The "Occupy" Movement

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect a universal (every kid in the province is entitled to a free breakfast and lunch every school day) programme could be easily funded through taxes - making the lunch a taxable benefit for every taxpayer with school age kids. It becomes a progressive tax: those with annual family gross incomes of, say, $45,000 (two minimum wage jobs) pay nothing, even if they have a half dozen kids in school, while those with gross family incomes of, say, $120,000.00 (many, many CF families) pay enough to feed their own two and two or three others) while those with gross family incomes of $200,000 (still several CF families) pay for about six or seven kids, even though they have only one in school.

 

[Redeye]

#occupyfail. This is the sort of thing they should have been protesting; millions of taxpayer dollars to rich hollywood diretor to produce pro administration propaganda. Even if One Economy were able to hire Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eizenshtein this is still wrong...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/02/how-did-obamas-stimulus-end-up-paying-a-rich-hollywood-director-to-produce-a-web-video-show/?print=1

More poutrage over basically nothing. The amount of money involved is basically nothing, for a start, and yes, governments hire media folks to produce messaging. How much money do you suspect the Harper Government spends on signs, ads, and so on to tell us what a great job of running the country. And more importantly, what on earth does this have to do with the Occupy movement?!

 

[Spanky]

Got stats for that?

Just anecdotal caused cynicism based on what I've seen over the past 30+ years. 

 

[ballz]

I thought it was widely known, but there are plenty of statistics to show that smoking and alcoholism is more prevalent amongst those living in poverty.

Smoking
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/09/smoking.socialexclusion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/355372.stm

The maps, available online, show how even relatively small areas of deprivation coincide with areas of heavy smoking. In the Princess ward of Knowsley, Merseyside, said to be the most deprived area of England, 52% of the population smoke, compared with a national average of 26%. Three of the other four most deprived wards are in Liverpool and the last is in Manchester. Smoking rates there are between 42% and 46%.

Alcohol
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460301001812

Results indicate that (a) increased poverty causes increased alcohol use and alcohol problems, and (b) recent unemployment decreases alcohol use while longer unemployment increases it.

EDIT to add quotes

 

[Nemo888]

If it were to be a national program that involves all students, it should be funded by lottery and bingo proceeds, as well as cigarette and booze taxes, since that's where a lot of the money for proper breakfasts and lunches goes to in the first place.

Bwahahaha It's funny because it's true.

I suspect a universal (every kid in the province is entitled to a free breakfast and lunch every school day) programme could be easily funded through taxes - making the lunch a taxable benefit for every taxpayer with school age kids. It becomes a progressive tax: those with annual family gross incomes of, say, $45,000 (two minimum wage jobs) pay nothing, even if they have a half dozen kids in school, while those with gross family incomes of, say, $120,000.00 (many, many CF families) pay enough to feed their own two and two or three others) while those with gross family incomes of $200,000 (still several CF families) pay for about six or seven kids, even though they have only one in school.

Maybe poor/broken home high schoolers would find a reason to go to school everyday. It could even make a dent in the drop out rate. I would consider such a program a long term investment. That is why it will never happen. Our politicians have chosen to try to escape their middle class life by doing enough favours that they get well rewarded once they leave office. We are the ones to blame for this of course. People try for the best paying jobs they think they can get. Perhaps making politics a little less profitable would be a step in the right direction.

 

[a_majoor]

Our politicians have chosen to try to escape their middle class life by doing enough favours that they get well rewarded once they leave office. We are the ones to blame for this of course. People try for the best paying jobs they think they can get. Perhaps making politics a little less profitable would be a step in the right direction.

Which is really the whole point of the TEA Party movement and the Libertarian world view. By cutting away huge chunks of government and retrenching on the essentials (in this POV protection from internal and external threats, protection of property rights, free speech and association and a neutral arbitrator of disputes) politics would be much less "profitable" and crony capitalism would have a far more limited area to grow and prosper. After all, if you have no favours to offer, then there will be no corresponding handouts to you in return...

 

[Redeye]

Which is really the whole point of the TEA Party movement and the Libertarian world view. By cutting away huge chunks of government and retrenching on the essentials (in this POV protection from internal and external threats, protection of property rights, free speech and association and a neutral arbitrator of disputes) politics would be much less "profitable" and crony capitalism would have a far more limited area to grow and prosper. After all, if you have no favours to offer, then there will be no corresponding handouts to you in return...

That sounds great in principle, but the reason the Tea Party movement is the bought-and-paid-for darling of those crony capitalists - the energy industry, the banks, etc, is that those policy moves will only make them stronger, and more able to exploit what's left of the middle class, while they continue to get richer and stronger. Things like scrapping environmental regulations are what they want. What good is private property when it's been scorched by the actions of industry and you can't enjoy it? What recourse will you have without government enforcing standards for emissions etc? At what cost prosperity? What about their desire to thrash public education? How does one realize any semblance of the American dream without an education? How does America (or anyone else) complete with places like India and China churning out highly educated people who will bring forth great innovation, when their education standards keep eroding, and fewer people have access to advanced education unless they happen to be the product of "lucky sperm"?

The most intelligent description of the goals of "Occupiers", among those who actually have intelligent things to say which surely isn't all of them, is this: "The idea is to provoke a discussion about society - have we created the society we really want, or could we do something better?" I tend to think we could, and the means and end state are worth discussing in some form.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even though I do it, as illustrative shorthand, I think it is wrong to try to make the Tea Party into one, big amorphous mass. It is true that several Republican congressmen were elected by trumpeting some Tea Party principles but, in my view, the Tea Party movement is more complex than that. I think that most Tea Party adherents want smaller governments which are more firmly grounded in the US Constitution; such governments will, perforce, spend less, too, and should, therefore, also tax less. But beyond that desire for smaller, Constitutionally adherent, less intrusive government, I don't think there is too much that unites the Tea Party.

That doesn't mean they are not a force with which American politics must reckon - in fact, I suspect the Tea Party may make itself seen in several state houses and legislatures next year, as well as in the US Congress. But it means that it is not, yet, a third party, although it may split the Republicans in the next few years.

 

[Redeye]

Even though I do it, as illustrative shorthand, I think it is wrong to try to make the Tea Party into one, big amorphous mass. It is true that several Republican congressmen were elected by trumpeting some Tea Party principles but, in my view, the Tea Party movement is more complex than that. I think that most Tea Party adherents want smaller governments which are more firmly grounded in the US Constitution; such governments will, perforce, spend less, too, and should, therefore, also tax less. But beyond that desire for smaller, Constitutionally adherent, less intrusive government, I don't think there is too much that unites the Tea Party.

That doesn't mean they are not a force with which American politics must reckon - in fact, I suspect the Tea Party may make itself seen in several state houses and legislatures next year, as well as in the US Congress. But it means that it is not, yet, a third party, although it may split the Republicans in the next few years.

Some of my American friends have looked with interest to the emergence of the Reform Party in Canada and the subsequent fracturing of the right as a model for what they hope the Tea Party might cause. It's interesting that it seems like as much as having a good platform is important, there's also a lot to be said for hoping that certain voting blocks stay home. The GOP would like to keep minorities from getting out to vote, and the Democrats hope for candidates that the religious right/social conservatives don't like so they have a shot. It's a very, very strange game.

What the 2012 election season will bring will be interesting. On the Presidential front, the GOP seems to have a mix of joke candidates, and people that while possibly electable don't have much of a shot in the primary. On the state level, there's lots of backlash against "Tea Party" successes, like in Ohio and Wisconsin, and how that translates into votes will be interesting to watch as well. More specific to the "Occupy" set, I'm interested in seeing who if anyone emerges as a voice for it, and how it impacts voting. At the end of the day, it has a potential fracturing effect too, which isn't really in the interest of the Democrats in the long run.

 

[vonGarvin]

Some of my American friends have looked with interest to the emergence of the Reform Party in Canada and the subsequent fracturing of the right as a model for what they hope the Tea Party might cause.

And of course, they are really happy when they look at the next step, when the "Unite the Right" movement happens as the "consequence after next".

 

[Redeye]

And of course, they are really happy when they look at the next step, when the "Unite the Right" movement happens as the "consequence after next".

Except, anecdotally, it seems like "uniting the right" drove a lot of Red Tories out of the party and into voting more pragmatically - fortunately for the Conservatives, the other two parties failed to seize on that.

 

[Journeyman]

The most intelligent description of the goals of "Occupiers", among those who actually have intelligent things to say which surely isn't all of them, is this: "The idea is to provoke a discussion about society - have we created the society we really want, or could we do something better?"

Ah yes, the joys of informal fallacies -- in this case cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

We can't say that it was predominantly the unions seeking more power, or the 'rebel without a clue' crowd wanting to protest anything simply because it's what they do. Apparently now, months after the fact, this whole movement was intentionally designed to cause societal discussion?

Sorry, but evidence of causation is sorely lacking; I believe the term you're looking for is "clutching at straws."

 

[Redeye]

Ah yes, the joys of informal fallacies -- in this case cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

We can't say that it was predominantly the unions seeking more power, or the 'rebel without a clue' crowd wanting to protest anything simply because it's what they do. Apparently now, months after the fact, this whole movement was intentionally designed to cause societal discussion?

Sorry, but evidence of causation is sorely lacking; I believe the term you're looking for is "clutching at straws."

I wasn't making an argument as to the relative weight of that POV - unions certainly got in on the concept, and so did a lot of those "rebels" - but there was in a few forums some more interesting conversation. However, it was drowned out by the lack of any sort of order, prioritization, or clear message.

 

[Journeyman]

I wasn't making an argument as to the relative weight of that POV - unions certainly got in on the concept, and so did a lot of those "rebels" - but there was in a few forums some more interesting conversation. However, it was drowned out by the lack of any sort of order, prioritization, or clear message.

And I'm saying that claiming this cause now is just as logically sound as the guy saying the protest was about big business oppression denying his Masters' degree in Puppetry suitable employment.

 

[jasonf6]

Ya, I've never done that myself or even been late for work (that wasn;t weather/traffic related as i take the bus).

 

[HavokFour]

UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

Sorry if this has been posted before.

 

[Journeyman]

]UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

Shame the video is 16 minutes long; most of the people who would benefit from seeing it lack that kind of attention span.  :not-again:

 

[Redeye]

Shame the video is 16 minutes long; most of the people who would benefit from seeing it lack that kind of attention span.  :not-again:

It's downloading very slowly on my shitty connection, I've watched about the first 7 minutes so far, I'm hoping there's something shocking that justifies the use of OC on passively resisting individuals. You'll have to forgive my skepticism.

 

[Journeyman]

You'll have to forgive my pre-determined skepticism.

I suppose the police and their detainees could have just sat down and waited for the protesters to clear an exit route for them...however many days it took. 

 

[ballz]

I was on edge about the police officer's actions before I saw this video, but I gave him the benefit of being on the scene in the heat of the moment and making the best decision he could from where he was standing at the time, not from my chair and in hindsight.

After watching that video, I am glad I afforded him that benefit.

Those protesters stopped being "passive" the minute a few hundred of them they marched over, surrounded (detained) the handful of police, and started bargaining with them if they wanted to be "let go." Now I'm glad they got a face full of pepper spray.

EDIT: And I think what makes it more than fair is the police announced that what they were doing was no longer considered passive, and gave them fair warning that force would be used, and lots of time and opportunities to leave. He even spoke to each individual and told them what would happen.