I assume some of you are aware of the protests going on in NY the past week and I was curious about what everyones thoughts were concerning this. It's hard to figure just how big this thing is getting but there are pages sprouting up all over facebook and many different protest events are being scheduled throughout the country, including in my hometown here in Kentucky so it looks as though there is at least some degree of steam being picked up by this movement and I think it's fascinating in a way. I mean, its hard to conceive of revolution happening in the States because of many factors but I'm pleased to see that something is being mobilized in response to just how bad things have gotten. The powers that be and the government have been in bed with each other long enough and maybe this is finally when people will start making themselves heard.

Also, has anyone noticed how scant the media coverage of this has been? Almost nothing across the board. I'm starting to hear about a few instances of late where there has been some coverage but I find it interesting that when political leaders in Wisconsin are being protested that the news is all over but when people start protesting Wall St you can hardly find a scrap on it. So yeah, just wanted to get some general discussion going here about this.

It's good that the people are doing what they are doing, but they are still living in the wrong era. They treat it like it's part of the meaningless 90's culture war and haven't adopted the discipline, radicalization and militarization that the left needs to combat the entrenched powers-that-be. Hopefully this fact will correct itself as people begin to realize that what they are fighting for will ultimately be how they eat, work, and live and what the quality of those things will be. The fact that the response was so decisive and so brutal (and most importantly directed against well to do whites) may do a lot to get people motivated, which is great, but the corollary of such a response is that the cops and their taskmasters feel no concern about the response such action will generate (which may be wise on their part if there is no response, a distinct possibility) and that they feel confident they have acquired the skills necessary to carry out such actions against a larger, sympathetic protest force after all the practice they've gotten on minorities over the years.

Anyway, I don't see Americans as being radical enough, or even merely having enough of a radical vanguard, to make this protest any more effective than Project Chan-ology for the time being. Too many people go out and treat these things like parties with singing and dancing and cliche chants. Too much concern for following the letter of the phoney-bologna protest laws designed to make protesting ineffective by disrupting their ability to disrupt business as usual in the city. Too much respect for cops (as in, having any at all). Not enough angry, young, frustrated college age militarism and vigilantism. In short, the weak link here is that the protesters are American...

Good luck to them though, and definitely hoping for the best!

What? Guess this goes to show what you said about scant media coverage... while I've probably been ever so slightly out of the loop recently, I have not heard a word about this. Either no one in Europe cares, or no one in Europe gets to know... or I'm even more out of touch than I would have ever realised. If anyone's got any more info to relay to those of us not in the know, I'd love to hear it.

A few hundred protesters tried to march on wall street but were cut off by a legion of cops who corralled them with nets and maced pretty young girls for literally no reason. Out of a few hundred protesters total, about 100 were arrested, including ones who followed all police instruction. All was video taped and the video has circulated the non-mainstream news sites pretty well.

Also, it was organized through twitter, and twitter of course attempted to censor the associated tags.

Here's the website that appears to be organizing the protests and where I found out about the one going on in my state;

http://occupytogether.org/

And here's a video that shows some of whats going on. I don't know of a particular video that best shows whats going on but there's plenty to look through on youtube for anyone interested. As for the number, again, I don't know whats verifiable or not but I've heard the number being as high as 1,000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwgUUbgw ... re=related

I've heard what was said in that video a few times...the idea that we should try and make it known that we're fighting for the police too. And on the fb page for the protest in my town one of the main people are encouraging people to bring pro police signs and said that our police have been very respectful and seemingly on our side at prior events(of what, I don't know).

There have been at least five New York Times articles on these protests:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... est&st=cse
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... est&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/nyreg ... est&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyreg ... ial&st=cse
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... f=nyregion

In the last link you will also notice the pepper spraying video. I do not read much news like this but came across each one of these articles recently. As the NY Times is one of the few major news sources I look at, you can imagine that from my perspective the coverage has not been sparse.

The whole idea seems like an unfocused attack on social inequality. I really prefer to hear concrete plans over protests, like say a more progressive taxation on capital gains so that tax burden more accurately matches wealth. I completely disagree with John_Sunlight's sentiments that Americans need to become more radical, that there is too much respect for police, that we need vigilantism, or that businesses should be disrupted. I think that the history of Ireland, the US during the Vietnam war, and the bombing of the Montreal stock exchange are all illustrations of how public opinion can turn against overzealous protesters.

Lot of mixed things being said/accounts of these protests but needless to say i agree with the general spirit/much of the causes united under their banner. I'd totally head along if i were in the NY Metro area - and show some support. I for one tend to believe the the majority of countless police brutality, needless violence, macings of peaceful protesters and related incidents happen to be true too. I've seen cops acting like that before. Needless to say, it's wack. I commend the people for organising, and taking part, for the most part.

This group began gathering with intent to occupy Wall Street, but they hadn't decided on a clear message. Much like many of the anti-Scientology protests, it's a bunch of people getting together and singing along to Rick Astley, because apparently that's the counter-culture identifier of the people who are willing to organize and lead protests. Perhaps they might be effective if they could come up with a clear, concise message rather than merely attempting to be disruptive.

I don't have high hopes at all for this occupation. To me its nothing more than typical leftist calls for reformation and more regulation rather than a call for total autonomy and liberation.

People in other parts of the world burn buildings and clash with police when they protest. We put on Guy Fawkes, write popular internet memes on poster board, and sing and dance the night away like a bunch of geeky hippies in cheerful unison.

I am pretty sure I prefer the latter, the former would kind of suck. Just not as if the latter actually accomplishes anything. Granted who is to say that violent protest do either?


Oh, and I had absolutely no idea any of this was going on. And I actually watch the news/check AP updates on my phone every day. Kinda weird it has not been getting a lot of coverage.

I think this has been getting so little media attention because a thousand people aimlessly protesting against corporate elites while wearing Abercrombie and GAP shirts---and running around in Nike and Reebok shoes---deserves very little media attention. It is not a serious rallying cry with a meaningful reform message.

The manner in which the progressive front (both grassroots and in policy circles) in the U.S. has been behaving lately is most irrational. "Tax the rich" or "the wealthiest individuals and hugest corporations" is as meaningless as other bumper-sticker slogans like "Hitler was for gun control" and "no more taxes." One after another I see progressive think tanks and outspoken liberal Democrats advocate a veritable library of punitive economic ideas (many of which have proven track records as poor fiscal or social policy) because it promotes "fairness."


I remember around 2004 there was a semi-popular saying: "Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate, and this year fear won." I generally do not think there is much (if any) substantive difference between the two parties, but this campaign season both are trying their hardest to make the fear-hate dichotomy crystal clear to all voters.

I voted in the last three election cycles; this time I may just grab a bag of popcorn and watch.

Haha, good point.

Officer Tony Baloney is now receiving a lot of attention.

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/26/anonymo ... ho_all.php

I have to agree that what little I have seen of the protest doesn't seem very promising in terms of accomplishing anything, but this failed attempt to try to justify the media's shitty coverage is pretty damn pathetic. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

I can't say I was watching television news when this started, can anyone say what was so important that had to be covered instead?

I live in Philadelphia, and up until now I had heard nothing about this. And I actually watch the news and stuff.



Earthcubed said it best. Modern democracy is like a mix of oligarchy and ochlocracy.

What are other people's sources for media? I hope no one only watches TV for information. The New York Times published several articles on this. NYT is a huge newspaper, the most popular American online newspaper, and third third most widely circulated newspaper with just under a million newspapers each day. What was so important that had to be covered instead? The Arab Spring and the worldwide economic crisis perhaps. Or how about sensationalist stuff like a puppy rescuing a kid from a well, a plane crash half way across the world, or the possibility of spider eggs in your toothpaste! Media is a business just like any other and cater toward their target customers. If you do not like the coverage you get, get news from a different source because there are certainly ones covering this issue.

There have been good op-eds on the protests on commondreams.

Television news is the primary source of news in America. It is the easiest to use, and there are a few networks with a few different hosts so you can find one that suits you. They offer opinions and entertainment too, so you only need one source 24/7.

The government doesn't want these protests to reach the mainstream audience.

God forbid they ever know anyone was dissatisfied with how badly we're all getting fucked.

Mainstream television news covers these protests and highlights that they started protesting before they decided on a message. We all know "fuck wall street", we know that NYC police abuse and mistreat protesters when required (see: 2004 RNC), but they aren't getting across anything more than a vague notion that we already had. Internet crime conglomerate "Anonymous" strikes again.

Still, they are documenting use of excessive force by police against protesters, but that's nothing we didn't know already. Perhaps if they had a decent spokesperson they would both gain more support and harsher retaliation.

Well then they did an exceptionally poor job because the coverage was plastered all over at least one mainstream newspaper. Also, you speak of government as if it were some monolithic force with uniform interests. Obama, or some other like-minded candidate could capitalize on the protests and say something like "The American People have spoken and they want you to pass my new bill that will tax wealthier people more. If you don't pass my bill these same people will not re-elect you and I will pass it in 2012!"

This is what they call a straw man, no? Nothing of what you said applies to what I said to Earthcubed...

Wow, when shit was going down in Egypt it was all over the news all day all night long. What's missing? Molotov cocktails? Also, how are these people surviving out on the street, on rat meat? At NY prices I'd have to be packing a heavy wallet to be able to last out there for weeks. Either that or have a sugarmommy.

Byrain, let me make it explicit. You said there was shitty media coverage, I assert there was ample coverage and ask what media others look at so we can compare perceptions of the coverage and see what our sources are. You continue to ask what news was more important and I explain that the news is more about stuff people will pay attention to and then listed two serious issues that I felt were more important. Hence, if you accept my assertions, Earthcubed is not being "damn pathetic" in trying to "justify" the poor coverage. You may disagree with my premises about the coverage or the nature of news and this story's importance, but I do not see how that is a straw man argument on my part. Have I mischaracterized your opinions?

I have nothing to be ashamed of. Shitty protests do not deserve anything less than shitty coverage.




Scientists at CERN claiming they broke the light-speed barrier, the Palestinian president asking the UN to declare Palestine a state, the American hikers being freed from Iran, said American hikers criticizing U.S. detention policies*, continued financial deterioration of the European Union, the largest weekly U.S. stock drop in two years, the president of the United States officially declaring he will not be governing the country during election season, the U.S. Defense Department formally ending discrimination against gay soldiers, the U.S. Defense Department construction of secret drone bases in Madagascar becoming public. Most of those were off the top of my head.


*this didn't get nearly enough attention, though it probably will get more

This was covered on television broadcasts by major US networks:

Fox News (video): http://video.foxnews.com/v/118355085000 ... et-protest
CNN (video): http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/business/ ... ?hpt=us_c2
MSNBC (text): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q ... l%20street *MSNBC covered this on air, they don't have a video online*

They certainly could have covered it more, but as stated before, it's partially a 4chan circus with Guy Fawkes masks and Rick Astley karaoke as much as it is a serious protest. There isn't a coherent message, organizer or spokesperson.

As much as I usually disagree with you on political issues, I must say you bring some very valid points about the progressive front's attempt to push tax hikes for the rich and corporation downsizing. However, and this is just a personal question since you seem to be very politically informed: don't you think these protesters, or at least the meaning of these protests have a sense of validity regarding the power and wealth of corporations and Wall Street in general? Just curious.

Edit: Double posted for some reason.

Also Alternet, The Exiled and Naked Capitalism. Each with their own, unique focus and perspective. I assume that Socialist Worker, Mother Jones, Firedoglake and Al Jazeera English all have good stories on the matter too, though I don't read them regularly. There's lots of great, legit news sources out there, folks.

Earthcubed: I find your perspective pretty much everything you've brought up rather childish. Cops being their charming corporate thug selves NEEDS to be a major news story. Just because you find the protesters to be somewhat immature doesn't make their intentions meaningless or the response justified. I find your "I don't approve of them so they have it coming" attitude exceptionally distasteful, as well as your willingness to let slide the extremity of the police response and its nature as a manifestation of the anti-democratic will of the ruling class. Despite not being well organized, not being focused, and yes, perhaps not being mature enough for the protracted political battle they were willing to start, these protesters are a positive force and shouldn't be hampered and waylayed because they didn't instantaneously go from their lives of American Idleness to storming the Bastille. That you've opted out of the political process I would also consider unhelpfully defeatist, but frankly if you are bringing a mentality like the one you've shown here into it I'm glad you're not a part of it.

Not to diminish the validity of the protest or the severity of police abuse, but something similar and far more severe received tons of news coverage in 2004 when the RNC was held in NYC, and the backlash against that was severely underwhelming. Court battles were won and small cash settlements were paid out to people who were unlawfully detained, but the NYPD and many other police departments are still willing to serve higher interests and mistreat protesters. While protests in the street might fighting against police might induce a sense of urgency, these protesters could do a much better job of earning attention. With one major news network (MSNBC) already presenting a fair amount of news and opinion against privilege and abuse on Wall Street, I feel like these protests would earn a lot more coverage by them if didn't have such a public air of incoherence and idiocy. If one major news network gives significant attention to something, the others are forced to respond, lest that presentation go unchallenged. It is difficult to professionally portray something like this positively though, since you risk losing credibility if you are saying "look at what these people have to say!" and they are singing "Never Gonna Give You Up" in the streets.

I do understand that; that being one of the major points in my first post...

Are police officers really corporate thugs?

They aren't always specifically "corporate". Cops in the US by and large tend to be shitheads. There's no real way to get around saying that much.

I'm with you jon on most of what you just said in reply to earthcube. I agree that these protests are obviously lacking a clear, concise message but to attack their credibility in whatever exactly it is that they believe due to the clothes they're wearing is pretty ignorant. I watched scores of footage from the Egyptian revolution and many of the young men involved were wearing nice clothing akin to something you'd find an Abercrombie store and obviously that whole toppling Mubarak thing wasn't hindered in anyway by it. If you want to say we don't have nearly the sort of motivation, determination, and/or toughness to do anything like that, then sure, I'll throw you that bone all day long. I'd be shocked if this turned into anything legitimately major in scope and focus but this isn't just liberals sprouting off. Right or left, Americans have been hurt by what's been going on and I know many people, probably like yourself(earthcube), are pretty disillusioned with both sides of the aisle so while there may even be a majority of liberals involved in this, it's still not so one sided if your average conservative voter would stop eating the shit that's being shoveled into their mouths by their own party.

And as for the democratic party being 'pushy' about increasing taxes on the rich, well, I'd say they have a pretty good right to be. The wealthy have been enjoying a tax cut the last 11 years(which they refuse to let expire) and are fighting tooth and nail over 5 cents on every dollar. The Obama administration isn't asking for anything crazy. They're asking for tax levels to be the way they were during the Clinton administration and the Republicans won't have it. From what I understand, it would go from 35 cents on every dollar to 40 cents. Furthermore, it's conservative policies that got us into this mess. Deregulation, tax cuts, foreign wars, etc. How this is not completely clear to everyone is beyond me. They argue that taxs will weaken the job creating class(the wealthy, of course) and yet, there is nothing to suggest that they're creating any jobs at all right now and its clear that it's because they don't need to. They're already making huge profits, in some cases, record profits, and the supply is simply way higher than demand right now. They have no reason to hire and yet, are still fighting for ways to increase their profits. After all that happened under conservative policies, they offer the same old solution. More deregulation and lower taxes. It's madness.

And this isn't to say the liberal counter is a whole lot better because it isn't but conservative policies are what got us into this mess and they continue to be as obstructionist as possible to anything that will change the status quo.

You do understand he isn't attacking their credibility based solely on their clothes? It's the fact that the group is against the "big evil corporations," yet they fully support these same corporations by buying their products. They are giving money to corporations, then protesting about how they hate them. It's like a PETA protest going on outside of a McDonalds, then all of the protesters taking a lunch break, and eating Big Macs from that very McDonalds.

Comparing it to Egypt makes no sense. It isn't like Mubarak owns or is any way affiliated with Abercrombie and Fitch...

It's really not like that at all since they aren't opposed to the fundamental practice of mass producing clothing and they aren't opposed to individuals appropriating those products.

Granted, again, the prevailing message is unclear but I think a few clothing brands pale in comparison to the people who were gambling with Americans money and knowingly selling bad morgages. Its not like they're protesting every corporation. To make a scant connection between their clothing and the people the protests are aimed is quite the leap, I think, and that's why I treated his comments like they must have implied something else about the actual character of the protesters and the degree to which theyre serious. No shit they have clothing that was provided by a corporation, who doesn't, but thats pretty irrelevant in regard to what these protests seem to represent. It's not like they're saying down with the whole captialist structure.

MazeofTorment, I know you stated that the liberal counter is not a whole lot better, but I still find that you greatly exaggerate by saying that the current recession is attributable solely to conservative policies. It is an oversimplification to just blame it all on conservatism.

Most of what I have have read attributes a fair amount of blame to Clinton and Obama, while some writers look back yet further. Also I think it is a bit of a caricature to say that foreign wars are really a conservative policy. Clinton and, to a much greater extent, Bush engaged in such foreign wars and Obama has continued the wars Bush started. When the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn't just Republicans voting for it. Some even voted against it, Ron Paul should be a familiar example for many. Conservatism as a political philosophy became more hawkish with the introduction of neo-conservatism, which borrowed intellectually from the left. American conservatism also has an isolationist thread, Pat Buchanan being an example of this school of thought and another person against the Iraq war. The point is that things are not nearly as black and white as you are painting them out to be.

Now I completely agree it is ridiculous how so many lawmakers refuse to raise taxes by a single cent when the wealthy have a demonstrably lower tax burden than the middle class. However, I am very skeptical about how beneficial such taxes will be for solving these economic problems. For every new tax rule there is usually a way to structure transactions to minimize tax liability, e.g. Microsoft's rarely spoken of Flat Island Co. holding company in Ireland.