Hey, there! Log in / Register
The protest didn't seem to suit him
By adamg on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:11pm
Power suiters going to and from their lunchbreaks kept passing by the Occupy Boston encampment in Dewey Square today. The guy below urged occupods to stand by the sidewalk and to engage - but not antagonize - passersby, rather than just fraternizing with fellow protesters in the confines of the encampment.
Neighborhoods:
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
Question about unions
Didn't unions ruin the auto industry? I am asking because I don't think people stopped buying American cars because the CEOs flew in private jets. They stopped buying them because they had high prices and questionable quality, that people attribute to the union regulations.
I'm not anti-union, my dad was in the laborers union for decades and it paid for us to afford college.
So are the portestors pro-union, or pro-anyone who supports them? Unions are, in my opinion, a good thing when they protect workers from dangerous conditions, but seem to be a bane of local governments (how many times has Menino tangled with the police or fire department unions)
Not sure how many of you were aware, but the union rate is higher (with a prevailing wage) but I would guess that most of the 20 sometimes out there at the OccupyEnglishMajors aren't interested in public works, busing tables, or anything that doesn't involve wifi.
Maybe
Maybe if you took a few English courses when you were in college your post wouldn't be so filled with misspellings, poor punctuation, and suspect grammar.
Nice bandana
It's hilarious how half of these "protestors" have to wear bandanas. What a bunch of cowards.
Have you actually been down there?
I was there today; I think I saw two people with masks - this guy and one other.
Yeah, I was thinking that wasn't representative
I thought it was a bit funny that this was the photo that ran- most of the folks I saw when I was at the farmer's market today looked more like the guy with the union sign. Not a suit, but not someone you'd look twice at on the T.
There were a couple of pompous pricks in suits, I mean capitalists, laughing at the camp as they walked by. I'm not completely sure I sympathize with all the goals of the protesters, and I think I probably fall in the top 50% of their 99% but I think that they have some valid points about equity.
Let's put it this way, the baby bankers sniggering with their slicked back hair didn't make me less outraged at the way Wall Street has screwed Main Street over.
Union Sign Guy
Looks more like a Blackwater security guard than a protester, but I have to wear a suit for work so what the hell do I know?
Half of the nation is in the top 50% of the 99%
But that's just how crazy the income inequity has gotten. Just imagine how much better your life would be without all the manipulation from forces above you seemingly beyond your control...only because they have more money which has become equated with more influence on the country as a whole.
Even the top 50% of the 99% have much more in common with the bottom 50% of the 99% than the other 1%. We all end up manipulated and forced to deal with the effects of their corrupted commodity speculation which has artificially driven up pricing on absolute needs like food and gas. Imagine if you had that money to use for your own purposes and not to line their pockets further. That's just one example.
Just so we all understand what we're discussing
Between 0% and 80%, the dots go every 5 percentile. Between 80% and 90%, they go every 1%. The last 2 dots on the graph are 99.5% and 100%. The dot just above $500,000 is the 99% line. If you make less than about $250,000 then you are in the bottom 95% of income last year. You're barely different than the people who made $20,000 all of last year when you consider the scale of income inequality in this country these days.
The top earner last year took home $4,000,000,000 for his "work" managing hedge funds. He's not even on this graph. Hell, at this scale, he's not even on this webpage...look at the place where your wall meets your ceiling...if you're in a cathedral. That's where his point on the line would be.
Congratulations, you've
Congratulations, you've discovered the pareto principle. The only economies that ever possessed a flatter curve were in the Warsaw pact.
Scandinavia is a little bit
Scandinavia is a little bit flatter, but they have all that north sea oil wealth; it's like Alaska without the Palins.
I think Chile under Allende had a flat curve too.
Is that a graph of apples share price?
Actually, I walk by there
Actually, I walk by there twice a day. You can easily count at least a half dozen with bandanas or masks on. Yes, I said masks, as in halloween type masks. Try wandering over by the south side of the park and you'll notice at least 2-3 guys with halloween masks yelling. When you act like a clown, don't be surprised if you get treated like a clown.
They should all wear masks . . .
. . . the Feds murder American citizens now without due process and they are quite lawless. I'm sure they have been photographed, videoed and cataloged in some database somewhere- for the rest of their lives- But you are a brave guy.
Ha Ha Ha
Paranoid much? Typical kook who doesn't favor federal government but will cry for the federal government when there's a disaster that effects you.
Two Americans were murdered . . .
. . . without due process. This is fact. Americans now have their laptops and other devices seized without warrants at airports never to be returned for the political views. Americans can now be seized and held and tortured without repercussions. American can be spied on with total impunity by the federal government and major corporations will help them do it. This isn't paranoid or kooky- it is all fact. List are kept. That you don't feel any fear isn't the point- I'm sure a coward like you would have no cause to feel fear of the federal government.
Explain how you aren't paranoid ...
... when you won't even construct a pseudonymous log in, let alone one with your real name like Chris has.
lets play who's the undercover cop
The guy in the mask,the guy in the suit or the guy snoozing in the tent?
So now we're discriminating based on clothing? WTF?
I think that some context must be missing here, because otherwise it sounds like if I have to wear a suit to work, that makes me a target to be "engaged" by these folks?
On what basis? Everyone understands that lots of guys who have little or nothing to do with what these folks are protesting about (although, given their garbled message, its a little tough to tell) have to wear suits to work, right?
Is the notion that if I have to wear a suit, I must be wealthy, and therefore I am the enemy? What say you if I got the suit for $99 at Men's Warehouse? What say you about the little jackass standing next to me in the $150 "designer" T-shirt?
If this is the message that is being put out down there, the arguments that folks are there to argue for a righteous principle and are doing so in a principled manner rings a little hollow.
By the way, what the hell is this "lunchbreak" of which you speak?
I'm More On Their Side Than Not...
... but if the general level of involvement in the political process, prior to this, was on the level of "Belichick For President, 2004", then perhaps some of these folks are near as much to blame for the present situation as the people they are protesting.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Is the "Belichek for President" guy...
... a protestor or just someone who happens to be wandering down the street?
Front view
Thanks!
But I still wouldn't bet on the T-shirt being (or having once been) a serious political statement. ;~}
Clarification
It is also my best guess that the t-shirt wearer didn't really vote for Bill Belichick for President in 2004.
However, the point I was trying to make (and perhaps not accomplishing) was that any trivialization of the electoral process, by those trying to effect change, tends to water down the actual chance of reform, either via that process or of that process.
Secondarily, as with the man in the suit, or those wearing clown masks or bandanas, appearances do equate with something more important, to some, whether they rightly should or not. If you're trying to make a serious impression, it pays to pay serious attention to your clothing choices.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Well, I personally share your viewpoint....
... but one can't really control the sartorial choices of one's fellows.
I think you're being
I think you're being willfully dense.
You are most likely not in the top 1%. As such, you are not the enemy. In their eyes, you are just like them, part of the 99%. They probably want to engage you as an equal, hoping to get you to see that their goals are really your goals and that you should lend them your support.
Obviously they shouldn't waste their time since you are one of the clueless knowitalls who keep denigrating the protesters without showing any sort of understanding of the financial orchestrations conducted by the top 1% that led us here.
The message is not garbled. You just aren't really listening. You would rather just be smug and snarky.
Well, you're certainly right
Well, you're certainly right about one thing - I am definitely not in the top 1% of the income distribution.
You are certainly wrong in your presumption that I am denigrating anyone. I was merely making the observation that using clothing as a proxy for anything is not really that wise.
I have already discussed some of the reasons why I and many, many other people are not out there. This should not offend any of the protesters, or anyone else for that matter, because ensuring that I am able to pay marginal income tax rates in the 40s that must come to be able to even come close to achieving their goals (some of which I think I might share) requires me to keep my job, which, not surprisingly, also precludes me from spending any time out there.
It is willfully dense of anyone to denigrate us by suggesting that because we might not take kindly to being "engaged" by any of these folks that we do not understand the financial orchestrations conducted by the top 1% that brought the economy to where it is.
On reflection, I did
On reflection, I did mischaracterize much of your comment. Sorry.
I read your reasons for why you couldn't be out there even if you wanted to be. They are completely reasonable. The funny thing is that I read that list, and I see a list of reasons why you should be out there.
Awfully sensitive, aren't we?
Discrimination to urge people to talk to passers-by rather than to chat with protestor buddies? Sheesh!
The point I was trying to
The point I was trying to make was that the narrative of the post made it sound like the protesters were being encouraged to target people wearing suits for those conversations with some greater frequency of all passers-by.
Changed to "passersby"
Because he meant people in general, not just guys in suits - although he did also make a point of saying not to get antagonistic with suits, because they're working for a living as well.
Actually, Adam
The guy in the suit looks (to me) like he is squinting due to the bright sunlight shining into his eyes. ;~}
Put that businessman in the bottom 99%
That's a Men's Warehouse suit and an $8 haircut.
Nothing wrong . . .
. . . with Men's Warehouse. Proud card holder.
meh..
...bought some jackets there and buttons popped off all of them. Sometimes "you get what you pay for" is actually a true maxim and not just a line to get you to pay more for something that qualitatively is no different than the cheap shit.
[Besides, I think the "you're gonna like the way you look" guy is just the limp-wristed, smooth-jazz listening younger brother of the Suit Yourself Guy (The Iron Messiah).]
Yeah-
- the needle and thread come once in a while on some MW stuff- but . . . what can I say?- I chafe at paying 85 bucks for one shirt.
For shirts, I wait....
... for the post-New Years sale at Macy's Downtown. The sizes are completely jumbled together , so searching is tedious -- but one can find some pretty good deals. ;~}
Nothing wrong...
...with an $8 haircut, if you can find someone that cheap and don't need anything complicated.
But Men's Wearhouse I can't get behind. You're going to look like shit -- I guarantee it.
To each his own . . .
. . . on Men's Warehouse- but agree on the 8 buck haircut. My hometown barber whom I went to for years and years and still paid a visit to once in a while just closed up his shop- well into his 80's- and his price had been 12 dollars for decades and was that until the day he closed. He did a good job as well.
$12 for decades?
How much did a haircut cost in Boston in 1970 does anyone know in here? How about 1980 or 1960?
Kind of funny but I've never really thought about it. The barber I go to now charges about $16 I think (I always just leave a $20). But off the top of my head I do remember haircuts being not much more than $10 when I was a kid (1980s).
Actually-
I think it was up to 16 before he retired last month. 12 was the price that he had in magic marker on a piece on cardboard stuck into the corner of one of the mirrors for years.
Not Boston either- Wellesley- Larry's Barber Shop- Linden Street. One of the last to use a hand motor to give you a shoulder and neck rub after the cut- and of course- the straight razor on the back of the neck as well- seldom used today (and I don't think its even legal anymore for barbers to use one).
I actually know the guy in
I actually know the guy in the suit... he's the head of one of the corporation's environmental office. He's a real sweetheart and arranges for volunteer groups often to help plant and clean the greenway. I kind of suspect he was down there saying "hi" to protesters he knows.
These people need to get their act together
As I was walking by the protest today, being engaged by protesters, I have to say that I was anoyed. Not because of "the hassle" etc., but because these protests have no discernible goals and are being run by people who come off more as clowns than people who want serious change. Although you are free in this country to protest whatever you want, if you actually want to change something, you first have to identify what that something is. Second, you cannot protest a concept, like "capitalism" or "greed" because there is no mechanism by which those concepts can be changed. You need to protest laws (or the manner in which laws are enforced/not enforced) because those are what we have all chosen to govern ourselves by. Third, you need to clearly identify to your audience a short list of the laws/enforcement you want changed so people can decide if they are on board or not. Fourth, you need protest leadership so that everyone is "on message." There appears to be a modicum of leadership structure with the "take back" people judging from their website but they have done a poor job of messaging. Fifth, you have to ensure, through your leadership, that the people who are representing you in the protest are people with whom the lawmakers and other citizen's who you hope to sway can identify. Faceless people dressed in masks and stoners aren't going to help you identify with people who you want to act with respect to big issues like financial regulation and tax reform - they are the 1% on the other end of the spectrum. I am certainly not an expert organizer, but if you look at any of the protest movements that changed things in our country in the order of magnitude of what these people are trying to change, I think they had all of these qualities. The civil rights movement in the 60s was organized my MLK among others, stricly controlled, and directed at changing specific laws and enforcement of laws (voting, Jim Crow, etc). The labor movement in the 1930s was organized by union leaders, controlled its participants, and was directed at changing orgnized labor laws. The prohibitionists and the women's right to voters, all shared these qualities as well. The "take back" people are on the right track, but they need to heed lessons from history if they actually want to accomplish anything. As things stand, I have no idea what they are trying to change, and I have no desire to "engage" with someone juggling batons and wearing a bandana and sun glasses.
Rant.
Rant Affirmed
The excerpt from the Boston Globe below summs up the problem pretty well. Victoria's goal: "demoncracy." Victoria on unfoccused goals: "no problem, look at the Tea Party." No Victoria, I CAN sum up what the Tea Party wants (and is getting through organized, well messaged leadership): (1) No more tax increases under ANY circumstances; (2) cut spending as much as humanly possible accross the board regardless of consequences. Simple. I agree that "Take Back ___" would be a great counter to the Tea Party if they would operate like the Tea Party.
Full disclosure - Lest there be any confusion, I am not a Tea Party supporter and think their goals, if realized, will destroy our country.
Victoria Porell, 19, in her third year at Northeastern, hadn’t participated in a major protest before, she said. Today, shw was an organizer of the walkout on campus.
“I think the system right now, where one percent of the country controls 40 percent of the wealth, just isn’t in line with our basic democratic principles,” said Porell, an international affairs major.
To critics who say that Occupy Boston is unfocused, without cohesive demands, she compares it to the Tea Party movement.
“Can you identify their core demands in a few sentiments?” Porell asked. Besides, she said, high unemployment and income inequality are looming large for her generation.
Revisit your history
The civil rights movements of the middle of the 20th century were not "directed at changing specific laws" and they were hardly well controlled leading to numerous riots and more. They spanned a long time frame as well as numerous topics from jury duty, to desegregation of public facilities, to prison reform, to enforcement of lynching laws, to housing availability, to job/works plans. MLK was a leader of only a PART of the entire thing. They couldn't agree internally on everything either. I'm sure at times the only people involved in the protests were just "poor dumb black folk" instead of a broad array of all walks of life. There were probably plenty of other African-Americans who wished they could join in but feared losing anything they *had* gained to that point by going down to the rallies and being arrested, labeled, or otherwise ostracized.
It's easier to remember the Reader's Digest version of the Civil Rights movements and I'm sure that version makes it seem like these pothead slackers down at the Greenway should be more like MLK or something...but that's not how it was and the Occupy movement actually DOES resemble the Civil Rights movements far more than any other recent "movements" to speak of.
Sorry, but we've ended up letting the 1% do so much harm that this isn't going to be summed up in a single law change or simple meme to digest. It's pretty obvious some of the immediate things that have to happen to effect the changes that have led us to where we are. Some of the rest of the solution is far less obvious...but it's time to start figuring it out and even that awareness alone that there is a need for a solution is part of the whole point.
Did an investment banker
Did an investment banker shoot your dog or something?
Business Drag
... is what I call the female equivalent of business attire.
Thank Dog I don't have to wear it daily - hence "drag" - but I have and will have to wear it several times in the next week.
I work by Dewey Square and I am wholly in support of this action, as it is inciting and shaping the dialogue toward constructive action to rescue this country from the distractions of partisanship that cover the reality of the unchecked plundering of the commons not seen since the pre-regulation days of the 1920s.
I walked with protesters downtown during rush hour (Adam, check my FB page for videos and pictures). I wasn't the only one in business attire to join the march for a while while getting to buses and trains.
What these folks should do is not just engage us "suits", but set up a photo op where passerby - including sympathetic supporters in business drag - can voice and show their support for those who have the "opportunity" (or unemployment) to be out there fighting the good fight. Most of us are also of the 99 percent.
So why occupy Boston? Why not
So why occupy Boston? Why not occupy D.C.? Aren't those the characters who bailed out the greedy 1% instead of letting them fail?
Why one or the other?
Why not both?
Because none of the banking
Because none of the banking CEOs are here -- isn't BoA from North Carolina?
Does that matter?
Civil unrest doesn't need a zip code to be civil unrest. Rosa Parks was in Montgomery, Alabama, not Alabama Ave in DC. People are being screwed here in Boston the same way they are being screwed in every state and town. It's as important to show that Boston is angry at our current situation as it is that DC see it directly too.
Now that you bring up Rosa
Now that you bring up Rosa parks, wouldn't it be more effective to boycott the banks you hate rather than camping downtown and making an ass of yourself?