Same deal with "localisation". It means fighting the same battle hundreds of times rather than a few times. (There's a difference between setting the rules centrally and the details...a good example is in planning...have central definitions of planning zoning, and then set the actual zoning itself locally. But it stops restrictive zones!)
I thoroughly occupied the toilet this morning. Phew!
I am sure that accomplished a hell of a lot. You don't even make the papers when you do it like that.
I disagree with the Occupiers actions, but their feelings of frustration and anger are real. These are people who you have common cause with, along with Tea Partiers. We have different ways of wanting to solve the country's problems but none of us will be listened to so long as the only people to have the politcian's ears are campaign donors.
As for making the papers? Bullshit.
If this was anything but Occupy, it would make front page news. If this was Muslims organizing against the discrimination they face, that'd be front page. If it was Evangelical Christians who were fed up with the abortion issue, that would be the front page.
Occupy will not get media coverage because Occupy is the first protest group to inherently and completely reject the media, to identify it as a tool of those in favor of the status quo. Giving them any coverage is counter-productive. Unlike the Tea Party, they have not been co-opted. There's no Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann who the Democratic machine can insert to hijack Occupy.
Bunch of troublemakers.
Protesters who reject the media are doomed to fail.
Also anyone who competes with a New Years celebration in New York doesn't have a clue, unless their goal is blowing something up.
OWS indeed has no clue. Protest for the sake of protest is fail.
I was in NY recently and listened to a local radio station that gave them a half hour of air time. They spent the entire time arguing among themselves about whether they should be called "activists," "agitators" or "instigators."
The odds of OWS becoming a lasting and meaningful movement are zero.
I noticed that one of the last remaining Occupy camps was broken up today in Washington, D.C.. So, now that the media frenzy has abated and we can examine this somewhat in hindsight...did this movement have any tangible impact at all? Did it accomplish anything aside from giving people a momentary sense of community and giving the pundits something to talk about?
My own take on those camps and their ability to change anything was always fairly pessimistic and cynical, but I'm curious to know if I've missed some significant changes that have come about, or are expected to come about, as a result of these protests.
If nothing else, now basically all politician are talking about it. Even Mit "top 1%" Romney was talking about supporting the 95% (he doesn't care about poor people).
Oaklands Occupy Group is trying to disassociate itself from the crazies that join them whenever they march. I don't even know if there are any other groups out there.
Pretty much. They changed the narrative on politics pretty well all things considered.
This is amusing...Breitbart getting screechy at some CPAC Occupiers. "STOP RAPING PEOPLE!"
I think the "1% vs 99%" is only part of the problem, and the Occupy movement is using the "1%" thing as a easy to understand bandwagon, to people to join.
Is somewhat sad, because is not really a problem of rich people vs poor people. Getting rich and being rich is awesome. I fucking love money. Theres nothing wrong in getting rich!.
Now, yes, is a real problem if a society is "sliding" into a situation where few hands have a lot of money, and most people don't have any. In that context you can't have a democracy, a justice system, etc... because money distort everything, even the value
The background problem is bigger than the "1%". Is the creation of a better democracy, where things are run better, and corruption (on all levels) are fighted better, is stop living with problems we know and hate, and we "tolerate", is stop tolerating these problems and tryiing to solve then in our life (not something that is pass to our grandchildrens so maybe then solve it).
Maybe is a bad thing that the Occupy movement has ben taken over by the "1%" message. I don't think rich people sould be exclused from contributing to make our societies better, even if only are a 1% of the population, are also part of our society.
Occupy San Diego at the California Democratic Convention.
Check out the sign in the picture. It is images like that that help make the movement popular with others. :)
Reminded me of the book Pity the Billionaire.
Noblesse oblige is not a a very American concept. Sure there are a few exceptions, but most are the super rich that had a midlife or late life crisis about their legacy, like Rockefeller.
You don't think there's a link? The concentration of money in capital rather than wages has being ongoing since the 70's. It's been masked by the massive increase of women in the workforce, but now we're at the stage where even two jobs can't stave off drops in the living standards of the middle class.
The problem is most definitely the 1%, and the way they're sucking money away from workers. When the middle class starts shrinking - and it is with not-so-surprising rapidly in many countries...
Hint: The last time things were this unequal was during the great depression. It's likely the UK not the US which will cause the collapse this time. But that's right where we're headed.
This is why Chaotics can't defeat Lawfuls in sustained conflicts.
The Lawfuls can't win either, at least in the Blood Wars.
That's why I roll neutral.