Limits to Peaceful Assembly

[Darkside2009]

Darkside,

You miss the argument. With no faith in the system there is no opposing political agenda. It has become obvious it is all 'more of the same' no matter if we vote or not. Fine, pack our marbles and refuse to play the game. Is there a game when there are no players?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is never a situation in which there are no players, the vested interests will always play, they are just better at it. If you do not vote, the vested interests will win unopposed, in fact they count on voter apathy to do just that.

It would also serve to cut their expenses considerably, less spent on lobbying politicians, less on campaign contributions, less on providing jobs in certain marginal constituencies, in return for politicians voting through advantageous legislation.

I can understand your frustration with politics, but the answer is not to cease voting, but the opposite, to become more involved. To band with others who think as you do, to organise, agitate and become a vested interest the politicians cannot ignore.

It is a constant struggle I know, but rights have never been won by people sitting back and just accepting any crumbs of comfort given to them. They have been seized from the hands of those who did not wish to relinquish them.

[Hephaestion]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is never a situation in which there are no players, the vested interests will always play, they are just better at it. If you do not vote, the vested interests will win unopposed, in fact they count on voter apathy to do just that.

It would also serve to cut their expenses considerably, less spent on lobbying politicians, less on campaign contributions, less on providing jobs in certain marginal constituencies, in return for politicians voting through advantageous legislation.

I can understand your frustration with politics, but the answer is not to cease voting, but the opposite, to become more involved. To band with others who think as you do, to organise, agitate and become a vested interest the politicians cannot ignore.

It is a constant struggle I know, but rights have never been won by people sitting back and just accepting any crumbs of comfort given to them. They have been seized from the hands of those who did not wish to relinquish them.

We used to have the "Monster Raving Looney Party" but not sure that this is still going after their rich leader died. They were always a good protest vote.

[darkeyes]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand your frustration with politics, but the answer is not to cease voting, but the opposite, to become more involved. To band with others who think as you do, to organise, agitate and become a vested interest the politicians cannot ignore.

It is a constant struggle I know, but rights have never been won by people sitting back and just accepting any crumbs of comfort given to them. They have been seized from the hands of those who did not wish to relinquish them.

Ya ole agitator u... wotch it.. they will b havin a files on ya down at Special Branch.. yep.. agitate, protest, demonstrate and a lil more radical an energetic civil disobedience.. I luff it...:bigrin:

But voting protests can play their part ... we havta b careful of why and when we do it.. but representative democracy has kept our societies a bloody sight more tranquil than any other sytem I know an generally, if not entirely kept the military more or less out of politics, authoritarianism and rule by decree out of western countries and fascism and the wolves of other nasty little creeds at bay..

It is imperfect, corrupt, dishonest and needs an overhaul root and branch to make it more responsive to the needs of the people and not corporate and elite self interest.. and we can gnash our teeth all we like about how frustrating it is and how slow radical democratic change is, but at least we do have the opportunity still of achieving it without violent revolution...

Agitate, protest, demonstrate and disobey.. tools of democratic change which have long been tools of progress for us all... just voting at election time isnt enough.. and not voting while it has its place, is even less effective and potentially even more dangerous..

[12voltman59]

I think that the basis for things like the Occupy Wall Street and related protests comes from the fact that many people feel that our political system has become corrupted----not necessarily corrupt at the level of each and every politician---because in reality---I think the graft and such that used to be once so endemic in the system is basically gone--but what is the problem is that the system itself is corrupted by things like the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling that allows cash to flow into the system basically unchecked that skews the system totally in favor of the rich and powerful.

You have Supreme Court justices going to be feted by industry groups that will have pending business before the court which is something that should be looked at as being an improper "ex parte" meeting between the judges and a party with business before the court---they should recuse themselves from hearing the case next spring----but of course they won't.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114,0,7978224.story

I wonder how Scalia and Thomas will vote on that case??? Anyone want to lay odds on that????

So--its crap like this that make people feel that the fix is in and everything is rigged against anyone who doesn't have deep, deep pockets to pump dump truck loads full of money into the system and that they simply don't count anymore.

A situation such as this can only go on for so long----I really do wonder when we reach "the tipping point" that turns something like the OWS into a full scale rebellion???? I don't think we are too far off from that day---at points in history like this it is always true that--"A Reckoning Is Coming."

That reckoning I think is becoming an inevitability----with the only real questions about it being----when, how big, what form and how many will fall and how does it come out???

[12voltman59]

I found these interesting quotes gathered on one website: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/29/50-quotes-americans-should-remember/

[jamieknyc]

Maybe graft is gone where you live, Vilty. It sure is alive and well in New York City.

[darkeyes]

I print this article written by Naomi Wolf in the Guardian in its entirety together with the link. It seems the limit of peaceful assembly in the United States has been reached and that the democratic freedoms of Americans have even greater limits placed upon them than we poor sods in places which many Americans consider much less democratic places with fewer freedoms and rights.. and her comparison with what has been going on in Tahrir Square has not gone unnoticed... and so I have no regrets whatever in resuscitating this thread...


US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.


Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

[tenni]

Thanks for the article darkeyes. Very comprehensive interpretation of events. I'd like to add a few points from Canada. First, the Toronto Occupy movement was also shut down after the courts found that the right to peaceful assembly did not extend to occupying a public park on going 24/7. Second, that the removal of tents etc. was done peacefully without incident. This important to know and the police attempted to insure that it was peaceful after the peaceful assembly protesting the G20 two years ago became violent with over a thousand arrested and held perhaps in volation of their rights.

Added to this is the results that of all those arrested there were about six people convicted for a variety of activities. Even more shocking and not in the public domain is who received the most severe jail time. It was a 37 year old woman who was arrested even before the G20 protests began. I found out last night that an artist organizations that I am on the Board of was being used for meetings by a group that this woman was involved with. The evidence used to arrest her was gathered by two undercover agents. One undercover cop actually became her room mate and gathered information about statements that she made (some in her own apartment) and used it against her as evidence. Some statements that when read on their own look bad but in fact was merely the muttering of a foolish woman thinking that she was speaking to a cohort and sympathizer.

This so called security efforts being done under the guise of national security in probably all of our countries is a sham to control the citizens in more than one incident. So all those arrested and some who were beaten to the point of broken limbs by police were innocent citizens many doing nothing more wrong than walking down a street almost a mile from the G20 summit.

[Diva667]

This turned up in my facebook feed. Some very interesting pictures of Occupy Wall Street. Plus Gunner Scott does trans 101 for Occupy Wall St.

http://gunnerscott.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-trip-to-occupy-wall-st-for-trans.html

[keefer201]

I print this article written by Naomi Wolf in the Guardian in its entirety together with the link. It seems the limit of peaceful assembly in the United States has been reached and that the democratic freedoms of Americans have even greater limits placed upon them than we poor sods in places which many Americans consider much less democratic places with fewer freedoms and rights.. and her comparison with what has been going on in Tahrir Square has not gone unnoticed... and so I have no regrets whatever in resuscitating this thread...


US citizens of all political persuasions are still reeling from images of unparallelled police brutality in a coordinated crackdown against peaceful OWS protesters in cities across the nation this past week. An elderly woman was pepper-sprayed in the face; the scene of unresisting, supine students at UC Davis being pepper-sprayed by phalanxes of riot police went viral online; images proliferated of young women – targeted seemingly for their gender – screaming, dragged by the hair by police in riot gear; and the pictures of a young man, stunned and bleeding profusely from the head, emerged in the record of the middle-of-the-night clearing of Zuccotti Park.

But just when Americans thought we had the picture – was this crazy police and mayoral overkill, on a municipal level, in many different cities? – the picture darkened. The National Union of Journalists and the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

To Europeans, the enormity of this breach may not be obvious at first. Our system of government prohibits the creation of a federalised police force, and forbids federal or militarised involvement in municipal peacekeeping.

I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors', city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.

Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually "OWS has no message". Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online "What is it you want?" answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, "we are going after these scruffy hippies". Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women's wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the "scandal" of presidential contender Newt Gingrich's having been paid $1.8m for a few hours' "consulting" to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies' profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.

Since Occupy is heavily surveilled and infiltrated, it is likely that the DHS and police informers are aware, before Occupy itself is, what its emerging agenda is going to look like. If legislating away lobbyists' privileges to earn boundless fees once they are close to the legislative process, reforming the banks so they can't suck money out of fake derivatives products, and, most critically, opening the books on a system that allowed members of Congress to profit personally – and immensely – from their own legislation, are two beats away from the grasp of an electorally organised Occupy movement … well, you will call out the troops on stopping that advance.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.


Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

I tried not to copy the whole article, I guess I failed at that. I normally respect the news out of the U.K. but where this reporter got her facts from about American attitudes concerning OWS can not be more wrong. The vast majority of Americans, dare I say; 99%, can not give a damn with the OWS crowd. In fact, the media, yes even the drive by liberal media, barely cover it. What news of it that is covered, is by and large negative, due to the crime that has gone on. It may seem like everyone is all about this crowd but when you only listen to your friends, then even a mingling of three can seem like a weekend at Woodstock. I can assure you that in the very near future we Americans are going to be asking; Occupy What Street?

[Katja]

Thanks for the article darkeyes. Very comprehensive interpretation of events. I'd like to add a few points from Canada. First, the Toronto Occupy movement was also shut down after the courts found that the right to peaceful assembly did not extend to occupying a public park on going 24/7. Second, that the removal of tents etc. was done peacefully without incident. This important to know and the police attempted to insure that it was peaceful after the peaceful assembly protesting the G20 two years ago became violent with over a thousand arrested and held perhaps in volation of their rights.

Added to this is the results that of all those arrested there were about six people convicted for a variety of activities. Even more shocking and not in the public domain is who received the most severe jail time. It was a 37 year old woman who was arrested even before the G20 protests began. I found out last night that an artist organizations that I am on the Board of was being used for meetings by a group that this woman was involved with. The evidence used to arrest her was gathered by two undercover agents. One undercover cop actually became her room mate and gathered information about statements that she made (some in her own apartment) and used it against her as evidence. Some statements that when read on their own look bad but in fact was merely the muttering of a foolish woman thinking that she was speaking to a cohort and sympathizer.

This so called security efforts being done under the guise of national security in probably all of our countries is a sham to control the citizens in more than one incident. So all those arrested and some who were beaten to the point of broken limbs by police were innocent citizens memanany doing nothing more wrong than walking down a street almost a mile from the G20 summit.

The police in this country have recently found themselves in hot water over undercover operations. These may interest, if not surprise you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/20/undercover-police-spy-gav_n_1021314.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348886/Undercover-officer-married-fathered-children-activist-sent-spy-on.html

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/22/former-top-uk-prosecutor-slates-activities-of-police-spies-unit.html

[darkeyes]

I tried not to copy the whole article, I guess I failed at that. I normally respect the news out of the U.K. but where this reporter got her facts from about American attitudes concerning OWS can not be more wrong. The vast majority of Americans, dare I say; 99%, can not give a damn with the OWS crowd. In fact, the media, yes even the drive by liberal media, barely cover it. What news of it that is covered, is by and large negative, due to the crime that has gone on. It may seem like everyone is all about this crowd but when you only listen to your friends, then even a mingling of three can seem like a weekend at Woodstock. I can assure you that in the very near future we Americans are going to be asking; Occupy What Street?

She isnt a reporter, babes, at all.. she is an American, just like you.. naaa.. take that back.. not like u... she has lil grey cells tween 'er ear'oles that work... an author, political consultant, resident in the US just like u tho..an someone who u wouldnt like ne way... she sees things in a different light 2 u.. naaa... take that back an all.. she sees things....

..so ifya like.. ya didnt get the news from the UK.. ya gorrit from America... funny how things work innit?;)

[keefer201]

you smart ass. LOL :tongue:

[darkeyes]

you smart ass. LOL :tongue:

This has been sed since time immemorial babes!!!;)

[void()]

In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.

If substantiated


It is a constant struggle I know, but rights have never been won by people sitting back and just accepting any crumbs of comfort given to them. They have been seized from the hands of those who did not wish to relinquish them.

Sic Semper Tyranis may hold quite a great deal of merit.

Then again, am reminded divide and conquer isn't strictly American play book. As ancient Greece had Athens and Sparta, so with America. Course, smoke and mirrors distract, redirect.

Would like to know exactly whom is on the end of the purse cord. So much of a monolithic quagmire built as a shield one lacks ability to follow the money fully. As noted elsewhere, keeping it inside.

[darkeyes]

Sic Semper Tyranis may hold quite a great deal of merit.



Indeed it does Voidie.. used the phrase "Sic Semper Tyrannis" to a famous old Labour politician of my aquaintance who tried to justify the war in Iraq an told us we were foolish, stupid and political dinosaurs for opposing a "just war".'E didnt take kindly to be bein reminded it isnt "Thus always to extinct predators" nor did 'e take kindly to bein told 'e an' 'is crew were actin' as predatory tyrants themsels... me almost got bounced outa the meetin' for bein an awkward cow an troublemaker.. *sigh* a peace luffin pacifist's lot is sometimes not a happy 1.. spesh wen some big thicko bobby grabs her by the scruff a the neck an 'er arse an manhandles 'er.. ty Wendy Alexander for savin me arse an neck..

[tenni]

http://this.org/blog/2011/10/24/147-corporations/

147 corporations control 40 percent of the global economy, say scientists
by Graham F. Scott
Diagram showing links between 1,318 transnational corporations. 147 of them are "superconnected," together controlling 40% of all transactions in the network.

Diagram showing links between 1,318 transnational corporations. 147 of them are "superconnected," together controlling 40% of all transactions in the network.

Next time someone asks you what the Occupy protesters are demonstrating against, here’s a handy visual: the diagram above illustrates the ownership links between 1,318 global corporations. Between them, they control a majority of the world economy. And a minority of this minority, just 147 companies, control 40 percent of all the wealth in the network. It’s an empirical illustration of the “1 percent.”

The work, to be published in PLoS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms – the “real” economy – representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

Systems analysts quoted in the piece note that small, tightly-knit networks like this tend to be quite fragile, because a problem with one node tends to affect the others disproportionately. It’s just one more piece of evidence of what many progressive economists have been saying for ages: too few corporations have amassed too much control over our economies.

[darkeyes]

By the time I post this I will have been officially on strike for about an hour as will close to 2,000,000 other teachers and public sector workers up and down the land. Demonstrations and picket lines will be held throughout the country as we strike to defend our pension provisions.

Now to add insult to inury and in the middle of a two year pay freeze public service workers are told they will be restricted to a maximum of 1% in pay increases as the freeze ends for some late next year and for others in 2013. Already their living standards have reduced by up to 8% in recent years, all to pay for a crisis they did not create but for which they are being held responsible through their pockets and their jobs while those who are responsible get off scot free and pay themselves ever burgeoning inflated and undeserved salaries and bonuses.

Of the 9% increase in contributons we are expected to pay for our pensions our retirement date is deferred, our annual pension reduced and something like 1/3 of that increase is admitted by government to be solely to help pay off government debt and cannot be justified as a contribution for pension provision.. the other 2/3 is more than sufficient for that.. to that end this will mean a further real terms salary reduction in the here and now and year on year for millions who are already sorely pressed with many hundreds of thousands unable to adequately make ends meet.. that there are lesser penalties and special provison for the lower paid does not justify what is a huge injury which will be caused to the vast majority of public sector workers, but most of them too will be adversely affected if to a lesser degree...with the current freeze and the 1% cap over the next few years living standards are being driven down to such a degree that what will almost certainly be a peaceful day of protest as we strike, is likely to develop into something quite different as both private and publlic sector increasingly feel the pinch..

As such this is not a part of the Occupy protests about which we have been saying so much but is without question linked to their aims and has resulted for just the same reasons .. the circumstances of what is happening to us are exactly those about which Occupy in the UK and the rest of the world have been protesting. What is happening (today now) is but the beginning.. in the coming months and years we will see more as government continues to drive down our standard of living and find new ways for us to pay for their and their friends crisis without dealing with the fundamental causes of it.. the narrowness of vision of the British government has been rumbled and their policies found wanting.. we are about to enter a new period of recession and once again it is ordinary people who will bear the brunt and be expected to pay for it..

What is happening today is the opening salvo by the public sector.. before long, the pressures on the private sector workers will bring them too onto the streets and in unison we shall try and make government see sense. With what is happening by other protests such as Occupy can only add to our strength. Nothing in life is guaranteed, and I am the first to admit that we may not prevail.. but to do nothing as millions of ordinary people suffer, public services are butchered and privatised, the health service is under threat, as unemployment rockets, business fold, banks refuse to lend, government cuts welfare provision, as women, children and the poor are disadvantaged more than any other groups in our society by government decree, as education becomes increasingly under stress from school to university and those with get more as those with nothing have less is not an option... we are supposed to be a sharing caring society but we are becoming increasingly the opposite..

I do not intend to enter into debate on this rant if rant is what it is.. it is meant as information only that somewhere in the English speaking world a group of workers are standing up today to tell their political masters that no.. we will take no more of paying for something we did not create and demand real change.. and I somehow have the feeling that we will not be the last to do so...

[void()]

Indeed it does Voidie.. used the phrase "Sic Semper Tyrannis" to a famous old Labour politician of my aquaintance who tried to justify the war in Iraq an told us we were foolish, stupid and political dinosaurs for opposing a "just war".'E didnt take kindly to be bein reminded it isnt "Thus always to extinct predators" nor did 'e take kindly to bein told 'e an' 'is crew were actin' as predatory tyrants themsels... me almost got bounced outa the meetin' for bein an awkward cow an troublemaker.. *sigh* a peace luffin pacifist's lot is sometimes not a happy 1.. spesh wen some big thicko bobby grabs her by the scruff a the neck an 'er arse an manhandles 'er.. ty Wendy Alexander for savin me arse an neck..

http://domadisonheights.com/shop/images/101_1390.JPG

That was the former flag of Virginia, where I lived. It was replaced as it became politically incorrect to display violence. The female spartan was originally intended to represent Justice. Hence the motto has become one which causes fear in many of lofty places.

[Long Duck Dong]

By the time I post this I will have been officially on strike for about an hour as will close to 2,000,000 other teachers and public sector workers up and down the land. Demonstrations and picket lines will be held throughout the country as we strike to defend our pension provisions.

Now to add insult to inury and in the middle of a two year pay freeze public service workers are told they will be restricted to a maximum of 1% in pay increases as the freeze ends for some late next year and for others in 2013. Already their living standards have reduced by up to 8% in recent years, all to pay for a crisis they did not create but for which they are being held responsible through their pockets and their jobs while those who are responsible get off scot free and pay themselves ever burgeoning inflated and undeserved salaries and bonuses.

Of the 9% increase in contributons we are expected to pay for our pensions our retirement date is deferred, our annual pension reduced and something like 1/3 of that increase is admitted by government to be solely to help pay off government debt and cannot be justified as a contribution for pension provision.. the other 2/3 is more than sufficient for that.. to that end this will mean a further real terms salary reduction in the here and now and year on year for millions who are already sorely pressed with many hundreds of thousands unable to adequately make ends meet.. that there are lesser penalties and special provison for the lower paid does not justify what is a huge injury which will be caused to the vast majority of public sector workers, but most of them too will be adversely affected if to a lesser degree...with the current freeze and the 1% cap over the next few years living standards are being driven down to such a degree that what will almost certainly be a peaceful day of protest as we strike, is likely to develop into something quite different as both private and publlic sector increasingly feel the pinch..

As such this is not a part of the Occupy protests about which we have been saying so much but is without question linked to their aims and has resulted for just the same reasons .. the circumstances of what is happening to us are exactly those about which Occupy in the UK and the rest of the world have been protesting. What is happening (today now) is but the beginning.. in the coming months and years we will see more as government continues to drive down our standard of living and find new ways for us to pay for their and their friends crisis without dealing with the fundamental causes of it.. the narrowness of vision of the British government has been rumbled and their policies found wanting.. we are about to enter a new period of recession and once again it is ordinary people who will bear the brunt and be expected to pay for it..

What is happening today is the opening salvo by the public sector.. before long, the pressures on the private sector workers will bring them too onto the streets and in unison we shall try and make government see sense. With what is happening by other protests such as Occupy can only add to our strength. Nothing in life is guaranteed, and I am the first to admit that we may not prevail.. but to do nothing as millions of ordinary people suffer, public services are butchered and privatised, the health service is under threat, as unemployment rockets, business fold, banks refuse to lend, government cuts welfare provision, as women, children and the poor are disadvantaged more than any other groups in our society by government decree, as education becomes increasingly under stress from school to university and those with get more as those with nothing have less is not an option... we are supposed to be a sharing caring society but we are becoming increasingly the opposite..

I do not intend to enter into debate on this rant if rant is what it is.. it is meant as information only that somewhere in the English speaking world a group of workers are standing up today to tell their political masters that no.. we will take no more of paying for something we did not create and demand real change.. and I somehow have the feeling that we will not be the last to do so...

I will not debate it with you.... I will be nice ..* strange feeling coming over me, must be ill, need to see doctor.... must be my hatebeingniceitis playing up * :tong:

I am going to point out how people will get up in arms when its them that pays the cost for the actions of others, and affects them directly.... and how your statement about some will pay the cost, comes into to play here......

the same aspect is present, you are suffering cos of something you never created but now you are not happy about it cos its you paying the price.....
its the same way many people feel about protest groups like the occupy movement ( apparently the bill for the US protests is over $13mil and climbing )...

I could be a real wanker and say " what goes around, comes around " but I am not.... instead, I wish you luck with your protest, I hope the result is as best as possible for all involved, and thats its resolved sooner than later cos the sake of the teachers and the students.......

[keefer201]

So much for socialism!

[darkeyes]

So much for socialism!

I do luff it when peeps who have no knowledge and no understanding open ther gobs an let ther bellies rumble.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism... it is to do with peoples lives, their future and the future of their children and ultimately the future well being of a society..

[Hephaestion]

Everyone knows what the problem is. It is that there are sectors of society which reward themselves well for doing a really bad job.

The obvious offenders are those in the Banking industry. The Banking inustry is causing no end of expense to the rest of us. Indeed, their so called road to recovery consists of increasingly rooking the public as well as forcing the same public to subsidise them through pressuring government(s).

If there was a method of bringing these people to heel through other means then it is highly unlikely that there would be any "occupy protests". The occupy protests are supplying the necessary, the vital, market force.

When it comes to costing things out, there is an argument that says law and order costs far too much and that it would be more cost effective to just deal with the aftermath. For example, Customs and Excise officers are frequently told that their pay exceeds the recoup in contraband. Multi-million (name your currency) hauls (name your contraband) are occasional and cannot be turned into liquid assets anyway. This type of situation can be argued to even greater absurdity.

Of course strikes and protests are seen as impositions. This is mainly because there is no real foresight of what may seen as an investment in the major resource of any country - their own people.

When a global system of commerce causes the major resource (people) to conduct protests on common lines then something needs to change. Unless people are seen as cheap / worthless expendable items then a sensible person would see immediately that it is the global system of commerce that needs to change.

Globalization was an attempt to overcome the same problems which occurred on a local scale. Now they have revisited on a global scale. The system is clearly duff.

Cowardice deludes those who hide under their stones thinking that the rotteness in world will not find them.

[keefer201]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;215823]I do luff it when peeps who have no knowledge and no understanding open ther gobs an let ther bellies rumble.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism... it is to do with peoples lives, their future and the future of their children and ultimately the future well being of a society..[/QU

Need I repeat myself?

[Katja]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;215823]I do luff it when peeps who have no knowledge and no understanding open ther gobs an let ther bellies rumble.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism... it is to do with peoples lives, their future and the future of their children and ultimately the future well being of a society..[/QU

Need I repeat myself?

If I may interject, many of those who are on strike today are the very class of people who elected the present government. They are professional people who have no interest in socialism.

The United Kingdom is not socialist state, nor its government one with a pink far less a red hue.

I am not a socialist, nor am I employed in the public sector, but see the justice of their cause and understand why they have felt so strongly that they must act.

Interestingly, the membership of the most senior civil service union, the very top people who are expected by government to devise and implement their policies, mostly privately educated and who run the civil service voted overwhelmingly to strike. These people are traditionally strong supporters of the two parties who make up the coalition government and very unlikely to support any move toward a socialist objective.

This is not dispute where socialism has any place, but a dispute for justice and against what many see as a government which is uncaring, has got its social and economic policies wrong and is making things worse for the vast majority of people and the economy of the nation.

You may repeat your statement as often as you like. It will continue to be inane and an irrelevance.

[void()]

So much for socialism!

So much for Justice as well. We let Simpson walk saying truth granted a just proof of his innocence. Murdered McVeigh out of vengeance calling it just. Our soldiers force the farmers in Afghanistan to farm poppies for a need of morphine, heroin, where the Taliban was teaching farmers to grow crops of corn, wheat, rice, other valid crops for feeding their communities and it is the name of the American way, so just. And I know this as factual from having a few buddies whom were or are active Rangers, there or in capacity to know.

Knew about Special Forces starting a war in Mexico a year before it happened, buds asked me about certain strategy ideas in 'general' terms. The New Boss got in the door, green light to enact full covert war granted. They dress up as different cartel units, tag out one cartel, move on dressed as another cartel and keep going. The result, cartels start wiping one another out.

Meanwhile, there are causalities a plenty of those innocents caught in crossfire. Operation works to minimize that. Nothing is guaranteed though and shit does happen, all for what Americans call just. "To win the war on drugs, America has to become the largest dealer and will." A federal marshal told me once. "Same for any sort of war like that, America becomes Top Dog, war over."

This is how we make ourselves free, where free is an illusion. We depend on resources stolen from raped children in lands with no names. We create toxic sludge which makes good Saturday morning cereal for our ADD wheelchair bound veterans. Justice for sure.

Fuck all your labels. This is about humanity. We are one people. We are tired of oppression and this kind of justice brought in our names. We no longer care what you call yourself, if you're part of the problem, you are the problem. There's an 'us' or 'them' for ya!

This is also about a federal employee being fired from his job for voicing an opinion, on his own time. He wrote a letter to an editor of a national rag. The letter was critical of a federal judge not asking for terrorist suspects to be brought to public trial, as they should have rightly been. The judge stated that letting the suspects face military stricture was enough. The military only served a nine month sentence on suspects at most, then kicked them free. Some of the terrorists if publicly tried in the judicial system merited twenty five year sentences.

Guess the first amendment is no longer applicable, and that's justice as well. Again, if you're part of the problem and this includes hawking out accusations of 'unpatriotic', 'socialist', 'weak' or what have you, then you are the problem.

There are many whom have played the 'game' by all the rules, finding the rules suddenly have changed. Cheaters are now the ones winning. What happen to a fair game? Justice, I suppose.

[jamieknyc]

was there any person ever executed in the United States who deserved it more than Timothy McVeigh?

[darkeyes]

[QUOTE=keefer201;215825]

If I may interject, many of those who are on strike today are the very class of people who elected the present government. They are professional people who have no interest in socialism.

The United Kingdom is not socialist state, nor its government one with a pink far less a red hue.

I am not a socialist, nor am I employed in the public sector, but see the justice of their cause and understand why they have felt so strongly that they must act.

Interestingly, the membership of the most senior civil service union, the very top people who are expected by government to devise and implement their policies, mostly privately educated and who run the civil service voted overwhelmingly to strike. These people are traditionally strong supporters of the two parties who make up the coalition government and very unlikely to support any move toward a socialist objective.

This is not dispute where socialism has any place, but a dispute for justice and against what many see as a government which is uncaring, has got its social and economic policies wrong and is making things worse for the vast majority of people and the economy of the nation.

You may repeat your statement as often as you like. It will continue to be inane and an irrelevance.

Ta Kat.. saves me wastin me breath...:tong:

[void()]

was there any person ever executed in the United States who deserved it more than Timothy McVeigh?

Not sure. In my opinion, his execution was not justice but revenge. Others share this opinion. I do not condone his actions nor say he was just. There are many ways to an end. He could have chosen any other way. This still is not an excuse of an injustice in his execution. Two wrongs do not create a right.

[jamieknyc]

Not sure. In my opinion, his execution was not justice but revenge. Others share this opinion. I do not condone his actions nor say he was just. There are many ways to an end. He could have chosen any other way. This still is not an excuse of an injustice in his execution. Two wrongs do not create a right.

In McVeigh's case, there was no possible dispute that he committed the crime, or that it was done as the intentional and premeditated mass murder of innocent people in the building, including children. Some people are absolutists in opposition to capital punishment. But if you agree that some people's crimes are so great that they deserve to be executed for them, you can't dispute the justice of McVeigh's execution.

[void()]

In McVeigh's case, there was no possible dispute that he committed the crime, or that it was done as the intentional and premeditated mass murder of innocent people in the building, including children. Some people are absolutists in opposition to capital punishment. But if you agree that some people's crimes are so great that they deserve to be executed for them, you can't dispute the justice of McVeigh's execution.

Yes I can because it is a right granted by the first amendment. I may think as I desire, hold an opinion as I may desire. And it was stated as my opinion that his execution was unjust. Agreed, his crimes are not deniable but nor are the crimes which are enacted in the name of the people. My point remains, two wrongs do not equal a right.

[jamieknyc]

Yes I can because it is a right granted by the first amendment. I may think as I desire, hold an opinion as I may desire. And it was stated as my opinion that his execution was unjust. Agreed, his crimes are not deniable but nor are the crimes which are enacted in the name of the people. My point remains, two wrongs do not equal a right.

As I said, you are right if you are an absolutist in opposition to capital punishment. However, I haven't seen you protesting the execution of anyone else, or advocating commutation for those on death row.

[void()]

As I said, you are right if you are an absolutist in opposition to capital punishment. However, I haven't seen you protesting the execution of anyone else, or advocating commutation for those on death row.

I see, will clarify. Do not think abolishing capital punishment is feasible. It should however be reserved as last resort, and not used as a means of political revenge, or outright assassination for effect. And that was the wrong of his execution as I saw it. Can agree his actions merited the full meter of law.

The motivation of justice was wrong. Yes, there are some on death row whom do not belong. Same as there are surely other prisoners whom are innocent of their respective accusations. Justice is not perfect. Yet corrupting it via use of absolute power makes it the more vile.

[jamieknyc]

I see, will clarify. Do not think abolishing capital punishment is feasible. It should however be reserved as last resort, and not used as a means of political revenge, or outright assassination for effect. And that was the wrong of his execution as I saw it. Can agree his actions merited the full meter of law.

The motivation of justice was wrong. Yes, there are some on death row whom do not belong. Same as there are surely other prisoners whom are innocent of their respective accusations. Justice is not perfect. Yet corrupting it via use of absolute power makes it the more vile.

Something doesn't add up there. You agree that McVeigh's action 'merited the full meter of law,' and that capital punishment is justified in some cases. If so, how does McVeigh not become the one person who deserved to be executed?

[void()]

It does not add up because you are not understanding what is being said. Can say it a number of ways yet if you choose to refuse to understand, communication fails.

His execution may have been warranted. It was however not justice in my opinion.

And yes there is a great distance between warranted and just.

[jamieknyc]

It does not add up because you are not understanding what is being said. Can say it a number of ways yet if you choose to refuse to understand, communication fails.

His execution may have been warranted. It was however not justice in my opinion.

And yes there is a great distance between warranted and just.

In what respect was it not justice? He knew he was committing a capital offense when he did it, and he had a fair trial. No one disputed that he did the crime.

[void()]

In what respect was it not justice? He knew he was committing a capital offense when he did it, and he had a fair trial. No one disputed that he did the crime.

He was also allegedly taken under wing of an agent provocateur. Further, he saw all of our current mess coming. It was not justice in the same fashion as you sitting in the chat room with me, yet not conversing directly. Those whom have feel superior and therefore may do as they wish. It is message heard quite loudly. It was not justice because while his trail may have been fair, the execution was committed to send a message.

[jamieknyc]

He was also allegedly taken under wing of an agent provocateur. Further, he saw all of our current mess coming. It was not justice in the same fashion as you sitting in the chat room with me, yet not conversing directly. Those whom have feel superior and therefore may do as they wish. It is message heard quite loudly. It was not justice because while his trail may have been fair, the execution was committed to send a message.

The execution was committed because he murdered 168 innocent people. Are you saying he didn't deserve it?

[void()]

The execution was committed because he murdered 168 innocent people. Are you saying he didn't deserve it?

Bah! Back in a circle you go. I'm done.


It does not add up because you are not understanding what is being said. Can say it a number of ways yet if you choose to refuse to understand, communication fails.

His execution may have been warranted. It was however not justice in my opinion.

And yes there is a great distance between warranted and just.

Do not know how to speak much plainer. If you do not understand, then I can only conclude you are choosing not to understand. At which point, no reason exists to continue.

[Diva667]

This is another reason why we have OWS:


WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Isn't a the right to a fair and speedy trial in the bill of rights or am I confused?

[darkeyes]

All went ver well 2 day me thought.. not bad for a first shot 'cross the bows.. 'part from the fact that by the time we got half way me poor lil feet had no feelin an by the time we got down 2 Holyrood.. otha much more sensitive bits wer ready for fallin' off wiv the cold.. least wosnt me that had big lummox stand on 'er frozz lil tootsies.. tee hee.. poor Jo.. 'er face wos a picture as she thumped 'is arm a shot in tempa.. shockin.. pacifists shudn laff at violence but ashamed 2 say me did ne way... more at 'er lil toesies gettin scrunched than 'er wallopin 'im a shot must admit..:bigrin: Soz..am nasty evil cow sumtimes..:tong:

Wy is it our leaderships always insist on us havin strikes an demos an campaigns in winta? God.. am devoted 2 the cause guys.. but ffs how bout a nice spring or summa campaign? Even early Autumn wud b nice.. Have only 1 paira nips for God's sake...

So Davie boy reckons we were a damp squib huh? Daft gett.. 2 mill or so not at work is hardly a damp squib an' its early days... even sum of 'is own staff walked off the job... includin 'is press officer who deals wiv funnily enough.. strikes:bigrin:.. just havta keep up the momentum now.. an part 2 hasta b moren just anotha 1 day tootle down 2 the Parliament.. poor Jo's feet cudnt take anotha scrunchin...tee hee:bigrin: K gloves off.. well not on picket lines or marches.. even wiv gloves on 2 day me poor lil fingies wer achin' wiv the cold... time 2 get serious.. the EIS an all the rest of public sector unions now havta liv up 2 expectations.. wotch this space folks... we not hardly started yet...:)

[darkeyes]

Bah! Back in a circle you go. I'm done.



Do not know how to speak much plainer. If you do not understand, then I can only conclude you are choosing not to understand. At which point, no reason exists to continue.

Think u need a few lil lessons bout plain speakin' when it comes 2 judicial murder and vengeance Voidie babes... interesting statement u made.. 'bout abolishin' capital punishment bein' not feasible... how so? Plenty places round the world have abolished it.. its feasible ok.. have no intention of involvin' mesel in ur lil spat with Jamie.. not on this thread ne way.. but reckon both u and Jamie can remember just where my sympathies lie when it comes to judicial killin'..

[darkeyes]

This is another reason why we have OWS:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Isn't a the right to a fair and speedy trial in the bill of rights or am I confused?

Yas confused Diva... only wen it suits...:)

[void()]

Think u need a few lil lessons bout plain speakin' when it comes 2 judicial murder and vengeance Voidie babes... interesting statement u made.. 'bout abolishin' capital punishment bein' not feasible... how so? Plenty places round the world have abolished it.. its feasible ok.. have no intention of involvin' mesel in ur lil spat with Jamie.. not on this thread ne way.. but reckon both u and Jamie can remember just where my sympathies lie when it comes to judicial killin'..

I do know where your views fall. You're probably correct in me needing plain speaking lessons. Hindsight being twenty twenty, should have took a mate's offer long ago. "Come to England, put you into Oxford for literature and English." She told me. Her eyes were bright, though. Different person.

Foolish me, no clearer in night to see, day comes and am free.

[keefer201]

This is another reason why we have OWS:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Isn't a the right to a fair and speedy trial in the bill of rights or am I confused?

Enemy combatants are not eligable for any Constitutional rights. They are not protected under any laws save the Geneva Convention, and even that is up for debate as they do not represent any standing army. I'm not sure where you went to school or what school of thought you subscribe to ( I do have my thougts though) but this is elementary. Maybe, just maybe, the people in Congress have a better grasp of what is going on than you do. Possibly a dose of Sharia Law will open your eyes.

[Diva667]

Ummm Read the article... Anyone suspected of being a terrorist (us citizen or not) can be arrested (and held on US Soil)for any length of time without being charged. That doesn't sound like "enemy combatant" to me. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.


I don't trust my government, I think that's fairly obvious. I'd have to be a fool to trust them.

http://www.patriotdepot.com/product_images/t/227/LoveFear__99896_zoom.jpg

[void()]

"enemy combatant"

This phrase in my opinion (http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=4&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=0&text=opinion), seems (http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/seem?family=seems) to be newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak). And it appears (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appears?r=66) to be used in excess (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/excess) to fault of abuse (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/abuse).

* Links to definitions added for clarity, as I lack ability to communicate.

[Diva667]

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

Who decides who the "enemy" is?

Do we really want to go down a road where you can be taken into custody, and not see a judge or be charged with any crime, and held for life?

Really?

We already have laws that deal with giving aid and comfort to the enemy and treason.

[Long Duck Dong]

Who decides who the "enemy" is?

Do we really want to go down a road where you can be taken into custody, and not see a judge or be charged with any crime, and held for life?

Really?

We already have laws that deal with giving aid and comfort to the enemy and treason.

as a ex military person.... I will share something....... once of the exercises we did, was a exercise in reality..... 20 * civilians * no uniforms, some *armed *, some not....... and we were told to take the * enemy * out......

most of my unit focused on the armed civilians, I stood back, waited then, then * took them all out * and than * took myself out *....... when asked why, I answered honestly.
the soldiers were the enemy of the armed civilians, the armed civilians were the enemy of the soldiers and the unarmed civilians, the unarmed civilians were our enemy as they were supporting the armed civilians..... and by my actions I was the enemy of them all..... so I took the enemy out....

I got asked, what about the innocent people, and I said we were all innocent.... we were peace keepers in uniform, assisting the rebels ( armed civilians ) protect the refugees ( unarmed civilians ) and by taking no aggressive actions, I was not their enemy......

I was sent for a psych evaluation cos of my answers........

who decides who is the enemy, we all do, cos we are the enemy of our enemies and we are the innocent people that proclaim the innocence of the innocent...... we are one and the same........

[darkeyes]

Who decides who the "enemy" is?



Quite often those who rule us, Diva.. to keep the peasantry quiet, pliable an' on-side, they pick upon an "enemy" and so it is... I was a lil young to realise it.. but with the fall of the Soviet Empire, the west had a bit of a scramble to find an "enemy".. they found Saddam in end wen 'e wos daft enuff 2 invade Kuwait.., an' Al Qaeda an' Usama pre 11/9 (Al Kaa- eeda take note.. not Al Kay-da or Ky-da) former allies if truth be told fitted the bill ver nicely...an' of course Iran was always a likely willin victim.. France became a bit of a bogey-man for a while.. remember that ok, wen the French objected to the illegal American an British rush to war... wen ther is no enemy.. invent 1 or a few even betta... 'tis ere thus..

[Hephaestion]

Suspect the problem with treatment of 'terrorists' is that the opportunity / excuse is being taken to establish 'new rules'. So far, none of these appear just, more punitive in nature.

As for T.McVeigh, his web presence indicates military training, gun passion, white power supremacy and an aversion to the behaviour of his own government who seemed to be punitive and unjust in their behaviour i.e. "the ultimate bully".

From the information avaliable it would seem that the 911 people were driven by the same complaint.

Isn't that peculiar?

[æonpax]

Ummm Read the article... Anyone suspected of being a terrorist (us citizen or not) can be arrested (and held on US Soil)for any length of time without being charged. That doesn't sound like "enemy combatant" to me. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. I don't trust my government, I think that's fairly obvious. I'd have to be a fool to trust them.


Good words but the National Defense Authorization Act (2012) has already cleared the US Senate, to wit;


Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto - WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it. ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html

There is no difference between the parties, only in the window dressing.

[darkeyes]

Didnt see ole Jeremy rant wen 'e did it.. 'e always wos a reactionary tosser, if sumwot funny at times.. an take 'is lil speal wiv a pinch of salt... dunno wy peeps hav got so uptite bout it.. no less than I wud hav expected from the guy.. 'e sent me dad inta palpitations of rage an 'e has sed "Well.. thats Top Gear off me telly viewing". Dont wotch it ne way mesel.. 'e dus like 2 shock dus Verry Smartarsed an 1a these days is gonna smart arse 'imsel out of a job.. for a guy 2 drivel on like 'e did when "earnin" more money in a month than the highest paid civil servants do in a year 'e dus hav a cheek.. but the sides still hurt wiv the laffter.. a few peeps at work this mornin r seethin wiv 'im an the kids hav been pointin imaginery guns at us an makin silly shootie gunnie noises they prob havent made since primary school..

Fran thinks its funny but sevral less good humoured colleagues hav metaphorically ripped heads off.. an the boss lady is less than pleased.. urs truly just told 'em that they had had their fun an if they wanna keep it up no prob for me 2 make ther lives harder than it need otherwise be.. an it wos fun an not a one meant it nastily..well not 2 me neway.. 1 or 2 of me colleagues mayb.. the grumpier less sweet variety.. Christ they were dead chuffed they had an extra day off school yesterday..

Shud Auntie have felt the need 2 apologise? Naaaa... daft buggers. Treat ole Jeremy for wot 'e is.. misogynist, reactionary, right wing smart arse who shud stick 2 cars.. let 'im out of 'is cage 2 speak on owt else an 'e looks wot 'e is.. a dick... an' an institution 2 b cherished..

So just for u lot in foreign climes...http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/30/jeremy-clarkson-one-show-apology

[void()]

Suspect the problem with treatment of 'terrorists' is that the opportunity / excuse is being taken to establish 'new rules'. So far, none of these appear just, more punitive in nature.

As for T.McVeigh, his web presence indicates military training, gun passion, white power supremacy and an aversion to the behaviour of his own government who seemed to be punitive and unjust in their behaviour i.e. "the ultimate bully".

From the information avaliable it would seem that the 911 people were driven by the same complaint.

Isn't that peculiar?

Not to me. Can even see a correlation between some of the issues he espoused to those OWS presents. Probably, due in part to being a daft nutter, lest the official line would say. Psychotherapist and psychologist both gave me a clean bill, though.

"You're just as insane as ninety-nine percent of the population. Aside from some chronic clinical depression, a morbid humor, you're right as rain. Here, take one of these if you feel really anxious when you need. Now go on with it!"

The medicine I take is hydroxyzine pamoate (http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-7092-Hydroxyzine+Pamoate+Oral.aspx?drugid=7092&drugname=Hydroxyzine+Pamoate+Oral). It is an anti-histamine, which blocks one or more chemicals in my noggin when anxiety comes. This allows me a respite to gain focus back. Otherwise, whatever emotion has the reigns, anger, sadness, worry, will be spat out into the world and cause problems.

I may have slight drowsiness from the medicine. So I was told. It knocks my wife out. But I remain functional, alert after taking it. Do note if I try fighting against the drug, then it can possibly cause me to black out. This is also dependent on the anxiety, what is eaten, general situation.

They had me on Prozac. I decide to come of of it. Rather deal with my own nightmares than put up with what the drug caused me to see and feel. Nasty stuff that lot, and the doctors saw it, too. Prior to that was a year on citalopram hydrobromide (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001041/) to no real effect.

So yes, quite the nutter.

[Diva667]

Good words but the National Defense Authorization Act (2012) has already cleared the US Senate, to wit;


There is no difference between the parties, only in the window dressing.
QFT...

[darkeyes]

Ahh yeah...the European socialist model....its working so well. :rolleyes:
Trust me darkeyes...YOU have MY pity.

Must have been on 2 much cognac or plonk..mayb lil naughty smokie.. missed divvy chops ere.. interestin' statement... wot European model?? Have we suddenly been transported a socialist Utopia an me has nev noticed?? Or is it cos we have decent health services wer peeps can get decent health treatment wivout bankruptin 'em?

Far as me recalls.. Europe is just like ur place.. in the poop.. caused initially by a huge failure of ur capitalist system.. an quickly followed by the 1 'ere. Same peeps makin loadsa dosh.. an same peeps havin 2 stump up so them makin' loadsa dosh can continue makin loadsa dosh.. even more loadsa dosh than ever an all... u like that? Payin' for otha peeps obscenely extravagant an' ostentatious lifestyles wile u struggle 2 make ends meet an others cant even afford a loafa bread or pay the rent?

An if ya dont struggle good onya... lots dont.. I dont.. but do notice me savins not growin quite as fast, an an inflation rate wich is gonna lower that down even more.. notha 5 years at best they reckon fore things turn the corner... mite well b strugglin then must admit.. who knows.. cheerya up.. they mite nev turn the corner... peeps will only take so much poop babes.. they r already chompin at the bit.. hope yas enjoyin the ride...

No need 2 pity me sweetie pie.. am not blinded by the system an dont suck up the dark smelly places of the arsewipes that caused it an create so much misery, or the facilitators that help 'em get away wiv it... wich u seem 2 do ver nicely... just enough for both of us... an mayb a few others an all... b happy ya daft bugger.. no need 2 pity me wotsoeva..:)

[æonpax]

QFT...

Here's one for the road....



http://i.imgur.com/Q9z28.jpg

[void()]

Void chuckles and keeps on chuckling while shaking his noggin with an expression of bewilderment on his face.

The Federal Reserve has bought out the European lending market. It has bailed out Europe's banks, and will act as a central bank for supporting lending. Now, European banks are free to lend money to individuals, businesses.

Watched this on News Hour last night. PBS & NPR do try, and quite valiantly to present fair and balanced news reporting. One of the commentators invited was a financial expert with a large investment firm. Their view of this was roughly, 'the banks are selling off their own stock because they feel they will fail'. As I read such it translates into, "buy us out, we're failing."

America is already in debt. Sure, we'll just buy more and that will solve everything. The Great Depression will look like utopia once the one impending tips.

Void imagines conversation to soon be: (Fade to void's imagination)

"You've not heard, we're in total financial ruin?" Someone says to void.

"And you just now got this news? I heard it thirty years ago." Void says.

Dumbfounded look on the someone's face whom tried relating 'news' to void.

Void keeps on keeping on.

(Fade back to reality out void's imagination. "Trust us, you only want to visit.")

[darkeyes]

Void chuckles and keeps on chuckling while shaking his noggin with an expression of bewilderment on his face.

The Federal Reserve has bought out the European lending market. It has bailed out Europe's banks, and will act as a central bank for supporting lending. Now, European banks are free to lend money to individuals, businesses.

Watched this on News Hour last night. PBS & NPR do try, and quite valiantly to present fair and balanced news reporting. One of the commentators invited was a financial expert with a large investment firm. Their view of this was roughly, 'the banks are selling off their own stock because they feel they will fail'. As I read such it translates into, "buy us out, we're failing."

America is already in debt. Sure, we'll just buy more and that will solve everything. The Great Depression will look like utopia once the one impending tips.

Void imagines conversation to soon be: (Fade to void's imagination)

"You've not heard, we're in total financial ruin?" Someone says to void.

"And you just now got this news? I heard it thirty years ago." Void says.

Dumbfounded look on the someone's face whom tried relating 'news' to void.

Void keeps on keeping on.

(Fade back to reality out void's imagination. "Trust us, you only want to visit.")

It isnt quite as you say Voidie me luffly never fear..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/30/world-central-banks-act-credit-crunch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/30/central-banks-eurozone-crisis-intervention

[void()]

The Federal Reserve will make it cheaper for other central banks to borrow dollars; they will in turn lend those dollars on more cheaply to their own banks, cutting the interest rate on so-called "dollar swaps" by half a percentage point. In effect, it is an interest rate cut for banks. Although these so-called dollar swaps are available in all the countries involved, they are aimed specifically at tackling a shortage of dollars among the eurozone banks.

From the second article you posted, Fran. The Fed is selling the US dollar cheaper to the Euros. Can you recall Germans stealing wheel borrows full of cash, dumping the cash because the wheel borrow was worth more? Sounds like a similar situation, if not already here, not long to come. This devalues the dollar, not that it had any real value prior to now.

Who cares though. I'm too poor to notice I'm poorer. Keep it coming you silly corporate fools. I'm still richer than any of ya! Only wish I could give you the moon, too.

[darkeyes]

Remember it Voidie? not really.. I wasnt alive at the time..:tong: I've only seen the newsreels... surely u dont think its going to get that bad for the second time in ur lifetime do ya?:(

[*pan*]

the right to peaceably assemble is garenteed by the u.s. constitution and the land being occupied by the protestors which are the public, is owned by the public, i think it is criminal of the facist governments to try to remove them forceably. this is just another violation of our rights, to let us know they the government being local or federal dictate what is right and wrong and what we may and may not do. i say down with facistism and power to the people.

[*pan*]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="4"]Our country was founded by revolution, violent revolution. These farmers were unorganized and not formally educated but understood the sublime virtue of fairness and the concept of liberty. These people sacrificed their lives for those principles. They rebelled against laws that they considered unjust.

I do not advocate violence but neither will I sit in judgement of those, whom when pushed, push back. I will not tolerate terrorism nor allow authority to harm citizens, as they are doing, under the lie of maintaining law and order.

Rationalize this anyway you want but this country was founded on "civil disobedience" and on occasion, it's the only right thing to do.

i love it when people know their history and speak it. too many americans try to rationalize what the government is doing to it's people's constitutional freedoms. and i am proud of you and that you are an american who will stand up for our rights and freedoms while so many quickly want to give them away.
one of our founding fathers once said " they that give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither the safety nor the liberty". i think this says a lot about the kind of americans we have today that are so ready to give up liberty to be safe.