Gettin' Spicy Up In Here, Up In Here

[ivan]

Nobody is putting the homeless up front but the corporate media.

nobody is putting anybody up front at all b/c there is no leadership and no front - in the absence of either it's pretty easy for anyone, corporate or otherwise, to characterize you as they want.

Edited November 17, 2011 by ivan

[G-spotter]

Party for your right to fight.

[sobo]

...but i still wear a tie to fucking work

OMFG! I can't even begin to picture that!

 

Seriously, though, ivan, I agree with your points. The OWS movement needs to clean up its PR image before the "silent 99%" will sit up and take notice. Right now, all they see are crackheads, stoners, and college-educated hippy wierdo freaks whining about their exhorbitant student loans and no job for their liberal arts degree.

[j_b]

So are you claiming that an independent media that could cover the OWS movement does not exist? I find that hard to believe.

 

It does exist but it isn't mainstream. The Guardian has done a decent job for example.

[ivan]

...but i still wear a tie to fucking work

OMFG! I can't even begin to picture that!

 

Seriously, though, ivan, I agree with your points. The OWS movement needs to clean up its PR image before the "silent 99%" will sit up and take notice. Right now, all they see are crackheads, stoners, and college-educated hippy wierdo freaks whining about their exhorbitant student loans and no job for their liberal arts degree.

teaching's like acting - ya gotta wear a costume to get into character

 

god i love test days, my day to thank all of you who haven't been fucking paying a bit of attention for weeks now

[j_b]

Nobody is putting the homeless up front but the corporate media.

and my friend walking down the street in pdx?

 

Hey, I am not claiming it is easy. I get worried on the bus sometimes.

[sobo]

So are you claiming that an independent media that could cover the OWS movement does not exist? I find that hard to believe.

 

It does exist but it isn't mainstream. The Guardian has done a decent job for example.

I will accept that. I do read The Guardian, and HP. Sometimes it's tough for me to choke it down, what with all the conservative-bashing undertones, but I do read it and try to keep an open mind.

 

It seems to me that if the OWS movement came up with a cogent message that they could all get behind, distilled to a 30-second soundbyte that the (short-attention-spanned) Average American could understand and swallow, then the corporate/lamestream media would be falling all over themselves to report upon it. After all, I believe it's what the American public is clamoring to know: "What is it that the OWS movement wants?"

 

Parading out a bunch of one-on-one interviews with people that don't even know why they're there is just not making the grade, and is casting the movement in a dim light with the populace. OWS needs some coherent form of leadership/representation, of a sort with which a public discourse can be conducted. The Shelby just ain't cutting it...

[j_b]

Nobody is putting the homeless up front but the corporate media.

nobody is putting anybody up front at all b/c there is no leadership and no front - in the absence of either it's pretty easy for anyone, corporate or otherwise, to characterize you as they want.

 

The corporate media will always try to disparage protesters except when it's the tea party. The homeless might as well show what their living conditions are every day for once they can't easily be beaten out of sight.

[ivan]

The corporate media will always try to disparage protesters except when it's the tea party.

huh? on msnbc's website, which i imagine is corporate enough forya, i saw plenty of flag-draped dipshits being given plenty of noose to hang themselves, and plenty of political cartoons portraying them as buffons too - here's one i used as a warm up for a class a few weeks back:

[KaskadskyjKozak]

what's the fraction of population high as kite at all hours?

 

99%

[tvashtarkatena]

Now for a more editorial viewpoint.

 

All protest is street theatre. The idea is to sway public opinion enough to generate public action: purchasing/investment decisions, voting, activism, etc, and, as a result, government and corporate action.

 

Historically, the more coordinated and targeted the protest, the greater the chance of success. The Civil Rights protests are a classic example. It's helpful to remember that, despite their eventual success, leaders of the movement were close to abandoning it...ie, they determined that it was at the brink of failure. Such protests were highly organized, had many powerful advocacy groups and partners, and were coordinated with a very strong, long term lobbying and public information campaign effort. They're demands were simple, straightforward, and clear: equal rights regardless of race.

 

Technology has changed the nature of protest recently (and human activity in general). Now, as with the OWS and Arab Spring protests, very large groups of people can be mobilized in a very short period of time without much central leadership or planning beforehand. In this way, humans exhibit 'swarm intelligence', much like ants: the ability to act in a sophisticated fashion at very large scales while being essentially leaderless.

 

The early Arab Spring protests were fundamentally different from OWS in a few important ways. In Tunisia and Egypt were the result of years of planning, coordination, and activism. The main demands were simple and clear: Out with the dictator, in with a Constitution. Still, like OWS, they were essentially 'leaderless'. Syria looks more like OWS in that it seems to have had quite a bit less prior planning.

 

OWS lacks a strong, centralized, well monied lobbying effort and coordination with pre-existing, powerful advocacy organizations. It also lacks a clear list of tangible demands (like...out with the dictator, for example). That doesn't mean its doomed to failure, however.

 

The income disparity in the US is out of control, getting worse fast, and is at the point where it clearly threatens the well being and stability of our society. Unfortunately, its very, very difficult to come up with a 'simple' list of reforms to turn that around.

 

And even more unfortunately, our society has changed...for the worse. We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate. An afterthought educational system, lax parenting, and increases sense of entitlement from having it easy for more than a generation have severely eroded the average citizen's, and particularly younger citizens, motivation and analytical abilities. A consolidated media, much of which is shuttles between propaganda and entertainment now, hasn't helped. An aging population, huge national failures (wars, housing bubble, the debt), the rise of other global powers, and the spectre of seemingly irreversible ecological collapse has made us a very angry, very worried, very stressed out society - when the cage gets this electrified, the rats start biting each other.

 

Personally, I think OWS has already proven to be a quiet success: people are quietly moving their money away from the large wall street banks into more local institutions. Awareness of our income disparity has grown tremendously. The spotlight is shining brightly on that parasitic cockroach of a party, the GOP, whose anti human rights, asset stripping, racist, wealth concentration agenda is now out in the open for all to see. The failure of the so called Democrats to quash this parasitism and open, widespread use of our public institutions for personal gain is also readily apparent.

 

OWS needs roll with the times and changes, as we all must. It should recognize that it's 'right to camp' campaign is probably a loser, and fighting to the bitter end will not win public support. The public doesn't want to see the parks it paid for so dearly and can no longer enjoy destroyed by what looks to them like the Rainbow Family. I don't, and I'm practically an anarchist. It should partner with established, powerful groups with a strong lobbying presence. And it should provide a menu of what regular folks can do, like moving their money out of Wall Street, to turn things around.

 

That's my thousand cents, anyway.

[tvashtarkatena]

Nobody is putting the homeless up front but the corporate media.

nobody is putting anybody up front at all b/c there is no leadership and no front - in the absence of either it's pretty easy for anyone, corporate or otherwise, to characterize you as they want.

 

The corporate media will always try to disparage protesters except when it's the tea party. The homeless might as well show what their living conditions are every day for once they can't easily be beaten out of sight.

 

We have the media we have. Complaining about it does fuck all. Successful, progressive advocacy organizations use our EXISTING media, not the one that floats far above us way up the perfect blue sky, effectively. It's not that hard to do, but it does take disciplined messaging, training, coordination, maturity, and the ability to STOP WHINING ABOUT HOW UNFAIR OUR CORPORATE MEDIA IS.

[j_b]

You are clueless if you think GE and co will let their media peddle for the occupy movement. btw, I am not whining about it, I am telling like it is instead of your fairy tale version.

[tvashtarkatena]

How is my 'version' of the media any different than yours? My reaction, and action, re: the media is different, fo shiz.

[sobo]

Now for a more editorial viewpoint.

 

All protest is street theatre. The idea is to sway public opinion enough to generate public action: purchasing/investment decisions, voting, activism, etc, and, as a result, government and corporate action.

 

Historically, the more coordinated and targeted the protest, the greater the chance of success. The Civil Rights protests are a classic example. It's helpful to remember that, despite their eventual success, leaders of the movement were close to abandoning it...ie, they determined that it was at the brink of failure. Such protests were highly organized, had many powerful advocacy groups and partners, and were coordinated with a very strong, long term lobbying and public information campaign effort. They're demands were simple, straightforward, and clear: equal rights regardless of race.

 

Technology has changed the nature of protest recently (and human activity in general). Now, as with the OWS and Arab Spring protests, very large groups of people can be mobilized in a very short period of time without much central leadership or planning beforehand. In this way, humans exhibit 'swarm intelligence', much like ants: the ability to act in a sophisticated fashion at very large scales while being essentially leaderless.

 

The early Arab Spring protests were fundamentally different from OWS in a few important ways. In Tunisia and Egypt were the result of years of planning, coordination, and activism. The main demands were simple and clear: Out with the dictator, in with a Constitution. Still, like OWS, they were essentially 'leaderless'. Syria looks more like OWS in that it seems to have had quite a bit less prior planning.

 

OWS lacks a strong, centralized, well monied lobbying effort and coordination with pre-existing, powerful advocacy organizations. It also lacks a clear list of tangible demands (like...out with the dictator, for example). That doesn't mean its doomed to failure, however.

 

The income disparity in the US is out of control, getting worse fast, and is at the point where it clearly threatens the well being and stability of our society. Unfortunately, its very, very difficult to come up with a 'simple' list of reforms to turn that around.

 

And even more unfortunately, our society has changed...for the worse. We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate. An afterthought educational system, lax parenting, and increases sense of entitlement from having it easy for more than a generation have severely eroded the average citizen's, and particularly younger citizens, motivation and analytical abilities. A consolidated media, much of which is shuttles between propaganda and entertainment now, hasn't helped. An aging population, huge national failures (wars, housing bubble, the debt), the rise of other global powers, and the spectre of seemingly irreversible ecological collapse has made us a very angry, very worried, very stressed out society - when the cage gets this electrified, the rats start biting each other.

 

Personally, I think OWS has already proven to be a quiet success: people are quietly moving their money away from the large wall street banks into more local institutions. Awareness of our income disparity has grown tremendously. The spotlight is shining brightly on that parasitic cockroach of a party, the GOP, whose anti human rights, asset stripping, racist, wealth concentration agenda is now out in the open for all to see. The failure of the so called Democrats to quash this parasitism and open, widespread use of our public institutions for personal gain is also readily apparent.

 

OWS needs roll with the times and changes, as we all must. It should recognize that it's 'right to camp' campaign is probably a loser, and fighting to the bitter end will not win public support. The public doesn't want to see the parks it paid for so dearly and can no longer enjoy destroyed by what looks to them like the Rainbow Family. I don't, and I'm practically an anarchist. It should partner with established, powerful groups with a strong lobbying presence. And it should provide a menu of what regular folks can do, like moving their money out of Wall Street, to turn things around.

 

That's my thousand cents, anyway.

I agree with every word. Well spoken, sir.

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, NPR is expanding its reach and audience massively these days, particularly into rural areas. Never underestimated country folks' thirst for new entertainment. Even Reverend Armageddon and FOX get old after a while. I mean, how many topics do they ever cover...3, maybe?

[ivan]

Now for a more editorial viewpoint.

 

All protest is street theatre. The idea is to sway public opinion enough to generate public action: purchasing/investment decisions, voting, activism, etc, and, as a result, government and corporate action.

 

Historically, the more coordinated and targeted the protest, the greater the chance of success. The Civil Rights protests are a classic example. It's helpful to remember that, despite their eventual success, leaders of the movement were close to abandoning it...ie, they determined that it was at the brink of failure. Such protests were highly organized, had many powerful advocacy groups and partners, and were coordinated with a very strong, long term lobbying and public information campaign effort. They're demands were simple, straightforward, and clear: equal rights regardless of race.

 

Technology has changed the nature of protest recently (and human activity in general). Now, as with the OWS and Arab Spring protests, very large groups of people can be mobilized in a very short period of time without much central leadership or planning beforehand. In this way, humans exhibit 'swarm intelligence', much like ants: the ability to act in a sophisticated fashion at very large scales while being essentially leaderless.

 

The early Arab Spring protests were fundamentally different from OWS in a few important ways. In Tunisia and Egypt were the result of years of planning, coordination, and activism. The main demands were simple and clear: Out with the dictator, in with a Constitution. Still, like OWS, they were essentially 'leaderless'. Syria looks more like OWS in that it seems to have had quite a bit less prior planning.

 

OWS lacks a strong, centralized, well monied lobbying effort and coordination with pre-existing, powerful advocacy organizations. It also lacks a clear list of tangible demands (like...out with the dictator, for example). That doesn't mean its doomed to failure, however.

 

The income disparity in the US is out of control, getting worse fast, and is at the point where it clearly threatens the well being and stability of our society. Unfortunately, its very, very difficult to come up with a 'simple' list of reforms to turn that around.

 

And even more unfortunately, our society has changed...for the worse. We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate. An afterthought educational system, lax parenting, and increases sense of entitlement from having it easy for more than a generation have severely eroded the average citizen's, and particularly younger citizens, motivation and analytical abilities. A consolidated media, much of which is shuttles between propaganda and entertainment now, hasn't helped. An aging population, huge national failures (wars, housing bubble, the debt), the rise of other global powers, and the spectre of seemingly irreversible ecological collapse has made us a very angry, very worried, very stressed out society - when the cage gets this electrified, the rats start biting each other.

 

Personally, I think OWS has already proven to be a quiet success: people are quietly moving their money away from the large wall street banks into more local institutions. Awareness of our income disparity has grown tremendously. The spotlight is shining brightly on that parasitic cockroach of a party, the GOP, whose anti human rights, asset stripping, racist, wealth concentration agenda is now out in the open for all to see. The failure of the so called Democrats to quash this parasitism and open, widespread use of our public institutions for personal gain is also readily apparent.

 

OWS needs roll with the times and changes, as we all must. It should recognize that it's 'right to camp' campaign is probably a loser, and fighting to the bitter end will not win public support. The public doesn't want to see the parks it paid for so dearly and can no longer enjoy destroyed by what looks to them like the Rainbow Family. I don't, and I'm practically an anarchist. It should partner with established, powerful groups with a strong lobbying presence. And it should provide a menu of what regular folks can do, like moving their money out of Wall Street, to turn things around.

 

That's my thousand cents, anyway.

you like, put some time n' shit into that!

 

i'd only disagree w/ the "We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate." - as you know i don't think most things ever change, and that's certainly one of them. our nation has historically been bigoted and abusive towards catholics, indians, jews, chinamen, immigrants, mexicans, the poor, slaves, etc. certainly the ease with which the plight of modern life can be captured and portrayed for all to see is a change, but the underlying apathy and hostility towards "the others" is as american as stickign yer dick in an apple pie

[tvashtarkatena]

LOL!

 

 

Best I could do off the cuff and with only one cuppa under me belt.

[sobo]

...And even more unfortunately, our society has changed...for the worse. We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate...

you like, put some time n' shit into that!

 

i'd only disagree w/ the "We now have a significant segment of the society that has openly replaced compassion with contempt for those less fortunate." - as you know i don't think most things ever change, and that's certainly one of them. our nation has historically been bigoted and abusive towards catholics, indians, jews, chinamen, immigrants, mexicans, the poor, slaves, etc. certainly the ease with which the plight of modern life can be captured and portrayed for all to see is a change, but the underlying apathy and hostility towards "the others" is as american as stickign yer dick in an apple pie

Yeah, OK, I stand corrected from my unqualified support of TTK's editorial above. I'd have to agree with ivan that America has always been contemptuous of the less fortunate. The apathy and hostility have always been there.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look up Lanchaster's Square Law (warfare) between litres of cheap red. It applies to ants, too, apparently. Ant warfare is arelly interesting...and really, really brutal.

 

 

[sobo]

I don't drink cheap red. But I do love a good antfight!

Used to stir up a colony of those big black fukkerz and then throw in a grasshopper, like it was all his fault...

Reminded me of the pitched battle scenes with the flying bugs in Starship Troopers...

[tvashtarkatena]

I was talking to the Big Man, who's pack is never without a plastic litre of the fruit of the high volume industrial vine, but you seem to share some similar interests...

[ivan]

Look up Lanchaster's Square Law (warfare) between litres of cheap red. It applies to ants, too, apparently. Ant warfare is arelly interesting...and really, really brutal.

 

somebody was listening to jew-pee-arrrrr yesterday!

 

suicide bomber ants in malayasia - hot shit!!!

i liked the researcher: "yeah, ants fight a lot like people - the leaders just kinda stay towards the back and let all the workers sort shit out before finally wading in to finish off the enemy"

[tvashtarkatena]

Reroute an ant trail from one colony to another with a hand spade and let the games begin.

[sobo]

I was talking to the Big Man, who's pack is never without a plastic litre of the fruit of the high volume industrial vine, but you seem to share some similar interests...

I don't know whether that's a compliment or not...