by Clay34 » Tue May 01, 2012 10:27 pm
by harddeterminism » Tue May 01, 2012 11:14 pm
by ceolfrin » Wed May 02, 2012 12:45 am
by RAnthony » Wed May 02, 2012 4:05 am
...I don't think you can make everyone happy Dan, even if you limit it to corruption in government. There are segments of Republican, Democrat and a good portion of Libertarian thought (Voluntaryists, especially) that would tell you that good governance is an oxy-moron. People who think all taxes are theft. People who think that we can get by without government (what anarchy means, but that anarchists are not for some reason) and that is a larger percentage of activists in politics than you're probably comfortable thinking about.John Adams - 1776 wrote:"It's a revolution dammit, we're going to have to offend somebody!"
by wamphari » Wed May 02, 2012 6:42 am
by Rojik of the Arctic » Wed May 02, 2012 7:38 am
wamphari wrote:Wow, this rant on the evils of the occupy movement sounds remarkable similar to something my racist conservative uncle would spout.... etc
by insular » Wed May 02, 2012 8:22 am
by Dan » Wed May 02, 2012 10:31 am
wamphari wrote:Wow, this rant on the evils of the occupy movement sounds remarkable similar to something my racist conservative uncle would spout. I have disagreed with your show before (and welcome valid dissent), but never have I felt one of your shows was disingenuous. Saying that the occupy movement supports socialism is right out of the fox news playbook.
One might want to go back and listen to the way I said what I said...and see that you have misunderstood it.
The "occupy movement" doesn't officially support anything. This is part of what is allowing everyone NOT in OWS to have a more influential role than they would otherwise normally have in defining what OWS is and isn't. If a movement doesn't make this clear itself, it leaves the playing field free for others to do this for them (and those "others" might be your adversaries!)
I found it ironic during this episode that you supported protesting, yet your argument seemed to suggest that it should be done quietly when it wouldn't bother anyone. Perhaps as people get older they are simply less able to deal with change, but the act of protest is intended to be disruptive. Disruption is the goal, because in disruption we force the other side to reconsider the stability of their position. A non-disruptive protest is masturbation.
You could not be more wrong here. Believe me...your enemies are not only PRAYING that OWS protests will get more invasive and dangerous, if history is any guide, your corporate/wealthy targets would be wise to hire "plants" to infiltrate your protests and act as Agents Provocateurs sparking exactly the activities you are telling me are required to make progress towards your goals. I'm telling you a truth that will be backed up in the near future if OWS adopts the ideas you suggest: You will be givng the authorities the excuse to crack down on you, and you are losing the support of the great mass of uninvolved people (the soccer moms for example) whose sympathy you will be hoping for once the authorities DO crack down on the movement. If you make the great mass of people (the hearts and minds your movement really is after) see you as negative, they not only won't care when the whip comes down...they will wholeheartedly support it.
I'm sure that will make the "other side" "reconsider the stability of their position" . I may be old my friend...(46), but experience is worth more than you think in situations such as this.
The second thing that bothered me about this episode was this phantom desire for overall consensus through inclussion. Inclussion is what the occupy movement is all about. For anyone who has actually attended a General Assembly anyone who shows up has an equal vote. The occupy movement is the most democratic movement I have ever seen. And when you say that its bad to say that it might be the fault of the wealthy in a time when we have record low tax rates for the wealthy, I question whether you understand our current tax structure, or have some big check from industry waiting in your swiss bank account (joking [mostly]).
I mentioned this welcoming tendency in the show...did you not hear me do so?
And you don't seem to understand your goals here, if I may say so. I mean...so you go after "the wealthy"...jack up their taxes to the 90% level of the 1950s tax code...and perhaps you manage to achieve something as unbelievable as getting the Big Banks broken up (wouldn't you consider these big achievements for the OWS movement?)...what have you gained? Don't you understand that you are merely changing the ranking of who happens to be richest in the leadership standings/rankings? If the political system's corruption is left as it is, whomever is the richest under the new system will be the one(s) buying influence. It may not be the same people as it is now (and if it is, they may have less wealth overall) but on a relative scale, they will still be the Big Dogs. And they will certainly be buying influence to overturn your anti-wealth reforms too. Have you fixed anything? Or have you just re-positioned the deck chairs on the Titanic?
If you fix the corruption problem, you cut off the access of all these entities that buy influence. The Big Banks (to use one example) can't have as much control over government policy if the system finds a fix for the corruption problem. If you DON'T find a fix for it, all other legislation to "fix" things will be a sham anyway...tainted and debased by the corruption that will see to it that no rules have teeth...or enforcement money...and that it will include plenty of loopholes...
The corruption is the root issue that must be addressed. If you don't address it, you leave those entities you want to dis empower with control of things. If you DO solve it, you needn't worry so much about either "the Rich" or "The Powerful" as you will have cut off a main artery they use to exert such influence.
The final and most disturbing part of this rant is your attack on occupy (don't fool yourself, this was an attack, when you offer advice to a movement which runs counter to that movement principles it is an attack) Well...it's the same "advice" I've been giving them since DAY ONE (same advice I gave to the Tea Party people too. It's all there...the past episodes are available online...). If this is believable, then I have been attacking both the Tea Party and OWS since they first arrived.
And how does my advice "run counter to the movement's principles"? Did I miss the place where those principles were posted so that I could see/read them? Oh wait...wasn't that one of the things I said was needed? Oh wait...doesn't having such publicly stated aims/views run counter to the movement's principles?
I see how I got confused.
is your criticism of the occupy movement and inherent acceptance of deplorable media coverage. You admit that if you were covering this stuff you would film and report on the most extreme examples you could find.
I tried to tell you how News is done. If you don't understand this, you can never avoid the pitfalls of being mischaracterized by the media outlets covering your events.
The reporter's job is to come back with the most compelling story they can. This has always been the case. Even in the "Golden Years" of News coverage. If you have 2 reporters covering the same event, and one shows up with a tame, but more accurate story, and his colleague returns with a story that can be bumped up into the "lead" spot on the nightly newscast...which reporter do you think gets promoted and which do you think gets fired?
This isn't new, by the way. We have done plenty of shows on journalism in the past. The better "story" (as we have said in those shows) has always been the real bias of journalists (remember "Extra, Extra, read all about it!"?). It's one of the reasons I left News. As I told the local media at the time, "I don't think one minute, forty second news stories are doing anyone any good."
While I might use the word journalism in the description of what that is, I would feel it necessary to add the word "yellow" before it. If I was a real journalist I would feel like I had some sort of a higher duty and, whether covering occupy or tea party, would search for the true voice of the movement. Yes there have been a few occupy protesters who have gone over the line. But mainstream tea party groups advocated bringing guns to town hall meetings for Christ's sake. We shouldn't accept that journalism should be about finding the biggest, loudest, nakedest, bloodiest thing in sight and pointing a camera at it. I certainly don't hold out a great degree of hope (having recently taken a journalism class and seen students fawn over any pseudo-celebrity journalist regardless how morally bankrupt they are.
As I said...we have discussed this topic endlessly on past shows. My position lines up with yours more than you might think.
One other thing, both related to this episode and to the show in general, the idea of false balance is one of the most popular in this country. This is illustrated by the large number of people who seem to love to declare themselves independents; even though most so-called independents, vote for one party at a huge ratio. Not I.
But when it comes to issues a middle ground between two positions is not balance. The republican position is that social safety net should be gutted and taken away, the democratic position is that it shouldn't, so should we half gut the social safety net? And next time should he half gut it again? The republican position is to cut taxes for the wealthy further the democratic position is that we shouldn't, so is half way to simply cut them a bit more? And next time cut them a bit more? Balance is not weighing two sides and coming up with something that is the average of the two, balance is finding out what is right for the most amount of people in the country.
Um...did I miss when this discussion turned into a Republican versus Democratic one? Are OWS people taking sides in this? Certainly you can see that the Democrats are taking money hand over fist from the very outlets you rail against? The Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs...are you suggesting we should like them more because their rhetoric is nicer to the OWS ear? The people who give them money are the ones in charge. Go look at the contribution lists...and don't be naive. Again...I may be "old", but part of being "old" is to have already seen how this works close-up. Take off the rose-colored glasses please.
Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. And as far as this idea of class war, the other side already declared it, when they started paying a smaller and smaller portion of their wages in taxes, when they bought our politicians, when they took away our safety net. Don't yell at a bunch of activists because they've simply begun to fight back. 1-2-3-4-I declare a class war.
by Peevis » Wed May 02, 2012 10:56 am
by DBTrek » Wed May 02, 2012 11:20 am
by Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:38 am
by Harry K » Wed May 02, 2012 11:42 am
by Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:56 am
by kybkh » Wed May 02, 2012 12:27 pm
Dan wrote:The corruption is the root issue that must be addressed. If you don't address it, you leave those entities you want to dis empower with control of things. If you DO solve it, you needn't worry so much about either "the Rich" or "The Powerful" as you will have cut off a main artery they use to exert such influence.
by Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 12:43 pm
Harry K wrote:Going by the two lasts posts, should I even bother downloading it?