Occupy Wall Street

[theprotester]

Some belated parental advice to protesters

By Marybeth Hicks

 

 

Call it an occupational hazard, but I can't look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, "Who parented these people?"

 

As a culture columnist, I've commented on the social and political ramifications of the "movement" -- now known as "OWS" -- whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: "Everything for everybody."

 

Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it's clear there are people with serious designs on "transformational" change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.

 

Yet it's not my role as a commentator that prompts my parenting question, but rather the fact that I'm the mother of four teens and young adults. There are some crucial life lessons that the protesters' moms clearly have not passed along.

Here, then, are five things the OWS protesters' mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn't, so I will:

 

• Life isn't fair. The concept of justice - that everyone should be treated fairly - is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want."

No matter how you try to "level the playing field," some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they're dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.

 

• Nothing is "free." Protesting with signs that seek "free" college degrees and "free" health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don't operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and "slow paths" to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.

While I'm pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.

 

• Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don't require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals. Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It's a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for --- literally.

 

• A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn't evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don't dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don't seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.

 

• There are reasons you haven't found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn't a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It's not them. It's you.

[Soup]

haha this is too hard to resist....

 

 

Yeah Franky ole buddy. You're done. You don't know it yet but you're done. The relevance of adam smith was explained WHEN i brought adam smith up in the first paragraph: You defined a "free market" as "unregulated by default", as described by a hundred year old economist. I stated that a free market was regulated by default as described by a 300 year old economist. That should've been the end of it but you went on to question why I would listen to Smith instead of Mises, so i explained that it wasn't me listening to adam smith; It was Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, and Paul Samuelson that were listening to Adam Smith.

 

And now in your second paragraph here you are not saying "theres no need to question Adam Smith's contribution to modern economics." GREAT! Im so relieved you're finally agreeing with me. lol. Is that hole you've dug yourself deep enough or do you want to keep going?

 

And I never suggested participatory economics. I said occupy wall street was essentially suggesting participatory economics. You're getting your discussions mixed. For the nth time, learn to read.

[bourgeoisie]

 

someone just tweeted this... occupy oakland right now doesnt look too good.

[Soup]

Contending Marybeth Hicks comments:

 

• Life isn't fair: Do you understand that the average middle class american makes less and spend more on housing/food/car/necessities than they did in 1971? Do you understand that unemployment is on average 10% across america? Do you understand the gripes these people have? Do you understand the visible decline in "Fairness" seen across the country? If you accept these terms of reality, why then are you picking a fight with them? It's not because things are so shitty that youve resigned yourself to a mode of stoic survivalism, and the notion of helping others and coming together scares you, is it?

 

• Nothing is "free." Speech is free. Protesting is free. A thousand people willing to attempt an experiment in participatory democracy FOR YOUR BENEFIT is free. The air you use to stand on your soap box and protest against your own self interest is free. The price every person in the world has paid for this recession and the fact that we are now all a little poorer, was not free.

 

• Your word is your bond. The funny thing is, corporations default on contracts all the time. An investment goes upside down and paying into it no longer means any kind of financial return, why not walk away from it? Why are you holding the people of occupy wall street to a code of ethics that neither you, nor any company you've ever worked for, has followed?

 

• A protest is not a party. Oh I'm sorry, you're only allowed to party when you're rich. You're just mad because you put in all that work and nobody deems you socially relevant either. What change to the economy and politics are you actually making? You've done nothing but perpetuate a system of politics that doesn't work, because it relies on the right guy pulling the right levers at the right time. That's a bad system and it needs to change. Occupy Wallstreet suggests a political system of equal participants. Sounds to me like a better system than the dumb fucking aristocracy we have now. Do you honestly give a shit who our next president is? And if you do, on a scale of 1-10 how disappointed are you going to be in him/her after their first two years when you realize you bought into the theatrics of their campaign for the 55th time?

 

• There are reasons you haven't found jobs. Poor educational system. Decreasing economy. No more manual labor for the people that relied on it forever. No work-related skills that would've been taught, like hygiene, had they grown up in an upper middle class family and went to preschool.

 

 

Just shut up and think about this for a second: Who benefits from occupy wall street being shut down? What is there to be gained from your kind of arrogant rhetoric?

[Soup]

That quote has nothing to do with participatory economics. You're a fucking moron.

 

"Its called a free market so that obviously means free and unregulated... right?"

NO DUMBASS IT DOESN'T. You have a free will but that doesn't mean your actions aren't regulated. Get it? I've repeated myself a thousand times it seems.

[shai]

 

someone just tweeted this... occupy oakland right now doesnt look too good.

 

Let's just say riding home was a little more stressful than what I'm used to. There's more cops out than usual...way more than I can ever recall seeing out on a Tuesday night in my eleven years here.

 

 

Im probably in the minority but I hope this shit turns violent, its about time to start pushing back.

 

It's already gotten there, and it's happening right now. You can Google "KTVU news Occupy Oakland" for some live feeds.

 

I feel conflicted...like it's only a matter of time before the dumbasses show up and start looting because they think that's an acceptable form of protest. At that point whatever goodwill has been achieved will evaporate and then what?

 

I'm probably not going to get much sleep tonight because of all this and I live five miles from where the action is.

 

One way of looking at things is that Oakland knows how to throw down when it counts. Hopefully no one gets killed.

[theprotester]

It's a massive ball of confusion.

 

You should chill out a bit, Soup.

 

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/10/25/it%E2%80%99s-official-occupy-atlanta-just-got-strange/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway

[Soup]

haha its like talking to a brick wall.

You would know.

 

The quote was the basis for your argument, I assumed your argument to be about participatory economics because this is what you had mentioned earlier and the criteria for participatory economics seemed to largely match your argument. Nonetheless, it is not important as the crux of the discussion was price distortion. Hence my point; it is not important what it is called, the essence is the same.

Not only did i NEVER say that participatory economics was the basis of my argument, if you even knew what participatory economics was you'd know they are nothing alike. You're dead wrong and you can't shut the fuck up with this pseudo intellectual fagdom. Get that through your head. You. Are. A. Fucking. Moron. Stop arguing over stupid shit when you're wrong.

 

The US economy is not a free market, for example, despite the contemporary doxa. Regulation and structural restrictions are not the same thing. A free lion is not a lion on a chain. In the same sense, a limitation on the extent to which someone may act in a market is not necessarily a regulation. Market regulation is something slightly more specific.

To use your own metaphor, a "free lion" is a lion chained.... to being a lion, in a pack with a pecking order, in a food chain with a pecking order on a planet with a pecking order and so on.

[Soup]

haha so we have established another gaping hole in your understanding. This is a structural limitation rather than a regulatory limitation. There is a difference. Adam Smith and other economists don't talk about structural limitation, such as limitations created by a family relationship, as regulation. Regulation is something very specific.

 

You haven't got a clue what you just said.

[Soup]

So you've gone from stating the only fact you had on Adam Smith was that his book was big and heavy to now claiming to know what he was talking about. Adam Smith was a huge moralist and committed to public morality or as he called it "fellow feeling" or the golden rule of "do unto others" or just empathy.

 

Therefore for Adam Smith it was completely inconceivable that the efficiencies of the free market, which he correctly identified as "Enabling the thousands of inchoate decisions that need to be made every day to make an economy work." which could never be made effectively by government or a command economy, but which those decisions should be made within the context of a moral vacuum with no rule that people should abandon their responsibilities of citizenship to create or not create ethical moral and legal frameworks for which the market decisions would be made is absolutely anathema and unacceptable and incoherent with the intellectual underpinnings of free market capitalism.

 

So how do we assist capitalism in its moral and ethical void? Expansion of the public sector.

Historically we've increased state ownership and state capitalism as natural affect of growing capital and labor. You argue that state capitalism doesn't come in the same box as free market capitalism, but capitalism doesn't exist without people and all of their moral and ethical dilemmas. People don't like to be mistreated and dont like to mistreat others. Look at the differences in Canadian and American Banking Systems. The american banking system was deregulated while the canadian system was not. Which one had a crisis recently?

 

Essentially there will always be a need to regulate the economy. Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts because they interfered with the fair regulation of the market. Franklin Roosevelt with the Glass Steel act to go after the banks. JFK brought in legislation for truth in advertising. THESE WERE ALL THINGS THE STATE CREATED. Richard NIxon created the environmental protection agency because people are entitled to know the quality of their food and water.

 

There is no such thing as an unregulated free market economy, only a deregulated one, and those have never turned out good.

[Mercer]

 

 

Radtastic

[Mercer]

Seeing you two spewing ideas at each other like that only serves to prove this topic is worthy of a mass debate.

[shai]

I heard it was shut down because one guy was stabbed and a girl was sexually assaulted in the camp.

 

Do you have a credible source for this or is it hearsay? Either way, I'm inclined so say I was there and can tell you for a fact no one was stabbed...as everyone knows, the media has a tendency to repeat negative rumors without bothering to check the facts. Or it's hearsay and can be safely ignored.

 

The sexual assault thing....that's harder to speak on. But I'll try.

 

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I didn't hook up with anyone at the occupation. I have several reasons for this...first and foremost being, with the exception of one person no one I'm currently interested in was there (and I see said person all the time anyway).

 

Second was it wasn't exactly the place to be picking up on chicks (or dudes, if that's your thing). It was dirty, crowded, and...well, there was a joke circulating the camp-

 

"How was Occupy Oakland last night?"

 

"It was fucking in tents."

 

Add in the factor of there being a constant police presence, which would have been worse than having my dad walk in on me when I was a teenager.

 

Third relates to the last point (sort of). It was a pretty emotionally charged situation...I suppose I could see how some people might get turned on by that but I had bigger fish to fry.

 

So that's about all I really need to say about that. I should add that I heard the sexual assault rumor as well, but seeing as how no one I knew was able to substantiate it, who knows.

[UPS!]

I would totally fuck in a riot/occupation.

Free love, rebellion, and angry womenz = Instant boner.

 

The description you gave only makes me daydream. /nh

 

But on a serious note when a large group of strangers get together for a situation such as a protest/demonstration of course there is going to be conflict but as Old man shai said don't believe shit you hear from the news, or really anybody for that matter

[shai]

(You know, shai will do...)

 

I'm going to a protest at Oakland Technical High School (49th and Broadway) at 4 pm, as the city is voting on whether to close five schools including the one around corner from my house...yet they can underwrite all the bullshit they pulled yesterday? I don't think so.

 

Speaking of bullshit-

 

Veteran injured by police at Occupy Oakland

 

The more I find out the more this looks like a win for the protesters. Except for Scott, that is.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

 

Check check it outtt.

[mountain dew]

This is an interesting read...

 

 

 

"NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour..."

[theprotester]

http://mrctv.org/videos/peter-schiff-takes-99

[the.crooked]

OccupyOakland went off last night. I've been watching live streams all last night and today.

 

Enterprise Marketing

 

 

Tonight is not going to go well. Especially if numbers continue to grow quickly.

[Fist 666]

http://mrctv.org/videos/peter-schiff-takes-99

 

 

as per the usual, people who don't have the knowledge to make the arguments are put on camera.

 

i'm curious as to how he claims to pay 50%.

[bourgeoisie]

 

Twitter have censored the Occupy Oakland hash tag and live stream. Yaaaaay America! Yaaaaay censorship!

[theprotester]

Is he referring to the top 5% of America paying nearly 60% of all personal income tax in the country? I only watched it once, and I'm at work now.

[theprotester]

Asked the bloke that sent it to me;

 

No, he said he pays 50% of what he earns to the government. He's including his corporate taxes etc since its his company I believe.

[MOOGLE?]

why are people surpised at twitter and youtube censoring things?

[bourgeoisie]

why are people surpised at twitter and youtube censoring things?

 

I'm not surprised.

[Fist 666]

http://www.occupy-oc.org/tears-stream-as-city-council-unanimously-agrees-occupy-tents-are-a-form-of-speech/#.TqiQZDt1WEc.facebook

 

tents recognized as form of free speech (OC, ca)

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

That is awesome. (Tents recognized as free speech)

 

This is starting to escalate though, I was concerned from the jump about someone possibly getting hurt or even killed however indirectly or accidental it may have been and shifting these protests from a peaceful demonstration to some kind of retaliation.

 

Not saying this will be the evet that triggers it, but I think it's coming sooner or later.

[Fist 666]

agreed.

i'm not surprised that oakland is the hotbed it is, but i am surprised that seattle has been so relatively calm based on the city's history with a. excessive police force and b. violent riots (wto).

 

i hope the fact that olsen is a vet stirs more awareness within the military community, at least within the national guard and reserve units as they are the ones that will be called on if/when this shit starts to pop off. (and thats when i'll be facing UCMJ for disobeying direct orders, lets hope it doesn't come to that)

[eviltrailer77]

fist,

You only have to obey lawful orders. Any order that would cause you to violate the constitutional rights of a citizen is inherently unlawful. The most they would have on you would be an article 134 bullshit catch all that they would try to get you to take at NJP. Request a court martial, and you beat it like a champ because the burden of proof comes in to play. Now if martial law is declared all of this goes out the window.

[shai]

Oakland turned out okay tonight...GA went off as planned, barricades and fences around the plaza came down and the helicopters left around 8 pm. The cops were holed up at a parking garage a few blocks away and didn't bother anyone. No gas, no projectiles, no nothing. One of my friends is supposedly sleeping back in the plaza tonight, which is kind of cool but more symbolic than anything else.

 

There's a general strike planned for next week as well as a potential recall vote for the mayor. Oh, and the city voted to close all five of the schools I mentioned earlier today.

 

I'm tired. Pay attention to the news, things are getting really interesting here.