Occupy times square

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Personally I think the 'occupy' brigade is now a spent force. We have a bunch of tents occupying part of the town square in Norwich. Most of the time there is no one in them and all the time everyone simply ignores them.

Cheers

Ian
 
Both liberals and conservatives really need to look at Ron Paul and give him a vote! The more I listen to his speeches, read about his life and his voting record, the more I've got to say he is THE MAN! If you want to make a big deal about the newsletter fiasco, fair enough....

...but I do believe he does have a real shot at taking the nomination. To a lot of Republican friends of mine it's sacrilege. But then quite a few of them are now actually behind him. For the first time, I am really excited about a candidate.

He's been warning about the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, an overzealous liberty-trouncing overspending government for years. The media has tried to shut him out, but he has got such a strong following that it's becoming impossible to ignore. Geesh, even FOX is starting to say good things about him.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1384564404001/
 
I am very sympathetic to the libertarian philosophy but I have been watching Ron Paul for years and he doesn't strike me as someone serious about change.  More like a cross between a court jester and bomb thrower (I really don't want to be guilty of the all too common political ad hominum, but I guess I am a little angry about how little RP has accomplished for all his awareness of government problems).

Ron Paul has been in congress for years and AFAIK does not have one piece of successful legislation. His son in the senate seems more productive.

Even if RP was magically elected to President he could not change the huge bureaucracy by simply wanting to. his inability to accomplish anything from inside the house, leads me to suspect he will be somewhat ineffective in leading them from outside.

Your republican friends are concerned about the typical 3rd party candidate spoiler (like Ross Perot) where a far right candidate poaches conservative votes from the center right candidate who needs to win the centrist independent swing voters. RP has refused to say he will not run as an independent, if he loses in the primary as most predict. I see it as coming down to is he willing to give up his comfortable seat in congress. if he breaks from the republican party and runs as an independent for the whole shebang, he is very likely to end up unemployed. 

Right now it is a little disconcerting to watch the attacks at who looks to me like the most electable candidate. As often happens the calculus can come down to choosing between lesser evils. The cream of the generation do not run for political office. 

I am encouraged that RP is drawing more young people into politics, this is always a good thing. I fear his simple answers are a little too simple to ever work but it is worthwhile looking at the general philosophy he espouses. The vast majority of it is sound. I am more concerned about his recent negative attack advertising than his old newsletter issues which are ancient history. While history is our best indicator for future behavior, so instead study his legislative record. Lots of arm waving, little(no?) real reform. About the only thing I give him partial credit for is closer inspection of the FED, but this is a double edged sword as increased legislative influence over the FED, can lead to more bad policy (like fannie and freddie in response to legislative pressure to increase home ownership). letting the fox guard the chicken coop never ends well. 

but opinions vary, that's why we hold a vote.

May the best man win...

JR
 
Good evening.
I have no idea why I started reading this thread? I only logged onto the forum through idleness while visiting a friend who posts on here.  Also, my response is somewhat off topic.  Nevertheless, please take my response to a small snippet that caught my eye as you wish:

living sounds said:
Guantanamo is still open

I'm afraid it will take a lot more than closing Guantanimo to stop the kinds of atrocities that were briefly reported by the media a couple of years ago but yet still happen today.

On reading the thoughts of many people - the ones who actually care about such things anyway - it seems clear to me that, when it comes to respecting the human rights of foreign-national detainees, many Americans are under the impression that Guantanamo Bay a single dirty blotch on their copybook.

I can tell you that the exact same dispicable acts we all read and saw pictures of, still happen every single day.  On American soil. 
In no uncertain terms is this utterly barbaric behaviour restricted to some remote Cuban outpost.

I've seen it first-hand. I've witnessed things I never want to see again.  Even in the movies.    And since I was also a victim, albeit to a lesser extent than some poor souls, I will live with the damage done in the name of the Good American people for the rest of my life. 

This is not the place for details.  I'm also not inclined to stir up my own, now very deep-seated, feelings of hatred towards the perpetrators!  Maybe even this reply is missplaced?  However, I still hope that a few more Good Americans wake up.  And soon.
You can't continue this afront on the dignity and humanity of your foreign nationals without creating more "Enemies of the State".   
While history may or may not teach us anything, I do think it repeats itself: 
Empires fall, sooner or later...
Peace.
 
Not 5 minutes after I logged off, one of the main evening news broadcasts in the UK plays a video of a group of American soldiers laughing as they communally piss on the corpses of a few dead Libyans.  While certainly not the worse crime of the last few years, I am saddened in my belief that it is indicative of the contempt that is encouraged towards foreigners. 

I'll go now.
 
Winston O'Boogie said:
Not 5 minutes after I logged off, one of the main evening news broadcasts in the UK plays a video of a group of American soldiers laughing as they communally piss on the corpses of a few dead Libyans.  While certainly not the worse crime of the last few years, I am saddened in my belief that it is indicative of the contempt that is encouraged towards foreigners. 

I'll go now.


I am sorry you have had a bad life experience.

Libya was a NATO operation and supposedly there were no American boots on the ground. Of course TV never lies, nor do presidents.  ::)  I haven't seen the report of heard anything like that. .
====

Doing a little google research, it appears there is a video circulating of 4 marines in Afghanistan urinating on 3 dead Taliban...(different war) . This has been condemned by US officials and the Marines are investigating. On reflection it seems that killing them was the greater insult, but there are rules about even this.  This feels like another abu grave magnitude PR event, and FUBAR. The arab street will not like this. Those soldiers would have done far less damage shooting each other and several of their friends. (like maybe the one taking the pictures).

This is a clear violation of UCMJ and Geneva conventions so they will be punished assuming this is as it appears.. Not quite the same as beheading, but wrong.

JR

PS: its hard work being apologist for the entire nation, but that's what I get for speaking out. I'm sorry. 
 
Ron Paul was exposed as controlled opposition a long time ago. As the saying goes, "If you don't want competition, be the competition"

Welcome to the fantasy movie.....in which you all so wish to be apart of....

Do me a favour....

Look after your family and loved ones....that's all.

Oh, and throw that Tell-a-vision in the nearest skip and stop following the news(North, East, West, South), it's useless and irrelevant....like the people who watch it...

The only news you need to hear is that which effects your own life.

Be good.

:)
 
John,
thanks for the response.  I was in two minds as to whether I should delete what I wrote but saw you reply so I'll leave it.
JohnRoberts said:
...a video circulating of 4 marines in Afghanistan urinating on 3 dead Taliban...(different war) .

You are correct, I was wrong.  Libya came out because I also had also just watched another report regarding that country.

Having lived half my life in the U.S. and half in the U.K. (where I live currently),  I have to say that I trust what I see on the U.K. network news a whole lot more than I ever did the U.S. media.  More importantly (to me anyway)  is that these stories appear on our screens in the first place.  Of course, the U.K. is complicit and guilty of attrocities too and it is doubtful the British peoples hear the half of it. 

You do not have to apologise for the actions of your country.  I really don't know you other than what I've casually read of your replies here but I would say you are a Good American.  Your opinions are formed from individual thoughts and education.  Individual politics has no part in it. 

I spoke with my Dad after he had watched the pissing video.  He is old enough to have survived the 2nd World War.  With tears he said "War is not a game". 

Amen.



 
Winston O'Boogie said:
John,
thanks for the response.  I was in two minds as to whether I should delete what I wrote but saw you reply so I'll leave it.
JohnRoberts said:
...a video circulating of 4 marines in Afghanistan urinating on 3 dead Taliban...(different war) .

You are correct, I was wrong.  Libya came out because I also had also just watched another report regarding that country.

Having lived half my life in the U.S. and half in the U.K. (where I live currently),  I have to say that I trust what I see on the U.K. network news a whole lot more than I ever did the U.S. media.  More importantly (to me anyway)  is that these stories appear on our screens in the first place.  Of course, the U.K. is complicit and guilty of attrocities too and it is doubtful the British peoples hear the half of it. 
War is hell, and this is fairly minor on the grand scale of atrocities, (I still think the bullets were the worse insult) but this cellphone video hands a PR windfall to all of our detractors, to flog us with. But as a free and open society our dirty laundry will get aired out for worse and worse. 
You do not have to apologise for the actions of your country.  I really don't know you other than what I've casually read of your replies here but I would say you are a Good American.  Your opinions are formed from individual thoughts and education.  Individual politics has no part in it. 
I'm not sure it works both ways. Either we have an isolated incident where 4 marines in a moment of incredibly bad judgement made complete asses of themselves, or this is a behavior and philosophy common to all Americans. I have served in the US military (drafted in 1970, for yet another war), and understand that the military is peopled with individuals. Just like any large organization. I didn't personally see any atrocities but I saw plenty examples of dumb asses acting dumb.     
I spoke with my Dad after he had watched the pissing video.  He is old enough to have survived the 2nd World War.  With tears he said "War is not a game". 

Amen.

Indeed it is not a game, and neither were the several wars and conflicts since WWII (the war to end all wars). At least back in the good old wars, it was easier to tell who the sides were. The reason there is a Guantanamo is because their countries don't want to take these enemy combatants back. It would be far neater to just kill everybody and take no prisoners, but that is not an option for civilized people.

The Taliban spokesman has already announced that this will not interfere with the prisoner exchange/ peace talks. Coincidentally they are getting some gitmo residents back in that trade. I expect they will be back in the saddle soon enough doing what comes naturally. A number those former resident released from Gitmo in the past have been recaptured or killed in the fight.

There is some truly bad sh__ that goes on in the world, lets not blow this up out of proportion...  For a video centric modern culture this is hot at the moment. It too will pass.

JR

 
swerving slightly towards topic...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13/wall-street-s-justice-is-a-kangaroo-court-commentary-by-william-d-cohan.html

 
Thanks for the almost un-veer... this thread had become pretty unpleasant, not that it ever was wine and roses.

I have far bigger concerns about the large investment banks than some distortions in the arbitration process. Arbitration just like anything else need to be equitable.  No doubt the lawyers don't care for it even when it is.

My concern about the large investment banks, was that they participated in the government plan to rescue the banking system by allowing the big investment banks to purchase large consumer banks. This gave them access to the interbank overnight windows, where they can borrow money for (pretty much) nothing, and lend it out for something, or invest it, Think guaranteed free profit, used to pump up bank balance sheets. But this is ultimately zero sum, so this free borrowing comes from someone else's pocket (tax payers and property owners via inflation). For now we are still dealing with deflationary pressure from the really large housing bubble, but this is still causing economic distortion. On balance I prefer our stronger recapitalized banks over Europe's, but there is a cost for this shift of capital. 

Then Dodd-frank generated a bunch of new rules to try to manage these new (bigger) banking monsters that they created... There is no fix for too big to fail. Government and regulators are certainly not smart enough.  The only solution for too big to fail, is to break up the too big institutions to make them smaller and less risky to the system... Simple, in concept, but they have their crony capitalistic hooks into the politicians too deep for this to ever happen with the present crew. This may be another lifetime employment act for regulators, but is is simply bad judgement and bad governance in my opinion.

Of course opinions vary...

JR

PS: Right now there is bunch of populist noise about the Solydra executives wanting bonuses, but this horse has pretty much left the barn already and that is small change. The more important news about Solydra (IMO) that probably isn't getting near as much airtime, is how the government suppressed news about layoffs, they knew about ten days before the 2010 elections. That seems like a little fact that voters might want to know about, before the elections.  This new open and accountable administration seems like neither, while I expect opinions vary. .



 
JohnRoberts said:
...
Simple, in concept, but they have their crony capitalistic hooks into the politicians too deep for this to ever happen with the present crew.
...


Well, that's exactly it. It all really depends on the people running the show, which is why I'm a bit puzzled by all the debates about which system or political orientation is better or more effective than the other. I'm of the opinion that most systems could probably be made to work, if the participants are responsible enough and not overly greedy (thinking about what they have in the Nordic countries for example). The problem with that is that it pretty much goes against the same human nature that got us this far in terms of progress and evolution; being greedy and wanting more is probably a good evolution strategy, up to a point. I suppose once that point is reached then a system/organism will devour itself, think cancer. But at least that then leaves room for something new and potentially better to spring up. A good and responsible government should in theory be able to prevent this point from being reached. A bad one will probably accelerate the process.


The question then is, how do you elect responsible and incorruptible people into a government, and will they be drawn towards it in the first place? The second issue is whether all those involved with the current status quo will allow those who could potentially endanger it into the game; I'm not too sure about that.

Dan
 
ddt said:
JohnRoberts said:
...
Simple, in concept, but they have their crony capitalistic hooks into the politicians too deep for this to ever happen with the present crew.
...


Well, that's exactly it. It all really depends on the people running the show, which is why I'm a bit puzzled by all the debates about which system or political orientation is better or more effective than the other. I'm of the opinion that most systems could probably be made to work, if the participants are responsible enough and not overly greedy (thinking about what they have in the Nordic countries for example).
If the participants could be relied upon to always be responsible, we wouldn't need governments at all.

My sense of our founder's opinion after they studied all the forms of government that went before, was that central or federal power must be severely limited, and the best expression of government oversight was expressed at the local level with local feedback.

This is why the "occupy's " concept of separation of government and business resonated with me. Business is not evil per se, and government is not evil, but both working together in some unholy alliance is not good for the rest of us. 
The problem with that is that it pretty much goes against the same human nature that got us this far in terms of progress and evolution; being greedy and wanting more is probably a good evolution strategy, up to a point. I suppose once that point is reached then a system/organism will devour itself, think cancer.
In fact the better example of evolutionary biases being counter productive after we get out of the wild, is the rampant obesity and lifestyle associated health syndromes (like type II diabetes), seems to be tracking with personal wealth. As previously poor regions gain wealth, obesity soon follows.

Cancer is more of a growth mechanism that fails mostly in old age, so living longer means we'll live long enough to get cancer.  Of course that is an oversimplification, cancer is many different maladies all grouped together and called the same thing.
But at least that then leaves room for something new and potentially better to spring up. A good and responsible government should in theory be able to prevent this point from being reached. A bad one will probably accelerate the process.
Follow the money..  We need to be able to lobby our legislators, but this "speech" is distorted by big business to gain undue influence through funding re-election campaigns. So far every effort to reform this has just pushed the lump of dirt around under the carpet...the new super PACs are no better than before. This still is "the" problem IMO.


The question then is, how do you elect responsible and incorruptible people into a government, and will they be drawn towards it in the first place? The second issue is whether all those involved with the current status quo will allow those who could potentially endanger it into the game; I'm not too sure about that.

Dan

Not easy... it becomes a matter of holding their feet to the fire, to keep promises they made to get elected.  I believe there is a grass roots change going on right now to hold elected legislators more accountable, but this will take numerous election cycles, and worry about the publics short attention span.  Once the economy improves, most people will return to their standard ostrich (I see nothing) position.

of course I could be wrong...

JR
 
JR ; I appreciate your comment !

i raplaced the "word" about my "question" .... ,

Bypass the 1% before it Bypass  All Others ?
8)

peace & diy!

Ps:
Keep in mind There are people around the world who commit suicide because of problems created by 1% ,
this is not acceptable in a civilized world ,
and that the financial products "toxic" , invented them 1 bank (then sold all , to the "others"... ),
going to recruit xellent students of financial economics , in best universities ,
Instead of using them to develop solutions help to improve the quality of life of human beings .

none "important" person of the "banks" have lost Their jobs, or Has Been Reduced to poverty.



JohnRoberts said:
I see question marks, but no questions. No emoticons.

i prefer to engage in constructive exchanges of ideas.

I believe words have consequences so don't even like joking about killing people I don't agree with, or don't like.

I understand some are frustrated but individuals have more control over their destiny than they admit.

Of course opinions vary...  Do you need a hug?

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
ddt said:
JohnRoberts said:
...
Simple, in concept, but they have their crony capitalistic hooks into the politicians too deep for this to ever happen with the present crew.
...


Well, that's exactly it. It all really depends on the people running the show, which is why I'm a bit puzzled by all the debates about which system or political orientation is better or more effective than the other. I'm of the opinion that most systems could probably be made to work, if the participants are responsible enough and not overly greedy (thinking about what they have in the Nordic countries for example).
If the participants could be relied upon to always be responsible, we wouldn't need governments at all.

My sense of our founder's opinion after they studied all the forms of government that went before, was that central or federal power must be severely limited, and the best expression of government oversight was expressed at the local level with local feedback.
Yes, that's what I was taught too.

JohnRoberts said:
This is why the "occupy's " concept of separation of government and business resonated with me. Business is not evil per se, and government is not evil, but both working together in some unholy alliance is not good for the rest of us. 
Business is perhaps not evil per se, but what about possible tendencies of businesses to co-operate to the detriment of others, how does one prevent massive cartels from forming? In a limited-government situation, competition would be the answer in theory, in practice it would require a firm legal framework with strict enforcement, which again leads us to government and the possibility of the erosion of the beforementioned legislative framework through lobbying, etc.

JohnRoberts said:
The problem with that is that it pretty much goes against the same human nature that got us this far in terms of progress and evolution; being greedy and wanting more is probably a good evolution strategy, up to a point. I suppose once that point is reached then a system/organism will devour itself, think cancer.
In fact the better example of evolutionary biases being counter productive after we get out of the wild, is the rampant obesity and lifestyle associated health syndromes (like type II diabetes), seems to be tracking with personal wealth. As previously poor regions gain wealth, obesity soon follows.

Cancer is more of a growth mechanism that fails mostly in old age, so living longer means we'll live long enough to get cancer.  Of course that is an oversimplification, cancer is many different maladies all grouped together and called the same thing.
I meant cancer more as an analogy to unrestricted expansion… I read an interview with Lloyd Blankfein during the 'first' financial crisis where his answer to a question similar to "but hang on, don't you sort of want too much, with all this quest for profit thing?" was "well, can you have too much of success?", or something like that.

With this sort of mindset, you will never have enough, and will keep going until the weels come off, or you hit a brick wall, or devour the system that you feed off.

One could argue whether the "too big to fail" symptom is a result of the government stepping out of the way and going "oh, you guys do what you want" or then not letting the chips fall where they may, probably both. Avoiding the first scenario might possibly prevent getting to the point where the chips do fall I would say, on the other hand it places requrements on govermnent that are probably far above governments' inherent capabilities (i.e. governemt's generally aren't smart, like you say). 

JohnRoberts said:
But at least that then leaves room for something new and potentially better to spring up. A good and responsible government should in theory be able to prevent this point from being reached. A bad one will probably accelerate the process.
Follow the money..  We need to be able to lobby our legislators, but this "speech" is distorted by big business to gain undue influence through funding re-election campaigns. So far every effort to reform this has just pushed the lump of dirt around under the carpet...the new super PACs are no better than before. This still is "the" problem IMO.
Yes. It doesn't really matter how one calls it, or whether it's legal or not, politicians will always be pushed to promote the interests of those powerful and wealthy enough to afford it. A bit like with leverage, you have more to gain, and more to lose.

JohnRoberts said:
The question then is, how do you elect responsible and incorruptible people into a government, and will they be drawn towards it in the first place? The second issue is whether all those involved with the current status quo will allow those who could potentially endanger it into the game; I'm not too sure about that.

Dan

Not easy... it becomes a matter of holding their feet to the fire, to keep promises they made to get elected.  I believe there is a grass roots change going on right now to hold elected legislators more accountable, but this will take numerous election cycles, and worry about the publics short attention span.  Once the economy improves, most people will return to their standard ostrich (I see nothing) position.

of course I could be wrong...

JR

I'm afraid you're probably right.

Dan
 
ddt said:
Business is perhaps not evil per se, but what about possible tendencies of businesses to co-operate to the detriment of others, how does one prevent massive cartels from forming? In a limited-government situation, competition would be the answer in theory, in practice it would require a firm legal framework with strict enforcement, which again leads us to government and the possibility of the erosion of the beforementioned legislative framework through lobbying, etc.
We already have substantial anti-trust regulatory machinery. They continue to review mergers and generally work to prevent markets from becoming monopolized by a single business. A cartel or conspiracy to fix market prices between peer manufacturers are equally illegal.  Enforcement actions happen all the time.  This is not inconsistent with limited government. Government needs to diligently prevent the excesses of capitalism, but they do not need to take over business activity that more effectively could be performed by the private sector.

The maga bank mergers that were promoted by government to rescue the banking system would never have been approved by anti-trust regulators in better times. They literally created these bankenstein monsters, so now they must expand their regulatory scope to manage these monsters.  Seems a little too neat to me.. Now these mega banks are beholding to their new keepers and will surely feed their re-elcection campaign funds in perpetuity. We would all be better off with banks small enough that they can be allowed to fail. Investment banks don't need depositor's insurance. but I wouldn't be surprised if the depositors insurance needed the investment banks to play along at the time of crisis to prevent a run on the banking system they couldn't fund from insurance. 

I am not second guessing the decision that created the Bankensteins, just how we deal with them from here. Perhaps the Dodd-Frank strategy is more clever than I think and trying to regulate them to make them small banks again, with regulatory friction.  ;D     
I meant cancer more as an analogy to unrestricted expansion… I read an interview with Lloyd Blankfein during the 'first' financial crisis where his answer to a question similar to "but hang on, don't you sort of want too much, with all this quest for profit thing?" was "well, can you have too much of success?", or something like that.

With this sort of mindset, you will never have enough, and will keep going until the weels come off, or you hit a brick wall, or devour the system that you feed off.

One could argue whether the "too big to fail" symptom is a result of the government stepping out of the way and going "oh, you guys do what you want" or then not letting the chips fall where they may, probably both. Avoiding the first scenario might possibly prevent getting to the point where the chips do fall I would say, on the other hand it places requrements on govermnent that are probably far above governments' inherent capabilities (i.e. governemt's generally aren't smart, like you say). 
Indeed a little of both with some questionable motives (IMO).

The TBTF banks, were caused by several failures that together brought the system to the edge of the abyss. These failures ranging from legislators pressuring home lender to make loans they shouldn't have, to large investment banks not truly understanding the risk they were creating, rating agencies rubber stamping debt with little clue to the true quality, and very happy to participate world that enjoyed good times while the music kept playing. We are still dealing with the massive loss of wealth that was caused by imprudent spending thanks to easy credit. Now the bill has come due.

Now OTOH, the TBTF car companies are like a record skipping... (how many times does Chrysler get bailed out? ). Again IMO there was some funny business with how debt and share holders were treated in the fast track government bankruptcy reorganization of GM that ends up with unions (and taxpayers) becoming major new stockholders.  The reorganization still laid off a bunch of people and closed a bunch of plants but viola we have new winners, and another large business beholding to legislators to feed their campaign kitties. 


But at least that then leaves room for something new and potentially better to spring up. A good and responsible government should in theory be able to prevent this point from being reached. A bad one will probably accelerate the process.
There us another less beneficial outcome where government does a gradual takeover of private industry slowly sinking it's tentacles in to gain control over more of the private economy.  Banks, car companies, now heath care...  I wouldn't mind it so much if the government apparatchniks were the smart guys in the room but it's pretty much the opposite.

Yes. It doesn't really matter how one calls it, or whether it's legal or not, politicians will always be pushed to promote the interests of those powerful and wealthy enough to afford it. A bit like with leverage, you have more to gain, and more to lose.


Dan

I still think the key pressure point is the money trail between business and legislators, we need to break that cycle of influence somehow.  A few $B will be spent by both sides in the 2012 campaign... this is just wrong... We could do a lot of good with a few $B and better yet suffer less political manipulation.

But I don't see how to easily do it yet... The answer may be in modern social media or some new technology I can't even imagine yet, but i remain optimistic that we can improve things.,

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
Thanks for the almost un-veer... this thread had become pretty unpleasant...

OK.
I'll attempt to combine your topic with my off topic then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

and

http://www.alternet.org/story/153134/caught_on_camera:_10_shockingly_violent_police_assaults_on_occupy_protesters/

Plenty of similar clips on the usual video sites too btw.

But it's just a few "asses" caught in "moment(s) of incredibly bad judgement..."


Bye.


 
There have long been attempts to distill down complex issues to simple imagery. This probably existed even before there was photography and staged photo ops, with political cartoons or caricature to create some symbolic imagery.

Even the political debates have become long winded attempts trying to capture somebody making one damning outlier utterance that can be repeated out of context, ad infinitim to paint a picture. Even if literally true, not truly representative.

Whatever... I am more responsive to words that people actually write themselves, representing original ideas that they actually think themselves... I can do a google search just like anyone here...

life is short...

JR

PS: It has been part of the terrorist/insurgent/whatever playbook (probably since Viet Nam) to engineer events to generate visuals to influence TV news broadcasts.  It is not unheard of for protesters to initiate contact with police to create useful symbolic images.  No doubt there have been excesses in the management of protesters ( Chicago democratic convention, Kent State, etc. ), but a lot of this is just manipulation of the news cycle, trying to create sympathetic imagery. That is my largest disappointment about the urination seen round the world. The enemy couldn't have done a better job creating this damaging PR video if they tried.  Of course the power of visual propaganda was well understood by the Nazis in WWII, and even Sun Tzu discusses managing perceptions in the Art of War thousands of years ago, 

 
I know I shouldn't comment here, but still:

I think it's so ironic and of course typical that now the very second the right gets hit by the consequences of their ideological nonsense they start attacking it. Only now. Their lack in empathy and long-term thinking that cumulated in the giant blunder called "Citizens United" finally turned on themselves. And now they start whining like the schoolyard bully who gets paid back for his sins by his peers.

If only there was a way to get rid of the delays and evenly distribute the consequences...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top