Ok compare and contrast... we have two occupy encampments

[nadinbrzezinski]

under attack RIGHT FRACKING NOW... and a SPORTS RELATED riot at Penn State...

Where or what is CNN Covering?

I mean if they were going back and forth, sure, I get it... but where exactly are they?

Do you need any more proof of where our lovely unbiased :sarcasm: media is at?

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Another aside from Berkeley!? Edit: Oh, Harvard...

Parents of Berkeley students will be enraged about this and word will spread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The real mistake, Harvard

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2275639

[MADem]

3. I don't know because I'm not watching CNN. However, I am guessing from your tone

that they are covering Penn State.

It is difficult to cover OWS because of the leaderless nature of the enterprise. If a reporter asks someone on the street about what is happening, the claims of selective coverage/bias follow. Better to just film first, do a rehash later.

At Penn State, or any college, they have their own media people who know how to interact with the news outlets. If they ask a question of the entity that is Penn State, they'll get an answer that won't change from person to person and will be regarded as definitive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Sorry but covering a riot is not that difficult

dangerous yes, but leaders? No you don't, you just film...

That is what they are doing at Penn anyhow. PHONE COVERAGE.

The other answer, if you wanted to give a LOGICAL one is not that they don't have leaders, but that they don't have reporters. Now that is closer to the truth.

[MADem]

10. I disagree.

What are they going to say?

"Ooooooh, a bunch of people are shaking their fists at the police and throwing things!!!"

"Oooooooh, now the police are tossing tear gas! Oooooh! Ooooooh!"

"Oooooooh, some people are getting arrested, and they are YELLING stuff! Oooooooh!"

That's about all anyone could say with any authority.

How does the contemporaneous coverage of those sorts of events ADVANCE the situation? All it does is serve as an ad to anarchists to get down there and cause some more shit.

They can cover it--and probably get more useful soundbites as to who was who in the zoo--AFTER the dust has settled, to better effect. Then they'd have names of people who were arrested, and they could seek them out and ask them questions.

At Penn, the video is just background--visuals to "go with" the story. The actual story is a child rapist and a cover-up--and a reaction.

There's not going to be any phone coverage at OWS. Who are they gonna call? The OWS leaders? Ooops, none of those. The OWS media reps? Ooops, none of THOSE either.

OWS has chosen to be this SURVIVOR/THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN type organization, and that is just fine, but it has limitations--and being responsive to media in a 24 hour news cycle is one thing that this "General Assembly" type of guidance cannot accomplish. It's a choice that OWS made. They're not going to get "REAL TIME" coverage unless something very visual is happening. After the first ten riots, they don't even notice anymore. Doesn't anyone remember the sixties?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Well having been to a few riots

and knowing how CNN has been covering things... that's pretty much what they have done.

By the way why are LOCAL media able to cover it?

Oh wait, they have...

I know you do not like OWS that much. I get it, but damn it, we have citizen reporters on the ground doing a pretty good job... hell I am one, at this point... and damn it I can and have gotten a flavor, the zeitgeist of what this is. If I CAN DO IT... so could CNN. Sorry.

Oh I mean, it takes WORK... REAL WORK. It is the kind of work that MSM does not want to do anymore.

[MADem]

21. I am a bit tired of being mischaracterized by you and others. It reflects poorly on either

your ability to comprehend what I am saying, or your willingness to bother to read what I write.

For probably the twentieth time, at least, let me refute your false assertion that I "do not like OWS that much."

I like it just fine. I think the goals of the effort are LAUDABLE. I hope this effort makes a real and long-lasting difference in the way our society approaches issues of fairness in a variety of spheres.

Is that plain enough for you?

I disagree with some of the tactics the effort employs. These divergent opinions of mine with regard to TACTICS (not overarching goals, TACTICS) are mine alone. I do not insist that others agree with me, in fact, I could give two shits if people like what I say or not. I'm not "the boss" of the movement, I don't claim to be, either, but I reserve the right--like any other SOB here--to voice my opinion. I can't help but note that the same people who are lightning-quick to whine about their First Amendment Rights are the same ones who are the first to tell me to shut the fuck up or call me a troll when I say something they don't agree with. This, I find annoying in the extreme, as well as disingenuous on the part of my critics.

OK, enough of that--I hope I've been clear.


CNN isn't paying you to report all day from OWS. There are dozens of OWS sites all over hell. CNN can't afford to send a reporter to all of them. In fact, in most cases, for late-breaking news, CNN doesn't send reporters, they just use local assets -- I have frequently seen local reporters doing "stand ups" for CNN (and other news channels, too) in a cooperative/resource sharing arrangement.

The real truth, though, is that footage of kids yelling at police under street lamps is BORING. It all looks the same after awhile. CNN isn't going to do the irresponsible thing and cover a confrontation live, HOPING for some shit to happen--way to advertise for the anarchist assholes to get down there quick and cause even MORE trouble. If anything happens, they will show it after the fact, when some poor schmucks are sweeping up the broken glass. Anything else is irresponsible.

My beautiful city was spared some serious rioting back in 68 because we all watched a live telecast of a highly-anticipated James Brown concert instead of live coverage of what might be happening on the streets. http://thephoenix.com/Boston/music/25546-40-greatest-concerts-in-boston-history-1/

Covering urban riots live, when people can get to them and raise more hell, is just not a good idea.

You are heavily invested in OWS. While there are a lot of people who are aware of it, and have a favorable impression of it thus far (an impression that repeated images of rioting would surely destroy), the nation as a whole is not as excited about it as you are, yet, anyway.

But some asshole buttfucking little kids and a bunch of other assholes covering it up? That gets people's dander up. You don't mess with little kids. People are eager to weigh in on how they feel about that. Media resources, from the school, the police, social services, psychologists, lawyers and other "experts" are ready and waiting to provide cogent soundbites to add to the discussion of the topic. You get sound and visuals with a story like that.

And THAT's the reason why CNN ran with the Paterno story, and not OWS. It's simply "better" TV, and a more "popular" subject matter, from a viewer's standpoint.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Well that is the impression that people get

you disagree with the tactics, go down to your local encampment and JOIN in the General Assembly. Yes, it is that simple.

Good night.

I will add, not just me... many others here get that impression.

[MADem]

30. The only "people" who get that impression is people who don't read what I

have actually said and have their transmit buttons taped down to broadcast their opinions, and no one else's. They also might benefit from a remedial reading course. I have been very clear in post after post that I support the OWS goals, I just find the process they are using stultifying. It does not suit my nature.


I don't want to "go down to my local encampment and JOIN the General Assembly." As I said, I find the process cumbersome, stultifying, self-important, and quite likely a waste of my time. That's my OPINION. You do not have to share it, the way you continue to insist that I share yours (which won't happen).


Again--I don't demand that you agree with my opinion, so no need for umbrage. I simply insist that you cease with the false characterizations and snideness because I don't share your enthusiasm for some aspects of this effort.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I am just letting you know I am not alone with that IMPRESSION

[MADem]

34. So what you're telling me is that there are many other people who fail to read

for comprehension--and are proud of it.

Sweet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I see what you are doing, that image in the mirror is yours

have a good life...

[MADem]

39. I should hope so--when I look in a mirror, I expect to see myself in it.

My life is great, thanks much. What makes it so, to some extent, is that I don't need to have everyone agree with me on every little issue, and I can respect the views of others without getting pissy with them or calling them names--sometimes, not insisting upon lockstep conformity is very liberating. It's also a rather progressive trait.

I recommend it heartily.

[JDPriestly]

5. In other words, the media has to have their stories handed to them or

else they are smart enough to figure out what is going on.

The media can't figure it out because they don't want to.

OWS is among other things about Citizens United and the total irrelevance of today's press, it's unwillingness to understand and report on the true story.

Hey! You can't just interview a member of OWS or OLA. You have to go there and sit through their general assemblies. If the media was willing to do that long enough, they would catch on and know exactly what was going on. No problem.

OWS and OLA, for example, are absolutely transparent and above-board about their activities. They don't hide their problems. They discuss them at their general assemblies. It would be nice if the rest of our institutions would be so open about their operations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. So true, so true

[Luminous Animal]

7. Yes, pretty much the media has to have the story handed to the them. The better

the press packet, the better you have your issues reported. Essentially, you do ALL the research, put the main points on the cover sheet and the meat following. Have a cute young woman as a spokesperson and you are likely to see your action in print.

[JDPriestly]

18. Believe it or not, that is how corporations win in the courts -- quite precisely.

[MADem]

8. Well, yes. In this case, certainly, because they're damned if they do/damned if they don't.

If they just get the "police side" they are accused of being one-sided. If they interview "the wrong guy" on the other side, they're accused of shaping the story. They can't win.

You cannot, on the one hand, complain about coverage in the media and then say "OWS is among other things about Citizens United and the total irrelevance of today's press..."

If the press is as irrelevant as you insist, then you shouldn't give a shit if they cover the events or not.

You can't have it both ways.

I imagine that most news outlets can't spare a person to hang around day in/day out at OWS hoping for a glimmer of newsworthy material at a frigging general assembly. Most newsrooms have been cut to bare bones and there ARE other stories out there. But whatever.

The OWS organization chooses to be leaderless, and that's fine and dandy, but unless you have a media function operating from within the organization, with daily press releases that the media can use, and a media rep they can go to at a moment's notice and get fact-based information when events warrant it, don't expect to get substantial air time unless something very visual is happening. It's just too hard to wrap up in a package that is usable to network or cable news.

Do not shoot the messenger for articulating these truths, because that IS what they are.

Just because a story is of interest to some doesn't mean it's of interest to the nation as a whole, either, and CNN and the other cable outlets will go for the lowest common denominator--the story they believe has the MOST appeal and will interest the largest portion of their audience. They will play what sells.

If you don't think the media has relevance, then turn off the tv and hit the livestream for your OWS news.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. We have turned to livestream

since the MSM is not covering it... WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

[MADem]

16. Because not enough of their target audience want to watch a bunch of kids

milling around in the street at night. Because they don't want to "incite" more rioting by showing people mixing it up in an urban setting, motivating troublemakers from anarchists to burglars to get on down there and have some fun.

That's why.

If anything happens, they'll show it after the fact. Who wants to watch people milling around in poor light? I mean, really.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. We get it, you really do not like OWS

[MADem]

22. You need to stop saying that. It reflects poorly on your comprehension skills, as I said upthread.

I don't see how you can claim to be a fucking "people's reporter" when you don't listen to anyone but yourself. The irony is almost humorous.

Shame on you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Have you been there? I mean physically?

I doubt it

[MADem]

28. Ahh, so now, only the people who have been there "physically" are allowed to have opinions?

Don't you see what you're doing?

It's really unacceptable.

I don't insist that you agree with me. Yet your entire attitude is "YOU SUCK!!!" because I don't share your perspective or your ardent "Rah Rah" attitude.

Think on what I've said. Or don't. You've pretty much made it obvious that you don't have any respect for any opinions but your own. Not terribly progressive of you, but whatever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Not quite, but that is one way to find out

what is going on, And if you have SO MANY ISSUES with the tactics, I truly invite you to GET INVOLVED.

Occupiers do not byte, And I want YOU to get involved and listen and be listened to.

But this is one of those things where being there is important.

And no, my impression is that you do not agree with it, or like it, and I am NOT alone.

Have a good day, or night. or whatever

Bye

[MADem]

32. I have watched the process on the livestream.

I think--frankly--it is the most boring shit I've ever seen. It's like a bad episode of SURVIVOR for urban people. Horrible. Lots of "speakers" who won't shut up, use twenty words when two will do, murder the English language, have little to say, and everyone is being painfully polite and listening to them when it's clear they'd rather move things along, often as not.

To me, it is EXCRUCIATING. I have no patience for that kind of stuff.

Your impression of my POV is false because either ou are a selective reader or you are being deliberately obtuse. You jump on the fact that I don't like some tactical aspects of the effort, and ignore my support for the social justice, economic parity and other issues that are raised by the OWS movement.

But see, that's becaue my impression of you is that you are INTOLERANT of anyone who doesn't reflect YOUR POV in cookie-cutter fashion. Your approach is My Way or The Highway. If people aren't happy-glad in the exact way that you are, they're enemies and no-damn-good.

And you've done absolutely nothing to dispel that impression, in fact, you've solidified it with your commentary this evening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Yup, that mirror and that image is yours

this is not worst than Congress dear... just different rules

And yup, whatever, talking to you is like talking to a wall,

[MADem]

38. Yes, because I don't AGREE WITH YOU. If I parroted back your views, I'd be a hero.

Your intolerance is showing--big time!

[inna]

25. yep, we certainly do, lol

[MADem]

33. Another proud non-reader! Heckuvajob, Brownie! nt

[JDPriestly]

20. I do. I find it fascinating. The way these people work together is beautiful.

They actually argue the issues before them in an intelligent way. Do I think that all their ideas make sense? No. That is the beauty of it. There is really no censorship of the ideas expressed other than by the assembly which lets its opinion be know in non-violent non-aggressive ways.

Of course that is boring to the news media that feeds on stirring up the passions of Americans and separating us from each other.

What? No aggression? No contempt? No snarling? Hey, at least give us a sex scandal, pretty please. And no. Americans are sick of the aggression, the contempt, the snarling and the constant sex scandals.

We want to hear from people who themselves are good, patient listeners and who want to solve problems by letting each side be heard as they do at the Occupy general assemblies. If that doesn't fit with the media template, then maybe the media template is out-of-date. Because Occupy's communication through community is the way of the future and the only thing that will work today.

The Occupy movements are very much an outgrowth of the revolution in media and communication that is going on today.

We are ridiculed by the right if we express confidence in the government, and we are ridiculed by the left if we say we want them to follow our instructions, not the other way around.

So traditional politics are no longer that relevant.

We know that we face serious threats in the future -- not from terrorists but from greedy corporations like banks and oil companies that want to destroy our lives and our environment for their own short-term gain.

We have discovered on the internet that we can go beyond traditional news media and just communicate directly with each other. Television and radio have not caught that trend yet although, oddly enough, we can more easily communicate with rather than just be yelled by radio than by television.

And the newspapers are hopeless. By the time you get the morning paper, their "news" is no longer new. And with the exceptions of maybe the Guardian and the NYT, their "in-depth" stories are just copied from the wires.

The media will either catch up or fail.

[MADem]

26. You're talking about a great topic for a documentary--not a news story.

If nothing is happening, save a bunch of people sitting around and chatting about their campsite issues and beliefs, that's not "news." To most people, save those who are heavily invested or present at the activity, it's boring.

The bottom line is this: if you are unhappy with what CNN is covering, YOU have the power to eschew that--just pick up the remote, and push the button. Turn that shit off. VOTE with your REMOTE.

You also have the power to see what's happening at these OWS sites, if you want to watch it--go to the livestream.

You actually "can" get what you want, but you're complaining because a private news network, that is on the air to MAKE MONEY--not be some sort of altruistic "people's news station,"--isn't giving you what you think is the most important story. They hire people to make these decisions about what they think will get them the most bang for their buck--and what you want to see is apparently not it. Don't like it? Don't watch. No one is forcing anyone to stay glued to their televisions.

Go get what you want at Livestream. The television media will cover what the bulk of their audience wants to see--and that may not be what you, or I, might want to see, but that's why we have the ability to change the channel or turn the TV off.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Is a vote on a general strike news?

Just wondering.

[MADem]

37. Are you talking about the strike in Oakland, that was covered AS IT HAPPENED?

You need to be specific and stop playing silly little "just wondering" games. It's not helpful to substantive discussion.

A General Assembly could vote that everyone should dress up as unicorns for Halloween--it's not news until it happens. And sometimes, it's not news even WHEN it happens.

These are among the same groups that came up with those idiotic "This Is Our One Demand" documents that contained dozens of (sometimes stupid) demands--they trashed that absurd construct fairly swiftly. Good thing, too.

Not everything coming out of these GAs is a gem. A lot of it is shit--to include, how to handle shit that accumulates in the encampments. That's not news, that's housekeeping. It is unreasonable to expect profit-making news agencies to wait, with bated breath, on the hope that a gem might come out of these groups of well-meaning people passing around a baton and talking.

That's why OWS encampments should have a media person, who can put out a press release on a regular basis any time anything of import happens. You want news, you have to know how to disseminate to media outlets. It's pretty basic stuff.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Well since CNN is covering patierno

You will find out what happens when it happens.

Go back to sleep. No I am not being dismissive but since you believe in,y qua,ivied media is allowed to create media narratives, then it does not matter. When it goes off...you may find out if the media decides it's good to cover.

[MADem]

48. You probably are in greater need of sleep than I.

This--your words--makes no damn sense: ...but since you believe in,y qua,ivied media is allowed to create media narratives....

If you don't like what's on TV, vote with your remote. Don't complain because they don't give you material that suits you. The media appeals to the lowest common denominator, not niche markets. If enough people eschew the provided fare, they'll adjust. If not enough people like what you like, they'll keep doing what they are doing.

I have figured out, by looking at this thread, that what you are referring to is a concept that economic parity and social justice will be miraculously achieved by a bunch of students cutting class.

Whatever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Media narratives and their creation

Read on it. Or not...I don't think you will.

Seriously when they decide you need to know, or it's too big you will learn what strike I am talking about. Free hint, not Oakland.

[MADem]

52. I know what it is. I told you. Kids skipping school--how will that redistribute wealth?

All it'll do is piss off their parents.

[JDPriestly]

40. I don't like the concept of media that sort of displays information for me

to absorb. I like interacting with people. If I want to watch something, I watch isolated programs on the internet. My poor dear mom is of the TV generation, Edward R. Murrow and the rest. (She' 94, and I'm 68.) I am not. I was nearly sick to my stomach when I visited her and watched the stuff that is presented as "news."

"Cats drowned in bathtub by four-year-ole." No, it's not that bad, but pretty close.

I like Democracy Now, Ian Masters. It isn't a question of the point of view of the show or the guests. It is a question of information. The superficial treatment of topics that you get on the TV is unappealing.

I watched Ed Schultz on the internet last night because I wanted to see what he would say about the election results. It was interesting.

But my husband and I do not subscribe to cable because we would rather read, meet with real people or watch a Netflix movie.

I watch CNN on the internet -- but very rarely. I watched CNN's coverage of the New Orleans floods or at least some of it. I also watched CNN's coverage of the freedom movement in Egypt. CNN did a good job covering those stories. I watched a little of CNN's reports on the BP spill. So CNN does some good news coverage but it isn't so much the fault of individual newscasters as the nature of the TV media. It will have to change its format to stay relevant.

Allowing guests to talk over each other is something I cannot tolerate. I want to hear what each guest has to say. I don't want them to bicker like children. Notice that OWS, each speaker is given a certain amount of time and that is there time. While they are speaking they are treated with respect. That's the only way that guests should be treated, whether it's Herman Kain or Al Gore. I want to hear what they have to say. And worst of all is when the "host" talks over one or the other of the guests. The Fox News people do that all the time. I notice, however, that they mostly talk over people they consider to be "liberal" and therefore probably wrong.

So, that is how I feel about CNN. Please don't take it personally. I think that time is marching forward. Something new that is much more interactive is beginning to dominate all the media. I want news media that makes me feel I am in a classroom, not in a theatre.

[MADem]

42. Good for you!

You know how to find the material you want, you take the time and effort to dig it up, and you're selective in your choices. That's great.

I like watching European and southwest Asian tv--I have to dig for it because I'm cheap and don't want to subscribe to it via cable or satellite. I also like some oddball radio shows.

The stuff we want IS out there--it won't always be handed to us on a silver platter, though, because what we happen to like might not be what the vast majority of the nation might like, or be comfortable with.

A lot of people like the CNN format, though--it's convenient, homogenized, and neatly packaged; perfect for people in a hurry. You turn it on, you sit on your ass for twenty minutes watching the crap they hand out, and when the crap starts repeating itself, it's time to change the channel to something else or go back to work. CNN is not going to accomodate itself to those who want interminable coverage of OWS general assemblies, or live footage of protesters v. police at night. That stuff is available if people want to see it, because OWS is streaming it. The images are kind of lousy, but that's the best they're going to get unless they upgrade their equipment.

Eventually, the internet will probably be the default for media, like the cell phone is now for phone communications. People still have landline phones, but they're mostly geezers like me and people who plan ahead for natural disasters and other emergencies. In the future, the TV will probably be the "landline phone"--clunky, cumbersome, but handy to have when the internet goes out (if you have an antennae on the roof, that is).

[JDPriestly]

44. Yes. I speak German/French and like foreign news sources like Le Monde

and Der Spiegel. One of the reasons we watch films is that we can get good foreign films including some old ones.

[JDPriestly]

17. And to have a media rep, you need the wherewithal of a corporation.

And that is what OWS is about -- giving a voice to the people for whom the corporations refuse to speak.

That's why the first issue on OWS's original declaration of grievances was the overturning of Citizen's United which hands our elections and especially the press coverage of them over to big corporate public relations departments, i.e., corporate propagandists.

[MADem]

41. Nonsense. You need a person who can read and write the English language, who has

an affinity for the truth, and who understands that fact-checking is GOD. You check, double-check, and check once again, every statement that is issued.

You don't need "the wherewithal of a corporation" for that. You just need someone who is honest, can read and write, and who has excruciating attention to detail. It doesn't cost much to send out an email. These OWS groups should pick someone from their number who will do the job well, and let them get to it.

[JDPriestly]

43. I live in an area of Los Angeles that is in the Y between the Arroyo and the LA River

Charles Lummis, who was an author (Harper's among other publications), the first editor of the LA Times, an explorer and a collector of Indian relics founded the first museum in Los Angeles, the Southwest Museum, on one of the hillsides in our area in 1914.

Our area fell on hard times. In most of the US, we would be viewed as working middle-class -- lots of teachera, psychologists, artists and musicians and working people -- but in LA we are considered to be poor.

The museum had little support from the local community because of the economic situation of the residents. Eventually, the Autry Museum bought our museum, took out the valuable Indian artifacts, repaired the building (which they emptied) and moved everything to their prime location in a "better area" on the edge of Griffith Park. Naturally they applied for and received millions of dollars in grant money from government agencies to accomplish what we view as yet another instance the 1% justifying theft from those of us in our community who are the 99% on the ground that they have more money and therefore can manage things better.

Having taken out the value, the historical and culture treasure, that was the Southwest Museum (claiming of course that our community could not take proper care of its cultural heritage which I will grant you is true) they are now trying to foist the building which was constructed in 1914 on the city.

They are basically seeking a bail-out at the expense of city taxpayers. Had our community been able to get a grant the size of the grant they got for their Griffith Park location, we might have been able to restore or add on to the existing historically valuable building.

I used to write grants for a non-profit, and I know how that process works. We would have had no chance of receiving millions of dollars in grant money. We don't have a history of good performance. Grant-givers don't hand out money to people just because they have a good cause. They want to see successes in the past. And poor or even middle class people don't have the kinds of success stories that get millions of dollars.

And, because we don't have a public relations expert on our team, we haven't been able to get much media coverage at all.

This is just one of the many, many, many grievances that Americans have against the powerful, the corporations, the rich and, yes, the media. What binds the protestors and many of us who are not protesting is our daily frustration at being unable to even be heard.

At OWS, each person is given a chance to speak and be heard. That is, in and of itself, healing. And I do not find what real people have to say at all boring. What I find boring is what the fake folks on TV talk about. They don't fool me at all.

[MADem]

46. You, on the one hand, are saying that without a public relations expert,

people can't be heard, but at OWS, they are given a chance to speak and be heard.

But the truth is, if OWS doesn't have a PR person (and this does not have to be a PAID position--anyone can do it if they are smart and honest, and are disinclined to make stuff up if the right answer is "I don't know") then the only people who will "hear" are the people who are already cheerleading the cause.

It's not about healing, though that might be nice--it's about changing the way society regards issues of economic parity and social justice--at least, that's my "takeaway" from it. I suppose everyone has their own POV and takes from it what is important to them.

You should write to that poor drunken Walmart heiress--see if you can't get her to underwrite your museum, or find a way to repurpose it. She just threw a ton of dough at a museum in Arkansas, maybe she's in a giving mood? Or Bill Gates? Maybe he could turn the place into a computer center for kids?

[JDPriestly]

50. Horrors! Madem, nothing personal, but you have just thrown the

typical response of the 1% to the 99%.

Look, 99%, if you were just better educated, if you just worked harder, if you just begged more, you could get what you want.

No, people in our area are hard-working and productive enough. That is not the problem.

The problem is that the wealth is hung onto by the wealthy few who use it to control our lives.

The Waltons don't produce anything. Working people with skills sufficient to run the factories produce the goods they sell. The Waltons have used their money to run small businesses out of the country, small businesses that paid decent wages and their share in taxes and kept communities working.

In my mother's hometown, Walmart put up a store right across from the flourishing shopping center. Even the town's top quality shoe store had to close. Wages declined. Tax revenue declined. The town has been gutted. This has happened across America. Factories are closed. Shops are closed.

Here in Los Angeles, the only new stores I see are second-hand shops. That's the only market potential out there. It's pitiful.

Sharing the wealth and ending free trade are the only answer.

We are headed for an economic melt-down. Go to the Zero Hedge website. Don't rely on me.

Madem, there really is no nice way to deal with this.

Our economy will not improve unless everyone just admits that the market is not led by an invisible hand but by the very shaky hands of human beings who are prone to cheat and lie and make mistakes.

Once we have thrown out the Chicago School economic theories, maybe we can figure out from scratch how to approach economics so that we can protect our environment ant make the most of our resources. Somehow, economics viewed as a contest to collect the most gold nuggets or dollar bills or beads or whatever is not viable in the long run. We have to figure out some different reward system.

It's going to be like the sort of thing an over-eater has to do to lose weight. Instead of rewarding ourselves by eating more spaghetti and pie (or buying another gold watch or house or horse), we should reward ourselves by eating more fruit and vegetables (doing something other than trying to make money, such as taking a little time out once in a while to hug our kids and work the soil).

We need to adopt a completely different measure of success. We changed our attitudes on race. We can leave the concepts of GNP and GDP as the ultimate measures of our worth behind too.

In other words, we need to redefine reward. Right now we too often respond only to material rewards that we think we can see. In fact all those dollars that Wall Street throws around are invisible.

What is real is hunger, need and on the other side, creativity and wisdom. Until we can push the greed to the side (do you really need that SUV?) and get a better balance between hunger, need, creativity and wisdom and all the other things we need on the positive side, we will continue to go down hill. Reading Zero Hedge, I think that push is going to come to shove sooner than we thought.

Just wait. We may have President Elizabeth Warren before we thought possible. She certainly has no political debts. She is independent, intelligent, understands economic thought -- the perfect presidential candidate at this time of crisis.

[MADem]

51. Look, you have no museum now. You're not going to get one without help.

That drunken Walton lady is in a giving mood to museums these days. Get her to give some of her money to your cause.

That's not a one percent attitude--that's a "Strike while the iron is hot" attitude. You're not going to redistribute wealth with a wave of your hand, but you might be able to do it with an appeal to her sense of the beaux arts.

Yes, we do have to change our ways, but in the meantime, you're not going to get what you want if you don't go to where the cash is. That woman has money and likes to give to museums. It's worth a shot.

As for the "new measures of success," I wish you luck. We'll be lucky if we can get truly progressive taxation, where the rich pay at least the same percentage--without sneaky loopholes and paybacks--as the middle and lower classes. Do you actually think the Senate -- a chamber of millionaires--is going to vote to "share the wealth?" If they vote for fair taxation, it'll be a miracle.

Turn on your TV, even in these contracted economic times, everyone's all agog about "shit"--the shit the Kardashians wear, pricey weddings, expensive clothing, trips, iCrap computer toys, stupid, completely non-local foods from East Fucking Jesus flown in on fossil-fuel spewing planes to be prepared in torturous fashion. Hell, everyone's touting "sustainable" while they are shovelling in the quinoa and mangosteens, washed down with Russian vodka, and they put-putted to the restaurant in their Mini Cooper!

People talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. Living within one's means and buying local is what everyone says, but almost no one does.

I drive a 25 year old car that gets enviable gas mileage, in the thirties both city and highway. It was one of the oddball subcompacts that were produced solely to allow Detroit to produce gas hogs--back when they "averaged" MPG. I am the only owner. I will drive the car until it craps out. I don't ride when I can walk. If someone needs a lift, I'm on it--two or more can ride almost as cheaply as one. Some of my clothing I've had since the late eighties--if it's still in good shape, I keep it. Use it up, wear it out. My ass sits on the furniture of my grandparents and great grandparents. The longer I have it, the more stylish it gets. I don't run up credit card debt. If I want something, I save for it and pay cash--and that includes the last house I bought. And savings? I have them. I put aside a little something every month, like paying a bill.

It does take discipline, but I've got plenty of that.

We're not going to have President Elizabeth Warren, never mind Senator Warren, without aggressive PR and push-back from her team. Already the Rovian machine is after her, and they're using OWS as a cudgel with a vicious political advertisement that is running in heavy rotation on Boston-based TV stations. It's an ugly ad and it is targeted directly at people who are unemployed and under-employed. It's not a Sop to the Right, they're going after the massive independent voter rolls in MA with deceptive and non-contextual commentary. Not good.

I put up a post in LBN about it--no one gave a shit, it got almost no comments.

[JDPriestly]

56. I'm with you on lifestyle. Old cars, no cable whatsoever,

buy local, no credit card debt, and since I retired, I spend most of my time in Made in the USA sweat pants and shirt.

I like to try to garden -- and right now we have been getting rain, so I am waiting to feel well enough to set out some seeds (the growing season is starting here in LA) that I have been preparing for planting. I learned a new method for starting seeds and have had amazing success with it. I hope, hope, hope that I will be well enough to put it into action tomorrow.

Do you have a link to your post? Most of my posts are ignored.

I think I am on ignore with a lot of people because of my Edwards picture.

I just want to remind people that for all of his faults, he understood and was honest about the economic problems we were going to face. None of the others had a clue.

OWS is the first good news we have had since Obama's election. I had quite a fever the other night, and dreamed that I was suffering from the cold at OWS. I know what it is like to spend the night in a tent in freezing temperatures.

God bless the souls of the people willing to spend even one night in that cold this winter. They are really good folks.

They wisely have avoided defining their success or failure, but what means do ordinary people have to speak out against the economic tsunami that Wall Street aimed right at the little people of the world?

[MADem]

58. Here's that link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5055411

Click through to the commercial--you'll see what I mean. It's plainly a divide and conquer strategy.

If people ignore you because of your avatar, that doesn't say much about them. Hell, mine is Brian the dog drinking a martini (I like dogs, but I don't care for martinis). It's not good to be achingly literal all the time!

I think EW is a great hope for change in the halls of power. I am motivated to see her in the Senate, but it's not going to be as simple as some people think--once outside the echo chamber, it's easy to see there is serious work ahead to make this happen.

What's your new seed-starting method? I am a lousy gardener; always looking for tips!

[JDPriestly]

67. Thanks. I added my two cents.

[JDPriestly]

45. They just made a video on the economic fraud that Wall Street committed.

It's on DU. I liked it. The material is familiar, but it is put together in an informative way.

[Populist_Prole]

9. Won't be long before RW conflate the two

Demonstration...riot whatever. A mob is a mob, right? :sarcasm: Well, Unless it's pot bellied curmudgeons waving misspelled signs and guns at town hall meetings saying "we want to take our country back".

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. For sure, that will happen

[Capitalocracy]

53. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2278816

Agreed.

[greyl]

14. No cable here, are all the "news" stations covering Penn State live?

Local Virginia news tonight covered OWS Richmond, so there's that consolation anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. When I got home from local OWS, CNN was on PENN state

using a phone report from the field and tape... it was odd...

Not that they would cover either this or Harvard. I mean if they did all of them... sure... but they did not. It was idiocracy worthy.

[Taverner]

54. And tonight on Dancing with the Stars...

Be sure and take your Soma and have fun at the Feelies!

[maddezmom]

55. I think it's simplistic to say it's just Sports Related

kids were raped and students rioting are more concerned about Football than the children.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Realize that was the MEDIA narrrative put on by CNN at that moment

they have filled on a few details, and the attack on the media van makes this far more complex.

But still the point stands. We had a riot at Penn, which CNN dutifully covered, eyeballs and screens and all that... and we had about 30K people following that other piece of news over USTREAM and other things at oh pretty dang late at night... which tells me, in a more complex way... yes there is an audience too...

For the record, the media (my real comment on this) has not really told us in words that truly will horrify people what seems to have happened at Penn... there is a word I am looking for... oh yeah rape...

molested does not bring the true horror forth.

Oh and yes there is a process, legal, that needs to happen here. but that is for another thread.

[maddezmom]

59. they had been following the rape allegations and the indictment all day

the riot was just another part of the story. I'm not sure I'm following you at all. Were they not supposed to cover the story? :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Could they chew gum and walk at the same time?

There was a time they did that.

Yes, this is a story...but so is the college kids calling for a student strike...which took 24 hour or so to hit the mainstream. So is the fact that cops went haywire at UC Berkeley.

Both were stories and both should have been followed. Maybe I am too old but I remember where yes, even CNN could follow two and three breaking stories at the same time. Greenwald has this right though, that kind of journalism is dead in the MSM.

[maddezmom]

61. I thought they called for the strike last night?

CNN and MSNBC report yesterday morning the violent police actions and arrests yesterday am.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. The night before last...Tuesday night

They reported on Wendesday on the violence on Tuesday...

The festivities on the strike and pd actions were watched by over 30k people on the net live.

[maddezmom]

63. sorry, the way I'm reading the news is they voted to strike on Tuesday

Thursday evening.


Occupy protesters at Berkeley vote to strike
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/11/2011 09:03:05 AM PST
Updated: 11/11/2011 09:03:07 AM PST


BERKELEY, Calif.—Occupy protesters at the University of California, Berkeley are calling on students to walk out of classes as part of a general strike in opposition to cuts in higher education.

A group of protesters who met on Thursday evening in the campus's Sproul Plaza voted in favor of the strike. The strike is planned for Tuesday, and protesters are encouraging teachers and graduate students to join them.

The decision came after demonstrators trying to set up an encampment on campus twice clashed with authorities on Wednesday. Thirty-nine protesters were taken into custody.

more: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19315330

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. And I watched it live

They voted on Tuesday's GA going into Wendesday. The vote took place between 11:45 and 12:10 PST...or to use military time... 23:45 into 00:10. Did the ap mention they adopted Oakland's procedures since there were over 3k peope at that GA?

And this is why the MSM is the joke it's becoming.

Oh and this happened under the constant threat of police action and a Fresno Sherrif declaring it an Ilegal assembly.

By the way I am usually up at that time since this is when hubby comes home from work.

[maddezmom]

66. well, I wasn't watching but are you sure what you were watching was a call for the strike?

here is another link not from AP:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/10/MNH21LT6ND.DTL

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/11/occupy-cal-protesters-call-for-strike-police-defend-actions/

Or was if vote to form Occupy Cal?
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/11/10/occupy-cal-makes-its-dramatic-entrance

just asking because the timelines in the MSM don't make any sense compared to your timeline of the events.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Absolutely

The threads are here on du. Those of us following this closely live blogged this.

The same thing happened in Oakland. It took the media some time to finally publish it...in that case 18 hours or so.

To be honest the news should follow these citizen journalists...since they don't have enough reporters any longer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Oh by the way they are conflating last night General Assembly

And Tuesday's


Tuesday they voted for the strike

Last night they voted not to pitch tens, for the momemt, and concentrate on strike planning.