Letter in Support of the People Bahrain

Dear Mr. President,

     I have just recently learned of the event in Bahrain over the past year, namely the attempted revolution by the Bahrain people to gain basic freedoms and a parliament that represents them. The revolution was violently crushed by the ruling family with much aid from Saudi Arabia and the CCASG, all regimes the U.S. considers close allies. In many of your speeches you have stated that the United States supports those seeking freedom, but your actions in regards to Bahrain stand in stark contrast to your words. As a United States Citizen I implore you to at the very least voice a strong support for the people of Bahrain and condemn the actions taken by their government in smothering and covering up their calls for freedom. A message of support from you would call international attention to what has happened in Bahrain and show the people that the U.S. is their ally in freedom. A message from you could legitimize their struggle internationally and help initiate new reform talks so the people who have died fighting for their countries freedom will not have died in vain.
     As the many revolutions across the world have recently shown, no regime can withstand it's peoples' call for freedom indefinitely. The American people are aware the Bahrain is a key Arab ally, which is why it vitally important to help them transition into a more democratic nation peacefully and with U.S. support  instead of violently and against U.S. opposition. If the latter takes place we will have made enemies of friends, and shown the world that we only support freedom if it is politically convenient for us.


Thank you,
J. Garrett Frierson


http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/2011/08/201184144547798162.html

Open Letter to the Occupation

To my brave fellow citizens:

The Occupation does not need Demands.

The strength of this movement is it's passion. It appeals to the deep seeded feeling that somewhere on our collective journey humanity took a wrong turn, and now is the time to correct our mistake. No one knows exactly which way to go, but we all agree it has to be different than the way we're heading. To find a future that benefits all of us we must talk, debate, and reason with one another. Our knowledge, like our  power, is much greater collectively than individually. Our future needs a forum, a hearth for citizens to gather around and share ideas. Occupy Wall St is that forum.

What cannot happen is a goal or date that, once met, will dissolve the movement. Even if we achieve everything we could hope for, OWS should remain as a reminder and warning of what can happen when we let politicians, lobbyists, and TV personalities do the talking for us. Creating a list of demands will be the beginning of the end. Demands can be marginalized, appeased, and brushed aside. Demands can be twisted and used to demonize and divide us. What can't be marginalized or misconstrued is a citizenry in the streets demanding our government act in our best interest and that when it does not we will hold those in power accountable instead of looking the other way for the sake of convenience or lack of a viable alternative.

Occupy Wall Street needs to become a place of great discussion and learning, a think tank of the people, by the people, and for the people. From this can grow limitless ideas and movements to tackle the many individual problems facing our country and our world, movements that can set specific goals and demands then disband when they are achieved. In this way we can achieve tangible results without forfeiting our reasons to assemble. Occupy Wall St can be a driving force for an American re-catalyzation, a paradigm shift in our world view.

This movement is not about taxes, healthcare, inequality, the economy, education, corporate power or the police state, though these are all part of it. This movement is about we the people and the society we choose to create. Too long have we passively accepted what has been given to us as the cultural 'norm'. We know that the 'norm' is a distortion, a world where our financial and environmental misconduct have no consequences, production and product are unrelated, and politics is a spectator sport. In silence we've allowed these injustices to fester and grow into the great societal sins of our age, believing the propaganda that we are too small and too weak to change the system. This, as the worldwide Occupation has shown, is false. There are billions of people ready to fight for change if we raise our voice above the din.

With Love and Solidarity,

Garrett

Occupation Discussion 2 (ongoing)

• • C
    
    It's good to hear from someone you don't agree with. I would urge you not to come guns drawn. The more you do that, the less you will be able to listen carefully to someone you loathe, and that is the breeding ground for all kinds of prideful ignorance. I side mostly with the occupy movement, but if there is one thing I am more averse to than authority, it is a crowd. So I always like to keep myself in check when it comes to perspective. Do yourself a favor and do the same. Either way, I hope this does something for you other than make you angry.
    
    http://mises.org/daily/5773/In-Praise-of-the-Capitalist-1-Percent
  • 

    In Praise of the Capitalist 1 Percent

    mises.org

    What the protesters do not realize is that the wealth of the 1 percent provides the standard of living of the 99 percent.
    Share
• 

  October 27

  Garrett Frierson

  • This writing is heavily espousing the 'Austrian' Economic belief that the Free-Market solves all problems while at the same time making assumptions and misconstruing the Occupy movements beliefs and goals in what looks like an attempt to discredit them in some sort of academic fashion instead of Fox's method of calling them dirty hippies. I'll start with the latter.
    
    It says the movement wants to "... is for the 99 percent to seize the wealth of the 1 percent and use it for their benefit"
    This not what any of the Occupy movements have stated and it seems to me like an effort to paint the movement with a broad brush to make it seem like an unimportant, ignorant uprising. No Occupy movement has issued a set of demands but rather called for the economic injustice and equality of our current system to be brought into the public forum, because in America we hardly ever talk about these things. I could point out more of the ways the author completely misses the point of Occupiers in order to discredit them, but I hope you understand what I'm saying here.
    
    Secondly, the Austrian economic model he espouses is more faith based, idealistic, and delusional than communism. Austrian economics have been tried before and always result in a very small number of people controlling a vast majority of the wealth while the vast majority of people suffer. It is true that Capitalism spurs competition and in many cases leads to newer, better products for everyone with enough money to buy them to enjoy, but history also shows that unrestricted capitalism will always do this by the cheapest model possible no matter what the social, environmental, and human cost is. The author decries the EPA, FDA, and other government regulations put in place to protect American citizens. This is incredibly ignorant and dangerous. These regulatory bodies were created after unregulated industries proved themselves unable to create products and profits in a way that didn't harm our nation and our planet. Before the EPA was created in the 70's industrial polluting was a huge problem in America, a river in Ohio caught fire 11 times. The Austrian school of economics will argue that the market will fix these problems because consumers will not buy their products, but this ignores a world economy where companies pollute and exploit one region to sell cheaper products in somewhere else where the people aren't being poisoned by the company. Instead of complaining about EPA regulations on carbon output, why don't companies hire more engineers to focus on more environmentally sound ways of doing business? Because they are focused on profits, not what is good for humanity or the planet, but short-term, quarter by quarter profits. Exxon mobile had profits of more that $30 billion in 2010. I think, if they really wanted, they might be able to squeeze in a couple hundred engineers into their organization to focus non-oil/gas/coal forms of energy production. Instead, they're spending their money in Washington to lobby congress for less regulation, like when they spent $15 million fighting the 2009 climate change bill.
    
    I agree that the Fed is fucking ridiculous and needs to be audited and re-made or done with altogether, but the majority of this paper is the same circular capitalist excuse making I've heard my entire life that pretends that it's ok for some people to be extremely rich while so many suffer. I don't mean to say it's bad to be rich by any means, being rich is awesome and many people earn it, but that doesn't mean they are now exempt from the social contract our society is built on.
    -A few of the points many people at the Occupy movement bring up is that the wealthiest in our society do not pay their share of taxes, which, in a historical context, is true.
    -Large corporations hold far to much power, especially in how they affect governmental decision making.
    -Unregulated financial institutions preyed upon unknowing consumers and collapsed the world economy and have not yet been held accountable and, indeed, are doing the same things again already that brought on the crash.
    
    America had an economic boom from 1945 until the 80s. Coincidentally, there was much more regulation of financial institutions during that time. Near the end of the 70's and through the 80's, 90's, and to the present day the government (usually, but not always, lead by conservatives espousing the Austrian model) have repealed the legislations that originally kept financial speculation and greed in check. Now, we have an economic bust about once every 10 years.
    This is not coincidental.
    
    
    A nice summary of the EPA argument was done by Colbert not long ago.
    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400165/october-19-2011/indecision-2012---job-killing-epa
  • 

    Colbert Report: Indecision 2012 - Job-Killing EPA

    www.colbertnation.com

    Everyone knows pollution is a job creator.
    Share
• 

  October 27

  Garrett Frierson

  • A nice example of how capitalism prefers profits over people:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382396/Workers-Chinese-Apple-factories-forced-sign-pledges-commit-suicide.html
  • 

    Workers in Chinese Apple factories forced to sign pledges not to commit suicide

    www.dailymail.co.uk

    At least 14 workers at Foxconn factories in China have killed themselves in the last 16 months as a result of horrendous working conditions.
    Share
• 

  Friday

  C

  • Was the boom a good thing do you think? For the record, I know the arguments you present and agree with many of them. I wanted to get your reaction to some of this. Particularly the end which points out that the main problem with our economic system is the hand the government has in bolstering major corporations. The reason we had a boom is because regulations that were put in place help big corporations stifle and eliminate smaller companies from growing. That's how they work.
• 

  Friday

  Garrett Frierson

  • Booms seem great, but are I think the beginning of every crash lie in them. Booms are bubbles waiting to pop, like the dot.com bubble, or the housing bubble. I agree that the government has a hand in bolstering up mega-corporations right now and that it's a bad thing, but the article fails to mention that the government is doing so because lobbyists from those very corporations are in our halls of power influencing politicians, so most 'regulations' or rules put in place are bound to be a bonus for the big guys. It wasn't as bad mid-20th century when regulations helped keep wealth imbalance in check and limited financial profits to a reasonable level, which I see as a basis we could build from. If we take lobbying power out of washington and make regulatory bodies that are transparent and work in the public's interest we could go a long way reshaping our economy so it benefits more people than the few at the top. Every system is corruptable, so these bodies need to have a close eye kept on them.
• 

  14 hours ago

  C

  • I like your point about transparent regulating bodies. That is what I really can get behind. Another question: Do you think everyone should have the same amount of wealth? Is than an ideal (however idealistic) that you aspire towards? Also, I don't really the word "greed" in association with the American public or people in general. I think that is something that needs to be taken seriously. In other words, explore what greed is and how it can gain influence over anyone, any organization, and any group of people. My friend said something to the effect of "blaming this all on greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity". Greed is always going to be a part of the equation. For as long as we have recorded history greed has been a huge motivator and corrupter of human decision. Where do you think greed comes from? Do you believe in sin or evil? Or are those just parts of our genetic/social evolution?
    
    We live in a time of amazing potential and luxury. We have more at our fingertips than ever before. I say screw college all together. That's part of the bullshit machine as well. We literally can learn just about everything we could in college from youtube. The only thing missing is that powerful experience of being in the same room as another person while doing it.
    
    My point there was: be careful how much you play the victim. This whole movement is almost exclusively getting coverage because of police response. You guys are gonna have to start doing something other than get beat up. I have heard a lot about what is wrong, and when I hear about how to make it right I get a lot more supportive. There is no reason anyone showing up at these protests should have an incomplete understanding of basic economics in both socialism and capitalism. They should have historical understanding of this and without venomous bias. Once of my best friends is trying to convince me the socialism is the only system right for this country, and then he sights Sweden as an example. To that I laugh in his face, because he picked a shit example. There is no example. He wasn't speaking to the reality of this country and it's issues in any way. He was once again, speaking as a vague idealist.
    
    This movement needs to be intellectually mobile and creative. I am not saying elements of socialism can't be implemented. I am not saying anything CAN"T be done. I am just saying that more needs to be produced than some image of a noble victim. Also, this whole "no leader" stuff is bogus. Authority is good. I play guitar and want to be authoritative in my understanding of it. Speaking with authority is good. Authority is not tyranny. It is the result of the hard work and balance of both having great knowledge, and being wise in ones continual thirst for accumulation and distribution of it.
    
    I am really appreciating this line of discussion, Garret.
    
    -Chris
• 

  about an hour ago

  C

  • Also, this response from my friend about your reply.
    
    "Ok, a few thoughts:
    
    Yes, the article may generalize some of the OWS protesters but I don't think it is that far off. "This not what any of the Occupy movements have stated" - really? I have seen a lot of video talking about making the rich pay more through taxation to 'help' others - sounds like seizing for their benefit to me.
    
    "the wealthy don't pay their fair share" -the rich pay more than their "fair share" - they pay at least 50% of their income in taxes after federal, ss, medicare, state and not including real estate and sales tax. If 50% isn't fair, what is? 70% 80% 90%? Do you think someone is going to work, hire people and improve the economy for 10 cents on the dollar? Further, who decides what is "fair"?
    
    "Austrian economics have been tried before and always result in a very small number of people controlling a vast majority of the wealth while the vast majority of people suffer." - He misses the point of the article which clearly shows how everyone benefits from the capitalist's capital. Further, we moved from the middle ages with kings and serfs to the victorian era of select aristocracy to today where more than ever there is less discrepancy between the rich and "poor" or middle class. Notice that a rich person can have a fancy car, but a middle class person can have a car that is almost as good for much cheaper; a rich person can have a nice bottle of wine for $2,000 - but a poor person can get award winning two buck chuck for $2 and it is not 1000 times worse in quality. It used to be a luxury only reserved for kings to have a clean shirt everyday, now it is a given for everyone - rich and poor alike.
    
    Last paragraph- causation or correlation? America had a boom post war - yes, because government spending was slashed to a third of what it was. There was not more regulation during this time either, for every piece repealed there have been at least 5 more added. Also, the regulation point could hold up if the regulators were sounding the alarm before the crisis but couldn't stop it because they didn't have enough power - but NO regulator was. Greenspan actually urged people to take out adjustable rate mortgages and Bernanke said everything was sound in the housing and financial sector - lack of regulation isn't the problem, it is complete lack of understanding of the boom/bust cycle in the first place.
    
    More telling is the fact that we went off the gold standard in '71 and have been decreasing interest rates every since (i.e. creating a lot of money and credit out of thin air) This creates a periods of seeming prosperity as everybody is lending, borrowing and buying; but as soon as the credit bubble pops we get a downturn; but instead of learning our lesson the Fed creates a bunch more money, inflating another bubble but only bigger with a much bigger bust. So your friend is right - we have had bigger boom/busts in the last 30 years, but the real source is all of this phony money creation, not lack of regulation."
• 

  32 minutes ago

  Garrett Frierson

  • Ok, catch up time. Your friend first because I just read it.
    
    Agreed that the Fed is fucking up and Greenspan and Bernanke haven't helped shit, those guys suck. Under Bernanke the fed gave out a 16 trillion dollar secret loan to the world's biggest companies and richest people. 16 trillion. Secret. As in, the only reason we know about it is because Bernie Sanders worked relentlessly to audit the Fed. That's fucked up.
    There have been technically more regulations put in since the 70's, but they have been ineffective and weak while the ones that really mattered (like Glass-Steagal) ended up getting repealed. The majority of the ridiculous profits made on Wall St (and that crashed the economy) are made from speculation and complex financial schemes that add no real value to the actual economy, helping blow up the bubble that hurts all the worse when it pops. Bernie Sanders proposed 6 basic regulations that would reign in speculation and help move the Financial sector back to it's orginal place in the economy, providing the capital our economy needs for new businesses and ideas.http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6
    
    The statement about the government spending was "slashed to a third of what is was" post WWII is misleading. The government has been steadily spending more every year since 1910, with a huge spike during WWII and then coming back down when the war was over higher than when the war started, thus the claim that government spending was "slashed". Here's a graph.http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
    
    Talking about the 'total government spending' is way to direct this argument too, because a huge part of the American budget (and one of the fastest growing) is military, and if we reduced that while growing our social programs, out total spending would decrease.
    
    That the poor today are better off than the poor of the past I'd argue primarily due to technological gains where these items are mass produced and cheaper. The fact a poor household can afford a clunker of a car doesn't mean that they're financial situation is ruined if a family member becomes ill or injured because they have no health insurance. Family's trying to survive on $20,000 a year may not be technically indentured servants, but they're pretty damn close, and a having a refrigerator and a microwave don't make it that much better.
    The middle class still exists, but it is shrinking fast.http://yhoo.it/cXPLhg
    Claiming that life is better for everyone because of an economics system that proves itself over and over as being detrimental to the majority of it's practitioners is dangerous.
    
    And finally to the OWS stuff. A running theme with a lot of the protesters is that the rich and corporations should be taxed more. A lot of rich people feel this way too, like Warren Buffethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
    
    Almost all the income growth over the past decade has gone to the top percentile of our population. I'd like to see your friends figures claiming that the rich pay %50 of their income in taxes and "already pay their fair share". I've got another set of graphs that contradict those points.http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
    That and most huge corporations pay little to no taxes.
    
    To this last point someone like your friend might say "But America has one of the highest corporate tax rates of the Western World!" To which I say yes, we do. It's around 30-35% or something like that, and most rational people can agree that (in theory) drives away businesses or leads them to pass on the extra cost to consumers. What those against taxing corporations fail to notice (or mention) is that companies large enough to pay that tax rate never do because of loopholes and lawyers. Google and most other multinationals use loopholes to pay an affective tax rate lower than 5%http://www.npr.org/2011/09/10/138867588/corporate-taxes-how-low-can-you-go
    and many others paid none at all. Lowering the tax rate down to the level of other nations (into the 20% range) should co-inside with closing tax loopholes that allow them to pay very little no matter what the tax rate.
• 

  9 minutes ago

  Garrett Frierson

  • In response to your notes: No, I agree, human nature, kind of, I agree, and it's already happening.
    
    I don't think everyone should have the same wealth, that is (in the real world) ridiculous. I do think that in a country as rich and powerful and America there should be a basic standard of living that people of all incomes can enjoy, whether they're janitor or the president. Things like a good education, healthcare and social security when you retire are things a just society can afford.
    
    Greed: I think greed is something you need to expect as part of an economy, especially in the financial sector. That's the point of regulation (effective, useful regulation, not lobbyist controlled, pretend regulation), to keep an eye on those running the financial show and to slap their hand when they start reaching to take more than they should. The economy needs a balance of the financial, productive, and technological markets. When one gets to powerful the whole system gets out of whack. If you want to boil down to the philosophical underpinnings one could argue that the whole thing is greed's fault but that's missing the point. As far as where it comes from, I frankly don't care. The fact is it's there, so we'd best find a way to deal with it.
    
    As far as college goes, I'm in some form of agreement. In America, yes so hard, but mostly because of the cost of college. If college was more affordable (or better yet, Free!) it would encourage students to branch out, try new fields and meet people who will help them grow mentally and spiritually. These days though I'd tell kids to check out Khan Academy and youtube to learn all the stuff they want and go start a business with their knowledge because that will be better for them financially and keep them out of debt.
    
    Finally, I agree that this movement needs to be more than being vicitims, but I'd also like you to know that it is. Most of the major news is about police brutality (which there is way too much of, another thing OWS is pointing out) but that can't really be helped. If you check out the Occupy Wall Street Journal or any of the many online articles being published by the protesters you'll see a lively discussion about American government, economics, and the direction we should be moving as a country. At many occupations they've been having regular 'teach-ins' and most of the larger ones have working groups that meet every day to debate, learn, and take action. This movement is about more than taxes. It's about a social and economic system we' all know isn't quite right but don't know how to put it into words, much less change it. Occupation is a way of creating a constant dialogue where people can learn and share their knowledge, where collective action can bring about collective change. I quite enjoyed this article from the OWSJ.http://occupiedmedia.com/2011/10/so-real-it-hurts-building-a-new-republic/
  • 

    So real it hurts: building a new republic | The Occupied Wall Street Journal

    occupiedmedia.com

    So real it hurts: building a new republic
    Share

Occupy Wall St Discussion 1

LikeComment

Tag Photo

P I work 2 jobs and have a small business.. I am the 1%... Keep up the hard work 99%. I'll be paying 100% of your medical bills in no time! — with ...  ·  ·  · Share · October 11 8 people like this. 50 of 60 M Cute that you think you are in the 1%, Pete. But you obviously have not taken the time to research who the 1% and 99% are and what the occupation (that you are passing off so easily as just priviledged kids) is actually about AND how broad ...See More October 12 at 10:27am ·  ·  2 people A this is too funny October 12 at 10:34am ·  ·  2 people M I tagged more people who can educate you in the weaknesses of your ideas, so this conversation isn't so one-sided. Join in, guys!!! October 12 at 10:40am ·  ·  2 people M I'm writing all this while on-the-go from my mobile right now, but I'll add much more when I get to a computer. Looking forward to having this conversation. October 12 at 10:55am ·  H Hello Pete. Nice to meet you! October 12 at 11:25am ·  ·  1 person H The best thing about the occupying is the platform for discussion, for the exchange of ideas to improve our country. Go to your local occupy and express your feelings. You'd be surprised about how much you could learn about what is actually going on in your country, not what is delivered to you by the corporate hands who not only run your television stations, but most of your nations decisions. If the people who own 99% percent of the nations wealth were taxed, just like every other hard working American, then maybe you would be able to work just one extra job in order to pursue your American dream, your business. Don't assume that the people at the protest are lazy expecting handouts. I know most of these people you have tagged here and they are some of the hardest workers. Keep conversing and voicing your opinion! Even better, off of facebook and near the nearest occupy. Have a nice day. And hello fellow bums! Keep it up! October 12 at 11:34am ·  ·  5 people B honest, I just want that iphone. My crackberry is that held back child who just can't get caught up October 12 at 12:24pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson  Hey Peter, and hey Adam! Heather and Maya are right about you guys not quite understanding what these protests are about, but that's easy to do when it's mostly getting negative coverage by media that has a stake in it's failure. This movement is about inciting conversation and debate that's absent in American politics because money is what buys access to politicians, so those that have money get to shape policy in ways that are beneficial to them while the majority of American's go unheard. The supreme court cases Santa Clara County vs Pacific Railroad gave corporations the same rights as people without any of the responsibility, and the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision deemed money as free speech and allows for limitless secret spending to influence elections. Since that decision more money has flowed from corporations and extremely wealthy persons into politics than at any time in history, essentially blocking anyone who doesn't kowtow to the wants and needs of corporations and extreme wealth can't even begin to think about entering politics, and so our national discourse becomes very limited. This movement is about restarting that discourse and talking about important issues (like holding the President and Congress accountable for their jobs) and not on frivolous matters the 'news' channels like to focus on (Obama's birth certificate). Every evening each occupy has a General Assembly that are open to the public, stop by and talk to the people about why they're there and the ways that we can move America forward. If we don't, then we're leaving the future of our nation up to a political system that most of us are extremely jaded with. October 12 at 12:56pm ·  ·  4 people S so, i don't know most of you, but i have been keeping my eye on all of this and would like to say something. first, i like the idea behind these protests, but feel that the execution is tremendously lacking. what garrett said is all too t...See More October 12 at 1:32pm ·  ·  1 person O Trolling with my homies. October 12 at 1:59pm ·  ·  4 people Al I am pretty sure he was being facetious when it comes to being 'in' the 1%. Literally speaking, he is 'for' the 1% October 12 at 2:18pm ·  ·  4 people H Of course it is not all media Sam! But yes, at the end of the day Rupert Murdoch has the right to allow or not allow certain pieces to be shown on the networks and newpapers that he owns. He has openly admitted that fox news is an entertainment channel..... October 12 at 2:31pm ·  ·  2 people S you won't see me sticking up for fox news. i am curious, though, why do you care about fox news so much? it is one network in a sea of them. and, if you want to approach things from a non biased perspective, msnbc provides the balance to a network like fox news. also, rupert murdoch makes almost no editorial decisions at fox news. October 12 at 2:42pm ·  Garrett Frierson  On the topic of why the protesters began on Wall St and are now camped out in most of the financial districts in major cities across the country: Protests are symbols used to call attention to problems and issues, and Wall St is the biggest symbol in our culture for our broken financial system and it's collusion with the government. Politicians are (theoretically at this point) the ones we hold accountable, but we have no power to hold them accountable. The amounts of money they need to run for office (to pay for things like television time) are generally only accessible through big money donors, who use this as leverage for getting the reforms they want. Congress is bought, and it seems the most effective way to show this is to bring focus on the symbol that bought them. October 12 at 3:03pm ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  Also, it should generally be acknowledged that Fox is a pretty blatant propaganda machine that is a great example of how media skews our American discourse. That being said, I agree with Sam that people waist a lot of energy hating fox and getting riled up about it. Yes it is big, serves it's own interests, and is owned by a creepy Australian billionaire. The people running the network know how what they're doing, they're out to make a profit. They thrive on 'controversy' that walks the line between comic and insane, but their opponents always take the bait and try to point out the hypocrisies and flaws in their 'news' instead of ignoring it and getting on with more pressing problems. Every minute waisted on them is a minute we should be spending trying to fix the real problems we have. October 12 at 3:11pm ·  ·  2 people Garrett Frierson  Other media organizations are less blatant than Fox, but, with respect to Sam, I think they also limit our national discourse. They tend to be reactionary, sensational, and profit driven, swinging the national focus to whatever is hottest at the moment instead of being the forum for democracy. We can talk about how this is as much a social trend as it is a business/media one, but the two are related and shape each other. It should say something about the American media when millions of Americans choose to get their news from Al Jazeera and the BBC. October 12 at 3:17pm ·  S i disagree with you that "wall street is the biggest symbol in our culture for our broken financial system and it's collusion with government" (not meaning to use the quotes in a snarky way, i just think you described it well). i still maintain that the steps of congress are where that is symbolized to a gross level, not wall street. when our bill of rights guarantees america's citizens the right to participation in government, and we are put on the back burner for corporate interests, it gets me boiling. but corporations are not always going to have our back. they strive for profit. government, on the other hand, is supposed to represent our interests. i think we are both upset about similar things, so there isn't any use debating the point of the protests or where they are happening. in general, i would like to see our government figures catching the heat for this (all of them, bush, obama, clinton, congress), because they are the ones who make, the laws in this country which allowed us to be in the state we are in. as for the media aspect, it is the thing i struggle with the most in regards to working in the industry. every time i produce a show, i have to consider what things are the most current and sensational things happening in the world. later in life i want to pursue something more educational and less limited by typical the news format. however, the good news is that you can make decisions which give some attention to things that may get overlooked elsewhere (occupy wall street is typically prominently featured in my newscasts). October 12 at 3:37pm ·  B I think its amazing how much attention liberals give fox news. Do you understand that MSNBC, NPR (which everyone pays for), half of CNN, all of ABC, NBC, CBS are left leaning? I'm not supporting fox, b/c I honestly cringe every time I see h...See More October 12 at 3:45pm ·  ·  4 people Garrett Frierson  ‎@Sam Whole heartedly yes on holding public figures accountable, but I feel we should also shine a light on those who profit from the system and use their influence behind the scenes to influence our policy makers. That's why Citizens United and campaign finance reform are so important, making the way politicians get their money transparent so the public knows where their financial interests lie. Also, kudos for doing your best in the confines of the media industry, I'm of the opinion that our problems are systematic and not the fault of most of the people working in it (similar to most wall st employees). October 12 at 3:50pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson Also, Occupy DC just started up October 12 at 3:52pm ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  ‎@Bo actually Obama has been completely silent about OWS, I think he's scared to commit either way because that will divide his supporters, just like he's been scared to take a firm stance on just about everything else he talked about in his campaign. Fox's anchors are hotter because they understand how much entertainment is now apart of American news (or at least they're less shameful about it). A common misconception about the protesters is that they are 'hippies' and wholly anti-corporate so people love to point out they use iPhones and where H&M. These are not 'anti-corporate' protesters, they are anti-corporatocracy protesters. Corporations do many things well within the confines of the free market, but because they are wholly profit driven, regulation is needed to make sure that they pursue their interests in a way that does not damage the common good. The corporate influence on politics has nullified just about all regulations that are meant to protect our physical and financial health, as well as that of our planet. These protesters aren't out calling for a tearing down of the modern world so everyone can eat granola and hold hands (ew) but rather they are calling for everyone to take a step back and come to the table with a fresh perspective. Many occupiers have very different opinions about what needs to happen, but they all agree something needs to happen and the way to bring about any kind of change is to re-open our democratic channels of debate and discussion. Every General Assembly includes debate and voting about the direction each occupation should take, while people are always free to go off and do their own thing. The corporate tax you're talking about is something we need to discuss as a nation, because they're is a lot of debate and misinformation floating around that make it hard to understand what the historical and economic predictors indicate would happen if that tax was instated. October 12 at 4:40pm ·  ·  2 people B The corporate tax is a fact actually. The corporations will just hand down the cost of extra taxes to the consumer, or ship more jobs overseas, or just keep money on the sidelines. Right now there are trillions of dollars on the sidelines waiting to be invested, but they aren't because there is uncertainty surrounding taxes, the ability to hire and repercussions of doing so once health care overhaul takes place. I'm not a super pro corporate person.. I share almost nothing in common with those that run those companies, but I don't know what OWS wants to gain from their protests. Obama has actually not been silent. He's spoken numerous times explaining that he shares the same feelings and frustrations as the protests, and the democratic party has backed OWS as well as every major union in america, which all of them financially support obama and his party. I was definitely joking about Fox's anchors, but I'm glad you found it to be true. My point that I made earlier is simply saying that I believe OWS is centering its arguments completely at the wrong people.. if they want change it needs to be in DC where policy makers drive decisions that affect all of us, and corporations. There should be more outcry that our government is bankrupt, spending trillions more than we have, robbing our social security, and putting our futures in jeopardy. October 12 at 4:48pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson  Personally, I'm a huge proponent of deliberative democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy (http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=57) as a way for us to tackle many of our problems. Essentially, It circumvents moneyed interests affecting decision making by taking a sampling of citizens from all walks of life and then letting experts on both sides of major issues each give them a presentation. These citizens are then directly involved in policy making. Deliberative democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org Deliberative democracy (also called discursive democracy) is a form of democracy...See More October 12 at 4:50pm ·  ·  1 person ·  Garrett Frierson  I think there is a break in the discussion where we talk about the corporate tax rate and the actual taxes paid by corporations. It's true that we have a high corporate tax rate, and bringing it down to levels of other modern nations is a good idea, but it's also a good idea to make sure the corporations actually pay taxes. Google and most other multinationals use loopholes to pay an affective tax rate lower than 5%http://www.npr.org/2011/09/10/138867588/corporate-taxes-how-low-can-you-go and many others paid none at all. Lowering the tax rate down into the 20% range should co-inside with closing tax loopholes that allow them to pay very little no matter what the tax rate. In regards to what the protesters want to gain, I noted to Sam that they look to open up debate and discussion that's currently lacking in America. They're pointing out that the line between private and public has been blurred with bank bailouts, subsidies to oil companies and the like. Many of these companies use these profits to boost CEO pay and corporate profit while laying off workers http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/09/01/paid-off-for-layoffs-ceos-at-pink-slip-leaders-earned-42-more/ You can argue that it's their right to do so and that's the way the free market works, but thousands and thousands of people are losing their livelihoods and their homes while a small group of people are getting wealthier and wealthier. Bank of America (recipient of $45 billion in bailout funds) announced it is cutting 30,000 jobs this year just around the time it announced payouts to 2 former and one current executive totally $30 million, all while foreclosing on thousands of American homes. It also spent $4 million on lobbyists fighting regulation last year alone. Occupying Wall St, Boston, SF, Chicago, St. Louis, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Toronto, and hundreds of other cities is a way of bringing these facts to light and letting others know that we the citizenry have the power to stand up and fight for our economic and political rights. October 12 at 5:26pm ·  ·  2 people Garrett Frierson This isn't by the OWS, but Bernie Sanders recently wrote an article outlining 6 demands for Wall St (via Congress) to help return our financial industry to it's proper state, accumalating and providing capital for business and industry.http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6 Six Demands to Make of Wall Street www.commondreams.org The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most pow...See More October 12 at 5:33pm ·  ·  2 people ·  S Disclaimer: I didn't read ANY of this. The 1%= the people who use their money to BUY political power by financing elections and such. Not like, making donations to people you like sometimes, but funding campaigns in the millions- koch brothers and such. Do you do that? I doubt it. October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  3 people S you are the 99% October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  2 people T http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/310316_2125660338210_1146954628_32011350_1390187753_n.jpg October 12 at 10:20pm ·  ·  4 people S ‎@garrett i like a lot of your ideas, especially deliberative democracy. i am not entirely informed on the issue (plan on going back and reading more), but didn't iceland recently engage in something similar, which resulted in the country rejecting bailouts and nationalizing debt? if so, i am all for it. you are also correct that all forms of corporate welfare should be brought to an end. my man john huntsman speaks the truth when he says "broaden the base and lower the rate". a thorough reform of the corporate tax code is in order. then, we need to work on restoring credibility to our process of government. campaign finance is a messy, and ultimately corrupt game. stephen colbert recently did a highly entertaining and informative segment about PAC's and 501 (c)(4) organizations which essentially allow for money to go towards campaigns without any knowledge of where it originated. scary stuff. at the same time, though, i think we have to realize that most money in elections is bad, not just corporate. the fact that unions can form PAC's and become political entities is in some ways just as scary as corporations having those rights. unions are not meant to have political sway and be able to make large donations to campaigns. it is another example of politicians being submitted to special interests which do not represent the average person. while we romanticize unions being the answer to corporate interests and on the side of the everyday man, there are many examples of them dictating policy which only furthers their own interests. corporate personhood is bad, so is union personhood. that should be clear. also @steve powerdrill (not that he will read this, since he clearly has something against reading), thanks for assuming we are not intelligent and don't get the very simple sentiment of who the 99 and 1 percent are. i think what pete was saying, though, (correct me if i am wrong) is that he does not associate himself with the claims the "99%" are making. and i think we should be ok with that being his opinion, since we also have to subject ourselves to yours. October 13 at 1:07am ·  ·  2 people P Thank you Sam October 13 at 1:49am ·  ·  1 person Garrett Frierson  ‎  ‎@S I'm in total agreement, union personhood can be just as destructive as corporate personhood, both should simply be ways of organizing people and should counterbalance each other when it comes to the relationship between capital and labor. It's just over the past few decades corporations have become much more powerful than unions and therefore have caused the majority of the problems, any solutions we come up with should keep both corporations and unions in check. Money in politics is a losing game for everyone but the top players. October 13 at 2:10am ·  Garrett Frierson On a side note, I think the Colbert Super PAC is fucking genius. October 13 at 2:10am ·  E Steve, shoulda just read it... A's comment, lol. P.S. , this was a fun read, thank you for posting this. October 13 at 2:33am ·  ·  1 person J Let not your ignorance get in the way of your intelligence. Most Americans are happy with 2.4 kids a mortgage on a house in the suburbs, a SUV and a latte. Fill up the tank and watch football on the weekends. Go shopping at the mega mall....See More October 13 at 8:41am ·  R Jager Naut, I don't think voting is the answer, by any means. Judging from the above comments, people overwhelmingly think casting votes into a plutocratic system won't change much. Besides, people voted for Obama because he was going to ge...See More October 13 at 9:05am ·  J ‎@R.. It seems as though you are thinking in a revolutionary mindset. This is good. Voting is the answer... now.. You see, Obama had said he would make change, but the power does not lie with him alone. Congress blocks for their own interests. Look at the voting records. Have you? Why do republicans stand together and filibuster? If there were term limits, they would not be concerned about re-election. PERIOD. I have ancestors who fought and died in the American Revolution. They were tired of their wealth going to the corporation called Great Britain. The 1% of their time. They revolted and came up with this plan, which is now being whored out to the 1% again. Action. Vote them out! October 13 at 9:40am ·  J ‎@ S Where do you work? What do you decide goes on the air? Is it local news or political, economic, national security? October 13 at 9:56am ·  S ‎@r we can agree to disagree on the point of unions and campaign money. the reality, though, is that the only way campaign finance reform is going to come is if the entire country is subject to the same regulations, meaning both unions and corporations would both have to be barred from political contributions for it to actually work. one other thing, i strongly disagree that this movement is "a blueprint for a new society". while they would like to believe otherwise, OWS does not represent 99% of the country. @jager you may have some more success if you stop approaching the situation from the perspective that everyone except the people participating in occupy are 'ignorant'. when you say things like that, you immediately turn away a substantial amount of people, meaning your protests are gaining that much less traction. October 13 at 10:00am ·  ·  1 person R S, why do you want to limit union power? I think these 'occupations' are the blueprint for a new society. Society should not be a replica of these occupations. But they serve as a rubric, one subject to revision and constant re-revision. I never thought they did represent 99% of the country. It's a mostly white, male-led movement and the last time I checked, NYC was 60% non-white. This is changing, though, as more people are getting involved and people are being educated on the issues that people encounter every day. The good thing about not having demands is that it reflects the mutable nature of movements. As I said, everyone is affected by capitalism differently, so to demand things is structuring something that has little structure. October 13 at 10:08am ·  S Ryan, why do you think unions should have power beyond ensuring the rights of the worker within the company/organization they exist in? allowing them to have political influence reflects the same drawback of corporations having influence : politicians have to bend to them in order to get elected, and ultimately will require a $ campaign contribution in return. it is crony politics, and it does not help us. unions are good right up until the point they become politically motivated. in short, unions helping workers = good, unions giving campaign contributions = bad. @Jager, i work at a local news station, so we cover local politics/government and other local issues. we are not opinion or editorial based, so we have to confirm and balance all of our reporting, unlike fox or msnbc. October 13 at 10:34am ·  ·  2 people J ‎@S That is good.. keep up the good work, localism is the best way. Seriously. Buy local food, become connected in the community.... Don't sell out to the corps. I guarantee that a producer, while being interviewed for a position in the national scene, will be asked what his/her beliefs are from politics to religion. October 13 at 10:38am ·  R Well, I'm a syndicalist and, by extension, I favor worker control of factories, controlling the means of production, output, and the state of their workplace, etc. If we are talking voting and party politics, then I think unions should have power to fight depreciating wages, bad conditions, and bad pension schemes through voting and through industrial action. Party politicians need to know where the power lies: not with them, but with workers. Because unions are democratic in their structure (they aren't democratically accountable to the public, though) they are accountable to their members. They ballott for strike action and hold meetings which are open to all members. If you are worried about this crony politics, you should join a union so their endeavours would become yours! Unions do not exploit the underclasses as they are composed of the underclasses. Unions aren't all good, of course, as they relinquish responsibilities and often throw some of their members under the bus when it comes to fighting for individuals in workplaces. They are also bureaucratic. Ideally, we wouldn't have any money in politics, but as that isn't going to happen, I support unions because they support workers. I don't think equating the power of corporations to the power of unions is possible or useful. October 13 at 10:52am ·  S once again, i completely support unions representing workers within a company to ensure rights. you have given no instance where unions contributing to campaigns is actually a good thing, just a means to an end. furthermore, besides giving a framework for a minimum/living wage, working conditions, and ethical practices, the government does not really have any role within the machinations of a private company, therefore the unions influence should not extend past the organization they exist within, because politicians should not be giving sweetheart deals to corporation or unions. also, the cynicism in your closing statement is alarming. you say you believe that OWS helps provide a "framework for a new society" but say "ideally, we wouldn't have money in politics, but as that isn't going to happen"... so what is your purpose in supporting OWS? Isn't this an attempt to get corporate/financial interest out of politics to ensure the everyday citizen is represented in government? my point is that unions are another example of issues being dominated by special interests which have the financial means to sway politicians. just because they represent employees does not make them outside the realm of crony politics. it all needs to go. also @jager, it is illegal for any questions to come up which inquire about politics, religion, personal beliefs in an interview. you should know your rights in those situations if that ever comes up. October 13 at 1:58pm ·  R Right. Getting money out of politics won't happen through voting. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason I support OWS is because it has no affiliation to any party. Politics as we know it won't regress into a more primitive system unless something outside of the ballot box happens, which is where something like OWS comes in. I see OWS-and its offshoots-as something that won't beg for treats from the system. I see it as a potentially radical force that can evolve into something much more important than occupying a public park. They should support the jobs bill, yeah, but ultimately if they say 'we want money out of politics' the power still lies with those in Washington. I don't want that and I think people are willing to fight for the decentralization of power. They shouldn't work with politicians, MoveOn or any other bullshit organization that's just going to pander to parties. And why do I need to give a concrete example of why unions are a good thing? Aren't collectives of workers good? Shouldn't self-determination be valued? Shouldn't they value their work and refuse to be exploited? Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone contributing to the two party system, but when push comes to shove, I support unions giving money to politicians over corporations. If that means having more political power in this system, fine, but that isn't what I would work towards. I'm not necessarily advocating for contributing to a party because I'm against that, but it's certainly better than corporations giving money-the other part of your equation. If we are to compare unions with corporation, unions need political leverage to support their workers. The 'special interests' you point out are the interests of workers. I don't know if they count as special interests in the way you mean it. They are people, not balance sheets. Individuals supporting their families, not corporations, are not and should not be seen as 'special interests'. Message me if you want to keep taking about this, I won't be visiting this page again. October 13 at 3:05pm ·  ·  2 people G this is extremely enlightening. October 13 at 6:25pm ·  ·  3 people S definitely enlightening. haha, going back, it seems like i was trolling everyone in here, taking opposing viewpoint from people. i should say i agree almost wholeheartedly with ryan, our two party system is completely bogus, and that OWS is giving a forum for people to experience some form of empowerment when our government seemingly boxes them out from our political process. our financial institutions need to be scaled back, glass-steagall reinstated, and campaign finance needs an overhaul. then, we need to implement a system of government which represent's it's citizens better. i personally favor proportional representation on the local level, there are a lot of positive aspects to PR and i recommend people understand that there are options besides the two party system we have. i do disagree with ryan over unions, but who cares? that's a well informed guy right there, and i respect his view. October 13 at 9:19pm ·  ·  3 people Garrett Frierson Here here! The main point is that we all think our current system is fucked up, and that through discussion, debate, and dissidence we can (hopefully) bring some very needed change to this country. October 13 at 11:15pm ·  ·  1 person R And I love you all.