Sunday, November 13, 2011

Occupy movement under attack by the Usual Suspects

Photo from our demonstration last night, Occupy the Debate! at the Republican debate in Spartanburg.

Not a single Wall Street thief has been tried for treason for destroying the country's economy. The millions of pensions stolen from old people, are gone. The old people were not bailed out, but the thieves were. When the thieves are tried for outright theft, they are (example) given five years for stealing $278 million. I've known people given stiffer sentences for stealing used cars.

In fact, Herman Cain declares that if people are poor, it is their own fault. He certainly doesn't want any of his rich cronies held accountable. He needs to keep that Koch Brothers money coming in, above all.

And now, I see attacks on the Occupy movement nationwide. Hundreds of arrests, and yet, none of the troublemakers who STARTED this movement, the Wall Street thieves, has faced any jail time. There are no riot police invading Goldman Sachs. Why not? Why are the thieves allowed to continue their business and their luxurious lives, after stealing from us? Oh, right, the theft was declared legal. So that makes it okay, and the police force exists to protect the rich.

I just watched a CNN "news report" about how the police are cracking down on Occupy Portland (Oregon) for a variety of bullshit reasons. The high-tech riot gear I saw those scores of cops decked out in (many of them laughing raucously, so eager are they to crack heads), cost lots more money than the Occupation could EVER cost. This crackdown, this overtime being paid on a Sunday, is costing the city of Portland plenty, but for some reason, those costs never get added in to the "costs of the occupation." After all, that might convince taxpayers that "cracking down" is not really worth it--and it is public money that pays police to dress up in their hyper-expensive, Batman-esque riot get-ups.

During the CNN report, a bunch of government flunkies spoke without interruption, and finally, they deigned to talk to an Occupier. It is notable that the newsreader did not interrupt the flunkies, but was very polite and even let one of them go on for about 5-10 minutes. The Occupier? Did not get even one minute without interruption. He interrupted her (I counted) about a half-dozen times. Then he cut her off and thanked her and moved on.

This is what passes for "objective" news coverage of the Occupy movement.

The Constitution says clearly, that people have the right to freedom of speech and PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. That means what it says. It doesn't say, "except overnight" or "except in a public park"--no exceptions are delineated. The government is rewriting the constitution, the way they rewrote it for the Civil Rights movement. Just as they invented the right to turn fire hoses on children, they have now invented the right to clear out encampments because there might be a few rats. MY GOD, they are CAMPING ILLEGALLY! Bring in the riot police.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the trials of the Goldman Sachs thieves. I think I'll be waiting quite a long time for that. Instead, they arrest someone giving a speech detailing their crimes, outside their corporate headquarters. Incredible, like something you used to read about the Soviet Union.

As Sinclair Lewis famously said, when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. And backed up with riot police, decked out in nothing but the fanciest, best gear. Paid for by us.


Newt Penn said...

The occupiers only need to stay strong. Maybe the city will go bankrupt from paying overtime and buying the riot gear and leave them alone. By the way, check out Daisy. You could video blog there by reading your blogs into a video camera and uploading. I do that and it's bringing more people to my blog. You can put your blog url on you videos.

YogaforCynics said...

Gotta say, the cops up here in Pennsylvania were quite respectful of protesters rights recently, even when the protesters were turning over a news van and tearing down lampposts...oh, wait a second, those weren't Occupy protesters, they were overprivileged college students, upset because a football coach got fired because it turned out he'd been enabling a serial child molester for years...never mind.

Anonymous said...

"After all, that might convince taxpayers that "cracking down" is not really worth it--and it is public money that pays police to dress up in their hyper-expensive, Batman-esque riot get-ups. "

Beautiful line...

I never knew how oblivious I was to the way corporate interests have infested this country until OWS happened and a black out that would have put the Mubarak regime to shame became common practice.

I am haunted by the dark world of lies that has shown itself in plain sight, unafraid, for all to see. I still am stunned by the reactions to the protests, and I keep thinking if I just had time, I could somehow adjust to it...I am derailed by what has emerged, frankly.

When I can, after the end of this term, I will join the ranks. I didn't know how in the dark I was until this happened. The light of truth is blindingly bright.

Sevesteen said...

If we can prove laws have been broken, prosecute--but to make Wall Street execs scapegoats without due process is far worse than the problem it pretends to solve.

Are the Occupy people protesting Soylandra? (maybe they are, I haven't heard about it) Solution: Smaller government that doesn't hand out money to cronies.

Why is Koch brothers money evil, but Soros or Bloomberg or Joyce money is OK?

When we have complicated laws, it allows a corrupt government to prosecute who it pleases, and grant indulgences to its favorites. Defrauding via a windmill or solar panel shouldn't be any better than via a bank. Solution: Smaller government.

The idiotic drug war has caused militarization of the police, which attracts a proportion of people unsuited for being peace officers--and then people are surprised when the same cops act like an occupying army. Smaller government, it shouldn't be up to anyone else what you smoke or snort or shoot--or which adults you sell it to. I'd much rather see people in jail for (real) corporate fraud than a pound of coke. I'd also rather see Wall Street profiting from meth, at least they are slightly answerable to OSHA.

We do need to separate corporate and state--there should be no such thing as 'too big to fail', shouldn't matter how many union workers a company has. Chrysler should have gone under both times, GM should have gone under. Smaller government.

That said, being a "protester" doesn't give a free pass for violating existing laws. If the city doesn't typically allow camping or enforces a curfew they must enforce the same rules evenly for everyone.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Sevesteen, the changing of the status of Goldman Sachs, so that FDIC laws applied to them, made the bail-out perfectly legal, as I said. Of course we can't prosecute them. They have enough money and lobbyists to change the laws to suit them. They have employees in the CABINET.

The Koch brothers largely funded the Tea Party movement. They want to go backwards, especially for women and gays. In particular, they have used lynch-mob-style yahoo homophobia to whip up the rural Baptists for there own political ends, which is criminal as far as I am concerned. This has real life repercussions. You can't incite lynch mobs against gays without that manifesting in real life as (for example) gay kids getting beat up in school (at worst) and continuing to prevent gay people from having equal marriage rights. Just as the kkk made garden variety racism in the south the status quo. Regular racism seemed reasonable by comparison, the kkk raised the bar of what was acceptable, and the Koch bros/IFB churches are to gay rights as the kkk is to racism. They have USED homophobia similarly to pump up conservatism and they should be ashamed of themselves, go off and cover themselves in ashes and sackcloth. HORRIBLE.

Soros has given money to MoveOn (not a lot, by comparison, however), who are in favor of gay rights, not lynch mobs. All causes are not equal.

I am not a conservative, in case you didn't notice, and consider most modern conservatives (who are basically all war hawks/neocons, not classic William F Buckley/Barry Goldwater type conservatives) to be little better than fascists. The Republican Party applauding torture at the debate??? Would have made my Taft-Republican grandfather spin in his grave, I can hear him now. When they defended torture, that's when I realized, some already have crossed the line into fascism. Only Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman flipped out when they started talking like that, and God Bless them. (And they drew the line right there.) As I said on Facebook, when RP actually dared to say (bellow actually) "Torture is immoral!" (his eyes nearly bugging out of his head), I just wanted to kiss him. The fact that these other candidates put illegal and immoral government-action over morality, shows they have become as bad as the Islamofascists and communists they used to be fighting. What was once covert is now right out front and celebrated. But I'm sure you know that.

Our difference: Curfews for political protest are fascist. Locally-imposed curfews for tourists and citizens, were not intended to infringe on the Constitution. There are no curfews in the Constitution. I find it weird you say, less govt, then want to empower govt to decide which political expression is admissible, as well as tacitly accept curfews as Constitutional. (I remember when we here in the USA used to self-righteously point our fingers at South Africa for having curfews! And now, conservatives are telling me curfews must be respected... ohhh, how the mighty have fallen.)

And this is my ongoing problem with the libertarians talking out of both sides of their mouth: less govt, but 1) outlawing abortion with a constitutional amendment, and 2) more exhortations for military action, for instance. Several of the Republicans have said these things, one right after the other. Illogical and insane; make up your mind, you either believe in less govt or you don't. Period.

Otherwise, we are largely in agreement.

Sevesteen said...

Absolutely agree that Goldman Sachs, GM and Chrysler never should have been bailed out.

Some members of the Tea Party are sexists, homophobes and racists, like some of the OWS are thieves vandals and rapists. One difference--just about every OWS I've heard has advocated taking other people's property, while I have yet to see the Tea Party advocate the -isms it is accused of.

Soros and the others I mentioned have financed most of the anti-second-amendment activity in the past decades.

Since Ohio has open primaries, I will likely vote for Ron Paul. Despite his many flaws, he's probably the closest to my views possible in our current system.

Having separate rules or selective enforcement for political protest is wrong--doesn't matter whether I agree with the cause or not, OWS or Ohioans for Concealed Carry should be treated the same as the Boy Scouts. If the Scouts can camp for a couple days, so can anyone else--but if a condition is that they don't leave a mess, same rules apply to all.

The people talking about outlawing abortion or especially more wars might be small government conservatives, but they aren't libertarians.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Sevesteen: while I have yet to see the Tea Party advocate the -isms it is accused of.

Excuse me? Is there ANY Tea Party-affiliated politician in favor of extending marriage rights to gays? Homophobia is the rule, not the exception. Most are anti-abortion, which is govt invading women's wombs. That is SEXISM personified.

Having separate rules or selective enforcement for political protest is wrong

The Constitution says "peaceable assembly"--no exceptions are given for overnight or camping. None. If so, show them to me. Whoever says otherwise is trying to rewrite it to their own specifications and for their own political ends.

Admittedly, I am not a 2nd amendment rights activist and don't know about that as much. As far as I can see, Soros has not had any real political impact on gun laws. Has he?

Here in SC, they practically issue you one at birth. Same for Texas. I think it depends on where you live.

Sevesteen said...

Excuse me? Is there ANY Tea Party-affiliated politician in favor of extending marriage rights to gays? Homophobia is the rule, not the exception. Most are anti-abortion, which is govt invading women's wombs. That is SEXISM personified.

I would guess that an overwhelming majority of NRA members are against Obamacare--but the NRA isn't about health care, so doesn't take a stand. I don't see gay rights as a Tea Party issue one way or the other, even if a majority of Tea Party members are individually wrong on this issue.

The government isn't required to provide you with a place to assemble or to provide me with a gun, nor are they required to allow guns or assembly on all government property under all circumstances. Neither of us can exercise those rights in the middle of a school classroom or the airport runway, for example. Curfews are overused, and often selectively enforced. They are not inherently unconstitutional, although individual instances might be.

And the people trying to eliminate meaningful recognition of the second amendment have had almost no success in the last 15 years, although they have managed to slow progress somewhat. Westboro Baptist hasn't been successful either, doesn't mean they are OK.