[Vision2020] Let's talk about OccupyWherever

[lfalen]

Good points. I sympathise with the the disgust of the excessive salaries of CEO's and Fund Manager that game the system while their companies are going under and  the cozy relationship between big business and big government. I think that everyone has the right to protest, but there are big differences between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street group. The OWS group has taken over a private park and break the law. There are private businesses in the area(primarily restaurants) that are being hurt by their protest. They are dirty and have made a mess out of the area. The Tea Party on the other hand obey the law. The come and put on rally and leave, taking their trash with them.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Jay Borden" jborden at datawedge.com
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:55:05 -0800
To: "Tom Hansen" thansen at moscow.com,  "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Let's talk about OccupyWherever

> The main reason (if not the ONLY reason), Mr. Rumelhart, that the "Occupy" movement is unorganized is because it is a true grassroots movement, much MUCH more grassroots than the Tea Party "origin".
> 
>  
> 
> ----
> 
> I never really understand why constant comparisons are drawn between OWS and the Tea Party movement… it’s as if the OWS folks feel the need to illustrate the differences between themselves and the Tea Party in an effort to say, “Oh, yah?  Well we can protest too”.  
> 
>  
> 
> The comparisons are irrelevant… both organizations (or grassroots movements, or whatever you want to call them) are decrying juggernaut entities.  One being a (perceived) bloated federal government, the other being a (perceived) bloated upper-class.  Both began as a general murmur of unrest that erupted into a national movement of common opinion, and now both have had political parties sidle up to them and begin to ally themselves with the causes.  (Republican links to the Tea Party are now commonplace, and now Dick Durbin has begun beating his fist on the table even more loudly in the wake of the OWS movements… )
> 
>  
> 
> Tom Hansen is left with an impression that the movement stems from tax breaks given to the extremely wealthy (including bailouts) at the cost of programs that benefit middle-income and low-income folks.
> 
>  
> 
> But… my impression… after seeing all the photos and news stories and “you gotta see this” emails going around about OWS…I’m left with (mostly) the same feeling that Paul has... that OWS is just lashing out at anyone they see as being wealthy, without regard to how they achieved that wealth.   (The most recent photo circulating around Facebook is of a OWS protestor rallying against the 1% for the early snowstorm and 2 million people that were without power for a while)…
> 
>  
> 
> The “grassroots” behind OWS is perhaps their Achilles heel: without organization there is no single spokesman, and therefore OWS is an assembly of splintered general angst against the rich with multiple and varied messages.
> 
>  
> 
> I have no love for any organization that manipulates the system to achieve a goal… but I have great respect for those that have achieved great wealth by playing by the rules, and I hold no ill-will towards their success or achievements.  I also hold no ill-will towards wealthy folks that want to continue to hold on to that wealth, and I continue to decry efforts to simply rob them of their hard-earned success through lopsided tax policies that seem to find more public support because of their ability to punish as opposed to being just fair.
> 
>  
> 
> That is, perhaps, where the divide comes in. 
> 
>  
> 
> After Obama’s comments (“I want to spread the wealth around” and “after a certain point I think you’ve made enough money”), I think a certain attitude has re-emerged from segments of the population.  The simple thought of “hey, that guy over there has two widgets while I only have one… that isn’t fair” has now slowly morphed into an assumption that wealthy folks are now stealing everyone else’s widgets.
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t like the direction that public attitude seems to be taking. that wealth is wrong, and that somehow people that are wealthy must therefore be evil.
> 
>  
> 
> I DO however agree with any rallying cry that calls to crucify corruption… whether it be from the OWS movement decrying corruption from large corporations, or whether it’s the Tea Party movement decrying corruption from our government officials.  (If both believe that big business and government are in bed with each other, aren’t they really protesting the same thing anyway?)
> 
>  
> 
> Right or wrong, 99% or 1%, that’s *my* perception.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jay
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Rumelhart goes on to suggest . . .
> 
> "I would like them to change their targets a little bit.  Currently, they are targeting the 1% blindly, solely on the fact that they are doing better than everyone else."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  That certainly is not my understanding.  It is my impression that the 99-percenters are asking the question . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should tax cuts/breaks be given to unimaginably filthy rich Corporate America (especially those that were bailed out at the end of the Bush administration) at the cost of programs that benefit middle-income and low-income Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help explain . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idaho Public Television's "Dialogue" episode on "Occupy Idaho"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6VGkRkJOYw
> 
>  
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Tom Hansen
> 
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
>  
> 
> "Honest and true,
> 
> As the morning star.
> 
> Vote for just two,
> 
> Ament and Lamar."
> 
>  
> 
>