• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The "Occupy" Movement

It's true that Wall Street played fast and loose with other people's money, but those toxic investments were only created because the Clinton White House directed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to issue mortgages to people who should never have gotten them. It's completely unfair, and ignores historical fact to blame George Bush for the current state of affairs.
 
ballz said:
I don't think the government or employers have ever stressed the importance of a university education, the universities have. Unfortunately, you're right, in high school you are led to believe that university is very important. Unfortunately, those teachers are all university educated as well. And also unfortunately, most parents I've come across (including my own) also stressed the importance of university.

I agree that there should be more in high school to prepare educate young people about what's in store, what the realities are, and to challenge them to start asking themselves what they really want to do. Likely to strongly opposed by teachers though, for various reasons. Unfortunately, a high school education has gone the same way as a university education...

Which program?

It depends on where you apply for a job. Have you ever applied for the government? Almost all of the jobs I have applied for stress that a degree is either a necessity or an advantage over those who do not have one. As far as Government not stressing it, have you never heard a Liberal speak, lol? Not to mention that Universities are federally funded, so if the Government doesn't have a hand in it, than, why would they help fund it? My Uni wouldn't even shut down on a snow day until after noon because they had to stay open a certain amount of hours or something to recieve their money from the government, lol. That's awesome when you drive a Hyundai Accent (standard) with all season tires and your Uni is built on a ginormous hill.  ::)

I think a lot of different people from different levels need to give their head a shake, and let us know the real deal before we go to school.

Also, I decided to go back and do Criminology at Eastern College. It is the only program in my area that is supported by the Military as entry for Military Police, even if for whatever reason I don't choose Military, I want to keep as many options open as I can. Plus, my husband is Military so it wouldn't have made sense financially for me to go away for school.

Have a good day!  :nod:
 
Delaney1986 said:
It depends on where you apply for a job. Have you ever applied for the government? Almost all of the jobs I have applied for stress that a degree is either a necessity or an advantage over those who do not have one. As far as Government not stressing it, have you never heard a Liberal speak, lol? Not to mention that Universities are federally funded, so if the Government doesn't have a hand in it, than, why would they help fund it? My Uni wouldn't even shut down on a snow day until after noon because they had to stay open a certain amount of hours or something to recieve their money from the government, lol. That's awesome when you drive a Hyundai Accent (standard) with all season tires and your Uni is built on a ginormous hill.  ::)

I haven't applied for a government job but being in Newfoundland I know a lot of government employees (it's considered one of the top jobs here), most don't have a degree.

Are you confusing "education" with "university?" Universities are federally subsidized, but they are also provincially subsidized, and they both subsidize trade schools and whatnot. They also subsidize apprenticeships, and offer tax breaks to people starting a trade (aka you can get a tax refund for "x" amount of tools that you had to purchase because you were starting an apprenticeship). They both also pay for your high school education. This is done for the obvious reason of having a well-trained, well-educated general population is going to benefit society as a whole. The benefits exceed the cost so to speak.

I don't see it as encouraging people to go to university and get a degree instead of getting a trade or something at all. Actually I'd argue the trades lately have been getting a lot more attention from the government due to the way industry in Canada is.
 
ballz said:
Holy crap, sorry to bring this back to the education discussion we were having, but I'm here reviewing the slides for my Introduction to Political Science course (hey, 4th years need easy electives too ;D) and I must have been passed out cold in class when this slide came up or I assure you I would have been the prof's most-hated student ever.

Found on slide 22 in the "Introduction.ppt" file http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~russellw/Teaching.html

Talk about a university selling people BULL$#!+

*I realize that it may be statistically correct, but implying that you need a POSC degree, or that a POSC degree applies to / will help you get a job in that 20% of jobs, is completely dishonest.

Follow the bouncing links and read the Profs 12 (WTF) CVand it kind of makes the BS clear. Nice to see my alma matter is still hiring the cream to shape young impressionable minds.  :sarcasm:
 
How about we occupy the Mustang Ranch to liberate those poor oppressed women?

I'll bring some JD. >:D
 
A thought on education:

1. There is no such thing as too much education;

2. There are no "bad" degrees - not everyone wants to or should be an engineer or mathematician;

3. Philosophers are valuable people who, on balance, contribute as much to civilization as do scientists;

4. The is a difference between education and training - it is nice to have both; and

5. Those who elect to study philosophy or political science and who either do not want to or are unable to reach PhD level and teach must consider other useful and valuable careers: MARS or infantry officer, for example. Those men and women will need some training to go with their education but their educations will not be wasted - education rarely is.
 
Edward I agree, my academic credentials are in no way directly related to my present profession nor were they to my previous military. In both cases I undertook extensive specialized training and upgrading to be able to "do my job" effectively. However I don't consider my "arts" and "social science" background/formal education as useless. or wasted. There  were many things that could be applied elsewhere.  I did understand that it would require more though to find a usefull and productive career(s). Mine and many others decision was to obtain that or settle for less.  No one hands it to you a platter ( silver or otherwise) no matter how much you may whine. A fact that seems to escape these well meaning but misguided individuals.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
A thought on education:

1. There is no such thing as too much education;

2. There are no "bad" degrees - not everyone wants to or should be an engineer or mathematician;

I agree that there is not such a thing as a bad "field of study," but there are bad degree programs / bad schools, and a lot of them. A bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. You pay money, you attend, you regurgitate for 4 years, you get a degree. But Sir Thomas Moore said it best; “Many are schooled, but few are educated."

My argument with my Finance prof is that if taxpayer's are paying out of their @$$ to subsidize this stuff (and we are), then the institution should be expected to maintain a certain standard so that we as a society make good on our investment. I don't believe we are, not even close.

In Germany they subsidize education based on its contribution to the economy. So if 1% of the GDP gets spent on education, and the field of engineering pays 5% of the overall tax revenues, it gets 5% of that 1%. If your field doesn't contribute, it doesn't get funding.

I personally don't understand why a theatre student at MUN is subsidized about $6250 / 2 semesters (not including tax benefits, government grants / interest free loans, etc), yet a kid from a poor family can't get his $500 hockey fee /  $300 martial arts fee / etc paid for by the government. Theatre and hockey are both hobbies. They're both unlikely to lead to a career. They're really not different in my mind, they're both great things if you love to do them but I shouldn't have to pay for it. Now, if the government wanted to take $2550 (cost of tuition for a Canadian citizen at MUN) out of that $6250 and give engineer's a free education, then I am all ears. Not because I think people who want to be engineers are better and deserve more, but because we might actually get a return on that money.

EDIT: So, I guess I could of summed that all up by saying "An education without job prospects is not a waste, but it's a waste of taxpayer's money."
 
E.R. Campbell said:
A thought on education:

1. There is no such thing as too much education;

2. There are no "bad" degrees - not everyone wants to or should be an engineer or mathematician;

3. Philosophers are valuable people who, on balance, contribute as much to civilization as do scientists;

4. The is a difference between education and training - it is nice to have both; and

5. Those who elect to study philosophy or political science and who either do not want to or are unable to reach PhD level and teach must consider other useful and valuable careers: MARS or infantry officer, for example. Those men and women will need some training to go with their education but their educations will not be wasted - education rarely is.

Music to my ears.

//signed//
Technoviking
BA (Hons) German and Philosophy (UWO 99)
And Infantry Officer
 
Technoviking said:
Music to my ears.

//signed//
Technoviking
BA (Hons) German and Philosophy (UWO 99)
And Infantry Officer

I also thought that post was 100% custom made for you ;D
 
Delaney1986 said:
Hope that clarifies a bit more of my decisions and my situation now, let me know if you have any other questions.

Nope. No questions.
Just a sincere "good luck" in your endeavours.
 
And back to the actual "occupation" movements; PJM reporter "Zombie" does a walkabout in the Oakland camp with camera and documentary reportage (lots and lots of pics at the link):

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/24/is-occupy-oakland-as-bad-as-they-say/

Is Occupy Oakland as Bad as They Say?
Posted By Zombie On October 24, 2011 @ 2:58 am In Uncategorized | 148 Comments

Much ado has been made about recent media reports describing Occupy Oakland as a cross between Lord of the Flies and Animal House. The leftist magazine Mother Jones was furious about the negative coverage, deeming it “The Right-Wing Media Assault on Occupy Oakland,” and attempting to debunk the bad press. But Big Journalism lashed back with an article entitled MotherJones: Truth To Unflattering Reports On OWS.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check out the scene for myself to settle the matter.


Occupy Oakland is a tent encampment in the park facing Oakland’s City Hall. Wooden pathways wend between dozens of tents inhabited by over a hundred activists.

Saturday, October 22 was a special day for the Occupiers: A rally and march were planned at noon. A talented local artist recorded the scene as hundreds of day-protesters arrived to hear the speakers in the amphitheater adjacent to the camp.

Adding to the excitement: Today was “Bring Down Capatalism Day,” so we were all eagerly anticipating the destruction of “capatalism” by nightfall. The only remaining question was: How would we bring it down? With “Group Cacases”?


This protester had the answer: Behead all the evil capitalists.


Many in the crowd, such as QPOC (Queer People of Color, for all you ignorant facsists) called for the death of capitalism in a more generic sense.


Some of the speakers addressing the rally wanted to go “the full Lenin.”


But some of the protesters reminded us: If we aren’t all in tune with Allah, nothing will change. As the uprisings in North Africa have reminded us: the only path to true revolution is through Islam. Maybe this will be the American “Arab Spring” in more ways than one!

One thing quickly became apparent to me: Occupy Oakland at first tried to create a completely anarchistic rule-free social utopia — but as the days and weeks pass, the Occupiers are inescapably re-creating society from scratch, and before long will have all the same rules and customs and problems that they tried to abandon. (All of this is entirely predictable, I might add.)

During the boring speeches, I strolled around the encampment and discovered that many of the reports about Occupy Oakland are, unfortunately, true. Let’s look at them one by one:

DRUG USE and COMMERCE


Everywhere I went, I encountered people taking drugs — mostly marijuana. Many of them were understandably camera-shy. But this guy stood right on the main walkway and puffed away on a drug pipe.


The ground around and inside the camp was also littered with other evidence of drug use, such as this crack cocaine baggie that had been dropped or discarded.


This guy was sitting outside his tent, riffling through and counting huge wads of greenbacks. I can’t say for sure that he was a drug dealer, but I found it mighty suspicious that he would have such a massive amount of cash amidst such squalor.

DISGUSTINGNESS


The City of Oakland issued an eviction notice the day before the rally, citing sanitation issues, garbage, rats and other hygiene problems at the encampment. The protesters announced that they simply wouldn’t budge, and the city temporarily caved in, so for now the standoff continues, though the eviction notices are still taped up around the plaza. But as far as I could tell — yes, the city has a very good point. The place was pretty disgusting.


Paradise for rats.


Even more disturbingly, all over the camp were signs that said “Not a toilet,” because some occupiers basically relieve themselves wherever and whenever they feel the urge. Disgusted campers started putting up signs so that their particular tents wouldn’t be on the receiving end of any effluvia.


One tree had basically become an outside communal toilet, so the more environmental-minded Occupiers put up signs trying to discourage doing one’s business au naturel.

INTIMIDATING “INTERNAL SECURITY” TEAMS


Occupy Oakland has agreed by consensus to not cooperate with the Oakland Police Department under any circumstances. But as the law-breaking and nuisance behavior within the encampment started to grow, the evolving mini-society found it necessary to appoint its own ersatz police force. Basically, the scariest looking guys, and/or those guys with with strongest authoritarian urge, have assumed the role of internal policemen. As many reporters have discovered, these guys really really do not appreciate having their picture taken, so I could only get a few surreptitious shots. In this scene, someone had found a large Bowie knife in the camp and turned it into these two Occupolice, who set about scanning the crowd for the potential owner, ready to wreak justice on anyone who broke the “no weapons” law consensus agreement. They communicate with walkie-talkies.


There also seemed to be a possibly separate “rally security force” consisting of guys wearing Black Panther buttons on their berets.

People have often cited Lord of the Flies in reference to Occupy Oakland, and I tend to agree — but in a good way. In the original novel about boys stranded on a desert island, it’s not just that they descend into barbarism, but more interestingly they start to re-create society from first principles, instituting hierarchies and rules and customs where none had existed before. And it’s quite obvious that, left on their own for a sufficient amount of time, the book’s characters would naturally have developed a new society not much different from the one they left behind.


I see the same thing happening at Occupy Oakland: They reject the existence of the current police force, only to find it necessary to found a new substitute police force of their own, which were it to mature would eventually become an institution probably not much different from the original Oakland Police Force they so reviled. Here, for example, is the first incarnation of a “police station” in the emerging Occupy culture.

Around and around the cycle goes.


Remember Lovelle Mixon, the serial rapist, child molester and murderer who single-handedly committed one of the worst mass killings of police officers in American history? Yeah, that guy. Well, the anti-police sentiment at Occupy Oakland is so intense that they regard Lovelle Mixon as a hero!! Whatever other crimes he may have committed, if he offed some pigs, then all is forgiven. Fuck the Po-lice! Power to the people!


I guess there are so many crime victims at the camp that the Occupiers have found it necessary to establish a donation fund to help them — presumably to replace stolen items. Come back in ten years’ time, and this will be called “the insurance industry.”

SEGREGATION

But not all is rosy in this new society. Some of the very worst customs already banned from our existing society have re-emerged at Occupy Oakland. One of the ugliest of these is segregation.


The encampment has already fractured into a series of micro-neighborhoods, just like a real city. But at Occupy Oakland, where you are permitted to live is determined by your gender and/or racial or sexual identity. Here, for example, is a roped-off “gated community” reserved exclusively for female, gay and transgender residents.


Elsewhere are tents with a “minorities only” rule.


And lest you might be so naive to think that these rules would only ever apply to the Occupy camp, and not to the city at large should the Occupiers ever take over, be aware that one of the Occupation’s many demands is to “Stop White Gentrification in Oakland” — which would mean the establishment of new laws preventing white people from moving into certain neighborhoods.

Yes, my friends, the Occupy movement has made segregation trendy again!


They aleady have this in Middle Eastern society; it’s called a harem.

Didn’t mean to get so heavy. Let’s look at the lighter side of Occupy Oakland.


Slurp up the banality of existence with a krazy-straw of resistenc.


Finally, an idea I think everybody can agree on: Occupy Solyndra!


I’m Satanic — and I’ll take bowing down to a spiritual tyrant over an Economic one any day!


To show how egalitarian and open-minded the whole Occupy Oakland movement is, they have workshops both in Marxism 101 and in anarchism. Being mutually exclusive philosophies doesn’t matter — as long as they’re both devoted to destroying capitalism, we can work out the details later in a brutal post-revolution civil war. Sound familiar?


The main problem when communists and anarchists get together in the same revolution is that the communists are by nature so much more organized. As a result, they’re usually more visible, and the reporters (at least the ones not trying to paper over the whole thing) assume that the communists are dominant. The same is true at Occupy Oakland — the signage was about 50% communist/socialist, 25% anarchist/anti-authoritarian, and 25% incoherent/confused/personal. A casual observer would conclude that the protest was predominantly communist. But I suspect the anarchists and the crazies outnumber the actual communists, but they’re just not as good at advertising themselves.


This sign gets it right — socialism is basically one big across-the-board bailout of everything and everyone. Remember: If it doesn’t work on a small scale, try it on a massive scale! What could go wrong?


“Possible” is a long, long way from “desirable.”


Just as in a real city, the wooden “streets” among the tents were given names: the main drag was called “Free Health Care Blvd.” (though somebody knocked the sign down).
The post is quite long, but following the link, looking at the pictures and seeing what is happening for yourself should clarify things in everyone's minds
 
ModlrMike said:
It's true that Wall Street played fast and loose with other people's money, but those toxic investments were only created because the Clinton White House directed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to issue mortgages to people who should never have gotten them. It's completely unfair, and ignores historical fact to blame George Bush for the current state of affairs.

No, GW just linked to a link on economics from an earlier post, re: the Bush Tax Cuts (for the wealthiest), and fact of lack of regulatory oversight, by removal of 500 FBI white-collar crime investigators, it created favourable conditions for white collar criminal conduct.  Yes, Clinton certainly played a hand in assisting the deregulation of banks, it goes back to Carter as well:

Deregulation

Further information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis

Critics such as economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Key examples include:
Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[75] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.[citation needed]
In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation,[citation needed] and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.[76]
In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had fiscally conservative policies) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[77][78]
In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[79][80]
Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[81] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.
Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[82] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[83] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[84]
As early as 1997, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[85] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[86] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[87] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.[88][89

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008 ).  According to Bill Black, the Obama Administration did have more powers to go after the big banker criminals.  In Glass Steagall act, part of the power was to maintain separation (prevent conflict of interest) between banking and investment banking, in the Obama admin., there's also a big conflict of interest, the Treasurer, Michael Geitner being awarded for failure.  I can go back and make some notes on that.  Also to point out, much of the deregulation occurred with bipartisan support (voted in).  I think it's a concern among the Occupiers, this level of corruption and conflict of interest.  Then there's a higher level of conflict of interest (vs. sovereignty, democracy w/i country), by G20-- when compared to the effects to the 99%, and the working poor, and middle class who are bearing the burden disproportionately.  It's just not a great situation, some decline.  Reality is interdependence re: economy, that kind of flies in the face of what we believe about personal merit, when there are limits imposed as a result of economic restructuring, sometimes personal merit can squeeze through the cracks though, just things are tightening further, I think/suspect.  I read a stats elsewhere, re: 40 M Americans rely on foodstamps (including employed americans); 8 Million jobs were lost as a result of 2008 WS, etc. (from CBC Meltdown Fact Sheet).

---
On another note, glad to hear some respect on the merits of higher education (it's a lucky experience, expansion).  I think with undergrad, need to combine with other education (college diploma)/work experience, e.g. like the Army, etc.  Things have grown into demands for greater specialization.  An undergrad, generally is not worth the same weight now, vs. 20-30 years ago. 
 
Meanwhile, things in Vancouver are deteriorating:

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/26/gregor-robertsons-big-lie-yes-another-and-once-again-the-media-sleeping-get-rid-of-occupy-vancouver-heres-how/

Gregor Robertson’s Big Lie (Yes, Another) and Once Again, the Media Sleeping….GET RID OF OCCUPY VANCOUVER–HERE’S HOW
...
Corporate greed is what started this global mess. We all get that. Goldman Sachs and all their pals sure knew what to do to make such a huge mess and they did it. The Americans have been operating on the systemic, flimsy premise of spend and borrow since the days of Jimmy Carter and all through Reagan, two Bushes, a Clinton and the current, exceedingly mindless occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But that these ‘Occupy’ movements represent anything more than another opportunity for far left loons and some far right conspiracy theorists to scream and stomp, is ridiculous.

I went back down again a couple of days ago, and where it looked dangerous before, the whole thing seems to have now come completely off the rails. There aren’t more people there. They’ve just moved some of the funky and musty from one crowded side to the other. It’s a complete joke. But what really got me was this: An entire collage dedicated to what? Go on guess. Go on.

Okay, let me help.

Canadian forces are “baby killers.” And our brave sons and daughters are “Jew supporters” (as if this is somehow a bad thing!) I spent ten minutes trying to understand the twisted, HATEFUL logic of a gal named, of all things. ‘Memory’ who eventually insisted that I get away from her, because “my aura” was “really fucking scary…your eyes are dead, you look like the devil.” Yes, that’s the new addition to the previous nuttiness, my darlings. It’s not enough they’re anti-war (as is anyone’s prerogative) but to heap scorn and mock our heroes? PATHETIC! DISGUSTING!

I guess, it’s not enough to make wild-eyed claims about 9/11; remain significantly short of any and all answers to the problems they trumpet and generally be pessimistic about the world itself, but now the new kid on the ‘Occupy’ block is the most disgraceful of all: Denigrating Canadian heroes, our servicemen and women, whose courageous derrieres protect the right of these bastards to criticize.
...

More on link
 
Oakland police shot an Iraq Vet in the face with a tear gas gun. He's in critical condition on a respirator. His crime? Wanting to protest by camping in a city park.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=626595,b=facebook
 
>Check out the links I provided to Bill Black for perspective of the criminal actions of the banksters

I thought you mean criminal as in, prosecuted and found guilty.  I'm sure there are plenty of opinions about criminality, but those are worth what you pay for them.
 
>it created favourable conditions for white collar criminal conduct.

But most of your information just seems to be a lament over regulation, not that anyone was playing outside the rules as written.

Maybe if regulators did not press institutions to make shitty loans, institutions would make good loans and would not be as motivated to develop arcane - and legal - strategies to mitigate risk.  Again, the big complaint here seems to be that those goddamn banksters managed to weasel out from under the social engineering yoke Barney and friends created.
 
Back
Top