What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and they carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
--Buffalo Springfield
Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see
Oh, what's going on, what's going on
Yeah, what's going on, oh, what's going on
--Marvin Gaye
We shall overcome,
We shall overcome,
We shall overcome, some day.
Oh, deep in my heart,
I do believe
We shall overcome, some day.
--Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, many others.
(Guess I'm just an old fogey living in the past. I'll have something more contemporary next time. Promise--KJ)
It's wonderful when people protest peacefully and their voices can be heard at last, but sad when they are bludgeoned into silence by those in power who do not want to hear. Thanks, Kirk.
ReplyDelete@Elisabeth: Looks like there was some bludgeoning going on in Oakland:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slashgear.com/occupy-oakland-police-brutality-youtube-videos-stay-after-police-demands-to-delete-27191633/
Thanks for commenting, Elisabeth.
My daughter when to school and lived for a few years in Oakland and I never once felt safe in that city. Police or People there is too much violence on all sides in Oakland.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know/understand what these protest are doing for me and my out of work daughter ? are jobs being made, opportunities being forged because people are sitting, sleeping and marching in the streets ?
I know in Tucson they are costing me a lot of money, that I and the City does not have. They are now importing protesters to add to their numbers.
I understand protests I lived through the 60's and don't really want to live through that again. All that peace, love and drugs didn't really amount to much but a really drugged out crazy almost choking me to death. sooooooo I want to know what are people sitting in a park doing to make jobs. We all ready know our President that was suppose to "make Change" bailed out Wall Street. Are they sitting in front of the White House protesting ? if they are I could maybe understand somewhat better. Accountability.
This all started back in the Clinton years of spend spend spend, money" on paper, instant start-up companies, buying on margin, more toys too many credit cards, buy more save less and spending what you don't have.
My x would always tell me "but on paper we are multi millionaires" Paper paper paper it is all air and not worth the paper it was printed on. Lots of people got sucked up in a pretend world. all show no substance.
I really don't understand and I know I don't want to see anymore violence.
Think I went off on a tangent here.
sorry.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@parsnip--I don't mind tangents. Gives me something to repond to.
ReplyDeleteNever been to Oakland, but I've heard it's a rough town. Maybe that's why the Raiders came back.
Are jobs being made, opportunities being forged, because people are sitting, sleeping, marching on the streets? Probably not. But I don't think it's PREVENTING any jobs from being made, or opporunities being forged. It's not like a lot of jobs and opporunities were being made or forged before the protests.
Can't speak to what's going on in Tucson. Didn't know there were protests there. Didn't know people were being imported there. I would think that if protesters were being imported anywhere, it would be New York City, since that's our nation's financial capital.
Sorry that the drugged out crazy almost choked you to death. But, keep in mind that before, during, and after the 1960s, there were plenty of alcoholic crazies willing to not only choke but also knife and shoot people to death. Some of that even went on during Prohibition. Ever hear of Al Capone? Acually, he may have been perfectly sober when he shot someone. Anyway, crazy, violent people have been with us since the beginning of time. Just ask Abel about that brother of his.
Actually, George W Bush was still in the Oval Office when the banks were bailed out. As a Senator, Barak Obama voted for the bailout that Bush signed into law, so I'd say they're both to blame.
Why aren't the protesters sitting in front of the White House? Actually, there is an Occupy Washington going on, though I'm not sure if it's in front of the White House or not. Anyway, as to why President Obama, or, for that matter, the Congress or the Supreme Court, is not the PRIMARY focus of these demonstrations, is that the protesters have come to the rather sorry conclusion that our government is toothless and totally in the pocket of Wall Street. If you disagree with that, if you believe government isn't in the pocket of Wall Street, if you believe Wall Street could solve this country's economic problems if only government (and the protesters) would just leave them alone, fine. That's a point of view many people have, incuding most of those now running for president. But then you can't blame the bailouts. Wall Street SUPPORTED those.
By the way, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying YOU believe Wall Street can solve our problems. But some who have criticized the bailouts have taken that contradictory point of view.
I do agree with you that Bill Clinton contributed to this mess. If fact, when Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall (not sure if I spelled that right) and did various other things that Wall Street favored, I wish people had protested THAT instead of worrying about who he was sleeping with.
I don't want to see anymore violence either. That's why I decided to broach this topic. Up until the Oakland incident, I had been staying away from it.
Thanks for commenting, parsnip.
Just looked it up. It's Glass-Steagall.
ReplyDeleteMy spelling is violent.
if things are to change, we have to start somewhere. the occupy movement is in its infancy. i do hope it has more staying power than the 60s protests. this is different. any creation of jobs, opportunities will not be made overnight, just like they weren't done away with overnight. we have to start with waking up.
ReplyDelete@rraine--I know you're on the side of the angels, rraine, so don't think I'm playing devil's advocate when I ask: Do you really believe that the protests in the 1960s had no staying power? Now, by "no staying power" do you mean the protests had no lasting impact? You don't believe the Civil Rights Movement, the Mother of all other 1960s protests, eventually led to the first black president? You don't think the Vietnam protests eventually led to 18-year olds getting the right to vote, a fairer draft (the lottery replacing the granting of deferments), followed by the end of the draft itself, followed by America's withdrawal from the war itself? How about the feminist protests, which in my youth was referred to as "Woman's Lib"? You don't think that eventually led to three women currently serving on the Supreme Court? Also, did you know that female secretary of states have outnumbered men in the past 20 years? You can even argue that all that bra burning of yesteryear eventually led to the anti-sexual harrasment laws that now so dog Herman Cain. And, finally, toward the end of the 1960s came the Gay Rights Movement. 50 years ago gays were considered criminally insane. Now they have talk shows.
ReplyDeleteI suspect, rraine, what you really meant by the protests having no staying power is that the protests themselves ended (in which case, yes, I AM playing devil's advocate; I felt the sudden urge to pontificate on the subject). Well, you can't very well protest the Vietname War if there's no Vietnam War to protest. Of course, people stopped, or never started, protesting problems that replaced the ones in the 1960s. I think maybe the art of protesting was a victim of its own success. People who didn't--and who still don't-- like the changes the 1960s wrought grew more savvy about discouraging and defeating newer challenges to the status quo. Remember, they were largely taken surprised by the '60s protests. Since then they've become more vigilent. Until NOW, that is. They're totally flummoxed by these new protests. And they really shouldn't be, given that they've been experimenting with protests of their own, i.e. the Tea Party.
In the end, you can't really PROVE protests produce real change. Any more than you can op-ed collumns, books, plays, movies, etc (remember, they're all protected by that same First Amendment.) Maybe JFK would have proposed and LBJ would have signed into law civil rights legislation without any help from that buttinsky Martin Luther King. Nixon first expanded (criminally in my opinion) the Vietnam War before finally pulling out, so maybe the protests had nothing to do with that, either. Somehow, I don't think so. Remember, all the successfull movements I mentioned started with somebody voicing an opinion that was quite unpopular at the time. SOMETHING must have changed people's minds.
Thanks for commenting, rraine.
Man, I proofread that fucking comment THREE times before I decided to publish, and I STILL didn't catch "they were largely taken suprised by the '60s protests"! That should be either "they were largely taken surprise [no past tense] by the '60s protests" or "they were largely surprised by the '60s protests". Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteSheesh!
Hey, thanks for your reply to my comment. I should never really try to write more that two sentences, as I get lost and it takes me a page to say one line....
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I think one point I was trying to make was our mass consummation of stuff we don't need at huge cheap prices. Why ?
We need to buy local and American products that fuel/support local business from the tire station to the lunch cart to the office supply store.
We have taxed the ranches and farmers to oblivion so they have to sell out. We outsource way to much stuff. I buy green chilies and tomatoes that are old and wrinkled from Mexico instead of the local farmers.
The sanctions have been lifted so now the trucks from Mexico start driving farther inland and not just the 55 miles into the border states... we are selling out our workforce short.
Do you know that the steel for the repairs and new ramps on the Golden Gate Bridge was outsourced to China ? The same country that had no qualms in killing off a much of a whole generation of children to tainted milk ? If they don't care to protect there own people how can we trust them to protect us. I will never dive on The Golden Gate Bridge again and feel safe.
So maybe what I was trying to say we are partly responsible for the hole we are. We want everything now, and lots of stuff, way to much stuff to impress way too many people who we don't even know with our "paper" wealth.
I am very conservative with what little money I live on. I own my home and car and pay off my credit card every month. I still help and support 3 children. My footprint is very small. My home is passive solar. I have a cistern for rain water.
Yes, protest but I still don't understand how (in Tucson) sleeping, cooking food in a park and every once in awhile be sure to get on the Local News is helping find a way to produce jobs.
I remember Glass-Stegall. My x knew someone in the Clinton White House and it was way worst than you will ever know.
While I understand the bigger overall picture you were talking about I think people got caught up in the bigger lush style instead of
values.
When you live in a Western State you really don't believe in the government/wallstreet, they rarely take us into consideration. My vote has never counted, elections are called and won in the East Coast before I even get to vote. I live in a small state so in truth I really don't count. That is one reason I am a states rights believer.
As much as one likes or dislikes the Tea Party, you have to admit they got mad, joined together and made themselves a force to be counted. That is what the park protesters need to do. Leave the parks, join together as a voting block and get power to change.
so in closing as you are now falling asleep... blah blah blah gayle blah blah blah just another rant.
cheers, parsnip
@parsnip--I didn't fall asleep, parsnip. I did have to kind of speed-read your second comment as I write this stuff in the library and it closes pretty soon. I'll give it a closer reading tommorrow.
ReplyDeleteI will say that in additon to having a smaller population (with the exception of California and Texas, our two biggest states) the West is also hampered by the fact that the networks, and now the Internet, report who's going to win an election before the polls in your neck of the woods (or desert) even closes. It IS unfair. Not much you can do about that, as the network and the Internet (the latter of which we are now communicating on) is protected by the First Amendment. Maybe if they let you folks vote a day earlier or something, that would help. If it's any consolation, 3 of the last 5 presidents were from Western states. I'll be honest and tell you that those three gentleman weren't exactly my cup of tea (get it?) but the nice thing about democracy is we all get to take turns without any blood being shed.
Kirk...
ReplyDeleteYou are so funny and I only drink Tea in Japan (and the best iced coffee) I am a coffee person in the US ! hahahahahahaha...
As a registered Democrat since I started to vote in the stone age, I do vote across party line. I must admit The Tea Party minus all the crazy is sounding pretty good to me. For us who live in Arizona it will never matter, we are the battle fodder for Washington.
cheers, parsnip
kirk-"Of course, people stopped, or never started, protesting problems that replaced the ones in the 1960s."
ReplyDeleteall your examples are right on (to resurrect a phrase!).
and that's where i was looking. some of the same things are still around; we're still in wars we have no business being in. racism, sexism, ageism, all the usual suspects remain in one form or another. i think we went back to sleep. it took an economic crisis to act as an alarm clock.
and i like your devil's advocate. next time, can we switch roles? :-)
@parsnip--I've voted across party lines before, but it's been a awhile. I don't particularly like identifying with a political party. I don't particularly like the two-party system in general. But the two-party system goes on whether I like it or not. Since my convictions (the kind you believe in, not the ones on your rap sheet), aren't perfectly situated in the middle, I pretty much have to take sides. Resurrect Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and I'll again happily cross party lines. Thank you for commenting, parsnip, and don't be afraid to do so in the future.
ReplyDelete@rraine--Yeah, all those problems still exist, but at least everyone now KNOWS they exist. On TMC they show these short subject documentaries that use to play in movie theaters before the main feature. One was about the modern South, or rather, the modern South in the 1940s, when this short was made. A couple of elderly ex-slaves were featured. According to the white narrarator, these slaves were "waxing nostalgic about the happy times before the Civil War". Oh, REALLY??? As these ex-slaves had to be in their 90s by 1940, maybe they were senile.
Given the lingering bad feelings over Vietnam, that we've backslid so much when it comes to ill-concieved military adventures is a bit surprising. But I chalk that up to the shock and awe of 9/11.
Want to switch roles and play devil's advocate? Sure, though I'm not sure the angels will have me!
The "two party system" is broken. It just guarantees the ruling class it's ability to stay in power. It doesn't matter what party "wins" an election. It's a myth that we can vote to make a difference. "They" still win. What's exciting about the Occupy movement is that it's outside of politics as usual. It's the real thing. This is a voice that has to be heard, and it will be. It's time there was a redistribution of wealth. People aren't out of work because they want to be, they're out of work because the ruling class thinks they don't need American workers anymore. Work is cheaper where there aren't unions and sticky things like regulations. Corporate power has killed America, and most other countries as well. Enough.
ReplyDeleteNice article, thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete@Badger--I basically agree with you, but am still wondering how this is all going to play out. Here's my problem: although I haven't looked at every sign and placard in every city being "occupied", the protesters don't seem to have specifically singled out the Republican Party for criticism. As you say, they want to transcend party politics. Yet the Republican Party has been quick to take offense. Most, if not all, of the Republicans currently running for president have criticized the movement. It's as if the GOP WANTS people to think it and Wall Street is one and the same. Meanwhile the Democrats, at least on the national level, are either staying mum, or giving tepid support. What that means is the Occupy Movement could end up being seen as essentally a part of the Democratic Party WHETHER THE PROTESTERS LIKE IT OR NOT. What does this mean for next year's presidental election? With the Republican candidates rejecting the movement out of hand, will it be seen as an adjunct of the Committee to Re-Elect President Barak Obama, regardless of WHETHER THE PROTESTERS LIKE IT OR NOT? Given the current Rebublican field, I'll probably vote for Obama as the lesser of two--well, I don't want to say "evils" as Obama seems like a decent fellow. Let's just say the lesser of two sell-outs. But for the movement to be seen that way would rob it of considerable power. Let's hope the movement can sustain itself way beyond the election, NO MATTER WHO ends up as our next president. Thanks for commenting, Badger.
ReplyDelete@rental mobile jakarta--Thank you for you kind words. I'm touched. Really, I am. But I'm not going to rent one of your cars. For starters, it's a little too far a distance for me to travel just to pick up a car. And the volcano you have out there makes me kind of nervous.
...um...That's BaraCk Obama...left out a letter before...
ReplyDelete