Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Ezra Klein:

Over the past year, Republicans have learned something important about negotiating budget deals with Democrats: If you donít like their offer, just wait a couple of months.

See also The Madman Theory of Political Bargaining.

Open Thread.

< Latest DEA Statement on Marijuana Policy | NBA Players File Antitrust Suits Against NBA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But what has Ezra learned? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:19:03 AM EST
    That he's been as dumb as anyone the last few years?  That he's as green a broccoli?  Mea, where's the culpa?

    I never did take (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    Ezra seriously.

    I did (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    But that was prior to the official start of the Iraq War.  He sounded very intelligent, I was very scared, husband getting on the boat going after those WMDs.  It's my own fault.  I had no idea that he had no age on him though, that he was for lack of a better word, a kid.

    Sorry, but you must have lived in this scummy world for awhile before you can go out on huge limbs.


    Sweetie, Ezra's problem (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    wasn't/isn't that he was/is so very young and "wet behind the ears."  Ezra's problem was and is that he needs a clue.  I have a feeling that, if he's still around and writing long after my old bones have passed from this world, he still won't have a clue.  He's far too enamored of his own opinions, as is the case with many "opinionists" who are much older than he is.

    An even higher Broderism? (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:06:14 PM EST

    It isn't nice but when I see him (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:53:01 PM EST
    on the tube now a little voice in my head says, "Oh Goody, here comes blah blah.  Blah blah blah blaaaaah, blablah, blab blab blah.

    "Over the past year?" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:30:08 AM EST
    Really?  So, Ezra doesn't think the GOP might have noticed this earlier, say, when GWB was president, and on issue after issue, and in spite of majorities or near-majorities, Dems couldn't seem to help giving the Republican president pretty much what he wanted, when he wanted it?  Does Ezra not remember the sternly-worded letters, followed by the inevitable caving?

    Some days, I am just gobsmacked at the stuff Exra comes up with; I'd think someone who purports to be some kind of political maven would have better observational skills than the ones that too regularly appear in his columns.


    Yeah, it's like saying "over the past year, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by observed on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    I've noticed that Ezra doesn't have any clue about politics"

    Occupy Boston is still there (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by CST on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    and they are pre-emptively meeting the city in court this morning.

    "Fearing a New York-style eviction, protesters, the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts applied for a temporary restraining order and an injunction barring Boston police from moving against the protesters."

    "However, Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce told the Globe Tuesday that the city is monitoring Dewey Square on a daily basis, but has no current plans to shut the camp down."

    They shut down the second encampment in October.  But I think Menino really doesn't want to be associated with Bloomberg on this.

    this round goes to the protesters (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    "A Suffolk Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order this afternoon barring the city of Boston from evicting Occupy Boston protesters from their encampment in the downtown area."

    "McIntyre, who set a further hearing on a preliminary injunction for Dec. 1, also ordered the city and the protesters to enter mediation, though the city's attorneys initially balked at the idea."

    Meanwhile, Menino seems to take it personally.

    ""I don't understand why they'd be in court. But lawyers are lawyers, anything for publicity," he said. "Quite honestly, I think we've been pretty good with the Occupy Boston folks and the police department has shown a lot of restraint down there.""

    I dunno Menino, maybe it has something to do with this:

    "In court papers, lawyers said protesters feared the city would once again seek to force them out of their encampment during the night, citing an Oct. 10 raid in Boston where police arrested 141 people."



    Part of the script (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    ""I don't understand why they'd be in court. But lawyers are lawyers, anything for publicity," he said. "Quite honestly, I think we've been pretty good with the Occupy {insert city of choice here} folks and the police department has shown a lot of restraint down there.""

    The mediation proviso sounds good (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    At some point, OWS can strengthen its position by being seen as & being in a recognized mediation situation.  Also: It could be a model for other OWS groups around the country.

    The mediation status is important, I think, because it says to the public at large as well that the group (ergo, the movement) is to be taken seriously, and that the group has issues that are negotiable. That plays against the negative message conveyed in some media in the past week or so. (See PPP polling comments released today.  PPP, a fairly decent pollster, narrates that the message may be getting lost about OWS--in the recent media coverage about "safety" issues, drugs, other--and that the movement may have an opportunity at this crossroads to state again its message to the public.)


    Food note: Herring and beet (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by observed on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    is a fantastic combination. I would never have imagined it.

    You've apparently never known (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    any Russians or Scandinavians.    ;-)

    Or, I've only been drinking with them:) (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by observed on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    Na zdrovyeh! (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    And that's entirely possible, observed! (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:44:37 PM EST

    Nationally Coordinated Repress Campaign Fails (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    In New York [following co-ordinated attacks and beatings by armed riot gear clad NYPD officers] demonstrators have vowed to return to [Zuccotti] park as some attempted to occupy other public spaces nearby before being apprehended by police. New York Supreme Court Judge Lucy Billings signed a temporary order saying that the protestors were allowed to return to Zuccotti Park with their belongings, but the city and police did not initially appear to comply upon receiving word of the judge's decision.

    Thursday, November 17 is the Occupy movement's two-month anniversary, and protesters are calling for massive demonstrations on Wall Street and in other locations across the country.


    Federal financial fraud prosecutions: (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    See (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    And who said Obama wasn't accomplishing anything? ;-)

    Since 1999 (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    Wasn't that the year of Graham-Bliley?

    Why, yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    The Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act was indeed enacted November 12, 1999.  Signed into law by President Bill Clinton.  Imagine that!

    Oops! (none / 0) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:22 PM EST
    Forgot Leach.  The man signed it into law would prefer that people forget.

    The eviction of OWS (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    from Zuccotti Park has reinforced the determination of OWS protesters, and will serve to grow the movement and make it stronger than ever.

    The evictors must have read The Madman Theory of Political Bargaining, and are secretly on the side of OWS.

    I always suspected Bloomberg had a latent radical streak in him somewhere. ;-)

    NYPD isn't looking so good though... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    Grrrr... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:59:12 AM EST
    Like all bullies, the authorities are cowards.

    A middle of the night shock and awe raid with "hats and bats", ESU surrounding the park, and a cop chopper overhead...f8ckin' cowards.  

    Health hazard my arse...the air down there was a health hazard in 2001, the EPA called it safe.  Now they say there is a health hazard downtown...a bigger pile of bullsh*t is hard to find.


    The only health hazard there (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:04:13 AM EST
    is Obama, Bloomberg, and the other mayors across the country.

    Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admits Cities Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy Movement

    I wonder if they had a conference call with Obama and and were 'encouraged' to wipe out the Occupy Movement so he doesn't have to look it in the eye when he gets back from Australia.


    Any chance... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    Australia can divert him to the Hague?

    There's a littany of crimes against humanity to choose from ICC.

    Jackboot efforts are all this clown seems to be able to coordinate, marijuana raids and protest raids...anything that might help or serve the American people gets lost on the road to coordination.


    Court of Public Opinion (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    works too.

    In the category (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    "How stupid do they think we are" there is this entry:  Mayors deny colluding on 'Occupy' crackdowns.  It was just a "therapy session".

    I dunno -- doesn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    believing they were colluding make us wild-eyed conspiracy theorists?  Anti-conspiracist author Stephen King probably would not approve.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    believing their denial statement makes us wide-eyed fools.  And I should care what Stephen King thinks... why?

    Just having some fun with King (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    and the sort of narrow, fearful thinking that reflexively rejects conspiracy angles as irrational and unreasonable.  He was on MoJoe today promoting his latest book (11-22-63) which takes a firm anti-conspiracy pov vs the more reasonable Occam's razor approach.  This is the sort of muddled simplistic thinking that passes for sober wisdom in today's media.

    Don't you love (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    how those who can live their lives pretty much exempt from the vagaries of American society feel so free to pass judgement on the rest of us?  And on our perceptions and conclusions?

    And I was even thinking about picking a King book, too...


    I think what bothers me is that media (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    is reporting, in true stenographic fashion, that the eviction was all about health hazard and safety, without question - as if it were an incontrovertible fact.

    And if you want irony, go read Charlie Pierce:

    A couple of years back, this gentleman on the left [man with semi-automatic weapon slung over his shoulder] was spotted and photographed outside an appearance by the president of the United States at a rally in Phoenix. (And, as we all know, carrying guns to a political event in Arizona is a perfectly sane thing to do.) He was one of a dozen or so people who came out strapped in order to mingle with the crowd. (Not long before, a guy'd shown up packing at an Obama event in New Hampshire.) In Phoenix, a detective on duty said:

    "We're here to keep the peace.... If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time."

    That is how local law enforcement reacted to a man with a semi-automatic weapon in the middle of a political rally well within range of the president. He was not beaten with a truncheon. He was not pepper-sprayed. He was not taken by surprise by men in body-armor and whisked away. He was "monitored," at a decent distance, by a very polite detective.

    Good goddamn thing he wasn't sleeping in a park.



    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    Sleeping in parks in bad.

    It could crash the whole godd**m system.


    But sleeping in front of theater (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    is good.

    Being asleep at the wheel (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    in the oval office is apparently good too.

    If he was awake it would be a job to die for, I guess...

    The MIC has a rather sadistic way of firing spokesmodels who get out of line.


    erm... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    "is bad"

    As if you can't got to any of these cities... (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:43:29 AM EST
    ...and travel to certain neighborhoods and find plenty of people, children chief among them, living in obviously unsafe, unsanitary, neglected conditions.  And no one gives a hoot about that at City Hall like they do about this.  Lying like rugs, all of them.  

    Excellent point. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    You used the word (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    "stenographic."  When referring to the mainstream media, Anne, that is exactly the term that needs to be used, thank you.  The MSM hasn't had an original thought or truly hard-hitting investigative reporting in years.

    Anne (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    You argued in the past against my thoughts on why OWS would start to become less popular if they did not gain focus and do a few other things.

    As I predicted, their popularity is now dropping rapidly.

    As an OWS supporter, do you still believe that the movement is best served operating without more clearly delineated goals?

    Do are concerned about the drop in the movement's popularity?


    They polled... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    only resgistered voters...I'd surmise OWS has heavy support among those who don't waste their time voting, or taking part in polls for that matter.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    If you are eligible to vote and don't vote out of protest or laziness, I don't care what your opinion is anyway.



    Yet you use polls... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    to gauge public opinion?  In a country where only half the people bother voting?  Ok then.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Let me clarify:

    1. I only care about people who vote because those are the people the politicians listen to and that's how we get change on most of the issues we care about here.

    2. I don't care much about public opinion. I care about the voting public's opinion.

    3. Polls of registered voters and those likely to vote are what I tend to focus on.

    Perhaps I should have said the "voting public" to clarify.

    Fair enough... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    I tend to care more about what the public at large thinks...as for the voting public, of which I am a member, I'm starting to think we're a buncha freakin' morons...I mean look at what we have wrought the last 30 years...enemy of the state after enemy of the state after enemy of the state claiming a mandate from us.

    Our politicians haven't served us well generally (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    But I don't really blame them for that.  Our issue is the folks on the other side of the aisle who see everything we want as socialist or evil or what have you.

    As long as the two halves of the country are diametrically opposed on almost every issue, we'll never have the change that you'd probably like.

    Some view that as a curse.  I don't know if I do because I am a pessimist and if one half of the country is going to rule, I look at the worse case scenario of the conservatives running the show.

    If a moderate government is the downside of preventing the far right from running the country, I'll take that concession.


    But this government... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    is not moderate, even when the Dems had the presidency and the congress....it is extreme in it's economic policies favoring the 1%, extreme in it's over-criminalization and authoritarianism, extreme in it's foreign military adventures in invasion, occupation, and bombings.

    Our choice isn't between moderate and extreme, it's between extreme and batsh*t extreme...which is why people like OWS are trying to find another way to make change for the better outside of this two-party duopoly one could call oligarchy or fascism.

    So I couldn't care less what "registered voters" think about 'em, "registered voters" are a part of the problem.


    make that "registered" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    and too overwhelmed with their lives and all it's stresses to have the time, energy, or, inclination to educate themselves about how this country got to the point it's at now..

    But, the Obama Corp knew that going in; which is why, among other things, they felt confident in foisting those biz-as-usual shysters Summers, Geithner and co on us.  


    I disagree (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    Outside of the wars, from a decade to decade perspective, the government has been shifting left slightly on social issues and staying pretty close to the middle on economics issues and shifting right slightly on foreign policy issues.

    It all depends on your point of reference. In our hourly news cycle driven world, shifts left and right that seem momentous in the short term aren't very large in the long term.

    Shorter: an alien that came to the planet for the first time would likely struggle to see a practical distinction between Clinton and Bush on most issues.   That's not because Clinton was a righty.  It's really because most of the changes over the past 20-30 years have been on the fringes of the issues.

    Individual stuff like DOMA or defense spending, yeah. But overall, no.

    That doesn't mean we should disregard the short term stuff. I just don't think we have to paint the government as a bunch of socialist as the Tea Party would, or a bunch of corporate controlled, fascist shills as the far left would.

    We're a moderate country generally and our government reflects that.


    I don't think we're (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    so much moderate as we are misinformed and underinformed.

    Most of the "moderation" is explainable as a (relatively) sane, wait-until-we-get-more-info response, but the 'new' info is still coming from, imo, a very limited supply of stock formulations, recycled continually from the same sources (ie, the corporate-owned media, and conflict-of-interest-ridden experts.)  


    What about our record-setting... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    prison population is moderate?  Our over-criminalized society where there are literally too many federal crimes to count?  (Think about that, too many to even count!)  The exploding income inequality?

    Moderate?  C'mon man....


    I think by moderate (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    he means that a comforting (to some) number of people are sleep walking through all those developements.

    Good points (none / 0) (#90)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:06:18 PM EST
    Those things are not moderate.  But we are looking at literally thousands of different characteristics that make up a society and your view is going to depend a lot on your perspective.

    When it comes to religious freedoms, we are one of the most liberal countries in the world. Same with expression and protest (despite what we are seeing with ows). Etc.

    It all depends on where your baseline is.  If you are sitting in a smoke shop in Amsterdam about to head off to see your two gay best friends get married, then yeah. We are moderate.

    If you are a woman working in a sake bar in Japan and have to endure men disrespecting you because the laws are really sexist, then your perspective on whether america is progressive is probably different.

    We are noting the same issues and problems, but our baselines of what the average is differ.


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    I'm not trying to say we're the Great Satan, there are some human rights areas where we stack up well...maybe I just expect America to lead in all human rights areas...or at least not bring up the rear in any.  Especially in the area of the human right of dissent.  Or opportunity. Or justice.

    Slightly left shift.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Rojas on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    How do you explain an exponential increase in the prison population in the last three decades? Ya know that's a metric that was damn near flat lined for what 50 perhaps 75 years prior.
    Ain't been no leftward shift in my lifetime, no how, no way.

    well, anyone who breaks (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    the law is absolute, irredeemable, slime: anyone who watches the dozens of cop shows on tv knows that..

    The same way (none / 0) (#91)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    that you explain the dramatic and undeniable shift in the rights of the LGBT community over that same period and the serious strides made in the areas of gender equality, racial equality, etc.

    If there are literally millions of factors that go into what makes a country liberal or conservative, it's easy to pick out the ones that make your point.

    Hell, there is no other majority white major industrialized country on earth that has selected a person of african descent as their leader, or for that matter a non-white person.

    How much does that one fact count? A lot? A little? Impossible to say.  I think you have to take a huge step back (like to the moon) and look at where we are relative to the world and our population's beliefs.

    I think if you do that you come to the conclusion that we are pretty moderate.  If we include all of the countries in the world (including the Syrias and Irans and such) we're definitely progressive.  But that's not the standard I want us to hold ourselves to.


    Multiculturalism is not liberalism (none / 0) (#146)
    by Rojas on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:33:36 AM EST
    I understand some people use this metric but its false. Does retiring Boss Keen and replacing him with 25 Nurse Rachets advance the cause? Did seeing little Lindy on the top of the pile make that behavior less deviant?

    A moderate society does not lock up fully 1% of the adult population. By any measure that is a sick and reactionary society.


    I think it's a bit more complicated than that (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    Because the definition of "right/left/moderate" varies so much over time.  So yes, in some ways a president that came earlier will seem more conservative, because social values in particular have shifted left.

    But I don't think we can compare "moderate" over time, you have to compare it to what the current values of the country are.  In the 1700s "liberal" was someone who opposed slavery.

    What I'm getting at is the government isn't moderate if it doesn't change with social values.  Maintaining the status quo is shifting right.  And in some cases, the government shifting left slowly is really shifting right in comparison to where we are as a society.

    Finally, I wouldn't say we are a moderate country generally, I would say we are an ideologically segregated country - and that's what our government reflects.


    CST (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    I think the definitions point is a good and fair one. That makes it hard to characterize us as well.

    I completely agree with your last sentence. That's my point made better than I was making it.

    It's the reason to some degree that I think we will hover around a fairly centrist country until one party really screws up (which the GOP is aiming to do long term).  

    The sides are at a stalemate because of the population's numbers.

    But I am hopeful.  With the swell of the hispanic and AA communities in the south, the southern strategy is nearing its end.

    In 20 years it's a whole new ball game.  Unfortunate that it will take that long.


    ABG, I think it's pretty clear that the (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:21:58 PM EST
    politicians are NOT listening to the people who vote; on issue after issue, the people have said they supported any number of things, and the response from the politicians has been some version of "yeah, whatever - that won't work; now pardon me while I see what my corporate contributors want me to do."

    The truth is that you DO care about public opinion, especially when it supports some position you, yourself, hold; time after time, you come here armed with this poll or that poll, eager to show the assembled the proof that some opinion you expressed is ruling the day.

    And no matter how many times others tell you that they don't base their views on what others think, or how many times it's pointed out to you that the politicians are essentially ignoring the will of the people, you keep holding them up to prove your point.

    "Which way is the wind blowing today" is not how most of us operate, and I don't think you're going to have much success converting us.


    Well that's not entirely true (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:44:26 PM EST
    There is a big chunk of the country that likes the things that you hate.  Almost half of us want to cut the deficit despite the recession. Pluralities want to do plenty of things we progressives hate.

    I think it is a bit of an overreach to say the government is disregarding the wishes of the masses. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they are just paying attention to the voices who disagree with us.

    To some degree that is a problem with painting OWS as everyone against a tiny percent. On a lot of the issues it is not 1 v 99.  It's 50/50. Not all issues but more than your statement indicates.


    And (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:49:40 PM EST
    I think it is unfair to expect to have your views respected as independent thought while simultaneously giving those who oppose you no such respect.

    I respect the views of all here and think for the most part that they are valid in some way despite my disagreement.  Your tactic with me, and me only because I have become the resident moderate, is to place my opinions onto unthinking categories: the wall street shill, or the uncaring concession lover or the Obama robot.

    You may disagree with my points but your constant assertions that my views would be changed if only I listened, or if only I read what you read, etc. reflect someone an unfortunate tendency to use tactics that you hate to have used on you.

    I call you an Obama hater at times to provide you a window to my perspective. Someone whose views are constantly questioned as invalid because I don't adopt the required blood oath to deem Obama a failure.


    Finally (none / 0) (#117)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    Is your goal to try to convert me? Hope not. That is not my goal with you.

    I just come here to discuss issues and occasionally vent just like everyone else.


    ABG, my goal, when posting comments, (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    is to communicate my thoughts in as clear and unambiguous terms as possible; I think I do a pretty good job of that.  I try not to put words in other people's mouths, I don't backpedal, obfuscate, or change the terms of the discussion when things get tough.  I address what people have directed at me based on what they have written, not with an eye toward distorting what they've said so I can have the argument I want to have - and then "win."

    There isn't a soul here who doesn't know that Obama's your guy, and no one here is under any illusions about how I feel: I think he's one of the worst things to happen to the Democratic Party - which I understand you are not a member of - and I think he has been terrible for the country; in many ways, he has been worse than Bush.  Do I think the Republicans would be worse?  Of course.  But - and I know this makes you crazy - on issue after issue, take away the names and party affiliations to protect the guilty, and Obama's policies will ring the Republican/conservative bell every time.

    I have no interest in "converting" you; my interest is in keeping people honest, not allowing them to propagandize and get away with it.  It's bad enough that my government thinks I'm too stupid not to figure out what's going on, but I'm not going to tolerate that kind of dishonesty from people out here in the real world, I'm just not.

    Like I've said before, the rhetorical gymnastics you engage in here often lead me to think you don't even understand your own arguments, and since it's clear you are an intelligent person, there has to be some other reason why you are so often disingenuous and do not debate honestly.

    I just don't know how the political fortunes of someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about you could be that important.

    Now, I'll just stand by and wait for the inevitable response from you that bears no relationship to anything I have written here.


    I'll simply give to quotes from your own comment (none / 0) (#152)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:29:14 AM EST


    "I try not to put words in other people's mouths"


    "you are so often disingenuous and do not debate honestly."

    Your entire world view of me hinges on the fact that you believe everything I say has the goal of furthering or helping or whatever Obama.

    You can only come to that conclusion by taking your assumptions and putting them over my words and thoughts.

    Bottom line: you assume that every argument is tinged by a need to make Obama look good and convert everyone here to Obama lovers.

    I am telling you directly that that is not true and you have no standing to twist my words to fit your narrative.

    If you disregard my words and direct statement of intent, you are putting words into my mouth that aren't being said or implied.

    That's really it. Now if you won't respect that, I'll deliver back to you the same level of disrespect.  Really that simple.


    ABG, exactly who do you think (none / 0) (#153)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    you're kidding here?  

    How many comments have you made at TL where you have labored to convince us that Obama is doing the most fantastic job by a president ever?  How many times have you dragged Bill Clinton and his poll numbers out to prove that Obama's a better president than Bill was?  How many times have you come here with some pro-Obama argument that, when it is challenged, you shift because it isn't going your way?  How many threads have gone completely off the rails because you keep thinking you can okey-doke us into the argument you want to have, and others won't let you?

    That's what I mean by dishonest debate, ABG - it doesn't mean you tell lies, it means that when no one's buying your position, you manipulate and twist the clearly stated opinions of others to see if you can have the argument that will end the way you want it to - that's disingenuous and dishonest, ABG.  And, since it rarely works with anyone other than christine, you keep doing it.  

    I draw my conclusions from your own words, from the arguments you make - and I'm sorry if you don't like the way people react to your words, but that's all we have to go on.  Your words, your history.

    And, sadly, I am not the only one who often feels like you've just come from the latest meeting of OFA and are breathless to focus-group us to see how well, or if, the latest talking points are going to get any traction; I mean, where better to test out those arguments than with a group that isn't exactly waving the pom-poms for Obama or for Dems and the establishment in general?

    As for the whole respect/disrespect thing, come on, now - are you kidding me?  I respect your right to have whatever opinions you want, and I respect your right to discuss them here or anywhere you want - but respecting your right and agreeing with what you're saying are not the same thing.  

    Do what you want, ABG - but know that "she's picking on me" is not a winning argument in any venue that I'm aware of, and I don't imagine you're earning a lot of respect for what has become constant whining about it.


    You spend an inordinate amount (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    of time and effort defending yourself from others here.

    It must be them, right?


    Half truths are lies, ABG (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    And you've dealt enough of those in past comments.

    You neglected to mention that your link says the result was only 33% support for OWS, down 2% from the previous month. Which is less than the margin of error in these types of polls.

    You link also notes that..

    From the pollster's analysis:

    I don't think the bad poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with wealth inequality. Polling we did in some key swing states earlier this year found overwhelming support for raising taxes on people who make over $150,000 a year. In late September we found that 73% of voters supported the `Buffett rule' with only 16% opposed. And in October we found that Senators resistant to raising taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year could pay a price at the polls. I don't think any of that has changed- what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street's image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the `Occupy' than the `Wall Street.' The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message.

    "Voters are seeing the movement as more about the 'Occupy' than the 'Wall Street.', and the controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message".... because that is what the 1% through mainstream media is pumping into their brains, which explains the increase in opposed, while a decrease in support for OWS is virtually nonexistent, meaning the propaganda isn't working to decrease support.

    Do you actually work at being this transparent, ABG?

    Or is it that you just can't help it, and that you actually believe that people are as stupid as you believe people are?


    Dude (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    Stop trying so hard.  I gave you the link for anyone to go in and read the story. The only way to include every fact in the article would be to post the entire article. If your rule is that every reference to a link has to include every single point and position from that link, then  . . . well frankly you have a very stupid rule.

    Or maybe when you site a negative fact about an issue, you include every single contrary fact to refute your point in everything you post?

    (Answer: no)

    Now let's get to your wrong facts:

    You" "You neglected to mention that your link says the result was only 33% support for OWS, down 2% from the previous month."

    Let's give the full quote because you cut off a bit in your summary:

    "Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed."


    "asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40."

    That is the full picture and is completely consistent with my point.

    In your attempt to find some non-existant flaw in everything I say, you overreach as always.  And as  always I will clearly show that you are wrong.

    And I have no idea how stupid you are.  You tell me.


    My rule is that you stop (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    with the half truths and lies.

    That should be easy (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    because I am employing neither.

    Newsflash: The fact that Edger calls something a half truth or lie doesn't make it so.

    This is a silly back and forth that, again, has become about you taking out whatever frustrations you obviously have with Obama on me.  But have at it. Whatever turns you on.

    I'll just zing you back at will as always.


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    "because I am employing neither" is the best one yet ABG.

    Heh. You've outdone yourself.


    Edger (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    What do you expect me to say.

    "Yes Edger.  I am lying and not telling the truth exactly as you say."

    For real?

    I think I am being pretty straight forward. You don't and feel compelled to make the point no matter how basic or supportable my statements are. Why even engage me?

    Either drop the attacks so we can talk about the issues or just don't respond at all.

    I don't think anyone gets any benefit from two anonymous people who know nothing about each other going back and forth.  It's shameful that folks even have to scroll through this mess.


    You are pleading with me (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:36:32 PM EST
    to not call you on your lies, but instead just let them slide?

    Back on OWS Topic (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    Here is a good article out today that lays out what I have been saying for a month now and some of the criticisms of those positions:



    ABG, given the concerted effort on the (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    part of much of the media to only report on the Occupy movement in accordance with the establishment's goals and agenda, I think it is more important than ever to maintain a strong physical presence to avoid having the issues that brought people into the street swept back under the rug where the powers-that-be are most comfortable keeping them.

    If nothing else, it has gotten a lot of people talking, and engaging, and paying attention; it has shaken people out of the stupor they've been in, started people asking questions about everything from the economy to taxes to bailouts to accountability to the safety net to wars to the growing inequity between the rich and everyone else.

    Call me crazy, but those are good things to be taling about and asking questions about.  We should be asking questions, we should be refusing to be ignored, we should be demanding accountability.

    For reasons that will never make sense to me, you seem determined to pound a negative message about the Occupy movement - is it solely because it doesn't fit some establishment model?  Because the establishment model clearly isn't working for the vast majority of people.

    Yes, people should vote.  But those who derive the benefit of our votes should do us the courtesy of being responsive to the privilege of being elected, and you know, actually represent the people - not the corporations-as-people, but the regular human kind.  In my estimation, the people who are supposed to serve as the voice of the people are doing an execrable job at listening and acting as if they understand that.

    The people need a voice - and the Occupy movement is the closest thing the people have had to a real voice in more years than I can count.  And that's why there is such a concerted effort underway to stop it, to silence it, to demean it and undermine it: because the oligarchs feel threatened by it.

    I guess the question is, why are you so determined to undermine it, and force it to get in line, fit into the mold, align itself with a political party, before you deem it worthwhile?

    Or are you just frustrated because the movement has resisted hopping onto the Democratic bandwagon and you don't see any purpose for it if Obama can't co-opt it for votes?


    I wish I could rate (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:49:22 PM EST
    this 11.  Seriously.

    Anne and SJ (none / 0) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    There is a basic misunderstanding here so let me try to address your questions:

    I guess the question is, why are you so determined to undermine it, and force it to get in line, fit into the mold, align itself with a political party, before you deem it worthwhile?

    Answer: Your assumption is wrong.  I want OWS to succeed in its goals and I support generally what I think its goals are.  Not the "end capitalism" type stuff, but limiting the influence of big business in politics, directing bailouts to the people, etc. I agree with all of that.  My issue is that I just don't think their tactics are going to work.  I am not undermining.  I am wishing that they would adopt tactics that work.  Our disagreement is not over whether ows is right, our disagreement is that you think that the current strategy will pay off. I have always doubted that it would long term.

    "Or are you just frustrated because the movement has resisted hopping onto the Democratic bandwagon and you don't see any purpose for it if Obama can't co-opt it for votes?"

    Answer: As with most of my exchanges here, because I am a pretty serious Obama supporter, it is assumed that I have no level of independent thought and cannot form opinions around anything other than Obama. This is not true.  I cannot prove to you two that this is not true.  I have pointed to my opposition with Obama on (taking deep breath):

    Congressional Approval for Libyan Intervention
    Marijuana Prosecutions
    Israel Policy
    Environmental Concessions
    Slowness of judicial nominee appointments
    Concessions on other nominees
    Defense Budget
    FCC/Telecommunication Issues
    Failure to educate Americans on the EU debt crisis
    Focus on free trade agreements
    Lack of creativity in mortgage refinancing initiatives

    I could throw about 20 additional items on the list.  What you don't get is that I still think he's the cats meow (at least right now) because my list of positives is probably double the list above.

    But that doesn't mean I am a brainless android who can't evaluate issues. You don't seem to be able to accept the concept that someone could think Obama has done a fantastic job and still disagree with a whole lot of his policies and think that the country is really struggling.

    It's possible because here I am.  It's not my fault that you don't believe people like me exist. I am here to say that we do and we aren't idiots or ignorant as you imply.


    I don't have any questions to be addressed (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    Anne's comment says what it needs to say even if her use of "you" is viewed as rhetorical.  That it is in response to a comment of yours to start with is purely incidental.  

    With that in mind, I started reading this comment and then realized it was just another "poor misunderstood me" whine and so I stopped.  


    SJ (1.00 / 0) (#121)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:58:13 PM EST
    I am in a situation where someone who doesn't know me is claiming to know me better than I know myself.

    That takes big brass ones to do first of all and second of all I a, just addressing her attacks.

    Interestingly, nowhere in these comments am I aiming the same guns at her.

    You expect me to just take her judgement on my views as the final word?  That's unrealistic.


    Oh? (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:34:29 AM EST
    Were you talking to me?

    I think your identifying yourself as someone (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    who thinks Obama ia doing a fantastic job, but who disagrees with him on a whole lot of his policies, is a little like saying that someone is doing a fantastic job as a husband and father because he provides well for his family, while acknowledging that you don't agree with his policy of infidelity and spousal/child abuse: sometimes the good that people do does not balance or outweigh the bad.

    Sadly, I'm well aware that people like you exist, but I don't attribute your position to stupidity, idiocy or ignorance; I guess I would attribute it to your having such a need to defend Obama that you constantly move the goal posts, rationalize the concessions, change the analysis, flip and flop and do whatever you have to do to make sure Obama ends up on top of the issue.

    Getting back to Occupy, you keep expressing a desire for them to adopt tactics that work - so what are they?  You want them to use the Tea Party template?  The one where the movement is bankrolled by establishment interests, disguised to look populist?  

    Maybe that works with Republicans/conservatives, but I think it's clear that it doesn't work on the liberal side of the aisle.

    If Occupy were to color within the lines, as you seem to want them to do, I believe it would undermine their message and their mission, whether you want to believe that or not.  I believe that making demands, as some people think they must do, just confirms that the entity on whom demands are being made is the entity with all the power - the power to say "no."

    Will the current strategy pay off?  I don't know.  But I'm willing for the movement to decide when or if the strategy needs to change; for now, I am content, and even happy, that it is getting out a message, letting the powerless know that someone cares about their issues, that someone is willing to be their voice.  

    And the friction between the movement and the establishment is not a bad thing; there has been so much concession in the name of getting things done that has not served the interests of average people that I am not anxious for conciliation and mediation and cooperation to be the goal until it is clear that we're getting the lions' share of the concessions, and it isn't all in an effort to make people shut up and go away.

    The civil rights movement, women's suffrage, LGBT rights - these were not movements that made great strides by adopting the methods and fitting into the establishment model of how to effect change.

    I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.


    I think the organic nature is working (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    quite well for them right now. Their activities and messages grow and flow with events. Right now, we have coordination between OSF, OO, OCalBerkley regarding tuition hikes (yet again), costs and student loan issues re:banks. OCB has enough people to protect the encampment space and send hundreds in via buses (paid by local labor groups) to march in with OSF SF. I haven't figured out who has occupied BofA in SF at the moment :) In the past, OSF and OSJ have gone to OO to support efforts there. (TPTB must be hating public transport these days, lol!~)

    Should be interesting to see what happens when the Super Catfood weasles cut our "entitlements". . . . the groundwork to speak up has already been laid for the people . . . . around here, we have smaller occupations in many of the east, south and north bay area cities/towns.


    C'mon Anne (2.00 / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:55:56 PM EST
    You are making that judgement call for me. Who are you to judge how I weigh and balance Obama's positives and negatives?  Why is your judgement of my scale superior to my own.

    Is this mic on?  I can't be the only one who sees the unfairness in the way she views Obama's supporters.


    Um . . . I don't think your new constant (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    self pity party is really gonna fly. You have a, ahem, history . . . .

    The PPP results along with the timing of things (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    can be used by OWS to refine & clarify its message. The marches tomorrow may help with this natural turning point.

    Like you, ABG, I have been concerned that the time would come when the movement would need to move to the next step in messaging.  In our land of constantly moving "news," what is "news" one day can soon grow old...unfortunately, especially in cases like this where the powerful message about growing inequality via the almighty dollar(s) has been absorbed after being well-delivered as the 99% fighting to right that wrong and now....

    Riding the tiger can be next to impossible. Yet, OWS can move the 99% focus forward. Perhaps with a reform step or steps?  And: the Boston situation cited by CST offers some possibilities too...with the mediation avenue ordered by the court.  Could other OWS groups seek that kind of direct interaction/action/negotiation as a bridge to the next focus???  

    I want OWS, the underlying concerns expressed in that movement, to succeed in moving society to do better. It needs a disciplined focus on how to channel that movement into the changes that come through well-defined goals & strategies.


    Why does OWS need to institutionalize (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    and come up with some goals? They are powerless in the halls of power, they are unrepresented among the representatives.

    Why don't the 'leaders' do something to address the issues? this is about a representative form of government for the 1 percent... if the representatives know how to cater to THEM, then catering to the 99 percent is easy... do the opposite of what they have been doing.

    People have enough smarts to know that listing demands risks immediate marginalization. Openness and NOT stating demands changes the dynamic.


    Not a list of demands (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    I agree that listing demands & all that jazz doesn't tend to work.  But, I'm sure that you know that expecting a power elite/those that have in any society to "do something" doesn't get very far either. In this case, OWS--by its successful early stage of not just showing up, but gathering & growing with a message that most people understood & believed in their own way--has more potential than most demonstration. They have characterized the disillusion/disenchantment with the economic status quo...the 99% & 1% that everyone uses these days was crystallized & given voice by that movement.

    A friend and I talked about the inevitable "what next" question that could be seen coming several weeks ago. She had hoped that somehow the movement would naturally evolve without traditional moorings, dictates. Something along the lines of what you have mentioned, jeff. In fact, the movement has evolved. The matter of how best to realize what is sought hasn't gone away, tho...it grows. My belief is that someone needs to give voice to the next step, and that someone is not likely to be a deus ex machina. Without a sense of direction, IMO, the best intentions have a way of getting mired or appear to be mired...or, worse, turn in on themselves.

    The dilemma of emerging leadership...the whys & hows & wherefores...is not new in any movement or any society. This I know, the move toward a greater good calls for clearly defining the goal & setting out at least a step to get there. Not a list (turns most everyone off & gets stale quickly); but, a step as clearly articulated as the 99%. At this moment, OWS is in a unique position to do that if the movement can find a temporal spokesperson/spokespeople that can bridge the divide. From my pragmatic self: Formulating the intentions & a step or two that is necessary to get there keeps control of the message with a unfied voice to deliver it...thereby opening an avenue toward realization of that goal.  Noone will do it for them...here or anywhere else.


    I don't think it needs that at all (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    if the movement can find a temporal spokesperson/spokespeople that can bridge the divide
    Truthfully, while I rejoiced at the the notion of an uprising, at first I didn't see how it could be effective without that.  So I stayed in wait-and-see mode.  But as I've watched and pondered this, I don't see that a unified voice is necessary.  

    Not all occupiers will be invested in exactly the same things that "I" am.  In fact, maybe I'm the only one who gives a sh!t that it can cost a dollar a minute or more to accept a phone call from the incarcerated.*  By not centralizing "my" issues, I'm free to act on them independently or with other like-minded folks without being outvoted by those who have other serious concerns. "I" and like-minded friends can just show up and maybe even act up.

    Occupy has addressed the human need to have comadres and compadres in our actions.  Before, we looked to our neighbors or maybe one of two (only two!) political parties to make things happen.

    But here is part of the brilliance of what they have created.  The "tribe" they've created is the 99%.  One doesn't need to sign up.  Or change religions, political parties or fill out a change of address card.  There is an aegis that is bigger and yet, somehow, much more personal than all that.

    They don't need pre-approval to create the next Occupy site.  They just need to show up.  History is made by those who show up.  And they are showing up big-time.  Even if the media is desperately trying to minimize numbers, they are showing up. And popping up.

    It's a beautiful thing.  I could never have envisioned this.  Our youth are a wonder to me, and I have no doubt it will grow.  But clearly my vision was too narrow for the conception of this movement.  I won't impose that same narrow vision and have it limit it's future.  The kids are alright.  They are committed and they are brilliant.  They don't need to follow my playbook.  I fact, I think I'll follow theirs.

    * Actually, that's a real life example.  I don't have a family member incarcerated but I think that is outrageous in the truest sense of the word.  It is, however, difficult to bring prisoner's rights into a discussion without it going horribly wrong.


    Excellent points, sj (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:17:39 PM EST
    Truly, I've been more than pleasantly surprised (& hopeful) about the progress of OWS...to date. It may only be that my knees are growing weak as to the next step, but...its that old experience that keeps hitting me in the backside. It may not need to be solidly unified, that voice. It may be & should be capable of different tonalities.

    However varied its members are, the movement will benefit from an overarching next step. It may be that this is much larger than my own limited visualization...and, hey, I'd glady accept and welcome that. In the absence of that harmonic movement, for now, a driving next step or governing principle could help nurture through the winter.


    The winter is going to tough (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:32:31 PM EST
    that's for sure.  And the non-colluding mayors are going to work it to try to remove them.  OWS seems to be set or at least have a plan, though.  As the first, they have quite a large warchest for an ad hoc group.

    I'm thinking about what you said about the benefit of an over-arching next step and I just don't know.  That's strikes me as a Spanish Armada approach, and, while it could work, perhaps the Hydra approach could also accomplish a great deal.  

    Many small gatherings at events that have heretofore allowed to take place in rarefied circumstances away from the likes of us could also have effect.  

    Or maybe not even a gathering -- perhaps just an action.  Here I'm thinking about Makana (an artist new to me) and his gentle courage.

    But really, what do I know?  Only that our ways weren't working.


    Christinep (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    You made the point very well:

    "I want OWS, the underlying concerns expressed in that movement, to succeed in moving society to do better. It needs a disciplined focus on how to channel that movement into the changes that come through well-defined goals & strategies."

    We are in a new and fast moving age. If the OWS movement is confined to people in random public spaces and parks across the country in six months, then I think it will have failed. People will lose interest.  Ghaddafi was killed a month ago. Michael Jackson's doctor was convicted last week.  Now the nation is focused on abused children because of Penn State.

    Our culture is not designed to be moved by a protest movement lasting for months and months. The protests should be viewed as the first step with bigger economic and political action items being the next step.

    But that can't happen without leadership, spokespeople, delineated tasks/goals, etc.


    culture constantly changes. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    working within the model you suggest hasn't done anything but play to the power of the elites. This is different, as has been pointed out.

    People are ready for change, and people are tired of the circulation of entrenched folks from one organization co-opting the narrative to further their own goals.

    The movement is doing a lot already, with a bottom-up, completely volunteer approach.

    To demand it change and fit some corporate model for the sake of a spokesman? people can go online and find what they want to about it... why pander to television, when television isn't your friend?

    As to polls, see my multiple past posts offering scientific critique of polls as a measurement tool.


    The Occupy movement continues to (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    confound and annoy precisely because it is not invested in the current way of doing things. Business as usual no longer works. I hesitate to call this a paradigm shift, but, as the song goes, "Something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."

    This all brings to mind the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech movement. Perhaps the words the eloquent Mario Savio (an early hero of mine) spoke at Sproul Hall in December of 1964 are applicable to this time and these places.

    I refer, of course, to Savio's "Bodies Upon the Gears" speech.


    I wish that I could be so hopeful (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    about a purely democratic movement. I'd love it, but that is so hard to accomplish even in small groups & communities.  No, I don't seek nor demand a corporate model. What will be needed tho is a means/mechanism whereby OWS can communicate clearly to the average American. If the purpose in any way is to join together the 995, then somehow, someway the public has to be given an opportunity to be informed about purpose & direction. To not focus on the unification of the greater public would tend toward elitism, after all, and would be self-defeating. That is why I focus on something called "spokespeople." There are, of course, many avenues to communicate...but, without clear & effective communication to/with all the people, we may all find ourselves in tears in the aftermath of what-might-have-been.

    Yet...please know that I'd welcome any model that works.


    I almost think you're missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    OWS is it's "spokespeople", it's "message", it's "demands".

    I think the public "gets it" for the most part. We're living it. The local media here seems to have a pretty good handle on what the various/together actions of the Occupiers (in my neck of the woods) are communicating. It's really. not. that. hard.


    Except... (none / 0) (#151)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    At some point, there always comes the time to deal, to define and negotiate for what you want. Sometimes it is a successor group. No, I'm not missing your point...in fact, my point may supplement yours.  Think of India's march to freedom from British empire raj..at first formless, then given shape and definition via the expressed, articulated purpose of m. Gandhi. Forward to south africa...various outcries, etc. That took form and definition thru Mandela and the ANC.

    My view is that the two month anniversary must be a transition. Or else we may see people in encampments without movement...historically, a predecessor to nothing.
    Not wanting to belabor this, I am more optimistic this morning that a form of leadership will emerge from OWS because that is how the tide moves for successful protests.


    what's so important about two months? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    This is a widespread ground-up movement, and each segment of the movement had different motivations, goals, desires, needs, etc... the movement itself has called into question the pandering by Obama, the congress, and even the courts, in some cases, to the wealthy.

    The model is independent action by each separate enclave of occupy members, A movement doesn't need a spokesman to say 'do your job for the people.'

    Especially given the corporate news media, the corporate political structure, even the corporate brand of corporate governance.

    One doesn't need to become what one rallies against to either defeat or change what one rallies against.

    I think you misinterpret Ghandi and his actions. He was a charismatic leader, but he didn't want to maintain the government that existed.

    Occupy wants government to do what it is supposed to do, represent the people instead of the elites. It's not a revolution, which means overthrow... it's a lot of like-minded people who spontaneously have begun protesting for change, much like the folks who joined the Velvet Revolution looking for economic reforms... the movement was a grass roots movement, but was aided by the collapse of authoritarian rule in Poland and East Germany.

    Havel was in jail, and the movement took off. not to get Havel released, but to get the government to make changes.

    Remember, the country is not large... about the size of two South Carolinas... people had the same desires based on being in a similar situation.

    The US is huge, and the goals of occupy movements can and do differ from place to place. No one person can speak for the entire 'movement,' because it's a bunch of small movements that have been lumped together by the media. The common threads are there, but it is not a case of everyone having the same, or even similar agendas of how to get decent governance and a representative republic.

    It's about social justice, and everyone has a different view of what that means.


    That is the gist of it, jeff, in that (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    the US is large, diverse, & somewhat complex.
    That is why finding the unifying step at each stage can be so challenging...and that is why that challenge is so important to the movement if it is to be more than a series of encampments (remarkably compelling thus far) come spring/summer.

    We all transform at times to get to the goals; successful movements do too. Movements ultimately need to represent the majority in voicing their concerns as they transform.  That is really my point. Not where we have been; we we would go.


    A bit more (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    After eating comforting soup, I've been thinking about whether my rants on leaders/spokespeople here stem from my personal history of strategic planning stints.  Probably...the focus on goals and tactics or actions necessary to get there.

    Your comments, Jeff, are clearly thought through. My position is in formation...but heavily influenced by a perception that almost all successful movements go thru growth phases (See S. Alinsky analysis) from which a form of leadership emerges in line with the group.  While the notion of a headless or anonymous movement can be hypnotic and desirable, my skepticism about the ability to maintain that is high.

    Again, I wish for OWS to succeed in a way not thought possible by the so-called cognoscenti.  My fear is that the formless image...which can be frightening to the public who must grow in support if effect is to be long-lasting...could detract from the initially very effective message.


    What's so magical about two months? (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    Did those protesting for women's suffrage use the two month mark to make a transition?  Did the Labor movement?  Or Civil Rights?

    I think you can calm down, Christine.  This is a bit of unnecessary hand wringing IMO.  You really need to get over your demand for leadership to emerge.  You're correct to use the word "belabor".


    Understood (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    But, a clarification:  No demand at all for emerging leadership...merely a conviction that successful movements evolve with a form of leadership to guide toward an articulated goal. I believe that will happen.  (yes, I was wringing the hands last night...and, thanks for the calming message.)

    Does the head of the fish rot first? (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    Obscure. (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:28:33 PM EST
    Link (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:24:03 AM EST
    I've often wondered what the cops would do if (none / 0) (#55)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    someone attended an OWS rally somewhere, packing (legally).

    You have to (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    even ask?  It wouldn't end well.

    The chosen time I'm certain (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:45:13 AM EST
    was based on their consultation with the FBI.  It isn't a fluke that U.S. forces kick in doors in between 12 and 4 a.m.  It is when most people's physiology shuts down and required time to reboot is needed to be fully functioning and awake again, unless of course they have had some reason to be wide awake and stimulated.

    Also, the media is asleep too (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    I think Berkely gets shutdown tonight (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:36:03 PM EST
    judging by what their spokesperson said. If not tonight, it will def be at night when they decide to do it. One student said she just hoped they didn't hit her in the same place this time as she's still sore from the other night . . . .

    How is Berkley doing this morning? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:02:04 AM EST
    I would never attempt to shutdown a Berkley protest of this caliber.  You would have to be nuts.  Did everyone in a leadership position just flat out miss the 60's?

    Oops, no coffee I meant to say (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:29:02 AM EST
    how is Berkeley doing? Obviously I did not attend Berkeley.

    I obviously didn't either! (none / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    one of my good friends did though. She studied engineering while I majored in pencil and paint elsewhere :D ::sigh:: those were fun years . . . .

    word on OCB is "they'll be back", as with all the other dismantled camps. Seems our former Gov is being echoed a lot these days . . .


    There is a diary up at DKos about Berkeley (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    They triumphed

    Right now they (OCB) are using books (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    instead of tents in the plaza. The books are being spread around and set up to represent tents. Then they'll decide if they are going to put the other tents back up.

    I'm thinking OSF gets taken down tonight. they received their "3rd and final" warning . . .  


    Like I said... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    cowards...I'm surprised the yellow-belly bastards left the flash grenades at the precint.

    Can't face the hippie hordes at high-noon...no ma'am.  That would be too close to something resembling a fair fight.

    They even locked up reporters and kept legal observers at bay...cowards on steroids.


    Dog, you are (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    on fire today, my brother!  Kudos!

    Not hippies according to one (none / 0) (#31)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    Donnie Deutsch (or was it Mike Bonnicle?) who describes the Occupy protesters as "lily white people straight out of a Gap ad."

    Where'd you see Donnie Deutch? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    He used to be a regular on CNBC.  Either he stopped appearing or I stopped watching.

    land of the free and the home of the brave? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    Francis Scott Key was a good satirist, eh?

    The brave had a home... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    it just got pillaged and plundered by the NYSE Private Security Force, formerly known as the NYPD.

    If nothing else (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    This helps explain why so many suspects mysteriously die "while in captivity."

    When you treat average citizens like they are targets of Seal Team #6, the results shouldn't be a mystery.


    Shorter Gephardt: Obama Can't Bargain with GOP (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    This line from Gephardt is hysterical.  Basically, he admits Obama can never get in a room and bargain with the GOP because  the Republicans will reject anything Obama proposes, and when that happens, WHAT CAN OBAMA DO ABOUT IT?  The impotent presidency indeed.


    "At the same time, several Democrats said, any greater involvement by Obama at this stage could have a toxic effect as Democrats and Republicans try to find middle ground. If the president were more deeply engaged, it could force Republicans into a reactionary role.

    "He doesn't want to do anything that would detract from getting the votes," former House minority leader Dick Gephardt, a Democrat, said."

    Hahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    Yes, I'm sure that Obama is sitting in the Oval Office, wringing his hands and lamenting "But what can I do?  What can I do-o-o-o-o?"  Poor man, his hands are tied, I'm weeping for him.  (/snark)

    Those were wonderful times (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    weren't they, when we had Gepsofdt and Tender Tom Daschle as our congressional leaders.  

    Although she isn't perfect, we really upgraded when Pelosi was in charge.


    I'm sorry, Brodie (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:24:19 PM EST
    Did you happen to catch 60 minutes this past Sunday? The subject was "insider trading" by members of Congress.

    Nancy Pelosi, decked out in a $3000 gown, on her way to some gala, stopped to take some questions. Steve Kroft asked her if she saw anything wrong with voting on a bill that gave some industry preferential treatment, and resulting with the stocks in that industry shooting up the next day, while just prior to Pelosi voting she loaded up with several hundred thousand shares of those stocks and making an overnight killing of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

    I don't have to tell you what her response was.

    Pelosi isn't the answer, nor are the democrats.

    what the OWS folks are trying to get out. But with all the media being owned by the 1% Corporatists,  it shouldn't surprise anyone that the people get fooled regarding the issues.

    Need an example of buying into their self-serving garbage and being made a fool of? See any post......ABG


    Much criticism of the Occupy (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    movement has been the need for a "message" or for specific demands.   However, in my view, articulation of such a message or specific demands is what is  dreaded.  The initial phase of Occupy has been deliberately broad and, hence, broad-based.  The next phase would be specific demands.

    Accordingly, efforts are needed by the one percenters and their political pawns to end, or at least, marginalize the movement before that happens. For example, a tremendous amount of planning and effort has gone into schemes for cutting social safety nets. Of course, this has been the objective of Republicans for decades, and, now the Democrats have clambered onto the Republican dream--what was once thought the third-rail of politics, all with the leadership of Obama.   It has not been easy: Peterson Foundation influence, Cat Food I (appointed by Obama after a failed legislative effort), deficit reduction mania, and Cat Food II (aka Super Committee). Now on the brink of " success" the Obama administration and Democratic legislators cannot risk being undermined by a specific demand by a popular movement that is not within their control.

    The Super Committee recommendations are likely to codify all the generalized protests of the Occupy movement, and these recommendations are to be voted on by the end of the year.  Time is of the essence--to discredit and disband Occupy.


    Yes, that "where's the message?" (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    from media drives me nuts.  Saw that at the top of an editorial in a newspaper -- right next to art covering half a page, a composite of signs from the Occupy march a few days before in the town.  I wanted to write to the editorial writer to say:  Just read the signs.  The message is clear.

    The criticism is really that Occupiers are supposed to propose legislation already drafted, I read.  Nonsense; the reply is "that's what we elect politicians to do and pay their staffs to do."  

    Here's one message:  Tax the rich more.  How much more?  Figure it out, pols.  You've got the data, the staff, the job to do what is needed to be done.  The 99% is busy struggling to get work to pay taxes to pay you, your staffs, etc.


    that hits the nail on the head. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    I'll second that! (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    The reason they won't be pinned down to their "demand," or "demands," is because their goal is nothing short of a second revolutionary war. Cancer isn't eliminated in a patient by cutting out a few sections of diseased tissue. It has to be extracted 100%

    And, my dear friends, no rational person can look at our society today, observe the corruption which has reached into the furthest corners of our system, witness the complete victory of unbridled greed, and find anything worth saving.

    I believe the OWS people think of themselves as the kindling for a mass Public expression indicating the we understand these facts. And then, letting Nature take its course.

    I, further believe, the government rulers understand that also. And that's why they're responding with the military tactics we're seeing on tv nightly. This is the first time the entire conspiracy of hostage takers (our government & the elites.....the Oligarchy) have been challenged.

    They have to snuff it out now.

    We'll find out soon enough what the "American People" are made of.,


    Demonstrations are ok in countries (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by observed on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 01:22:51 AM EST
    which need democracy. In a country such as ours which is already a mature, functioning democracy, too many demonstrations can lead to civil unrest, and are counter to the true spirt of  represenative government. Therefore, polie action is appropriate.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:16:17 AM EST

    LOL! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    Exactly right, Shooter.  None of their hands are clean.

    Too Funny.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    ... and damn ballsy.

    There may be difficulties on the domestic front, (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:46:14 AM EST
    but let's not ovelook successes in our foreign affairs.  Libya's oil flow is surging back. The war left the oil fields and facilities in decent shape.  The general manager of the National Oil Company reported that local employees of Haliburton, Baker Hughes and other foreign companies were able to do the bulk of the needed repairs so far.

    Foreign oil giants, including Marathon and Hess,  want to be in Libya on profitable terms and are angling to set up shop.  Apparently, there is new hope since Qaddifi was a bane to many foreign firms having granted foreign drilling rights on small patches of fields and made them sign agreements that gave the regime most of the profits and left them with most of the bills.  Perhaps the new leaders, who no doubt find the Sahara to be hot, will not be that willing to cool down in a mall meat locker.

    And Exxon-Mobil... (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by desertswine on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    just signed a big oil deal with the Kurds. Trouble with the Iraqis? Who cares.

    Plus Obama and Australian PM (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    are in agreement re U.S. troops to be based in Australia.  

    Wonderful (NOT) (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:38:29 PM EST
    more US troops based on foreign soil.  Just what we need to strengthen the nation (snark).

    And, some US troops will (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    remain as military trainers on 10 bases in Iraq even after an end-of-the year deadline for all American troops to be out of the country, according to testimony of General Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a senate committee meeting yesterday.  The general did not provide a number, but a military official later said that it would not be more than 200. The trainers are expected to stay, largely, on the bases where they will instruct on the use of American-made tanks and F-16s.  Have not heard much about those troops sent to Uganda to fight the Lord's Resistance, but it is probably going well.

    Lucky troops (none / 0) (#124)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    as it's a lovely land, with lovely people.

    And it's warm.  This could be a recruitment ploy for more signups from northern states here.


    Career Opportunities Are Ones That Never Knock (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:35:42 PM EST

    "Britain's young unemployed are being sent to work for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months for no pay and no guarantee of a job, the Guardian can reveal."

    Career opportunities are the ones that never knock
    Every job they offer you is to keep you out the dock
    Career opportunity, the ones that never knock

    WTF? (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    I can see making somebody work for their dole cleaning a park or another public service, but working at the supermarket?  That's seriously f8cked up, and a great deal for the supermarket.

    Reminds me of how we subsidize Walmart when their employees are paid so poorly they qualify for food stamps...but at least their paycheck says Walmart and not US Treasury...UK gone taken it to a whole 'nother corporatocracy level.


    Sure (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    Britain's Conservative Party is in charge.

    Why is anyone surprised?

    Business gets free labor, a Conservative (and Republican) wet dream.


    What's next... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    return to the fuedal system?  Prima Nocta rights for nobles?

    Where have ya gone Age of Enlightenment?


    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    you nailed it kdog.

    Just where we're headed.


    States have been doing this here (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    for years.  An early example was W-2 under Tommy Thompson (for a google term to use) as a governor, who then got rewarded for it with a cabinet position to push the plan in other states.  It puts people on welfare to go to work, but not on public relief as in the New Deal.  They're put to work for the private sector.

    Forgive me if my memory (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    is not working as well as it used to, but wasn't there some talk awhile back about this on the federal level?  I mean, putting people to "work" who were receiving unemployment compensation, while they were receiving this, so that they could supposedly get "training" without costing the companies anything in salaries, with the idea that the companies might eventually hire them.  I seem to remember talk about this, and I also seem to remember thinking "Well, why would the companies hire them after their term was up, when they could simply get more free labor?"

    Oh, yes (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    I saw that, too, and not long ago.

    I shuddered.  I have read of the results in states that did this.  Workers' "training" was not training them for much of anything, and for very low pay, but at least companies didn't pay a thing.  And then didn't hire a one of them.


    Thank you, Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:10:43 PM EST
    I was starting to wonder if my memory was playing tricks on me.  Yes, this type of thing is yet another gift to the employers, at the expense of the workers.  When will we ever learn?

    I think Georgia was the most (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:15:20 PM EST
    prominent recent example. ga6thdem was talking about it here.

    Yes, it is Georgia. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    Georgia's program is not successful, at least not if the goal is to get people into full-time jobs. Companies use the free labor, but almost never does that result in employment. And this, the Georgia program, is the one cited by Obama as the great success he wants other states to adopt.

    So very not surprising.


    Holey moley (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    That is some seriously messed up sh!t.  

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#49)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:39:29 PM EST

    Jeralyn, there is a SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#110)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:35:26 PM EST
    who goes by the name of Annuaire Referencement gratuit. This spammer has hit several old posts.