Occupy Wall Street

I don't understand it either but it probably has something to do with their lizard brains.

Sorry to hear about your rough road but I'm glad you made your way out of it and found your way here. It's a great place to vent and Lord knows we all need to do that sometimes.

 

So the problem is that Qantas pilots make a minimum of 90k a year, not that Delta pilots make less than 30k?

I think 90k + sounds like a very reasonable amount of money for carting our asses around 30,000 feet off the ground.

 

unions developed in response to the division of labor characteristic of capitalism. they developed as a way of taking power from capital and devising a more equitable arrangement. workers sell their labor power for a wage---you know the drill in terms of what that's entailed. even eddie knows it, and eddie doesn't know many things---like what socialism means---but whatever. it's a basic misrepresentation to not see unions as responses to a structural feature of capitalism. it's also myopic to not understand the us trade union model as more than a model, but that's another matter.

what's even funnier than eddie and his far right make-believe patriots opposing some imaginary socialism, but the kind of "freedom" their defending is in the rational world socio-economic serfdom. another indication of the rigid orthodoxy that prevails in conservativeland, one that would have made an old-school stalinist proud.

 

Agreed

You know the amount of money it costs to get an ATP license? The amount of responsibility they have on their shoulders? Most commercial pilots I know started out working on some regional carrier working shit hours and making about 20K a year after spending 50-70K or more and a lot of time and energy to get their license.

I'm always amazed with people who bitch about someone else being "over paid." Most of the time they have no idea what the other persons job is like or how much they've invested in education to get into that occupation.

 

among the problems the right faces ideologically is that their paper-thin a-historical worldview requires tightly controlled framing to operate. they've already lost that control.

meanwhile, the g20 performs in real time the reasons why ows is not just desirable but necessary..for example the paralysis of neo-liberal thinking is now such that there's still no coherent role for the imf, which has magically reverted to its post-bretton woods purview except without the everything else part....so the us is threatening to not fund the imf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/04/g20-leaders-eurozone-crisis-live-coverage

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/57f0f114-064b-11e1-8a16-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ckDFotcI

meanwhile, greece continues to perform the contradictions that obtain between neo-liberal "austerity" and social solidarity....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2011/nov/04/greek-pm-papandreou-confidence-vote

culminating in a no-confidence vote today.

so the neo-liberal system is in very bad shape.
but all the american right can do is mutter incoherent bullshit about "dirty elitists hippies" and bitch about drum circles. because they have nothing to say. nothing at all.

 

One of those posts has been deleted because it had a very obvious flame. The other two were ok. And Eddie, despite attempts to get you to post more than a single line, you don't. Which is one of the biggest reasons that folks here are labeling you a "troll". And, as has already been pointed out to you, is a definition you fit as per the basic rules of TFP.

 

I'm sticking to the topic, I'm not attacking anyone and I'm inserting my opinion. So what's up with this strict regulation of my posts? Several other members have given one sentence replies yet they're not chastised. I happen to prefer a more succinct reply, although when it's called for I add a more lengthy response. Besides, we all know that it's not my post length that drawing ire, it's my views.

 

The difference is that other folks don't ONLY give one-sentence replies. And they also don't edit other people's quotes to remove parts that they simply don't want to answer.

Eddie, folks object to your posts because they seem aimed at drawing negative responses. Whether or not you intend for them to be, that's what they are. Perception is reality on message boards. So the perception that you're a troll becomes reality very quickly. I've tried to help you overcome that, but you don't seem interested in doing anything but becoming a self-fulfilling proficy.

 

Neither do I. Simply look back over my posts in this thread and you can see that I have given several multiple sentence replies.

Of course that's not my intention. But when you're the lone conservative voice in a liberal discussion, it's going to ruffle some feathers.

Look, when I start being disrespectful and attacking people, you can bust my balls. But I haven't done anything to warrant this inquisition. So quit singling me out and quit being so petty. Did you ban pan? No, you didn't. But you sure as shit banned me for some petty, made-up reason. Just let adults carry on a discussion without this heavy-handed oversight.

 

You do not put the same effort into your replies as most other posters - that's the criticism, especially since you disagree with some of the opinions. If I do the math, I'm willing to bet that your average reply, including outliers, will be between 3 and 4 sentences. The majority of other folks in this thread are going to have more like 10-12.

Honestly, you're not doing a very good job of explaining why you hold your opinions. You're selectively answering only the things you think you can "score" with, and refusing to discuss anything that might lead to any sort of concession about anything with someone on the other side.

You don't know what I with pan, and it's really none of your business. But his posts deserved a response, and there was one. One that you're probably very familiar with.

You've never been banned from TFP, eddie, at least that I know of, and certainly not at 5.0. Saying that you have is a flat-out lie. You've lost permission to post in certain forums, but you've never been banned. Your permissions weren't petty or made up, and you were given a warning beforehand that continuing the same behavior would result in action. Which it did.

If you don't like the way we run TFP, eddie, there's nothing keeping you here. There are a lot of folks that think that the staff responses haven't gone far enough. You think they've gone too far. I think we're balancing it fairly well. You seem to think that you're the lone conservative here, and as I've told you before, that's not the case.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- At this point, the discussion of your behavior, pan's behavior and board policy is over in this thread. You're welcome to PM me or any other staffer with any other questions or concerns you may have. We will delete all off-topic responses from here on out.

 

Great to see you're not getting this at all.

The issue is not that they're well-paid and have better benefits than others.

The issue is that they were still taking industrial action against Qantas - disrupting flights, causing huge inconveniences to Qantas customers, damaging Qantas' reputation and causing Qantas to lose a substantive amount of business - despite being so well-off.

 

remixer---i'm not sure what possible relation this has to the thread, but it's usual with such actions that there's a process involving unions and company that's broken down, a set of demands that's at issue...you know, actual reasons for the action that are, you know, kinda important if you're interested in actually talking about this dispute. but maybe you're not. either way, it's perhaps another thread.

 

And I believe it was the management who decided to ground the planes.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/timing-of-the-essence-for-qantas-20111104-1n00r.html

 

My Qantas example was in response to Baraka's statement that unions are the result of poor management by corporations, which does seem to have relevance to the OWS, no?

I am simply highlighting the fact that unions are supposed to be a balancing force to corporate greed, but unions without any limits to what they can demand and their actions fueled by social greed are just as damaging as its corporate counterpart.

There needs to be balance, not going into the extreme of either side of the equation.

That is also why I see the Oakland port closure by OWS protesters as counter-productive.
--- merged: Nov 4, 2011 3:57 PM ---

It was the management, specifically CEO Alan Joyce, after they could not tolerate the unions' systematic destruction of the Qantas corporation with their endless demands and industrial actions anymore.

Alistair: Have a look at this fairly objective analysis on how the grounding of Qantas' fleet came to be... http://www.economist.com/node/21536612

 

the port closure is another matter...that was a general strike. bureaucratic trade unions have typically opposed anything like general strikes, particularly in the united states. what i think the oakland action did is demonstrate that the occupation can act. we can shut things down. there is actual power.

you can see another example in the action that's encouraging people to close their accounts with banks like b of a and citi...it's not a real coincidence that b of a decided to issue a pile of new stock today (perhaps) as a way of, as the financial times put it, diluting its shareholder base--so making it even less answerable.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b28cf5a-065e-11e1-8a16-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ckDFotcI

the occupation can and to my mind should act to demonstrate that it has actual power. so i see no problem with a call for a general strike--if it holds. because such actions only work if they work, if you know what i mean.

 

And drastic action such as general strikes, which do not only affect the targeted corporations, will greatly reduce the Occupy movement's power base by alienating the moderates (very likely the huge majority) that support it.

I know you're savvy in political analysis, and I am certain you understand the necessity for the Occupy movement to stay moderate and consistent in its approach to effect nation-wide change in society's mentality.

I am also certain you fully recognize how extremely damaging "small" cases, such as the cover-up of a sexual attack on an Occupy protester, can be to completely undermine the entire movement.

 

at this point, i wouldn't support a nation-wide general strike. i don't think it'd be prudent--but things are very different if it's clear that one could be called but isn't being called and if it doesn't seem plausible that one could be called. see what i mean? (i have to run so will try to make this clearer if it isnt later)

at the same time, the oakland action was in response to quite specific police violence, and can be understood on those grounds.

so there's both aspects going on.

 

I understand the necessity to convey to the opposing side of the dispute the impression that they are not only dealing with soft power they can dismiss, but also with real hard power.

I also understand why you would believe the response to police violence was justified, and it likely was. However, whether or not it was justified is entirely irrelevant. Obviously not from a perspective of execution of justice, but from a strategic one.

It may matter to the protesters involved and they may perceive it as their "right" to react to police violence, but when it comes down to it: it's all about the average citizen, most of them not involved directly with the movement but watching it from their TV sets and through their internet connections at home.

Action such as a general-strike must be well-timed for maximum effectiveness, not be started "willy-nilly" (for lack of a better attribute) in response to police action. The Occupy movement has the ability to dictate the flow of events.

Just like Gandhi's peaceful protests, Occupy needs to do the exact same. Of course the situations are not the same, but the principle they act on is the same.

Drastic action will isolate the Occupy movement to its active membership.

Peaceful demonstrations and taking the pain of violence as it hits them with a sacrificial attitude, is the most effective thing they can do. Not only will it greatly embarrass the Government (of which the police is the direct extension and public representative) for attacking defenseless people, but the compassion factor of the moderate majority of the population will increase exponentially. Donations will continue to flow and, given enough time, the compassion will turn into massive public outrage.

India's Hazare was extremely successful in embarassing the Indian government into submission, because even though he was being harassed, threatened and put in jail, he did not take any action beyond speaking out and sitting himself down in a public while on hunger strike. As the government kept continuing to harass them, compassion all over India became outrage with masses of people joining in civil disobedience.

The Occupy movement has to be catalyst, not the main driving power.

But I suspect the amount of pride that comes with the extreme individualism of American society will make it near-impossible for the protesters to "sit down and take it".