Showing posts with label Occupy Wall St.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Wall St.. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2012

Bruce Springsteen’s latest studio album captures meaning of Occupy Movement

Apparently the Boss is angry again and his new album will vent some of this anger which closely parallels the emotions of the Occupy Movement.  Starting with Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, the crusade has literally moved all over the world.  But Springsteen remains grounded in his concern for the blue-collar group and liberal causes.  Although most of the album was written and recorded before the Occupy Movement started, it still reflects the sentiments of the fight for equality.

In an article where Princeton professor Cornel West describes the Occupy Movement as an “idea whose time has come,” Tea Party crackpot Michael Prell compares Occupy with the Berkeley Free Speech movement that took place in 1964-1965, “right down to the babbling incoherence of the participants.”  Now this takes the cake considering this man, who is a strategist for the TP Patriots, represents a bunch of blithering blockheads with double-digit IQs.



So what was wrong with the Berkeley demonstrations that resulted in the University backing off and allowing academic freedom with open political activity on the campus, with the Sproul Hall sit-ins eventually creating a place of open discussion?  Liberal, yes, and perhaps contrary to a conservative approach that hides its ideology behind the dogmas of religion and worship of big business.  Berkeley has gone on to represent a progressive attitude that has become a solid foundation of the left.

Sidney Tarrow, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, believes the Occupy Movement will emerge as a “more potent national force” after cities get past the “encampment” issue.  And this may be the real connection between the Berkeley Sproul Hall sit-ins where you have to take a physical position to make your point.  Tarrow calls it the creation of a “communal basis for future social movement.”  So where do the “Occupiers” go and how do they make their voice heard without the bivouac?  Tarrow says they should “Move on” and “march to Washington.”

Bryan Boydston in The Humanist wants to know, “What Exactly Does the Occupy Movement Want?” when he refers to the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution.”  He also refers to the ideology “rebel without a cause” when commenting on the disorganization of the movement so far.  Boydston quotes Naomi Wolf in the Guardian asking the same question, receiving numerous responses she capsuled into the following three:

1.    Reverse the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court further allowing the influence of money in U.S. elections.
2.    The movement wants fraud and manipulation taken out of the U.S financial system.
3.    Prevent politicians from using their positions in Congress to benefit corporations they have invested in.

In addition to Wolf’s three Boydston has three of his own which he thinks may be more directly focused on what occupiers want:

  1. Reversing Citizens United is good but he thinks the Movement is more about the total economic inequality that exists in the U.S.
  2. He questions regulation as the “fix-all” for the financial community and thinks more of it would not have prevented the recession.
  3. With little evidence of insider trading by Congress and because they are already prohibited from passing laws that impact companies in which they hold any significant interest, this problem is probably already covered.

So one might assume from all this exposition that you can boil down what the Occupy Movement wants into one simple phrase: Balance the inequity of the economic system so that a more equitable arrangement exists for all.

I’ll leave you with Boydston’s quote from the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution,” which is actually appropriate for the Occupy Movement.
You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
…You say you got a real solution?
Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Ditching your big bank is the way to go

Not just because 650,000 consumers have switched to credit unions since September 29, but because the American public is tired of being manhandled by these behemoths of greed.  The latest stupid move by not-to-bright Bank of America was the instigator of this latest rush away from institutions like them, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citibank.  B of A wanted to charge its customers $5 per month to access their own money by using their debit card.  Other banks thought of it, even tested, but decided no.

Even more have deserted the big guys and moved to smaller banks where service is much better, and they are not so greedy.  The bank dumping movement began officially on November 5, prompting another 40,000 to join credit unions.  This, combined with the larger figure is more than credit unions add in a whole year, expressing the ire of consumers in the U.S.  We switched to a smaller bank a couple of years ago, but they have eventually been acquired by BMO Financial Group of Canada.  We’ll see?

Derivatives time bomb
Occupy Wall Street formed “Dump Your Bank Day” which started on November 8.  The Occupy Movement has been very vocal over the big bank menace citing the consolidations going on for 20 years resulting in a concentration of four large banks.  They are JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and they add up to 40 percent of the total assets of the commercial banking system.  On the other hand there is risk involved in their trading of derivatives.  JP Morgan Chase and Citibank combined hold 54 percent of derivatives contracts.

Investopedia defines derivatives as: “A security whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets. The derivative itself is merely a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Most derivatives are characterized by high leverage.” 

The key here is the term “high leverage.”  Companies in that category are considered to be at some financial risk, in some cases bankruptcy.  So on top of everything else, the extra fees and charges by big banks, they could also tank if the derivatives market goes bad.  Both the above banks think their risks are manageable but Davis Paul, Pres. Of Fiscal Strategies Group, isn’t so sure.  He cites “…the corruption of the culture of commercial lending as banks embrace the trading culture that is central to the derivatives world.”



According to Marcy Gordon writing for the Associated Press, “Federal regulators bowed to pressure from big banks seeking a quick exit from the financial bailout program and did not uniformly apply the government's own conditions set for repaying the taxpayer funds.”  Get this; the banks wanted this quick exit so they could avoid any limits on executive’s compensation.  Taxpayers pay for the bailout and these greedy bastards go home with our money.  No wonder Americans are deserting the big banks in droves.

In all fairness to the system, the taxpayer will recoup the $245 billion invested in banks and will make an additional $20 billion in profits.  But it’s just the arrogance of this industry that has galled the American public as they continue to dump the culprits.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Occupy Movement is about the rights of all Americans

It is the right to have an equal share of the American pie and enjoy the benefits of a lifestyle that is affordable because we earned it and continue to work for it.  When this right is threatened by big business and the wealthy, whose greed have so far denied a sharing of the wealth, people rise up in revolution.  And that is what the Occupy Movement is all about.  There is no need to dissect this struggle by the mainstream media for a central meaning.  

The Huff Post exclaims that a “confused” media is calling for the protesters to narrow everything down to “one specific demand.”  It’s the “rights” stupid.  That covers just about every faction of Occupy from an end to corporate greed to the needs of gays and lesbians.  But the HP goes on to appease the mainstream media with a listing of why the demonstrators are criticizing the system.  

Herbert Hoover
The GOP wants fewer restrictions on big corporations, yet wants to repeal Roe v. Wade that would restrict a woman’s reproductive rights.  We witnessed the insistence by a group of racial bigots for President Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate, but wouldn’t do the same of a Republican like Rick Perry.  We saw the banks get bailed out with our tax dollars, then reward their CEOs with multimillion dollar bonuses.  We observe where the police are more likely to arrest Occupy protesters than a Baptist Church group that pickets soldiers funerals.

And finally, we live in a nation where our government makes more opportunities available to big business than to the individual American. 

HP makes two points that demonstrate both the strength of the Occupy Movement and its substance.  First, the demonstrators make no demands of the institutions in control because they are rallying to diminish and modify the power held by those institutions.  Second, even though all the protests revolve around rights, there are still a number of complaints of everyday citizens that make up the whole.

Here's a video of Keith Olbermann expressing the distress of the occupy movement:
In another Huff Post article, they cite the fact that Occupy protesters are hitting the mark with millions in this country who are upset over such a “One-sided economic recovery.”  It sounds to me like they are echoing Howard Beale’s famous line from the 1976 movie Network: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore.”  As Rev. Al Sharpton said of the movement earlier, it’s all about economic inequity.

It was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who, trying to avert the disaster of another Republican, Herbert Hoover, used millions of borrowed dollars to bail out the banking system.  Hoover’s administration’s policies led to another financial calamity that had to be rescued by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.  But when Bernanke failed to attach any restrictions to those loans, the banks simply sat on the money and the economy continued to spiral down.   Yes, that’s what the Occupy Movement is angry about.


I urge you to read the above two Huff Post articles, as well as two of my previous posts here and here 

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

One progressive’s take on the “Occupy” movement


Tea Party Protest

There is one thing that is clear to me after looking at videos and still shots from both the Occupy movement and the Tea Party.  There is no comparison between the participants, with Occupy standing head and shoulders above the pathetic TPers.  I was prompted to look into this after reading an article exclaiming Occupy Wall Street could be the left’s Tea Party.  I am sure the Occupy movement wants to distance itself as far as possible away from the Tea Party.

Now, when it comes to developing a cause that would oppose the Tea Party, that is where comparisons are meaningful.  There is talk of how the Occupy protests will affect the way democracy is consummated in the future, not just in the U.S., but all over the world.  Most of what the Tea Party stands for is cutting taxes, drastically limiting government, and getting rid of President Obama.  It is simply a new conservative twist, although more radical, of the George W. Bush policies that didn’t work and put us in the current economic situation.

Robert Borosage, Co-founder of Campaign for America's Future, said, “I think this {Occupy} is a classic progressive, independent grassroots movement that will both build its own independent force, its own agenda and moral voice. And then you'll see that try to find expression and accrue champions of that in the electoral arena.”  The key to Occupy is getting out the vote in 2012, both the protesters and those apathetic progressives that have been sitting out elections.

Comments heard on the (Wall) street: Shane Stoops… Q. “How long will you stay here?”  A. “I’m definitely committed until we are either arrested or beaten to death.”  Sade Adona…Q. “What would be mission accomplished?”  A. “The acknowledgement is good enough for me…” 

Jon Reiner…Q. “What do you hope this movement becomes?” A. “My hope would be that, like all great social movements, that it gets so large in number and influence that it fundamentally changes the priorities of our elected officials so that they believe then that it’s their obligation to serve individuals and not corporations."



Violent Arnold, who heads Company Works, a multicultural leadership development firm in St. Paul, Minn. Says, “…the group likely has more leadership than meets the eyes.”  She adds that every group that comes together has some form of leadership, “But the current leadership of top-bottom is not working, and that’s why they’re protesting.”  Actually the leaders are there, you just won’t be able to identify them.

Dr. Alan Manevitz, New York clinical psychiatrist, says, “Psychologically speaking, these protests are mentally healthy -- whether they accomplish anything or not.”  They have already accomplished a great deal.  The Occupy movement has gotten the attention of President Obama, and he would do well to pay more attention and provide more support.  The GOP is furious over the fact that Occupy has gained more media attention in a month than the Tea Party has since its inception.  And the Democrats, well, they are just standing around and praying the whole thing will last through 2012.

Who is to blame for Brian Thompson's murder?

Police closing in on Brian Thompson shooter   First up would be the shooter, whom authorities believe they have found . You might think that...