Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dewey Square now an occupation zone
By adamg on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:01am
Protest at the Fed. Photo by Georgy Cohen.
Several hundred protesters, mostly young, turned the Greenway at Dewey Square into an impromptu protest village tonight, then marched toward Faneuil Hall - and across the street to the Federal Reserve Bank.
Occupy Boston, organized just over the last few days, seeks to protest what it says is subversion of the American economy and politics by Wall Street. Although some of the protesters came from an earlier demonstration outside the Bank of America building on Federal Street, the two events were planned by different groups.
Volunteers brought in food and water, organized legal, medical and sanitation teams and devised a plan that calls for twice-daily marches along the Freedom Trail for the foreseeable future - and a march tomorrow to Collegefest at the Hynes. Many planned to camp out in the park for the night. The media team gave a lesson on how to talk to reporters.
Because organizers didn't have a permit for a loudspeaker system, they used a "people's mike" system, in which people near a speaker would shout out what she was saying, creating a sort of wave that spread across the park - as well as a way to reinforce the speaker's message.
Unlike in New York, where police have raided a similar encampment near Wall Street, Boston Police stayed out of the park, although they made their presence known in the paved area by the Red Line entrances. Police Commissioner Ed Davis spent some time surveying the scene.
Police, however, quickly assembled across the street in front of the Federal Reserve Bank, when protesters surged across Atlantic>/a>, chanting "Fuck the Fed."
Earlier, the monthly Critical Mass bike ride pedaled by - each group gave the other huzzahs.
Looking for support among passing motorists. She got it.
Occupy Boston photos by Scott Eisen.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Occupy Boston
"seeks to protest what it says is subversion of the American economy and politics by Wall Street."
Wall Street did a job on the economy and we still haven't recovered.
Imagine selling junk mortgaged-backed bonds as AAA investments to pensions funds and banks all over the world. The have no shame and have refused to change the way rating agencies are paid.
They also pushed back on restoring regulation, the regulation that kept the US from having a boom and bust economy for six decades since the Great Depression. Our own Senator Scott Brown is the number one in Wall Street contributions from Hedge Funds and Private Equity firms for the work he did for them watering down the Wall St reform bill. Scott also saved them $19 billion dollars. Instead of Wall Street paying those costs, taxpayers will. Scott made that change for them.
Scott is not the only politician bought and sold by Wall Street. Until we get the money out, politicians can be bought for pennies on the dollar.
Nouriel Roubini, who predicted the housing bubble and financial crisis, was asked: Why haven't they investigated Wall Street conduct that caused the financial crisis and great recession? He said: Because then they'd find out who is responsible.
Faces of the bottom 99% http://WeAreThe99percent.tumblr.com/
Are these people from the tea
Are these people from the tea party? Ron Paul and his followers want to abolish the Fed.
I did see one guy with a Ron Paul sign
And a couple of guys with "Don't Tread on Me" flags, which was a bit odd since that's become sort of a Tea Party symbol, but in general, no, these are hardly Ron Paul supporters - they still seem to believe in a role for government, just not as cheerleaders for the plutocracy. In that context, the Fed protest was against its role in supporting Wall Street, not in the Paulian role of unfairly shackling American commercial enterprise.
As an old coot, I thought it was great how quickly these kids put this whole thing together and how well. And, yeah, it was definitely a much younger crowd than the Bank of America protest folks. Overwhelmingly in their 20s, with some 50somethings along for the ride. Didn't see many people in their 30s and 40s.
Why the 30 and 40 somethings were home
Adam, you hit on something interesting here.
As someone now comfortably in that 30s and 40s range, whose job it isn't to cover events like this (carve out for guys like you - nice job, btw) I will say what a lot of the rest of us are thinking.
Of course we weren't there, even on a Friday night, because we're getting kids to bed, or still working. Why would we still be working? Well because most of us realize that we need to make as much money as we can now to prepare for the higher taxes that must come because an entire generation before us, which knew it was a demographic time bomb, apparently didn't save very much (or any) of the money that they made during some of the best economic times in the country's history (yeah, I'm talking about you mid 1980s and mid-late 1990s) and still thinks it should be able to retire at 62 or 65 even though most will live into the 80s and 90s.
Did I mention that many of us also realize that we will have nothing to retire on (if we even retire at all) other than what we save (SS and Medicare? what were those?) and that it will likely cost at least $75-100K a year to send a kid to college when we're ready to?
Yeah, those are only a few reasons why a lot of us weren't there.
As for myself, I also wasn't there because I do not believe the Fed is responsible for the economic issues in the country, and on the contrary, has probably done the best job within the governmental economic apparatus in trying to get us out of it. Do I love the fact that I can't earn any money on any of my hard earned savings? No. Do I love the fact that the loose monetary policy has driven up the cost of gasoline and other commodities? No. Do I love the fact that the U.S dollar is so weak? Definitely not. But I realize that given the alternative (tighter monetary policy and what would come of that), what the Fed has done is the lesser of the evils.
Did any of the 20 somethings there articulate why they were protesting the Fed or did they just see "Bank" written on the front of the building and figure it must be bad?
Hi there : ) Husband is 44
Hi there : ) Husband is 44 and myself is 49. So we are in ours 40's. Also, we are Ron Paul supporters, but do not consider ourselves a part of any political party. We are trying to break that bind that separates us from one another. This may be why you cannot see so called fanatical "political" party support. We are not here to rally behind a candidate. We are there because there is a crisis in this country and we the people are not being represented. This is why we are coming together for an open dialogue, so we can get beyond political fervor and learn to speak to each other as individuals. No labeling is needed within the group. We all have personal demands, but we are here for the 99% not being considered, not one candidate.
Adamg does it again.
I hate it when Adam tries to talk authoritatively about Ron Paul supporters.
Adam - seriously - so you think that Ron Paul supporters want to end central banking because they think the Fed "unfairly shackles commercial enterprise"? The Fed BAILED OUT hundreds of big corporations, not just banks, "unshackling" them only from the punishment of the free market, i.e. bankruptcy. The Fed is propping up the big banks, allowing them to cartelize instead of compete/innovate - and Wall St is scamming the world. Ron Paul supporters oppose it, for the same reason as all the college kids and Marxists in Dewey Sq oppose it - but for other reasons, as well, because they understand economics.
The Paulites hate the FED because it is the enabler of government deficits, because interest rate manipulation causes the business cycle, and because money printing devalues savings and leads to distortions in the structure of capital - not to mention that their printed dollars fund the wars, indirectly.
Please don't try to talk authoritatively about Ron Paul supporters.
What is this "Fed" of which you speak?
Oh right- the entity d's and r's never mention in their kabuki theater "debates". I love the snide high school "I read an Ayn Rand book once" dismissal of these protests as if what they are defending is a free market system and not the oligarchic play thing it is for rootless wealth. Yeah- let's pretend their are no systemic flaws in the financial system in this country and hold ourselves out as champions of the free market. To those people I'd simple say shut it- you are not for free markets so stop giving that concept a bad name- you are for a rigged game if you support the status quo.
Supporting the status quo
Regarding being for "a rigged game if you support the status quo" I believe I see the point, however, I have to ask a question that I have been asking since 2008:
Is it fair to people whose expectations have been set by and who have made choices based on the way that the "game" has been played for decades to completely blow it up rather than to change it over a period of time? I'm not talking about the modern-day robber barrons, but rather, "normal" people who have "played by the rules" (irrespective of how you feel about the rules).
Take, for example, people who have bought houses over the past 20 years, and who are still paying off mortgages. Regardless of how you feel about the mortgage-interest deduction (I, for example, realize that it is a distorting mechanism), is it right to say to people who bought houses based on that being available that it will be eliminated next year (which, btw, would cause another sharp decrease in the prices of homes, even in the best markets), rather than phasing it out over a period of ten years?
Is it fair to tell people in their late 50s that they cannot receive Social Security retirement funds until they are 70 or 75? What about saying that to someone in her 20s?
My point here is that I think most reasonable people realize that the "system" needs to be changed. However, I think that most people will resist any sort of change unless it is proposed in a predictable manner, based on widely disseminated and accurate information, that will allow people to readjust their expectations and afford them time to make the necessary adjustments to the lifestyles and other plans.
It seems to me that the only people who do not have a reason to feel this way are the very young, which is entirely understandable, as they have had less time to form expectations and have not spent x amount of years working toward goals that they set for themselves under a given set of rules. For this reason, it also makes sense to me that most reports indicated that the young young made up the majority of those who were outside the Boston Fed the other day.
I'm not the answer man . . .
. . . but what we have now is rotten. Its corrupt to the core. Now either join in with these people and help steer em- become part of em and get your views in- or you can put your feet down and call them "commies' or "Paultards" or "tea-baggers". If you wanna ignore the systemic flaws of the system- there are two parties very much willing to cater to you- Democrats and Republicans.
I really don't have a problem with what you wrote- I'm just sick of people who makes fun of anyone who dare step outside these anemic two party narratives that don't even approach reality anymore. And I wonder who they are.
Right. I certainly wasn't making fun of the protesters.
However, I will say that even if I were inclined to join with these folks, I don't really think that they're looking to be steered.
I just thought I'd try to get some input on my questions - I think they're important and when I ask them of most people, they kinda shrug and say something like, "well, the system is definitely broken, but it doesn't seem quite fair to change the game on people who don't have time to make effective alternative arrangements."
I'm just trying to find out whether more people think that way, or whether more people are further toward the "I don't give a crap - blow up the system now and let the pieces fall where they may" camp.
I'm with you Isaac
Some of us in the 99% aren't in that particular 99%. This is the same point I was making the other day. Some of us who are not part of the oppressive moneyed interests, nevertheless have some vested interest in the status quo. It's not so simple as tearing it all down.
Speak to us authoritatively about the Paulites, please
As someone not overly familiar with the Paulite arguments, I have some serious, non-snarky/snide questions:
If the Paulites believe that interest rate manipulation causes the business cycle, and there was indisputably a phenomenon we now call the business cycle operating before the Fed was created in 1913 (e.g., the various panics of the preceding centuries), who was manipulating interest rates prior to the Fed? Let me ask a broader question that extends beyond our borders: who was manipulating interest rates in 18th century Britain and France? 15-18th century Italy?
Follow up question:
If the answer is powerful private interests (e.g., the Medicis et al.), fine, but then why would eliminating the Fed end interest rate manipulation in the U.S.? Why wouldn't similar powerful private interests (name your big Wall St. personality here) just take over that role again? Is that better or worse? Why?
An unrelated question: How is bankruptcy the punishment of free market? Bankruptcy is a (federal) statutory system through which, in very brief, debtors can either restructure their debts or liquidate their remaining assets. It seems to me that this is far short of the punishment that the free market would mete out. Rather, I think that the animal spirits of the free market would rely on the law of the jungle as punishment, and that the do-badders who took deposits and could not repay them or engaged in other bad acts would be swinging from bridges if the free market was in charge. This, of course, is the type of conduct that the bankruptcy laws and so many other laws were created to discourage - what kind of system would the Paulites propose in its place?
What mythic land do you live
What mythic land do you live in where the U.S. didn't have a boom and bust cycle for the 60 years after the depression? The only thing we didn't have after the depression that we did have before was runs by depositors on banks. That's all the FDIC's doing.
If you think that you can magically not pay the costs of regulation on Wall Street with "tougher" laws, you're also naive. Businesses will always pass on costs to the consumer. Either you pay it in bank fees or you pay it in bailouts, but you're going to pay it anyway.
And just to play Devil's advocate, what's so wrong about politicians getting bought? As long as it's in the open, then at least you know then where they stand.
I have as many doubts about this as the next guy
But with the Wall Street protest in Week 3 and Boston's event being far more organized and public than I thought it would be (especially since we lack a financial center, per se), the time for grousing about protesters and mocking them seems to be over. Much like the Tea Party -- which I still think is a joke -- these folks seem to have something going.
I'm watching this and Elizabeth Warren's campaign closely. Much as the teabaggers hitched their wagon to Scott Brown, I think the Occupy America (guarantee this becomes the easily mockable name) folks will push Warren through.
Mommy did you see me on TV??!
Seriously?
You think people do this to get on TV? That's insane.
just a reminder about Wall St
Wall St packaged mortgage-backed securities and sold them as AAA risk to everyone who wanted them, including pension funds, private investors and sovereign funds. It was a huge market.
It was an enormously successful business until the bottom fell out but Wall St firms knew they were selling junk long before their customers knewm or more importantly long before the market "knew."
Wall St continued to sell it while betting against it, making enormous profits on others misery from both sides of the deal!
Now people who work for a living being told by politicians and their employers that their earned retirement benefits must be cut because the pension fund had such great losses.
It's important to connect the profits accrued to Wall St deceptively and the losses accruing to everyone else.
Mommy, did you see me in the basement?
Gosh, oh gee, people who actually go out and use their first amendment rights are such immature freeks! So much more cool to hide behind a keyboard and slag them on the internets.
I'd Love to Agree With You...
If only this group had a) concrete policy goals, and b) a concrete plan for achieving those concrete goals. Blindly raging at the machine doesn't count as actually doing something worthwhile.
blindness
Consider that the blindness is yours, and that everyone there has their own clear reason for being there.
Concrete ideas/policy goals
http://yfrog.com/h7thesoj
Round One
As the economy falters these crowds will grow larger and larger.This was only round one and the police and the protestors followed the Marquis of Queensbury rules and both sides did themselves proud.
In response to those
In response to those pretending not to understand the purpose of Occupy Wall Street, here's a simple, and short list:
1. Place a fee on all Wall Street transactions and tax capital gains the same as income
2. End corporate personhood and overturn the flawed Citizens United decision
3. Get big money out of politics through substantive campaign finance reform
4. Jobs through investment in the public sector and infrastructure, not tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
copy, paste, spread the word
That's Great...
But it's absolutely no where on your website. In fact, what's up there says,
And
If you've got something more concrete, you need to get it up there ASAP.
We all will suffer from #1
Every one of us with a 401k more than likely has money in stocks. Do you really want to pay a tax and fee on every transaction in your 401k ?
We do a pay fee on every transaction in our 401k
It's charged by the people who execute the trade. The money goes to Wall Street firms for their service.
Taxing the transaction, say .01 cent or 1/10 of 1% per trade, could be used to pay for education and healthcare for American citizens, or payoff the deficit which as you know, was a more important priority for Republicans than jobs for Americans.
Why is it we pay tax when we buy a car but not a when we buy stocks or bonds?
You seem to fundamentally
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the way the world works.
1. Short term capital gains (on assets held less than one year) are taxed at the same rate as income -- I presume that constant churning and speculating by sophisticated financiers is what you mean to punish, so consider this demand met.
2. Citizens merely have the same rights individually or in association. They do not give up their first amendment rights when they form a group. The ruling in Citizens United ironically underscores the constitutional protections that allow the Occupy Wall Street movement unfettered access to the press to promote their message as a group. Citizens United was hardly an activist ruling, but firmly grounded in the tradition of Supreme Court jurisprudence that dates back at least to Dartmouth College vs Woodward.
3. This isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court has consistently held that restricting the outlay of money to make speech heard is equivalent to suppressing the speech itself. Again, what if the Occupy Wall Street movement were prohibited from buying servers to host their website, or paying for internet access, or buying paper and presses to print their own paper, etc., because it is very clearly a corporate entity engaging in electioneering.
4. 91% of Americans with jobs are employed by the private sector. We can't all be RMV workers, that's just not rational. Those roads and bridges aren't going to build themselves, it will be private sector employees working for corporations founded with the capital of "the wealthy" who do it.
Let's be totally honest -- this list of demands that sounds like it was written by the staff of the Workers' Vanguard. Take your Eugene V. Debs crap back to the 1930's where it belongs.
Why is it I can see you writing this
from your leather smoking chair in the study?
"Sophisticated financiers"? Don't you mean greedy motherfuckers with absolutely no regard for the societal contract? I ask because I spend an inordinate amount of time with these so called "masters of the universe" and their concern for their fellow Americans is somewhat....lacking.
I abhor Twitter for the most part, but I find that the feed for things overheard in the Goldman Sachs elevators is one of the most spot on pages on the entire internet.
Sophisticated financiers,
Sophisticated financiers, greedy motherfuckers, whatever... their capital gains are getting taxed like income. Do you have a real point other than that you hate them for being better at earning money than you?
Tell you what I hate..
scrotum free assholes who make stupid uninformed statements about how much money I make. I'm quite comfortable, thank you, and I work for my money.
Yeah, everybody works for
Yeah, everybody works for their money, it's always those other guys who are clearly milking the system who should pay more.
You seem to be a paid turfer
1) Who cares what short term capital gains are taxed at? Do you think the rich only have their money invested less than a year anywhere? They put it somewhere safe and let it ride and get taxed at the 15% rate...not the short-term rate. On top of that, there are loopholes that let a lot of them record their salary and bonuses at the long-term rate of 15% instead of the normal 35% income rate that they'd have to pay on it.
2) Citizens United fundamentally alters the rights of individuals and groups to donate. As an individual, they'd have a limit they could donate. It would be recorded publicly for others to see and search. CU means none of that applies to the corporation making the donation. It doesn't even have to be a U.S. company! In fact, by still not allowing corporations to donate directly to candidates (only through PACs), your "corporations are people!" argument goes straight out the window, Mitt.
Furthermore, Dartmouth v Woodward was 1819! There's been TWO HUNDRED YEARS of jurisprudence since then that has defined corporate personhood particularly in dealing with their ability to influence elections...like, say, the 1990 Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce ruling where the Supreme Court said a state CAN regulate corporate campaign spending...or, oh hell, how about the 2003 McConnell v FEC ruling that upheld McCain-Feingold. Citizens United tossed them both out the window as if they didn't exist! So, either you're grossly incompetent in your history of Supreme Court decisions or you're totally full of shit (and probably paid to be that way) in an attempt to make the rest of us seem like fools.
3) Corporations don't get to serve on juries, run for candidacy, or a lot of other "personhood" things that an individual gets to do. We also can't charge corporations with murder or other criminal acts. Why should it be assumed automatically that corporations get full access to freedom of speech? Furthermore, there's nothing corporate about OWS nor is it engaged in electioneering of any kind. Again, you are almost religiously making straw men to knock down...like you were paid to be here and say these things in opposition to the protesters.
4) 91% are private sector? Try 78.2%...in some states, like Alaska, it can be as low as 66.4%. Those roads and bridges are going to be built by private sector employees working for small construction companies getting paid government contracts to do the work. It's a *gasp* stimulus where, in the end, EVERYONE benefits from the improved infrastructure! You know, as opposed to a bailout where, in the end, the rich got richer and gave themselves bigger bonuses (taxed at only 15% through a loophole of course)...then celebrated by foreclosing on 500 families (50 of which they didn't even own the mortgage on...).
Yes, let's be totally honest. Who do you work for and how much did they pay you to come here and talk out your ass to defend the 1%?
See why I don't care much for anonymity, Kaz?
This character could be Eric Fehrnstrom for all we know, once again playing his little games on the Internet.
nah, it isn't me
Scott Brown told me to knock it off ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
I know I won't convince you
I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I'm not paid to do this, and I'm not specifically defending the 1%. I just didn't believe 99% above really understands the way the world works and made bizarre and nonsensical demands.
1) I don't think the rich only have their money invested less than a year. I agree that they put it somewhere safe and let it ride and get taxed at the 15% rate...not the short-term rate. That's called investing. It's a constructive activity that we probably ought to encourage. Do you think that *only* the rich have their savings invested for more than a year?
99% above wasn't talking about closing loopholes which count non-capital gains income as capital gains, which is a totally reasonable demand, but clamping down on all capital gains. I'm all for closing the loopholes -- hedge fund manager salaries are income and should be taxed as such -- but I'm no fan of punishing savers and investors. It's going to be a political non-starter to start taxing at the higher rate just as baby boomers are realizing their capital gains by selling their empty nests and cashing out their stocks and bonds to fund their retirement.
2) Citizens United doesn't alter individual rights, although I'd say it makes the prospects for the expansion of individual rights much better. The ruling was limited to the case at hand, but there are plenty of signals that the court is willing to consider the rest of McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, if they intend to be intellectually consistent. Someone probably ought to challenge McCain-Feingold's restrictions on corporate donations to candidates or on individual donation limits, they'd likely win. Why don't you go donate $2500.01 to the candidate of your choice and be the test case? The ACLU might even come in on your side like they did for Citizens United.
Dartmouth vs. Woodward was in 1819, my only point was that corporate personhood has a long history -- even back into English common law if you'd care to trace it that far. Your two cases were in the past 30 years and not germane to my point regarding the extreme age of corporate personhood. There's been a lot of jurisprudence in this area to be sure. You probably shouldn't forget that McConnell vs. FEC provoked voluminous dissenting opinions and was partially overturned in 2007 in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, where concurring opinions urged overturning McConnell altogether.
3) You and 99% both seem to think that corporations are just joint-stock companies or something. Corporations, in the sense used by the Supreme Court, includes all associations of citizens, like unions, churches, non-profits, and political parties and organizations like OWS.
There are plenty of good reasons for allowing all these groups freedom of speech. It's in the public interest that no point of view be suppressed, that the people have access to the views of every group in every election. If it's not wide open, it becomes an issue of quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- who decides whose views are corrupting the electorate? Who gets to sit around and decide who is electioneering and who is merely expressing the dissatisfaction of the silent majority?
I'm not comfortable letting you do it. If the rest of the OWS movement are as anti-free-speech as you and that 99% person above, then you're just another group of totalitarians. You all are free to make the argument that your speech is inherently more valuable than that of other corporate groups, but I certainly can't be expected to be enthusiastic about it.
4) Yes. 91% are private sector. There are about 3 million federal civilian employees, 2 million military, and 20 million local and state employees -- around 25 million in total, or a little less than 10%.
Some infrastructure spending would be fantastic. We could use some proper paving and some bridge repair around here. I haven't seen many mon-and-pop construction companies working on roads in Massachusetts though. It's total doublethink that corporate welfare for Bank of America is bad, but corporate welfare for Bechtel and Parsons Brinkerhoff is good. I mean, you could your argument around, and say that EVERYONE benefits from having a banking system that's able to lend money, and we'd all be screwed if all the banks suddenly went out of business. That's what the Fed, right or wrong, decided. How is sitting in front of BoA in tents going discourage policymakers from doing this again? Why not take your Lands-End-Catalog Hooverville down to Washington?
You are lying and ignoring reality
Why dont I go donate $2500.01 to test donation limits? Because I don't have $2500.01 free to donate, you asshole! That's the WHOLE POINT to the obnoxiousness of calling corporations people and their gigantic coffers as "free speech bucks"! The heads of these companies then have wads of money to spend compared to anyone in the 99%! On top of that, you have bullshit like the "corporation" that formed in a day, blew it's entire wad on a Romney PAC then disbanded.
Your hyperbolic stupidity about "totalitarianism" is wasted breath. Every individual can still have their say. But there's no reason to think that corporate personhood is somehow related. There's no slippery slope even if you want to play in the mud and call it suds.
Finally, I LINKED directly to the census results pre-analyzed for the percentages of the workforce that are public or private...and it's not 91% no matter what you say. The fact that you want to argue directly against the facts as they are linked tells me you're no longer interested in reality-based discussion. I never thought you were. You gotta do what you gotta do to get paid though, right? Maybe you should just admit you're in the 99% too and help us fix this broken system that's harming all of us but the 1%. Huh?
structures of finance ruling our society are being challenged
I support these kids 100%
These kinds of protests could not have come at a more crucial time, though the cause may still be lost. I feel as though, with weak and perhaps compromised President Obama collaborating with longtime servants of the rich like Mitch McConnell to stymie anything that would benefit the 99% because of the objections of the very rich, gradually taking the country in the direction that makes the least sense for the majority of its people, it seemed that we are on the verge of a political outer darkness. The Right isn't even making arguments anymore, but they keep winning anyway.
Aren't they cute?
They can demonstrate now, too, just like their parents did! No reason a previous generation should have all the fun, after all.
Demonstrating like the previous generation
That previous generation had all the fun, alright.
Let's hope they at least grow up to be a little more fiscally responsible.
Sign says "Dissent is Wicked
Sign says "Dissent is Wicked Patriotic"
Ch-ch-ch-changes
"And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through"
-David Bowie