

Honestly curious. Was this just what a few people on a chat told you, or has anyone released a manifesto saying, "yeah forget the eight hour work day, and big bankers, we're mad about the war and the patriot act". Or are these just a couple voices in the crowd?

My point exactly. This is a movement for completely legitimate reasons, nowhere on the damn website does it say, "we are for repealing the patriot act (though I do agree, it needs to go) and installing communism". Seriously, this is what I mean by a movement being hijacked by pundits.

Police Use Pepper Spray And Batons On Protesters - At Least Twenty Arrested | OccupyWallSt.org

Apparently the police started cracking heads and macing people including the Fox 5 news team.

As I said, one police officer will go too far then the killing will start. A riot is the typical conclusion to this sort of protest.

Originally Posted by Nox

Just because FOX is the most watched news source doesn't automatically make the media as a whole biased. You're picking and choosing.

Obviously there exists varying levels of bias across different media companies.

However, as a whole, the US media has a significant rightward slant.

Likewise, the force of gravity at the equator is weaker than at the poles. Yet Earth's gravity, as a whole, has a downward slant.

I dunno how much Medicare/Medicaid funds, but plastic surgery is definitely not one of them. Grafts for burn victims is obviously covered because having skin over a damaged area is not only a cosmetic, but a health issue. Eye surgery would count too, even Lasik treatments.

Plastic surgery for things like extra digits or webbing between fingers is free here. I'm, quite frankly, surprised that you're opposed to such a thing.

Since you put it like that, having psychological treatment funded for any problems is fine yes and we already have that for vets. I'm all for having a public health option (mainly expanding Medicare and Medicaid, but that's a different topic), but when it comes to modifying your body for non-life threatening issues (as in physically) it should be funded by yourself because that is your choice so thus, you pay for it.

So you seriously think that people should have to pay out-of-pocket to get extra digits removed? To treat non-life-threatening burns? To have reconstructive surgery on their face after a car accident?

I do think there is validity in saying our current income gap is unfair. Unfortunately, in political protests, the most entitled people are the loudest. The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators prepared a particularly unreasonable list of demands, some of them involving free higher education and elimination of credit reporting agencies, both of which are radical and incredibly stupid demands.

I also find it hard to support their side of the story when I can't find any reliable information about what's really going on. Sure, many people would like to think that the police are really just a puppet of the plutocracy, which is why they're pepper spraying protestors for seemingly no reason, but I find that claim highly unlikely. There are always multiple sides of the story.

This protest would have been most effective if the protestors hadn't alienated so many people from the start. I always like to point out Martin Luther King Jr. as a model example of social reform, because of his ability to show the religious and conservative nature of black people, characteristic of the opposition towards desegregation. If the Wall Street protestors had came out wearing suits and promising to make tax reform a priority along with a list of other reasonable demands, people would have been more warm to their cause.

There has been some coverage

Originally Posted by Nox

Show me a quote from the website where they say "We are a communist movement" and I will believe you that it is.

I can do one further, as I already have, by quoting the top demands. As I already have.

I dunno, these people seem to want moreso what everyone wants: jobs, security, and the return of the American Dream. You know, just like every typical American . . .

Which has nothing to do with the actual demands or the political persuasion of those involved. You could say the same of anarchists and fascists; communists and hard-lined capitalists. Everyone wants those things. Not everyone wants to tax the rich, reimplement glass-steagall, or abolish capitalism.

"How do we end this deficit? End the wars and tax the rich!"

That is the left.

What is happening in Greece, Spain, and Egypt is mass protesting.

What is happening in Greece, Spain, Egypt, and now the US, is not just protest, it is direct action. Again, this isn't some display, this is an occupation.

It is organized yes and that's fine, but what I'm saying is that this will get more clout if the protests move onto DC. Occupy the Mall . . . you'll get people scared there. And if worse comes to worse, still stay non-violent.

They already are.

There are over 120 occupations in the US.

Show me an Occupy Wall Street viewer who is anti-abortion or wants to reform the EPA in order to bring back manufacturing jobs.

See what I just did there?

You just showed that the protesters are on the left...?

Hardly extremist in the sense (though Malcom X was pretty extreme in the beginning), they were moreso radical in thought,

You realize those words mean the same thing, right, with the exception that 'radical' generally only applies to the far left?

but even then they weren't arguing for complete and total control, when you look at every extremist movement, all of it can be summed up in one word: power and control.

"Extremist" just means far from the political center.

And really, how is my view black and white I may ask

Because you have displayed a complete and blanketed dismissal of anyone who you view to be outside of the political center, just on the cyclical, Aristotelian argument that they are not within the political center.

when all your argument is now is just word-for-word copying and pasting of the Occupy Wall St. site

It's not... but that's a complete non-sequitur anyway.

So the media is far-right . . . um hardly that. The media once again, panders to controversy. After all, those people who held up the Bush=Hitler signs got tons of media coverage just as much as the Obama=Communist/Hitler/whatever else right-wing nutjobs want to call him these days signs.

What did they call themselves?

Do I really have to explain myself again? I'm not against this movement at all, I'm all for it.

Then you're not a centrist. That's fine. Embrace the dark side.

The only thing I'm worried about since its so young and has no leadership is that far-left crazies are going to hijack an otherwise legitimate movement just like the Tea Party got hijacked by right-wing nut jobs back in 2009.

Considering how far left it is, and how much the far right has been deriding it thus far, I am more worried about it being coopted by moderates and center-conservatives like MoveOn.org.

---------- Post added at 01:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Because this specifically targets economic issues for economic reasons. DADT did nothing of the kind.

In either case, we're talking about indirect impacts.

Generally speaking? Are you familiar, in general, with all types of industry contained under the umbrella of small business? The nuances that they require for sustenance of said industry? Do you think a general knowledge of small businesses as a whole is conclusive enough?

I wasn't talking about my knowledge, I was talking about the impact.

That said, I think that inaction is action. Are you familiar enough with the nuances of all small businesses to say that maintaining an 8 hour work day would not be bad for them?

Raising prices combats the effect of the shorter work day.

Not as all, as it siphons money off the top, and injects it into the bottom. The primary issue here is inequality. The 8 hour work day did the same thing.

Okay. So you cannot objectively show that a CEO is not working 262 times as hard as his employees. Why then do you call that an inefficiency when you yourself state that you cannot assess the value of labor with an objective standard?

I can objectively point out the paradox that this implies, as I have already done. I do not need to find exact labor values to do that.

Of course. But there are so many different conclusions to come to.

Hence, the reason there are a multitude of economic ideas and theories.

There are many.

Different variables mean different things to different people.

Sure, but that doesn't change their value. For example, if I claim to have talked to have seen a ghost, and believe that I have seen a ghost, that does not mean that I have actually seen a ghost.

I also find it hard to support their side of the story when I can't find any reliable information about what's really going on. Sure, many people would like to think that the police are really just a puppet of the plutocracy, which is why they're pepper spraying protestors for seemingly no reason, but I find that claim highly unlikely. There are always multiple sides of the story.

Watch the livestream: http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

It's the white collars, not the rest of the cops. Back when it was all blue collars, the cops were very peaceful.

Originally Posted by Pistolero

There's also no excuse to not include a "safety net" (system that provides basic needs, quality standard of living, and education) for those whose aspirations didn't take off and to help those who want to do something with their lives.

I can't recall how many times I've seen plenty of people that would like to contribute to society or develop original ideas, but won't do so because of the risks involved.

"You know.. I'd REALLY like to go to college and obtain that Engineering degree.. but I think I'll stay as a cashier in this Drug Store. I just can't take the risk of some disaster that would put me hopelessly in debt or on the streets.."

Imo, if you invent this "safety net", I think it would inspire those not willing to take the risk of becoming homeless or hopelessly in debt to go on with their dreams and do something original and significant for society.

Oh, I agree that the necessities (food, water, shelter, health care, clothing, basic communication) should be provided to everybody, but not for the reason you're putting forward. I believe it would be harmful to society if this provision of necessities were treated specifically as a "safety net" for those who did things that society found relatively little value in, since it would give those people an excuse to continue doing things that society finds relatively useless.

Originally Posted by John

and mental healthcare should definitely not be something one has to pay for out-of-pocket.

I'm all sorts of ♥♥♥♥ed up right now because of this. Ironically, I can't work to get money for health care because of my mental issues.

I'm stuck in a ♥♥♥♥ing hole.

Another funny thing is, I can't get government-funded health care because they do it by lottery here where I live. Don't ask me how that works.

UPDATES:

120+ occupations accross the country

head count estimate at 10,000 - 15,000 for today at OWS

[update from earlier about today's kettling and beatings]



Public Opinion:

American support for OWS:

Approve: 33%

Disaprove: 27%

No opinion: 40%

Originally Posted by 8bit

In either case, we're talking about indirect impacts.

I was talking about purposes and intentions. One is economic/socio-economic. One in social. Their intended goals and impacts are oriented for very different things.

I wasn't talking about my knowledge, I was talking about the impact.

I know. But it is still an important piece as small businesses as a whole comprise many different industries.

That said, I think that inaction is action. Are you familiar enough with the nuances of all small businesses to say that maintaining an 8 hour work day would not be bad for them?

Inaction is most definitely action. I couldn't agree more.

I am not arguing for the 8 hour work day. I'm asking you questions about your position.

Not as all, as it siphons money off the top, and injects it into the bottom. The primary issue here is inequality. The 8 hour work day did the same thing.

Could you go into a bit more detail? Wouldn't it simply mean that the price of goods and services goes up? Wouldn't that make it harder for regular people to buy?

I can objectively point out the paradox that this implies, as I have already done. I do not need to find exact labor values to do that.

That doesn't really answer or address the question of whether or not a CEO can work 262 times as hard as his employees.

There are many.

Hence, my point.

Sure, but that doesn't change their value. For example, if I claim to have talked to have seen a ghost, and believe that I have seen a ghost, that does not mean that I have actually seen a ghost.

Very true. But I wasn't arguing that -- the values we can measure or agree upon can still be subjective in their significance to certain people and points.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I can do one further, as I already have, by quoting the top demands. As I already have.

That's like saying if I quote some guy who said "Hitler had a good economic strategy" its like saying he likes the Nazi's. Its piss poor reasoning.

Which has nothing to do with the actual demands or the political persuasion of those involved. You could say the same of anarchists and fascists; communists and hard-lined capitalists. Everyone wants those things. Not everyone wants to tax the rich, reimplement glass-steagall, or abolish capitalism.

"How do we end this deficit? End the wars and tax the rich!"

That is the left.

But it is not the far-left as you like to point out so much. Its moreso a typical view shared by a lot of people. The question though, is how much do we tax the rich...

What is happening in Greece, Spain, Egypt, and now the US, is not just protest, it is direct action. Again, this isn't some display, this is an occupation.

Occupying what, a park? Sure you're getting noticed, but once Occupy Wall Street actually occupy s and shuts down Wall Street or any other business that was directly involved with the financial crisis, then its not really direct action.

You realize those words mean the same thing, right, with the exception that 'radical' generally only applies to the far left?

Bull♥♥♥♥. Radical apply's to the far right as well.

Because you have displayed a complete and blanketed dismissal of anyone who you view to be outside of the political center, just on the cyclical, Aristotelian argument that they are not within the political center.

There are varying degrees of political thought and well, you're acting like every protester is a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Sure they have left-leaning views, but that hardly makes them radical or even far-left.

Then you're not a centrist. That's fine. Embrace the dark side.

Typicaly of a pundit to say, to label the other side as "evil" or wrong.

[QUOTE]Considering how far left it is, and how much the far right has been deriding it thus far, I am more worried about it being coopted by moderates and center-conservatives like MoveOn.org.[COLOR="Silver"]

Punditry at its finest.

Originally Posted by John

Obviously there exists varying levels of bias across different media companies.

However, as a whole, the US media has a significant rightward slant.

Likewise, the force of gravity at the equator is weaker than at the poles. Yet Earth's gravity, as a whole, has a downward slant.

Again it all depends on who you watch. Fox obviously has a right-slant and any news media outlets in a heavily conservative area are going to be slanted to the right vs. large city publications, which usually lean to the left.

Plastic surgery for things like extra digits or webbing between fingers is free here. I'm, quite frankly, surprised that you're opposed to such a thing.

Because its cosmetic. I have no qualm if I'm paying for someone getting the treatment they NEED rather than WANT.

So you seriously think that people should have to pay out-of-pocket to get extra digits removed? To treat non-life-threatening burns? To have reconstructive surgery on their face after a car accident?

Accidental reconstruction surgery is fine. But really, if you want to say, get an extra digit removed or get a whole sex-change operation because you don't like how you were born, then you should pay for that because once again, its selfish to demand someone else to pay for something you WANT rather than NEED.

Originally Posted by Nox

Because its cosmetic. I have no qualm if I'm paying for someone getting the treatment they NEED rather than WANT.

So quality of life in no way influences your decisions? 'Cause most medical professionals regard it as the main thing treatment is concerned about. The reason we give skin grafts for disfiguring but non-fatal burns is because of quality of life. The person could live with them, but their self image and ability to get a job/generally live a fulfilling life would take a hit.

Same with extra or webbed digits, or some eye surgeries, or any number of similar issues.

Accidental reconstruction surgery is fine. But really, if you want to say, get an extra digit removed or get a whole sex-change operation because you don't like how you were born, then you should pay for that because once again, its selfish to demand someone else to pay for something you WANT rather than NEED.

You don't need treatment for the vast majority of diseases and illnesses that you go to a doctor for, but others pay for that. You don't need highways, electricity, insurance, a police force, municipal water, subsidized food... Yet we regard many of those as essentials because we feel that wanting them is justified.

I just move the line a little further than you, operating under the assumption that it's perfectly justified to want to live a healthy and fulfilled life. Apparently you disagree.