On November 04 2011 07:58 radiatoren wrote: In reality there is not that much to protest in Denmark, since the government is very different and at the moment controlled by the leftish parties.
I just wanted to point out how important this statement is. In the US, progressives usually seem to come together when there is a Democrat in the White House. The last time the progressive movement gathered steam, was after 8 years of Clinton to rally against Gore (Nader's campaign). When Republicans have control, the Left is usually very silent (expectations are low).
On November 04 2011 07:58 radiatoren wrote: In reality there is not that much to protest in Denmark, since the government is very different and at the moment controlled by the leftish parties.
I just wanted to point out how important this statement is. In the US, progressives usually seem to come together when there is a Democrat in the White House. The last time the progressive movement gathered steam, was after 8 years of Clinton to rally against Gore (Nader's campaign). When Republicans have control, the Left is usually very silent (expectations are low).
I can see this as both being smart and idiotic. On one hand we don't fight for change when its most direly needed. I don't remember the demonstrations when Bush was in office being notable. People did protest, but nothing near the current scale. Maybe we could have changed something. Its unlikely, but you never know.
On the other hand we expend our energy on the achievable. That seems smart. People don't fight unwinnable battles, they don't protest when it will accomplish nothing and take the power away from the movement by making it mundain.
On November 04 2011 07:58 radiatoren wrote: In reality there is not that much to protest in Denmark, since the government is very different and at the moment controlled by the leftish parties.
I just wanted to point out how important this statement is. In the US, progressives usually seem to come together when there is a Democrat in the White House. The last time the progressive movement gathered steam, was after 8 years of Clinton to rally against Gore (Nader's campaign). When Republicans have control, the Left is usually very silent (expectations are low).
I can see this as both being smart and idiotic. On one hand we don't fight for change when its most direly needed. I don't remember the demonstrations when Bush was in office being notable. People did protest, but nothing near the current scale. Maybe we could have changed something. Its unlikely, but you never know.
On the other hand we expend our energy on the achievable. That seems smart. People don't fight unwinnable battles, they don't protest when it will accomplish nothing and take the power away from the movement by making it mundain.
I can see this as both being smart and idiotic. On one hand we don't fight for change when its most direly needed. I don't remember the demonstrations when Bush was in office being notable. People did protest, but nothing near the current scale. Maybe we could have changed something. Its unlikely, but you never know.
On the other hand we expend our energy on the achievable. That seems smart. People don't fight unwinnable battles, they don't protest when it will accomplish nothing and take the power away from the movement by making it mundain.
I'll have to think on this one for a while.
Well, the way I've always seen it is that people probably figure that when Republicans are in control, that is what the people wanted. Hard to complain when politicians do what they say they're going to do lol. It is usually the Democrats that lie and make empty promises, while Republicans are more honest about their intentions of screwing over the masses.
For a Leftist, American politics boil down to heads I lose, tails you win.
An oldie, but a goodie, anyone remember this (run-up to the Gore v Bush election after 8 yrs of Clinton)?:
Reuters) - A former U.S. Army Ranger and Occupy Oakland protester was in intensive care on Friday after a veterans group said he was beaten by police during clashes with demonstrators this week.
The veteran, identified as Kayvan Sabeghi, was the second former American serviceman during the past two weeks to be badly hurt in confrontations between anti-Wall Street protesters and police in Oakland.
The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot.
Highland General Hospital confirmed that Sabeghi was a patient in the intensive care unit there.
Brian Kelly, who co-owns a brew pub with Sabeghi, said his business partner served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Sabeghi told him he was arrested and beaten by a group of policemen as he was leaving the protest to go home.
"He told me he was in the hospital with a lacerated spleen and that the cops had jumped him," Kelly said. "They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours."
Reuters) - A former U.S. Army Ranger and Occupy Oakland protester was in intensive care on Friday after a veterans group said he was beaten by police during clashes with demonstrators this week.
The veteran, identified as Kayvan Sabeghi, was the second former American serviceman during the past two weeks to be badly hurt in confrontations between anti-Wall Street protesters and police in Oakland.
The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot.
Highland General Hospital confirmed that Sabeghi was a patient in the intensive care unit there.
Brian Kelly, who co-owns a brew pub with Sabeghi, said his business partner served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Sabeghi told him he was arrested and beaten by a group of policemen as he was leaving the protest to go home.
"He told me he was in the hospital with a lacerated spleen and that the cops had jumped him," Kelly said. "They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours."
Reuters) - A former U.S. Army Ranger and Occupy Oakland protester was in intensive care on Friday after a veterans group said he was beaten by police during clashes with demonstrators this week.
The veteran, identified as Kayvan Sabeghi, was the second former American serviceman during the past two weeks to be badly hurt in confrontations between anti-Wall Street protesters and police in Oakland.
The group Iraq Veterans Against the War said Sabeghi was detained during disturbances that erupted late on Wednesday in downtown Oakland and was charged with resisting arrest and remaining present at the place of a riot.
Highland General Hospital confirmed that Sabeghi was a patient in the intensive care unit there.
Brian Kelly, who co-owns a brew pub with Sabeghi, said his business partner served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Sabeghi told him he was arrested and beaten by a group of policemen as he was leaving the protest to go home.
"He told me he was in the hospital with a lacerated spleen and that the cops had jumped him," Kelly said. "They put him in jail, and he told them he was injured, and they denied him medical treatment for about 18 hours."
On November 04 2011 07:58 radiatoren wrote: In reality there is not that much to protest in Denmark, since the government is very different and at the moment controlled by the leftish parties.
I just wanted to point out how important this statement is. In the US, progressives usually seem to come together when there is a Democrat in the White House. The last time the progressive movement gathered steam, was after 8 years of Clinton to rally against Gore (Nader's campaign). When Republicans have control, the Left is usually very silent (expectations are low).
Just to be clear: All parties and opinions elected are always present in the danish parliament. Only the balance changes, since it is relatively seldom a new party forms and makes it into parliament.
There are battles internally in the parties, but again 9 parties present in parliament makes the tension a lot less severe than having 2. Especially the scare-tactic doesn't work as well since you might be hitting one party, but it is not certain that you will pick up the votes for it.
Christiania has send a representative to Wall Street to sell shares in "peoples Christiania".
Christiania is an autonome and permanent occupation of a part of Copenhagen. It has been a thorn in the eyes of especially the rightwing in Denmark since the 70'es when it started. They primarily made money through selling hash in the 80'es and 90'es, but the government closed it down in 00'es by almost permanently having police there. (Yes hash is illegal)
A courtcase against them has been running since 2004, to claim back the land they occupy. After Christiania lost the case a price of about 16 million dollars for the land was set. To pay for the land, Christiania made an association called "peoples Christiania" with the purpose of buying the land from the government. They chose to do it by selling shares. They have sold for about 1 million dollars so far in Denmark. Now they have send a representative to Wall Street to try and convince the traders that "social stocks" are worth buying. The argument is "earning money from stocks is good and all, but investing in social shares is more gratifying!" and "...If you buy one of these shares, you’re guaranteed not to make any money of them,”
So far they have sold for 10 dollars in shares, but they have only just begun to sell their message.
They are planning to join up with Occupy Wall Street to share experiences in the coming days!
Just to be clear: All parties and opinions elected are always present in the danish parliament. Only the balance changes, since it is relatively seldom a new party forms and makes it into parliament.
There are battles internally in the parties, but again 9 parties present in parliament makes the tension a lot less severe than having 2. Especially the scare-tactic doesn't work as well since you might be hitting one party, but it is not certain that you will pick up the votes for it.
Very true, I believe it is much more representative and fair compared with our winner-take-all system.
This artistic flow chart is amazing: "All of our grievances are connected".
I dislike it when images like these claim things are rights. I spotted one that said education was a right. I believe you have a right to seek an education, but to say it's a right....
I love the enthusiasm for change, but I feel its mentality is getting a little too 'entitlement' friendly.
This artistic flow chart is amazing: "All of our grievances are connected".
I dislike it when images like these claim things are rights. I spotted one that said education was a right. I believe you have a right to seek an education, but to say it's a right....
I love the enthusiasm for change, but I feel its mentality is getting a little too 'entitlement' friendly.
Should we not educate our public? What good does society get by us not offering education to those who seek it, education should not be a choice between obtaining a better job/crippling debt and staying where you are, with considerations without college or expensive technical training probably at the bottom 20% of earners.
This artistic flow chart is amazing: "All of our grievances are connected".
I dislike it when images like these claim things are rights. I spotted one that said education was a right. I believe you have a right to seek an education, but to say it's a right....
I love the enthusiasm for change, but I feel its mentality is getting a little too 'entitlement' friendly.
Should we not educate our public? What good does society get by us not offering education to those who seek it, education should not be a choice between obtaining a better job/crippling debt and staying where you are, with considerations without college or expensive technical training probably at the bottom 20% of earners.
Offering choice in education, and forcing government controlled education are two entirely different things. I agree wholeheartedly that education should be available and affordable. I just don't think government does a good job at it.
This artistic flow chart is amazing: "All of our grievances are connected".
I dislike it when images like these claim things are rights. I spotted one that said education was a right. I believe you have a right to seek an education, but to say it's a right....
I love the enthusiasm for change, but I feel its mentality is getting a little too 'entitlement' friendly.
Should we not educate our public? What good does society get by us not offering education to those who seek it, education should not be a choice between obtaining a better job/crippling debt and staying where you are, with considerations without college or expensive technical training probably at the bottom 20% of earners.
Offering choice in education, and forcing government controlled education are two entirely different things. I agree wholeheartedly that education should be available and affordable. I just don't think government does a good job at it.
I'd argue that on the avg it does a good job it's just a matter of assessing what they are being handed. If you're looking at non religious private schools they cost more often twice as much per student then the pubilc school so you're already being short changed, further more when you take in all of those no matter economic status often you'll find those who can afford to pay extra for schooling can afford to be on top of their children education. There are many other factors but rather not get into that. But perhaps you would prefer a system in which the schools are private but the money to pay for them is already taken care of, we still pay taxes for school etc but rather students have to apply and get taken by the schools and there would be some sort of system that pays for that child. There are probably issues dealing with that kind of system but i rather not have to think about there conflicts can arise and exploitation can come from when profiteering is allowed into education which would probably come from taking in the lower end students.
My girlfriend wanted to protest with Occupy Seattle. I had little interest in participating and thought it to be pointless. But the last month or so, things have shaken up, the rich got richer, I got poorer, food prices are going to go up again, and the CEO of JP Morgan made a curious visit to Seattle recently, and was met by angry protesters, who were then met with Seattle PD using bicycle shields as a means of crowd control. After chewing the fat with some coworkers and my gf about all that is going on for the last month, I, for once, actually felt a little inspired.
But I guess I'm a coward, because I've seen what Seattle PD, NYPD, and Oakland PD do to protesters. Basically I'm afraid of me or my gf getting fucked up by an overzealous law enforcer. I wonder if policeman go too far because they basically "lose it," abuse their power, or are instructed to deter more protesters from coming out by exacting a little "justice" on the ones that have already stepped out. I feel pathetic
EPT
