This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I go to Zuccotti Park
Sunday was beautiful in NYC. Indian summer. I went to the OWS protest. Some observations and some pictures.
Zuccotti park is where the action is contained. This is a miserable excuse for a park. It’s about the size of a football field. Not a blade of grass to be found. As you will see from the pics, this place is already jammed. The limited space may prove to be an issue for this demonstration. You can’t get more than a few thousand in this cramped area.
The park is sandwiched between Broadway and Church. It’s bounded by Liberty St (and some other street I forgot the name of). On one side is the Brown Brothers Harriman Building (talk about white spats).
On the other is the rapidly rising world trade building.
The cops have the place surrounded. But it was very clear that these policemen were not looking for trouble. Two blocks away, I found where the police had set up a command post. I suspect the guys with the helmets were resting over there.
Congressman Eric Cantor made a foolish remark over the weekend. He referred to the happenings in lower Manhattan as a “Mob Scene”. Cantor’s an ass. He has no clue what is going on. This was just a dumb sound bite. He will regret it.
There was no mob. There were no professional provocateurs. There was festive attitude. There was no anarchy.
The following pictures are the scenes that I saw. Look at the people in the background; you will not see anything threatening at all.
There was some attempt to bring order. A library, medical area, kitchen, a media center, legal aid and even a store for “essentials”:
Some people were painting signs:
Others were just painting people:
Wherever you looked there were signs. Just a few of the many:
There was one sign that caught my eye. I’m willing to bet it has also caught the eye of the FBI.
I left the area thinking that this very small group of people couldn’t possibly make much of a difference. It’s a rag tag demonstration. More a party than a serious effort to change the financial system. But as I walked north I thought of a different time in history. One that I participated in. To me, there was a very similar feeling in Zuccotti Park in 2011 to what existed in San Francisco in 1967.
The 1967 Summer of Love was a period where social/political changes began. The allure of sex, drugs, and rock and roll were very powerful magnets for this 17 year old.
I crossed the country and spent a few memorable months in San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury District.
I slept in a crash pad. I went to the Fillmore West and watched Jim Morrison of the Doors sing “Light My Fire” till sun came up. And yes, there were drugs. And yes there was “Free Love” in the park. And yes, it was a hell of a party. And yes, there was not much relevance to the whole thing.
But three years later a million people marched on D.C. and it altered the outcome of a war. It also tore the country inside out. It would be a big mistake to dismiss what is going on in Zuccotti Park. Whatever is happening there, it's not going to go away. It’s going to get bigger.
»
- advertisements -
Hey Dingus, you've got a fava bean stuck in your teeth...
I totally agree with you Bruce...
I went to Greynolds park in North Miami in 1967 every Sunday and it was the best time of my life...
Thanks Bruce once again. I have started having a little optimism flow in. Most of us are caring people. If we can avoid panic and violence and pull together, the system can be reformed.
Well, amongst all the dopey, dirty leftist hippies, and the usual socialist slogans, there was an "End the Fed" sign, so it isn't a completely pointless exercise on their part. But you're right-- like the 60s, this won't end well.
60s protests... essentially ended a pointless, costly war, then had the knock-on effect of forcing a corrupt government to resign in disgrace.
That would be a good start.
no, no no.....the 60's protests had the desired effect and the long term results of this experiment are being felt even today. nixon was watergated because he pissed in the wrong cornflakes. the anti war people had nothing to do with it..........nothing..........whatsoever......
Actually, 2 corrupt governments in a row resigned in disgrace - Johnson's & Nixon's. Only one of the leaders barely missed going to jail. At least Johnson was contrite. Truly baffled, he was sorry for his mistakes.
A forced resignation now would tickle me good, but not likely. Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of able leadership on the horizon....."Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to my right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAIsqvTh7g
"At least Johnson was contrite. Truly baffled, he was sorry for his mistakes."
Good one.
Duh, kinda like the oboy says today, Nixon inherited the mess from Johonson... You do have a good idea in "forcing a corrupt government to resign in disgrace". Indeed, "that would be a good start".
I believe Bruce's premise was that the 60's ended extremely well, e.g., a million folks marched on DC and ended a war.
But the war never really ended....look where we are today....everywhere!!!
As much as I wish that was true I believe it was the resilience of Ho Chi Minh and his people that ended that war.
Yep, and 2 million freedom loving Vietnamese were slaughtered by the communists as soon as we pulled out.
You, sir, are simply misinformed, or you are pulling numbers out of your ass.
We killed far more in operation Rolling Thunder by carpet bombing the North for 3 years (165,000 estimate) than the North Vietnamese did after taking over the South. And, let's not bring up the deformities and still born that continue to this very day from the dioxin and other chemicals we sprayed all over the country.
Regarding winning or losing.....we had lost before we even got started, just as we will lose in Iraq and lose in Afghanistan....and for the same reasons. We don't know what winning looks like. We won in Afghanistan within 6 months and could have come home then, but now it's 10 years later and our losses grow dailey. There is no final objective; only eternal war.......feed the machine.
No 11b40, you are misinformed or are purposefully misrepresenting the truth.
2 million refugees fled Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia after America pulled out.
Of those that did not escape:
1 million Vietnamese were slaughtered by Ho Chi Mihn after America pulled out.
2 million people were slaughtered by Pol Pot and the Kmer Rough in Cambodia after America pulled out.
Communism would have killed these people with or without the Vietnam War. America was fighting to prevent this slaughter, but the MSM won't tell you that. They won't direct you to the congressional records that forsaw the bloodbath that would occur if America did not intervene. We tried, but the subversives within our borders were able to rally the young and weak minded to their agenda. The result...a mini-holocaust.
Slaughter is the way communism/totalitarianism takes and keeps power. History has taught the Marxist that (on average) they must kill 10% of the population that cannot be re-educated. That's what Stalin did. That's what Moa did. That's what Che did. That's what they will do in America if they are given a chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
The world if full of bad people who want power and will find a way to take and keep it; even if that means sacrificing most of their subjects. History has taught us that time and again. Human nature has not changed and will never change in this era of man. Men/women will find ways to usurp power and oppress others. A strong military and a will to project that deadly force is a necessity of cultural life/death.
No, I am not wrong. You are changing the discussion. The topic was about how many Vietnamese were killed when we pulled out.
Cambodia was another subject altogether, and Laos yet another. Different cultures and different reasons for the killing that went on there.
I'm sorry, but I have had this debate many times over the past 40 years, and really don't feel like having it again. Go read some books on the subject. There are plenty of them out there.
I think he meant Cambodia. You're not suggesting that commies aren't hard on their vanquished foes, are you?
Absolutely not. Ccommunist dictators are ruthless and will destroy whatever gets in the way of the Party. Just like a Fascist leader will destroy any percieved threat to the state. Hammer, meet nail.
And yes, Cambodia, Laos, and civillians in the North. Sorry to be casual.
That didn't end the war, this ended the war.
58,272 KIA
303,644 Wounded in Action
1,687 MIA
It is called defeat.
If you're implying we were defeated militarily, then I think that's a... stretch to say the least. Especially considering we never lost a battle. If you are implying that our casualties were too much of a political burden to bear, then maybe so.
I'm really not sure what to call it... we basically stomped ass and then left... maybe the tide was turning against us, maybe it wasn't... If it is to go into the history books as a loss, I'd think there would need to be a big asterisk next to the L column. At the very least, I don't believe it has the same psychological effect as an outright military defeat... Hence, the plausible deniability to initiate new versions of the war...
By your logic MachoMan, the British didn't loose the war with American colonies and the Falcons didn't loose to the Packers last night; the Falcon's just ran out of time.
Not really... maybe you could argue the war of 1812, but I think that would be a stretch... Clearly, we told the brits to go fuck themselves and then stuffed it in their asses when they tried otherwise. In vietnam, the little bastards told the french to go fuck themselves and we decided to conscript a bunch of people to play with new toys and techniques and line the pockets of the MIC while at the same time testing the boundaries of domestic tolerance for blatant war mongering... and help the poor french out...
We didn't call anybody out... we just stepped in for a while, got sick of it, and went home... Clearly, territories that were brittish colonies became american by and through our victory in the war... in the case of vietnam, we lost no territory... made no concessions... there was never any gauntlet thrown down... no all or nothing... just us going over there to spray some nifty chemicals on indigents.
In the case of a football game, the rules are very clearly spelled out... however, in vietnam, I don't think anything was clearly spelled out... other than it was bullshit and completely and totally to line the pockets of the MIC. I mean, even if we were successful conventionally and "captured" all territories, we'd just lose them after a few decades at best... just give the land back lol... It's not really clear exactly what a victory is... hence I think a lot of the confusion about vietnam...
Clearly, we beat the fucking hell out of iraq the second time... but, we're gonna gtfo of there soon enough... did we win? I dunno... same in afghanistan... only took a couple hundred people on the ground. Did we win? Hell if I know... but at least we got to test a bunch of toys and line the pocket of the MIC some more. I just hope there is at least some larger geopolitical pie out of the deal, e.g. cutting off oil to china.
Again, I think universally we can accept that if your emperor, who rules with a mandate from heaven, is forced to go on national radio and tell everyone god doesn't exist, then I'd say you lost... or when foreign soldiers are pouring salt all over your farmland after your defeat, you lost... but when you just pack up the choppers and head back across the pond? I dunno... feels like some kind of limbo.
If you can't beat em, force em to make your shoes and windbreakers.
The Chinese occupied Siam for 300 years, fighting rebels the whole time, and then they just threw in the towel and left. Maybe we were just quicker learners.
@ Macho
We lost, simple as that. They forced us off the battlefield, practically the definition of victory: THEIR victory.
I guess... In some conventional sense, there is often a compromise or agreement made post "defeat". As best I can tell, we won every battle and then just left... I'm not sure it warrants a separate category of classification, but defeat is probably a stretch. I think we can all agree it wasn't a win... In a binary world, maybe loss is the appropriate classification, but I don't believe we live in that world.
I think any loss should really go to the French... it was their fight anyway. Not only did they puss out (go figure), but their hired guns couldn't finish the job... double fail. If you get hired by the puny kid to stop bobby the bully from stealing puny kid's lunch money, beat the fucking hell out of bobby, and then leave, did you really lose the fight?
At the very least, strictly as to our military, we proved the better man.
Does anybody really win a war?
Does anyone know what we were fighting for in Vietnam? I never did figure that one out. It's not like they had oil or something.
corporate profit within the military industrial complex in a war that was meant to be sustained
This, although the larger war was always red aggression... whether it's helping out rebels in afghanistan or crawling through vietnamese tunnels, same part of the larger war... or, more accurately, plan...
I'm pretty sure we beat germany and japan in wwII... and I'm pretty sure we beat england to claim our own country (although the war of 1812 was an interesting one...). And Texas is still part of the U.S., although we'll probably lose that one before too long (shhhh, just don't tell texans).
But to answer the question I think you're asking, hell yes. There are always winners in every political maneuver. The problem is that the beasts of burden are generally the losers... even the sovereigns... but, the military industrial complex lives on... the weapons sellers, manufacturers, and designers profit... sharks with laser beams. And on down the line... the boots on the ground are about the last to benefit... and get some pretty nasty souvenirs for the effort. We may or may not achieve any material political goals, but those weren't REALLY the point anyway (generally)[always].
Now, whether it is practical to have a war when it doesn't really settle the dispute (permanently) is another question (actually it exposes the purpose of war, but I digress)... Clearly, israel even after having beaten the shit out of its neighbors, isn't ever going to be loved by its neighbors or formally recognized. I realize time heals a lot of wounds, but not really... turning the other cheek just to get sexed in your bum at a different angle isn't much of a philosophy.
In short, yes, but not the people actually doing it.
YE$
http://nationaldefensemegadirectory.com/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
If you think that winning all the battles meant that we won the war, you don't know the first thing about war, economics, or politics. We were about as soundly defeated as any nation could have been. The Vietnam war (along with Johnson's stupid social programs and his moronic "war on poverty") literally bankrupted this country, evidenced by Nixon's closing of the gold window... and eventually led to the destruction of the US economy, which is happening 40 years later, right before our eyes.
Vietnam stopped fighting the Vietnam war in 1975. We're still fighting (and losing) the war today.
Eh, no... you're soundly defeated when your emperor has to go on national radio and admit to his entire nation that he really doesn't rule with a mandate from heaven and that god doesn't exist... or, alternatively, when your capital city gets split into multiple parts, occupied by your victors for decades.
So we're still fighting the war, but we were also defeated?
I guess we should have waited for Nike to conquer vietnam?
I already agreed that if you were speaking of anything outside of the military, we may have lost (lost it for ourselves, not defeated by an outside foe). And yes, typically if you win every battle in a war, you're going to win the war... now if you want to throw in economic and political constraints to the mix, then anything can happen... but I had already separated those issues in my comment...
I also disagree that you can point to any specific event as the end all be all to our ills... I would say, more than any particular person's actions, becoming morally bankrupt as a country (as a whole) has a much more profound impact on our success than a gold standard, wasteful wars thousands of miles away, or even the creation of the federal reserve. Now, if you want to discuss whether we're morally bankrupt from inception, then that might be a fruitful discussion... but, it is ultimately our moral bankruptcy that allows other events to shape our path, not vice versa... (nor am I saying that one does not beget the other after getting the ball rolling).
>>>I guess we should have waited for Nike to conquer vietnam?<<<
Funny choice of words, considering the missile implications...
The post traumatic stress that many vets have/still suffer(ed) with is an overlooked casualty. Bring the troops home, stop the wars. Period.
Much more have died from suicide after the war than died in country.
War is hell, and the chickenhawk elites love creating hell on earth.
That's called Lyndon Johnson
Otherwise known as democrat governance...
Not sure if you & the poster above you are just ignorant, or still stuck on stupid, but Johnson stepped down in '68 & the Nixon/Kissenger team took over with their 'secret' plan to end the war. HaHa. The joke was on us as the war was escalated and forrays into Cambodia & Laos increased. We left with our tails between our legs in '74.
Now, please explain how this was "democrat governance". It's best to lose those left/right, dem/rep divisive concepts and get on the America bandwagon.
But while we are remembering, don't forget, Nixon took us off the the Gold Standard along the way. He also implemented wage & price controls, and opened up our markets to trade with Communist China....not to mention Watergate.
First part is spot on. As for "American Bandwagon...so rather than blame left or right, we blame Europe, or China? Nationalism?
How about the individual freedom bandwagon?
McNamara admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin was staged to get us into the war, so it's all on the evil party, sorry.
Evil? Pelosi and her congress passed legislation that would require the average homeowner to spend $30000 on 'efficiency' improvements before they would be allowed to sell their homes. The entire democrat party voted for it. And they wouldn't take your word for it, inspectors were to come into your home to approve it. A new office for said inspectors was to be set up in every community. It didn't become law, but this is what the evil party desired, smack dab in the middle of the housing crisis. We have the stupid party and the evil party, and above both sits a shadow government. The bulk of the left's program is about coercion. Conservatives will let you fail, liberals will make you fail.
You are just too funny. I didn't see many 'conservatives' lined up to let the banksters fail.
No question, we were bamboozled into the V.N. war. but we were also lied into this one in Iraq.
Regardless, we will never right this ship if we don't get through the right/left, 2-party divide & conqueor paradigm. I have no allegiance to either party or either end of a political spectrum. I do like accuracy, though, and really struggle with partisans who only want to see (push) one side of an issue.
So, a little more context is called for here. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by unanamous vote in the House. In the Senate, only 2 votes were cast against it - both Dems. This was 1964 & we were immersed in the Cold War chess game. The Military/Industrial complex was straining in their harnesses to get going there. We were knee-deep in this thing & with spooks running around all over the place. Everyone thought it was the 'right thing to do'. Even me....I was hell-bent on becoming a Green Beret in 1966. LBJ had his way until 1968, and then Nizon carried on with the game plan and took it to a higher level. He owned it for 6 more years.
"I didn't see many 'conservatives' lined up to let the banksters fail."
That isn't true. Here's a CNN report from 9/28/08 - http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm
"The measure, which is designed to get battered lending markets working normally again, needed 218 votes for passage. But it came up 13 votes short of that target, with a final vote of 228 to 205 against. Two-thirds of Democrats and one-third of Republicans voted for the measure."
Also, the Tea Party was booting out GOP pols who voted for TARP in damn near every state during the 2010 primaries.
That was one of those "I voted for it before I voted against it" moments, because a few days later it passed with 91 republican votes and Bush signed it into law, while the actors in his administration ran around screaming the sky was falling. And, it really did look like the sky was falling. The day after this vote you cited, knocking down the bill, the market dropped 700 points.
Roger that on the Tea Party punishment, though.
Bottom line - they are all guilty as hell and don't serve us well. Just stop with the my side/your side shit. I don't have a side. I simply want this country put back on a proper legal system.
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite."
(Every nation gets the government it deserves.)
-Joseph de Maistre
This is a fallacy - either that or you don't know very many people. Humans in general don't deserve to be turned into serfs - that's the government we have.
Would all you socialist fucknuts please go back to dailykos, huffpuff, or wherever the fuck you came from. TIA.
I'm sure Peter Weller would be embarassed by your sad ass. Find a new handle.
Peter Weller told me to tell you to go fuck yourself.
I don't think that republicans read the Word of Gospel found in Dailykos, Huffington Post and Moveon.org; they're too busy leeching of the Government and parroting directives from the American Heritage Foundation. Your types will find no place to hide, the whole world is turning against you and your predatory economic system that has nothing in common with Capitalism.