Much talk about the Occupy movements that were sparked in NYC with OccupyWallSt has been over the mainstream media. Now whether or not the media is doing it's job by reporting objectively (and actually scouting for intelligent interviews that they actually care to air) is entirely up for debate, however, most people involved in the Occupy movement around the country, and around the globe will argue heartily, that the mainstream US Media is painting the worst possible picture of the Occupy movement as it can.
Whenever a news source makes any mention of "violence" on its program, they fail to mention the fact that the protestors remain peaceful, and only violence incited is by the private violence squads we like to call the city (insert your city here) Police Department. Whether you like to admit it or not, you are outsourcing violence with your tax dollars to the city in order to "maintain" the peace. In the case of the Occupy movements, the tax payers seem to be the only ones maintaing the peace while officers over exert their power in a heinous manner.
Just this last Tuesday night, (25 October 2011), the OccupyOakland encampment was raided by Oakland Police Department with the force in riot gear. Now, if anyone was actually paying attention to the movement in its entirety, one would do a little research to see that it is a "non-violent resistance movement." One of the core principals of the movement, is non-violence, the demonstrators are peaceably gathering to petition the redress of governmental grievances (FYI: you must say that to a police officer, you cannot mention that you are "peacefully protesting," "peacefully gathering," or "peacefully demonstrating" due to clauses in the Patriot Act which makes dissension an act of terrorism, thank you Dubya!) and are in no way attempting to insight a riot, just raise awareness and educate people who are standing on the sidelines. However, in regards to this last Tuesday night, the police in riot gear, shot an Iraq War Veteran, Scott Olsen, in the head with a rubber bullet and fractured his skull, the crowd scattered, once they learned that someone was down, they went back to help this poor man, and a flash grenade was thrown into the crowd where the incapacitated Scott Olsen lay bleeding from his head.
Now this begs the question, if these people are peaceably gathering to petition the redress of governmental grievances, why is there a need to aggress so harshly? Again, it goes back to the Patriot Act, which effectively dissolved all First Amendment rights (side note: The Constitution protects these rights for the citizens from the government, it does not endow these basic human rights upon anyone), and clauses that state that protesting and dissension in any shape or form, makes you a terrorist. The same way getting charged and convicted of a misdemeanor crime makes you a terrorist.
However, it is also important to note where the police in each city hold their allegiance. Typically, police officers in every city have some sort of duty to uphold the Constitution. However, when the Constitution which this country is so very fond of touting around to the world, is dismantled in DC, there are huge problems here. Not only that, but there are also issues surrounding the privatization of the police departments. JP Morgan-Chase states on their website, that since 2010 (no specific date) they have started donating $4.6 million to NYPD. Now, it would seem like the appropriate question to ask would be, why do big banks all of the sudden have rights to give giant lump sums of money to police departments? The following question would be, is it any wonder that the NYPD has been brutalizing peaceful demonstrators since the beginning of OccupyWallSt?
The video that sparked the boom in personal support for the Occupy movement is when Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna pepper sprayed four women who were kettled (new term describing how netting is used to enclose people as a crowd control technique) and unarmed in the face. The brutality continued as NYPD told around 1000 demonstrators to get on to the Brooklyn Bridge where they then corralled and arrested over 700 of them. Now the papers and media outlets will say that the protestors overtook the bridge, people who were arrested, actually say something very different. Is it truly any wonder why NYPD is acting in the manner that they are? They are protecting that giant lump sum from their master, JP Morgan Chase.
The question remains, why other city police departments are acting as brutally, I suppose it has something to do with the fact that their donors are not out and public with the inordinate amounts of money they put into the police departments. In the city of St. Louis, the Bank of America was barricaded by the SWAT team to keep people from closing their accounts that day. Later on, about 20 demonstrators in NYC were locked in the Citi Bank they were closing their accounts at, arrested, while it took 8 male officers to arrest a single woman outside of the bank waiting to go in to do the same thing. All in all, it sounds to me like there is some serious concern about the "livelihood" of the monsters that orchestrated the financial collapse of 2008 that was brewing since the 80s.
The thought I would leave with anyone, is really what are the police protecting now? It definitely does not appear that they are treating people with the dignity and respect they took an oath to do. It definitely does not appear that everyone is being treated justly. It definitely does not appear that they are serving, nor protecting the very people the should be. If there were truly any violence coming from the protestors, the media would be right to call that incident a riot. There has been no such report. There is nothing to go on. No property damage has been reported from any of the Occupy movements around the country, but the only damage done seems to be at the hands of the police departments supposedly protecting the person's right to carry out their First Amendment right. The demonstrators keep peaceful, and simply chant "Shame!" and "The whole world is watching!" even as they see their fellow human being, friends, and loved ones being shamelessly beaten by the police. In the name of? Justice? Corporate welfare? Job creation?
Time to wake up America, definitely not the land of the free anymore.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Racially Divided...Still
An editorial commentator from the LA Times went on to provide well thought out argument that there is still a large disparity in regards to equity among races in the United States. The commentator was well researched and spoke to a largely overlooked point. Now since the LA Times is deemed as a "liberal" publication, the people who think racism is completely gone, will probably not lift the page.
Now to clarify, if someone states that racism does not exist, that speaks largely to their ignorance, or that in fact they are racist themselves.
The commentator focused on how GOP presidential candidate, (and opponent for President Obama in the upcoming election) Herman Cain, really failed to address the issue at large. They quoted Mr. Cain saying, "I don't believe that there is racism in this country that holds anybody back in a big way." However, towards the end of the article provided some statistics that could make jaws drop.
What the commentator did fail to mention is that assertions like Mr. Cain's come from a place of privilege. (Again showing ignorance or in fact that they themselves are racists, not to say that Mr. Cain is racist, merely privileged).
It is important to note that by and large racism still exists in the United States. Lynchings happened as late as 1983, and more notably, the cycle of poverty in low-income areas (aka-the inner-city that the white middle class vacated to move to the suburbs) is wildly perpetuated. The commentator did note that access to excellent elementary and high schools in these areas is few and far between for these kids. However, Jonathan Kozol (activist, researcher, academic, advocate), in his book Shame of the Nation, goes one further and steps inside of these low-income area schools for his research and turns out results that would make any well-intentioned parent gasp with dispair. Kozol notes that in these schools, children are not told to seek higher education, they are not told that they have resources available to them to get them out of poverty (scholarships to higher education, etc), but they are told to aspire to nothing more than a management position at a local chain restaurant/convenience store/fast food etc. Kozol also notes that schools are far more segregated now than they were in the 1960s, under the guise of "diversity." (How many white children attend those schools?)
Racism exists in the school districts, at the boards, and with the distribution of funds to these types of schools. To rebut Mr. Cain's assertion, there needs to be more scrutiny to what is being taught at low-income schools, so that children in the areas truly do have a level playing field. The commentator ended the article by a quote by Austin Nichols, "The playing field is still slanted," and it will remain so until people in their place of privilege, with their good intentions, and their ideas that racism does not exist, actually research and get upset at the fact that the United States does not practice the equality it preaches. The commentator did say that those individuals looking to sit in the Oval Office have to be cognizant of where opportunities truly lie in leveling the playing field.
Now to clarify, if someone states that racism does not exist, that speaks largely to their ignorance, or that in fact they are racist themselves.
The commentator focused on how GOP presidential candidate, (and opponent for President Obama in the upcoming election) Herman Cain, really failed to address the issue at large. They quoted Mr. Cain saying, "I don't believe that there is racism in this country that holds anybody back in a big way." However, towards the end of the article provided some statistics that could make jaws drop.
What the commentator did fail to mention is that assertions like Mr. Cain's come from a place of privilege. (Again showing ignorance or in fact that they themselves are racists, not to say that Mr. Cain is racist, merely privileged).
It is important to note that by and large racism still exists in the United States. Lynchings happened as late as 1983, and more notably, the cycle of poverty in low-income areas (aka-the inner-city that the white middle class vacated to move to the suburbs) is wildly perpetuated. The commentator did note that access to excellent elementary and high schools in these areas is few and far between for these kids. However, Jonathan Kozol (activist, researcher, academic, advocate), in his book Shame of the Nation, goes one further and steps inside of these low-income area schools for his research and turns out results that would make any well-intentioned parent gasp with dispair. Kozol notes that in these schools, children are not told to seek higher education, they are not told that they have resources available to them to get them out of poverty (scholarships to higher education, etc), but they are told to aspire to nothing more than a management position at a local chain restaurant/convenience store/fast food etc. Kozol also notes that schools are far more segregated now than they were in the 1960s, under the guise of "diversity." (How many white children attend those schools?)
Racism exists in the school districts, at the boards, and with the distribution of funds to these types of schools. To rebut Mr. Cain's assertion, there needs to be more scrutiny to what is being taught at low-income schools, so that children in the areas truly do have a level playing field. The commentator ended the article by a quote by Austin Nichols, "The playing field is still slanted," and it will remain so until people in their place of privilege, with their good intentions, and their ideas that racism does not exist, actually research and get upset at the fact that the United States does not practice the equality it preaches. The commentator did say that those individuals looking to sit in the Oval Office have to be cognizant of where opportunities truly lie in leveling the playing field.
Monday, October 10, 2011
No Reasons Given
All that the commentary gave for solutions, was that this is "no time for business as usual." In merely reporting on ways that Congress was gridlocked over raising the debt ceiling, and Standard & Poor's (S&P) analysts lowering the US credit rating (from AA+ to AAA), the Statesman commentator did very little to actually give opinion on how solutions could be derived for this crises of debt but merely shook a finger at the legislative branch for not playing nicely.
This article was really geared towards anyone who cares to read the editorials and has an inclining as to what is going on in the world of United States finance games. However, the main critique I can offer is that there was no critical thought put in on how there could be some resolve. Again commentary was relegated to "...we cannot afford politics as usual." This is all fine and well, but what remains clear in the eyes of most Americans who work very hard to be taxed 35% of their income, who can barely afford privatized health care, who can barely afford to feed themselves (let alone if they have children), who are swimming in student loan debt (if they decided to pursue higher education), and feel that they have absolutely no voice in the democratic process that the United States claims to be the champions of.
I would offer this simple analysis of the situation at hand, and how to resolve it. Get money out of politics. It is painfully obvious that the voices of the people are being by and large, stifled by the dollar signs of multi-national companies (excuse me, conglomerates) and banking lobbyists to push their agendas through the legislative branch. No wonder we are in the debacle we are in. Nothing is being done because it is convenient for these mega-corporations to get their agenda across (no taxing the rich please, but they will take tax subsidies with a side of immunity for the catastrophic downfall of the economy) when there is no regard whatsoever for the people who are working so very hard to make ends meet.
It was clear that President Obama truly did not have the interest of the people in mind when he made his appointments into his administration by picking purely Wall St. bred individuals with the bottom line in mind. Mr. Timothy Geitner, need I remind you, just got the largest, and possibly most underhanded promotion of his life. From Federal Reserve Branch President in NY to the Secretary of the Treasury, where Mr. Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has him in his right pocket. The central bank controls the inflation rate. "Oh we're in debt! Let's just print more money." While the conglomerates collect their tax subsidies, pillage the Earth for capital gain, and silence the voices that may have dissenting opinions with their lobbyists get to walk away quietly with their giant pay checks.
Lobbying is just a glorified word for bribery.
If the mafia pays off a senator, that would be seen as corrupt. So what is the difference in a giant corporation does the same? Corporate personhood allows for these inordinate sums of money to be donned to the politicians because they have "Corporate personhood," and are therefore protected under law and can donate under the guise of "free speech."
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that a corporation is a person until Rick Perry puts one on death row.
Complex problem, simple solution. Return the power back to the people. Remove the money from politics, and then maybe, just maybe the politicians will actually operate with the people in mind. Until then, we can watch the stock market yo-yo up and down, we can collect food stamps (but if you make a penny over the allotted mark you cannot qualify) which puts more pressure on the shrinking middle and expanding working classes (35% tax rate), continue to do what you are told (remember that everything is fine, you just need to shop more. Why are you reading this? You are wasting valuable shopping time!), and just continue to put false hope into a system that is continually failing the people with the faith that they might just decline that next donation from Lockheed-Martin or Exxon-Mobile and listen to what you actually have to say on the matter.
This article was really geared towards anyone who cares to read the editorials and has an inclining as to what is going on in the world of United States finance games. However, the main critique I can offer is that there was no critical thought put in on how there could be some resolve. Again commentary was relegated to "...we cannot afford politics as usual." This is all fine and well, but what remains clear in the eyes of most Americans who work very hard to be taxed 35% of their income, who can barely afford privatized health care, who can barely afford to feed themselves (let alone if they have children), who are swimming in student loan debt (if they decided to pursue higher education), and feel that they have absolutely no voice in the democratic process that the United States claims to be the champions of.
I would offer this simple analysis of the situation at hand, and how to resolve it. Get money out of politics. It is painfully obvious that the voices of the people are being by and large, stifled by the dollar signs of multi-national companies (excuse me, conglomerates) and banking lobbyists to push their agendas through the legislative branch. No wonder we are in the debacle we are in. Nothing is being done because it is convenient for these mega-corporations to get their agenda across (no taxing the rich please, but they will take tax subsidies with a side of immunity for the catastrophic downfall of the economy) when there is no regard whatsoever for the people who are working so very hard to make ends meet.
It was clear that President Obama truly did not have the interest of the people in mind when he made his appointments into his administration by picking purely Wall St. bred individuals with the bottom line in mind. Mr. Timothy Geitner, need I remind you, just got the largest, and possibly most underhanded promotion of his life. From Federal Reserve Branch President in NY to the Secretary of the Treasury, where Mr. Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has him in his right pocket. The central bank controls the inflation rate. "Oh we're in debt! Let's just print more money." While the conglomerates collect their tax subsidies, pillage the Earth for capital gain, and silence the voices that may have dissenting opinions with their lobbyists get to walk away quietly with their giant pay checks.
Lobbying is just a glorified word for bribery.
If the mafia pays off a senator, that would be seen as corrupt. So what is the difference in a giant corporation does the same? Corporate personhood allows for these inordinate sums of money to be donned to the politicians because they have "Corporate personhood," and are therefore protected under law and can donate under the guise of "free speech."
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that a corporation is a person until Rick Perry puts one on death row.
Complex problem, simple solution. Return the power back to the people. Remove the money from politics, and then maybe, just maybe the politicians will actually operate with the people in mind. Until then, we can watch the stock market yo-yo up and down, we can collect food stamps (but if you make a penny over the allotted mark you cannot qualify) which puts more pressure on the shrinking middle and expanding working classes (35% tax rate), continue to do what you are told (remember that everything is fine, you just need to shop more. Why are you reading this? You are wasting valuable shopping time!), and just continue to put false hope into a system that is continually failing the people with the faith that they might just decline that next donation from Lockheed-Martin or Exxon-Mobile and listen to what you actually have to say on the matter.
Shedding Light on an Important Subject
It is well known that the media in the United States, has just been sucked into the giant conglomerate corporations and for all intents and purposes "have an agenda to push." Now they serve both sides of the coin (conservative and liberal) so finding some decent coverage about the OccupyWallSt movement.
By and large, the mainstream media has done nothing to further the movement in educating the people as to what is actually happening in the government, and why people are out there in the first place. I have seen time and time again, the reporters finding the youngest looking, the most "crazy" looking, and the most "unintelligent" looking people of the lot to get a sound byte from them.
However, it seems that this article in POLITICO has managed to give OccupyDC the decent coverage the satellite movement deserves and actually does well to educate the readers as to why people are out there in the first place.
As part of the government course, it is supposed that we are learning about how government functions. Finding out why people are out there in the first place, will make you seriously rethink how things are actually run.
By and large, the mainstream media has done nothing to further the movement in educating the people as to what is actually happening in the government, and why people are out there in the first place. I have seen time and time again, the reporters finding the youngest looking, the most "crazy" looking, and the most "unintelligent" looking people of the lot to get a sound byte from them.
However, it seems that this article in POLITICO has managed to give OccupyDC the decent coverage the satellite movement deserves and actually does well to educate the readers as to why people are out there in the first place.
As part of the government course, it is supposed that we are learning about how government functions. Finding out why people are out there in the first place, will make you seriously rethink how things are actually run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)