Occupy Bay street | Page 35 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Occupy Bay street

OK, so what's wrong with Krugman's article?

imho, absolutely nothing. i thought it was spot on.

excellent article, thanks for sharing. it re-iterates a number of points i had already made, but perhaps did so more eloquently.

others will find fault by criticizing his overt liberalism, but the man is not dumb. he is an erudite and accomplished economist, who obviously knows what he writes about.
 
Did I say anything about their ECONOMY? No. I'm talking about their government. Their nation. You don't have retirement payments. You don't have that universal health care. You don't have unemployment protection. You don't have welfare. You don't have ANY of those things, without having a funded government.

Read what someone has posted and understand it, before you hit the reply button.

The discussion was about how a vote would go if there were to be a referendum. The referundum being, of course, about how to deal with the collapsing economy, not the collapsing leadership.

In response to:
actually, i get the sense that the average greek recognizes that they are partly to blame for their circumstances. it's just that they hold the banks, the government, and the system at fault, first and foremost. they want those pieces to be held accountable before they are.

You said:
If that's the case, then they are failing to hold themselves properly accountable. Tax dodging seems to be a national pass-time and where else does a government get the money to operate, but taxes?

Please show me another way of following the discussion whereby you aren't blaming the general population for the impending collapse of the economy.
 
The discussion was about how a vote would go if there were to be a referendum. The referundum being, of course, about how to deal with the collapsing economy, not the collapsing leadership.

In response to:

You said:

Please show me another way of following the discussion whereby you aren't blaming the general population for the impending collapse of the economy.

When I'm talking about the operation of the GOVERNMENT? Sorry, but you need to reread that.
 
I still haven't seen anything in what you said, or anyone else said, that discusses the political leadership issues of Greece other than as an aside, where it is pertinent to the main discussion of its economic failure.

Whatever the case regarding this misunderstanding, would you agree then that the general public is NOT responsible for these crises? I mean that in the sense that as stupid and irresponsible as we may have been (as a whole), we didn't do anything malicious, illegal, or outside of normal human behaviour to cause this to happen.

And if this is correct, then there are no rules or regulations that can be justly directed at the people that could prevent this from happening in the future. If anything is to change at all without harming democracy, it will have to be in the way government and industry is run.
 
Some things simply have to be fixed first. Where you have a sizable percentage of your population on some form of government financial assistance, but the government isn't taking in enough to support that, your country won't continue to exist unless and until that is corrected. No, it's not outside of the normal range of human behaviour but it's very skewed in numbers, towards what is generally at the fringes of human behaviour. With a bankrupt nation, you don't have much of an economy. With people who want, but are not willing to give in return, you don't have much of a democracy.
 
Some things simply have to be fixed first. Where you have a sizable percentage of your population on some form of government financial assistance, but the government isn't taking in enough to support that, your country won't continue to exist unless and until that is corrected. No, it's not outside of the normal range of human behaviour but it's very skewed in numbers, towards what is generally at the fringes of human behaviour. With a bankrupt nation, you don't have much of an economy. With people who want, but are not willing to give in return, you don't have much of a democracy.

Boggles the mind when a landed immigrant receives ~ $2500.00 a month, when the out of work, down on his luck Canadian must try to live off $590 / month.
Close the floodgates NOW, and take the rally to P.E. Trudeau's gravesite, where it belongs.
 
Realistically, unless the world economy changes to something less prone to causing extreme concentration of wealth, I expect to see a real cluster**** in my lifetime (unless crowd control and surveillance technology takes quite a few quantum leaps and makes slavery easily enforceable again). We have to realize that we are not an industrial nation or a producer any more. We are a third world resource economy with higher living standards (for now). Locally, we could fix our regional problems by nationalizing a part of our resource industries. Chavez reduced poverty rates in Venezuela by 60% by doing exactly that and investing money in infrastructure, health care (even importing Cuban medical professionals) and education. Even in a right-wing dreamland (Chile) whose economy was mostly shaped by a US-puppet dictator (Pinoche), copper mining is nationalized, and the profits go into infrastructure and social programs, so while they have relatively bad economic disparity, it's at least partly mitigated. If Canadian people got to profit from some of the resources, we could become a shining example for the world, again. Unfortunately, the question is "who?"...

1) The fiberals lack the will. They are the moderate right, so while they might maintain what's already in their grip, I don't expect for them to allow new initiatives..

2) The moderate left - NDP lacks the ability. Even under Jack, they had some REAL stupid ideas. My favourite: Planning to dump more money into universities while our middle class is shrinking, we're hurting for skilled trades and university graduates are flipping burgers

3) The reform party would dump tax dollars into the initiative until it's just short of starting to make money and then they'd sell it to private interests for very few pennies on the dollar and blame "the tax and spend fiberals" for the waste - Harris-style
 
Realistically, unless the world economy changes to something less prone to causing extreme concentration of wealth, I expect to see a real cluster**** in my lifetime (unless crowd control and surveillance technology takes quite a few quantum leaps and makes slavery easily enforceable again). We have to realize that we are not an industrial nation or a producer any more. We are a third world resource economy with higher living standards (for now). Locally, we could fix our regional problems by nationalizing a part of our resource industries. Chavez reduced poverty rates in Venezuela by 60% by doing exactly that and investing money in infrastructure, health care (even importing Cuban medical professionals) and education. Even in a right-wing dreamland (Chile) whose economy was mostly shaped by a US-puppet dictator (Pinoche), copper mining is nationalized, and the profits go into infrastructure and social programs, so while they have relatively bad economic disparity, it's at least partly mitigated. If Canadian people got to profit from some of the resources, we could become a shining example for the world, again. Unfortunately, the question is "who?"...

1) The fiberals lack the will. They are the moderate right, so while they might maintain what's already in their grip, I don't expect for them to allow new initiatives..

2) The moderate left - NDP lacks the ability. Even under Jack, they had some REAL stupid ideas. My favourite: Planning to dump more money into universities while our middle class is shrinking, we're hurting for skilled trades and university graduates are flipping burgers

3) The reform party would dump tax dollars into the initiative until it's just short of starting to make money and then they'd sell it to private interests for very few pennies on the dollar and blame "the tax and spend fiberals" for the waste - Harris-style

lol, did you just write 'nationalize'???

a thousand right wingnuts just instinctively reached for their guns and pitchforks. . .

you are correct that we will remain a resource nation without a real manufacturing economy unless we change things. one thing we shouldn't change however, is immigration. we simply cannot have a strong economy without increasing immigration. anyone who thinks otherwise is woefully uninformed.
 
I agree with firestarter... and I don't get the reference to immigration, since he didn't even mention it - but you are right on that... anyone with any insight knows that already... we are dependent on immigration as much as we are on resources...

I can't see anything changing until political lobbying is outlawed... This is a must, first step... leap, whatever.
 
Can someone explain why we NEED immigration please? Is it because we need more people to consume more crap? Or more people to make more crap to consume? Or to live in houses that are built on prime farmland because they want a McMansion to show off to their brethren back home?

I guess I just don't understand it. :(
 
Can someone explain why we NEED immigration please? Is it because we need more people to consume more crap? Or more people to make more crap to consume? Or to live in houses that are built on prime farmland because they want a McMansion to show off to their brethren back home?

I guess I just don't understand it. :(

At this point our native born population is in decline. Current Canadians simply aren't having enough children, to replace themselves. That means fewer people paying taxes to support government and infrastructure, and to support those who have already retired. This skews the mean age, of our population, to higher numbers. An older population is a heavier draw on financial support structure and universal health care resources.

Want to be able to cut down on immigration? Get screwing.
 
Can someone explain why we NEED immigration please? Is it because we need more people to consume more crap? Or more people to make more crap to consume? Or to live in houses that are built on prime farmland because they want a McMansion to show off to their brethren back home?

I guess I just don't understand it.

Yes..you need immigration because we don't have an education that is built on cutting edge technology here. We don't produce highly trained personel in many areas as there isn't the commercial base that feeds back into the system. So, immigration gives you access to people from countries that by necessity are on the cutting edge of technology. Research in many areas is woefully underfunded and in many cases only a slight improvement over that existing already. Our innovation lacks behind many other developed nations as we don't have the personel.

Another area...medicine. Most medical students do not want to work in areas like rheumatology as they aren't sexy and carry the cachet of areas like cardiology (which also brings in lots of personal cash) so again, you need skilled immigrants to fill these positions.

Those are two areas I have personal experience with. There are many others.
 
lol, did you just write 'nationalize'???
a thousand right wingnuts just instinctively reached for their guns and pitchforks. . .

Agreed.. It's the best solution overall, but impossible considering the current political climate and considering the fact that we only have one major media outlet that doesn't belong to the right-wing consortium.

We could exploit new resources and make good money out of it. It could even pay for giving our close to dead manufacturing industry a second wind. As demonstrated, it has worked admirably both in left wing and right wing nations. Resource industries generate lots of profits for the corporation, but the locals see very little of that money if it's through a private initiative. Yes, there are a few more jobs and fringe industries, but the bulk of the money just leaves the country.

We have enough resources to not only invest in our infrastructure, services and industry development, but to do so without interfering with the profits of already established players. The only thing we're missing is the political will to form a strong Crown corporation and let it do its job.
 
http://bit.ly/uQ2C8d

[h=2]Police use of force draws fierce condemnation[/h] [h=3][/h]
protest.ZHOU4_-620x398.jpg
Tony Zhou/Staff
Police attempt to break through a line of students.




By Sarah Burns | Staff
sburns@dailycal.org
Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Updated Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 11:08 pm

[h=3]Most Related Posts

For UC Berkeley graduate student Alex Barnard, the most disempowering moment of Wednesday night was not when he was repeatedly hit with a police baton, cracking one of his ribs. Instead, the most disturbing moment of his experience came afterward, when he says an officer told him he had “no rights.”[/h]
According to Barnard, who was arrested along 31 others as part of Wednesday night’s Occupy Cal demonstration, after he was handcuffed with a zip tie and taken into Sproul Hall, a police officer asked him for identifying information. Rather than immediately answering, Barnard said he asked the officer about his rights and when he would be allowed to speak to a lawyer. It was then that the officer told him he had no rights and, after Barnard disputed the statement, said he would be recorded as “uncooperative” on his police forms, according to Barnard.
“You didn’t have a voice,” Barnard said.
The experience described by Barnard and his fellow protesters’ violent treatment at the hands of the police — supported by video footage taken at the demonstration — has led to wide-spread condemnation of the police response. Critics ranging from campus student groups to members of the UC Berkeley faculty and even the national media have spoken out against the police officers’ use of force.
According to a campus-wide email sent by Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and other top campus administrators, the campus Police Review Board will investigate whether police used excessive force given the circumstances.
According to UCPD Capt. Margo Bennett, the identification process Barnard described is completely different from any kind of interview or interrogation process and is not involved with the right to have an attorney present. She said she was not aware of the exchange described by Barnard but said it is not the kind of exchange the department wants officers and arrestees to have.
Bennett added that the police force’s objective was to remove the encampment because it posed a threat to public safety.
“We already knew that if an encampment got started on the campus we were going to have health and safety issues, we were going to have public safety issues (and) we were going to have an element on the campus that does not fit with the academic business that is conducted,” she said. “Once we began moving towards the tents the level of resistance from the students is what generated the arrests. It was the willful obstruction of the officers: the body blocking, the pushing, the yelling, a couple times things were thrown … those were the kinds of things that prompted the arrests of individuals.”
Celeste Langan, a campus associate professor of English and one of the protesters arrested Wednesday afternoon, said in an email that she knew that what she was doing by participating in the human chain was a form of nonviolent resistance, knew that she was disobeying the police order to disperse and knew that her participation made her subject to arrest. But, she said, she expected the police would arrest the protesters “in a similarly non-violent manner.”
“Rather than take my wrist or arm, the police grabbed me by my hair and yanked me forward to the ground, where I was told to lie on my stomach and was handcuffed,” Langan said in the email. “They could have taken the time to arrest us for refusal to disperse without violence, but instead seem to have been instructed to get to the tents as quickly as possible. Since the tents posed no immediate threat to public safety, their haste and level of force were unwarranted.”
But in their campus-wide email, Birgeneau and other administrators said the protesters’ actions — linking arms to form a human chain and obstructing police officers — did not constitute non-violent civil disobedience.
“We regret that, given the instruction to take down tents and prevent encampment, the police were forced to use their batons to enforce the policy,” the email reads.
Taro Yamaguchi-Phillips, a junior at UC Berkeley and one of the 32 arrested Wednesday night, said the police response was excessive and protesters were completely non-violent.
“I am sure there were many other tactics they could have used,” he said. “Their first response was violence.”
As of press time, an open letter to the campus administration penned by three UC Berkeley associate professors condemning the police response had been signed by 808 campus instructors.
“(We) are outraged by the unnecessary and excessive use of violence by the police and sheriff’s deputies against peaceful protesters,” the letter reads.
Bennett said she could not make a statement on whether the police use of force was justified until the an internal operational review about the event is conducted.
Similar stands of solidarity with the protesters were made by the system-wide UC Student Association, the campus student government and commentators across the country.
Langan said in her email that the complaint she plans to file with UCPD will in part address the arrest procedure. According to Langan, though she was arrested Wednesday afternoon, she was not released until about 1:30 a.m. Thursday morning.
According to Bennett, after the 32 people were arrested Wednesday evening, the department learned that six of the seven protesters arrested earlier in the day — including Langan — were still being held at the Berkeley Jail Facility because of its policy to not cite and release people being held on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer.
The police department then called both the Berkeley facility and Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland — where other protesters had been sent — and asked them to cite and release the protesters. Two of the protesters from the day were not cited and released because they were also being held on a charge of battery on a police officer, which Bennett said most jail facilities will not allow to be cited out.
Jordan Bach-Lombardo of The Daily Californian contributed to this report.


Sarah Burns is the lead crime reporter.



its going to get worse before it gets better
 
OWS'ers remind of the "travellers" or gypsys in europe. pretending they have a legal right to do whatever, wherever, whenever, and on whatever property they want, then complain when they get evicted.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/13/occupy-london-asked-leave-st-pauls-services

[h=1]Occupy London protesters say they were asked to leave St Paul's services[/h] At least five members of protest group camped outside cathedral say they were singled out as they tried to pay Remembrance Day respects


A-veteran-arrives-for-a-R-007.jpg
A veteran arrives for a Remembrance Day service at St Paul's cathedral. Photograph: Sean Dempsey/PA

Members of the protest group camped outside St Paul's Cathedral have claimed they were asked to leave or were escorted from Remembrance Sunday services.
At least five people from Occupy London said they were singled out as they tried to pay their respects.
St Paul's denied any of its staff were responsible for the evictions, saying it was "very unhappy" to hear about them. Some of the cathedral's regular worshippers were also on the receiving end of what is thought to have been overzealous policing from private security firms protecting VIPs in the cathedral at the time.
St Paul's said one of its canons, Michael Hampel, had been alerted to what had happened and went out to apologise to people. A cathedral spokesman added: "It's the most important thing that everyone is able to attend our services. We would never say people weren't welcome. It will be something we look into."
Tammy, a protester from Sussex, went into the cathedral at around 12.45 on Sunday. Accompanying her was Jim, a homeless man who has lived outside St Paul's for a decade. She told the Guardian: "My relatives have been in the armed forces and some lost their lives, so I wanted to remember them."
She and Jim sat at the back, moving to the front with other people once the service had finished, she said.
"Some St Paul's workers and men in pinstripe suits and ear microphones came over and asked what we were doing. Jim wanted to talk to Canon Michael [Colclough]. I told them I wasn't there as a protester. I took off all my badges. I told them I had come as a member of the public."
She said: "They told me I couldn't be there because I was a member of Occupy London. They couldn't have protesters there. I said I had dead to mourn, and they replied they had royalty in the cathedral."
The 33-year-old, who is Christian, said she approached cathedral staff to ask for help. "What they said is that other churches will have you lot. I'm always in and out of the cathedral. I'm terribly distressed – they are ripping my faith away from me.
"We've complied with everything they've asked us to do … we haven't given them any grief."
In a statement, St Paul's said: "We were very unhappy to discover that some of our regular worshippers, as well as visitors, were turned away from Sunday morning's service and can assure people that this was not done by our staff, who are always specifically briefed to welcome all those who wish to worship in the cathedral.
"We had also leafleted the protesters outside St Paul's, inviting them to join our worship, and were pleased that some of them had come to join us."
The incidents could represent a setback in relations between the cathedral and the protesters, which have improved dramatically since St Paul's decided to suspend legal action against Occupy and instead engage in dialogue.
 

The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association. CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

I wonder what sorts of deals they have made with Bell Media (CTV) and Quebecor (Sun) on our side of the border.. They are very selective over which interviews they publish and a lot of them have been severely chopped in order to discredit the movement.
 

Back
Top Bottom