From what I can tell the most optimistic protester is hoping for a socialist revolution.
But the more pragmatic among them want things to go back to the Glass-Steagall era of regulated speculation. Or maybe higher taxes payable on capital gains, especially for those whose main income is now made through capital gains.
What little I have seen of this on the news has been more along these lines than the more specific and realistic aims you mention.
The media coverage of it has been, as usual, sensationalised I think.
To be honest, most people I've seen interviewed have said 'I don't know, but something needs to change', a fair number mutter something about capital gains taxes and all of them seem generally unhappy about the unregulated gambling with pension funds that has occurred.
Protesting the rich is merely complaining that those who are already bearing the burden of the tax load don't do enough.
Occupy Wall Street is about more than protesting the rich. It is about protesting the deregulated financial sector that caused a financial meltdown, got bailed out and passed its expenses onto the consumer, while the heads of managed to collect nice pay bonuses which are far in excess of even the average yearly wage of an extended family.
Then there is the fact that the gains of the rich speculators on Wall Street are not taxed at a rate that is even close to the proportion of taxes that the poorer pay.
It seems more likely to me that an officer must have been aiming directly for his face, because at that range an accident just doesn't sound probable.
From what I am informed, the maxim 'don't point the weapon at something you do not wish killed or maimed' applies to propelled gas canisters and head shots with any less-than-lethal weaponry is known to be lethal force. With fired gas canisters that I've seen deployed before, the general principle is to fire long or at the ground.
From the video, Olsen is just a few feet away from police so I would agree that this was no accident. I'm going to be charitable and say that maybe the police officer did not intend for the consequences that followed to occur, but ultimately it was his responsibility to ensure his weapon was discharged safely.
The guy that threw a flashbang grenade into the heart of the group that went in to attend to an injured person is basically scum though. I can't think of any charitable interpretation other than he wasn't paying attention, which I think in the circumstances is criminally negligent.
I'm still trying to figure out what happened exactly. The video that we're getting clearly only shows one side of the picture. I'm assuming the police have recordings that might well give a more complete picture: There were reports that some people threw objects at the police, which may have lead the police to seek to disperse the crowd for their safety. But the official line at the moment appears to be that they didn't use flashbang grenades and the noises were all fireworks that the protesters were throwing at the police. This seems to run counter to the video evidence which only shows brilliant white light and loud noises originating from within the crowd. Tear gas canisters as far as I am aware don't do that.
The police may have been otherwise justified in seeking to disperse the crowd, especially since they had been blockaded in on the streets, blocking what appear to be major roads* (and several locals have said that this was the case). The two solutions seem to me to have been to allow them to reach their destination (which was apparently the park they had previously been kicked out of) or deploy gas canisters safely after giving warning. The video shows they gave warning, but the evidence suggests that at least two officers did not discharge their weapons safely (or that one officer is a sadistic twisted bastard).
As a result, I think the Oakland streets are now less safe for police officers than they were previously (and from what I understand there is a historical tension already present in Oakland). Furthermore this kind of imagery tends to harden the resolve of those protesting, rather than deterring them: as we saw with the 'Pepper Spray incident'. An own goal for the police I think.
* The police seem to have chosen their blockade point, so it remains to be seen if there wasn't a less important place they could have set up. One conspiracy theory might suggest they chose that place deliberately to drive a wedge between the local residents and the protesters by essentially forcing the protesters into being a local inconvenience.
abe: Does anyone have a clue what the girl in the sign on the right of the screen right at the end of the clip is doing? She seems to be wildly batting at something or someone. I can't find a longer cut to see if it becomes clearer. Either way, the girl that falls over on her side (centre right) seems to have been knocked over by whatever she's doing.
When you send a child to his room for bad behaviur do you let him keep his pc, video games, tv ... privileges or do you take them away
There is a world of difference between being sent to a room for a few hours, and being locked in a building with other criminals for years at a time. Do you really want prisons to be a place where criminals have to make their own entertainment? That seems like a recipe for disaster.
Either way, since prison reform is not high on the agenda of Occupy Wall Street (other than perhaps stopping them being run for profit as hinted at earlier), maybe this is a good item to extract out of this thread into a new thread?
The original vision of the Founding Fathers was that they would be selected, not elected. We amended how that works.
I've found your criticism of the Senate to be rather interesting. Here in the UK, of course our second house is selected (by the Monarch via the PM). And furthermore about 4% of the house are bishops in the Church of England (and only England) that get a seat by right. Some people in the Lords have still got their seat by virtue of being born to a certain father - and by some I mean 88. There are reforms under discussion.
Is there any place for a Senate/House of Lords at all? It seems that Senate exists so that the State Governments have power over the People's ability to legislate according to their will. That might have made sense as a compromise in its temporal context, but does it make sense at all now?
The power of the Lords has been severely diminished recently (over the past 100 years) to the point that the Commons can bypass it entirely when it comes to legislation if it so chooses.
But to the topic at hand, do you think Senate reform will help towards the goals of OWS? I would think you believed it was a vital step towards enacting the will of the people. The OWS people however seem more concerned with the financing reform. Do you think they should be thinking about the problems that derive from the Senate more?
'Actually, there's been an economic downturn, so I'll have to lay off the goose' said the little red hen, and so she did. And the cow and the duck and the pig reaped the wheat.
Or alternatively: 'The horse invented a harvesting machine which increases productivity meaning either you all get to do less hard labour, or you get to the same amount of hard work while I lay off the goose meaning I don't have to share as much of MY bread around.'
One person that no-one disagrees with? Where will you find him?
I suppose with small enough electorates, this might be possible. OWS operates on a consensus approach with any individual has the power to veto anything. I'm not sure how large the General Assemblies actually are, but in Oakland (where they have a 90% consensus approach) there were 1500 voters on a General Strike and they managed to get over 96% consensus.
This might be more difficult with voting for representatives, I don't know. Just thought I'd try and get this subthread railing back toward the specifics of the Occupy movement.
Oakland is heating up, with groups of anarchists deciding to spray and break windows.
At least some of the protestors tried to stop the vandalism, putting themselves in harms way. The principle of 'The whole World is Watching' applies both ways, but I suspect like the masked police officers, the masked vandals will not be found and prosecuted.
1. Refrain from Buying or Selling any goods or services including but not limited to, any petroleum products, consumer goods or bank transactions; starting at 12:01 am to 11:59pm on November 30th, 2011.
2. Refrain from working for a wage starting at 12:01 am to 11:59pm on November 30th, 2011 excluding those individuals that provide emergency and necessary functions including but not limited to Police, Fire and Medical personnel.
3. Join or form local groups to peacefully protest against the above stated elements.
quote:The 20 mile a day/2 week march from Liberty Square to DC is set to leave this Wednesday, November 9 at noon. On Wednesday we'll be leaving Liberty Square and marching to the New York Waterway/Hudson River Ferry and onward to Elizabeth, NJ. This is our first stop. Everyone is welcome to join this two week march. If you'd like to participate, but can't commit for two weeks you're welcome to join us for the day or help send us off!
The march is being organized by a few of us here at OWS. We will be in DC by Nov 23 for the Congressional Super Committee meeting. This committee has the power to keep the Bush tax cuts (that only benefit the top 1%) or let them expire. We want to be there to fight for the 99%! We will also be connecting with Occupy Philly and Occupy Baltimore along the route, and, of course, Occupy DC!
It starts off a little slow, and it's a multi parter lasting 50 mins. Most of the talk is about how the most powerful people are now 'above the rule of law', how they are granted immunity or shielding from the consequences of explicitly criminal behaviour that would result in prison sentences for the common person.
He believes that this is the key to why OWS is maintaining its momentum. It isn't just that the rich are rich and the poor are poor. It is that the rich are getting vastly wealthier in illegitimate ways. It is no longer a level playing field with equal opportunities, and consequences, for all.
The talk is a damning criticism of the American Government's evolution since Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, leading to a new public face for the USA. We can imprison you, torture you, and we can do it almost entirely out in the open and nobody is going to do anything about it - so step in line and blow that whistle if you dare....
™ Version 4.2
