OMG what a %@*#&@!! <--- ain't gonna say the word that actually came to mind.

I hope this video goes viral and he is hated and picketed for this. He needs to be voted or kicked out of office for verbally abusing his constituents.

Walsh makes me sick and I think he is unstable, I really do. Plus, he ran out on his kids and wife and owes over 100K in back child support. Real family values kind of guy! So tired of GOP/TP hypocrites!! He is more than an arrogant jerk- he's on the edge.

It is interesting how many articles I've read lately with some reference or other to morality.

Pre-Occupied with Fairness: The Moral Crisis of Modern Capitalism
Wednesday, 11/9/2011 - 12:19 pm by John Paul Rollert

There’s no good explanation for why Wall Street continues to suck up vast amounts of money except that there is a flaw in the system itself.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters were not immune to the news of Steve Jobs’s passing. “A ripple of shock went through our crowd,” Thorin Caristo, a leader of the movement’s web outreach, told the Associated Press. He later called for a moment of silence from the stubborn assembly at Zuccotti Park, and the 99% paid tribute to an exceptional member of the other club.

The gesture failed to move some. National Review’s Daniel Foster envisioned “viscera of a thousand heads exploding from the sheer force of cognitive dissonance,” while conservative columnist Michelle Malkin said that the protesters honoring Jobs’s life and work “without a trace of irony” provided the “teachable moment of the week.” The lesson, it seems, is that one cannot critique capitalism without also rejecting every single capitalist, a conclusion that is not only logically flawed but one that was famously rejected by William F. Buckley, Jr., the ideological avatar of the modern conservative movement and a founder of the National Review.

In a column written just a few years before his death, Buckley condemned what he called the “institutional embarrassments” of capitalism, CEOs whose enormous compensation packages defy the gravitational pull of poor stock performance. Buckley was no equalitarian, and he drew a contrast between the “executive plunder” reaped by certain CEOs and the allowances that may be made for the likes of a Thomas Edison. Were such a person alive today, he said, “it would be unwise to cavil at any arrangement whatever made by a company seeking his services exclusively.”

Unwise, but more importantly, unwarranted, for at the heart of Buckley’s argument is an appeal to fairness. It does not seem unreasonable that a Thomas Edison, or a Steve Jobs, be paid a lot more than the rest of us. But when it comes to people who not only fail to create value, but actually supervise its destruction, it seems outrageous that they should make more over a long lunch than most people make in an entire year. Or, as Buckley puts it, “What is going on is phony. It is shoddy, it is contemptible, and it is philosophically blasphemous.”

To be clear, were he still with us today, Bill Buckley would not be occupying Wall Street. His aim was to save capitalism from itself, and he would likely chide the protesters for trying to save us from capitalism. Still, the sense of moral outrage that infuses his column — aptly titled “Capitalism’s Boil” — is not altogether different from that expressed by the weather-weary demonstrators. Doubtless, there are some who want to uproot capitalism altogether and replace it with some other system for distributing scarce goods, but one suspects that most who have turned out are simply looking to air the familiar grievances of the financial crisis (joblessness, soaring poverty, crushing debt) and shame those on Wall Street who cashed in on a crisis they helped create.

The same may be said with even greater confidence for the support the movement is enjoying across the country. It is not the case that a nation of closet communists has finally found a voice; rather, the protesters have come to embody a common sense that something is wrong with American capitalism — that the system simply isn’t working. In this respect, the focus on Wall Street is both apt and overbroad. Overbroad because, if you brush the complex instruments that precipitated the financial crisis, you won’t find the fingerprints of every banker on Wall Street. Apt because the success of the financial sector as a whole not only defies the experience of the last few years, but the story of the American middle class for over three decades.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s news, delivered straight to your inbox.

Paul Krugman has famously called this period The Great Divergence. “We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared,” he said in the inaugural post of his New York Times blog. “Between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.” During the same period, the percentage of the nation’s wealth held by the top 1% grew from 20.5% in 1979 to 33.8% in 2007. These trends have helped to set the U.S. apart from other developed countries in terms of wealth inequality. According to the C.I.A World Fact book, the U.S. currently ranks 39th in unequal wealth distribution, edging out Cameroon and Iran but just behind Bulgaria and Jamaica. By contrast, the UK comes in at 91st place, with Canada 102nd and Germany 126th.

The financial sector doesn’t tell the whole story of growing inequality, but it certainly plays a central role. As Simon Johnson described its meteoric rise in a 2009 essay for The Atlantic:

From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

The inequality within the financial sector is more striking still, with the most successful managing directors taking home enough to buy and sell a brace of lowly associates. Again, the numbers speak for themselves: In 1986, the highest paid CEO on Wall Street was John Gutfreund of Salomon Brothers, who made $3.1 million. In 2007, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, made just short of $68 million.

To be sure, Americans have always had a high tolerance for economic inequality, particularly compared with their European peers. The quintessential American tale is still the rags to riches story, and for Democrats and Republicans alike, ‘class warfare’ is an accusation to be rebutted, not an open call to arms. Indeed, as the unlikely tribute to Steve Jobs attests, even for those who are willing to roundly object to the growing gap between the very rich and the rest of us, the problem is not inequality per se, but giving a satisfactory account for it. As Bill Buckley well understood, economic systems have to give a moral account of who wins, who loses, and why, particularly insofar as those systems are shaped by democratic choices. It is not hard to give a compelling account for why someone like Steve Jobs grows far richer than the rest of us — his success tends to vindicate capitalism, not undermine it — but the same may not be said for the financial sector in general. The problem isn’t that the average banker doesn’t work hard (the hours are grueling) nor that his work isn’t essential to helping maintain a modern, civilized society (it is); the problem is that the same may be said for an ER nurse or a sixth grade teacher, and it isn’t immediately clear why one should make 10 times as much as the other.

Buckley said of the CEO pay packages he so despised that “extortions of that size tell us, really, that the market system is not working,” meaning that the free market, left to its own devices, does not allow for such gross distortions. This is certainly the account conservatives prefer when they try to explain Wall Street’s inordinate success. According to them, anti-competitive regulations, cheap money from the Fed, and the cozy relationship between the big banks and Washington have allowed the financial sector to prosper not because of capitalism, but despite it.

To liberals, this sounds ridiculous. After 30 years of lower taxes, freer trade, weaker unions, and a general trend toward deregulation, the idea that growing inequality and Wall Street’s exceptional success somehow defy the natural tendencies of capitalism is an astonishing exercise in wishful thinking. The forces of the free market alone may not explain these trends, but they seem hardly at odds.

Increasingly, the Occupy Wall Street movement has been faulted for not taking explicit sides in this dispute, but like Buckley in his column, the aim of their protests is not policy prescription, but moral persuasion. When your house is on fire, you don’t stand around wondering whether faulty wiring or an arsonist is to blame. You raise a hue and cry until your neighbors fill the street.

Great article. Can you please provide the link to where it's published on the net? Thanks.

Senior Citizens at Occupy Chicago out and about to fight for their SS and Medicare.



Then later on that day. The old folks get carried off to jail.

The OWS stuff is starting to get to them - and he's a hot mess.

In another part of the state, how cool that seniors got arrested in Chicago!

Thanks for the videos Miss Tick and Ebon.

Here ya go.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/11/09/...italism-64156/

Petition to Stop H.R. 3035
 

It takes a minute to sign this, and far more to let business interests start "robo calling" your private cell numbers.


From -

http://pol.moveon.org/norobocalls/?i...32-qpZAlCx&t=2

No Robocalls - Protect your minutes and privacy

Corporate interests like the Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and a coalition of debt collectors are trying to sneak H.R. 3035 through under the radar. This bill would allow businesses to repeatedly hound you throughout the day, no matter where you are, using up minutes that YOU pay for!

But there's still time to stop it.

If Congress hears an outcry from everyday Americans, they'll hang up on H.R. 3035 before it gets to a full vote. That's why we need a massive petition that people share widely with their friends and through their social networks. We'll deliver the petition to the House committee reviewing the bill, and make sure the media hears about it as well.

Sign the petition and then share it with everyone you know.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to Congress.

It's hard to believe that we are still here. The puppet masters and their puppeteers are still spouting the same old crap about minorities buying houses they couldn't afford and causing the financial collapse of the world. Congress passed laws in 1977 that simply leveled the playing field. Same standards for all borrowers. That was not the cause of the economic disaster that is still reverberating around the world. It wasn't that Occupy Wall Street made a mistake and occupied the wrong place, whoops they should have occupied congress. They knew and still know exactly who is responsible. And so do Bloomberg and his ilk.

Yes, it is Wall Street’s fault

Bloomberg joins Republicans in claiming Congress "forced" banks to give bad loans. Don't buy the propaganda

So here’s my question: If the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 effectively caused the Wall Street meltdown of 2007 by forcing banks to make bad home loans to improvident poor people (and we all know exactly who I mean), how come it took 30 years for the housing bubble to burst?

Next question: If fuzzy-thinking Democratic do-gooders enacted such laws in defiance of common sense and sound economics, why didn’t Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush I or Bush II do something? Was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., secretly running the country?

Exactly how did the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in the United States — the investment bankers and corporate execs who host the $1,000-a-plate fundraisers, scoop up the Cabinet appointments and ambassadorships, and party down at White House galas — end up having less power over the U.S. economy than unskilled day laborers in Newark, N.J., or Oakland, Calif.?

Maybe some “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute, or another of the comfortable Washington think tanks devoted to keeping Scrooge McDuck’s bullion pool topped-up, can teach us how things got so upside-down. Because under normal circumstances, the national motto is neither “e pluribus unum” nor “In God We Trust.”

It’s “Money Talks.”

Money was talking big-time last week. Clearly annoyed by the unkempt ragamuffins of Occupy Wall Street, New York’s dapper billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered himself of a conspiracy theory so absurd that it had previously been confined to such dark corners of American life as the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp … [T]hey were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will … And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”

Actually, “annoyed” is too mild to describe a sophisticated Wall Street player like Bloomberg resorting to so crude and poisonous a political lie. He can’t possibly believe it. For all its ragtag, hippie-dippie aspects, Occupy Wall Street must have people at Manhattan’s most elegant dinner parties running scared.

Here are some things Bloomberg certainly knows that make nonsense of this blame-the-victim tale:

First, there was no law forcing or even encouraging banks to make shaky loans. The Community Reinvestment Act merely required FDIC-insured institutions to apply the same standards to all borrowers — i.e., no more “redlining.” It worked fine for many years.

Second, the law applied only to retail banks, never to Wall Street investment houses or mortgage companies like Countrywide that led the 2007 meltdown. As the housing bubble fully inflated in 2006, 84 percent of subprime mortgages were written by private, totally unregulated lenders.

Is this the place to mention that Fannie and Freddie, the quasi-governmental mortgage underwriting companies, don’t actually make loans — as Bloomberg also surely knows? Did they buy worthless mortgage-backed securities along with other victimized investors? Yes, but too little and too late to have caused the crisis. Although far from pristine, they were more victims than perps.

Rolling Stone’s financial MVP Matt Taibbi reminds us how the whole scam worked.

“Bank A (let’s say it’s Goldman, Sachs) lends criminal enterprise B (let’s say it’s Countrywide) a billion dollars. Countrywide then … creates a billion dollars of shoddy home loans, committing any and all kinds of fraud along the way in an effort to produce as many loans as quickly as possible, very often putting people who shouldn’t have gotten homes into homes, faking their income levels, their credit scores, etc.

“Goldman then buys back those loans from Countrywide, places them in an offshore trust, and chops them up into securities … They then go out on the open market and sell those securities to various big customers — pension funds, foreign trade unions, hedge funds, and so on.”

And no, President George W. Bush, busy promoting what he called “the ownership society,” did nothing to restrain the action. Somebody named Bush discipline Wall Street? Get real. Even if he had, there wouldn’t have been anything a minority congressman like Barney Frank — whose actual views are almost the opposite of how Limbaugh describes them — could have done to stop him.

Then there are “resident scholars” like AEI’s Peter Wallison. Today, this guy composes tracts indicting government folly. In 2004, though, he wrote chiding federal bureaucrats for lagging behind the exciting new world of subprime lending. “Study after study,” he wrote, “has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”

That’s money. Talking.

It’s most disturbing to me that even now we keep hearing about the housing bubble that burst and destroyed the financial universe. It’s crap. What was going on and is continuing to go on is directly caused by those weapons of mass destruction called derivatives. Not some guy or some 5000 guys who over estimated their ability to pay their mortgage and bought houses they couldn’t afford. The fact that this story is constantly spouted as reality just points to a deeper and darker truth. They have no intention of ever stopping.

“Far from being some arcane or marginal activity, financial derivatives have come to represent the principal business of the financier oligarchy in Wall Street, the City of London, Frankfurt, and other money centers. A concerted effort has been made by politicians and the news media to hide and camouflage the central role played by derivative speculation in the economic disasters of recent years. Journalists and public relations types have done everything possible to avoid even mentioning derivatives, coining phrases like “toxic assets,” “exotic instruments,” and – most notably – “troubled assets,” as in Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP, aka the monstrous $800 billion bailout of Wall Street speculators which was enacted in October 2008 with the support of Bush, Henry Paulson, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Obama Democrats.”

The estimated notional value of the world derivatives is somewhere in the vicinity of $1.4 quadrillion. The GDP of the entire world is around $65 trillion. This shit is way out of control.

Here is some interesting information:

“Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC.

This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.

This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input. You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.

What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan. Even worse, the total exposure is unknown because Wall Street successfully lobbied during Dodd-Frank passage so that no central exchange would exist keeping track of net derivative exposure.

This is a recipe for Armageddon. Bernanke is absolutely insane. No wonder Geithner has been hopping all over Europe begging and cajoling leaders to put together a massive bailout of troubled banks. His worst nightmare is Eurozone bank defaults leading to the collapse of the large U.S. banks who have been happily selling default insurance on European banks since the crisis began.”

Here’s some articles to check out if anyone is interested.

http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailo...illion-of.html

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...nancial-system

http://dailybail.com/home/william-bl...-americas.html

It continues to be "blame the victims."

Occupy Oakland news
 

http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_19298642?source=rss

Part of article- use link for the rest. There seems to be some heightened discontent going on with Oakland business owners and the City Council in terms of getting demonstrators out of the park.

The mayor's impromptu visit happened at the same time five council members, business people and faith leaders gathered at the Lake Merritt Band Shell to express their frustration with the camp, the violence and the effect on downtown businesses. They promised to find a way to boot the camp if the mayor will not do it.

I don't know the truth of it all not being in Oakland but I read some of the comments at the end of the article and people are saying that the movement has helped businesses and that downtown businesses have been hurting for years. They seem to think that saying businesses are hurt is politically motivated and actually untrue. Again I'm not from there so I have no idea the reality of it. Perhaps people from there who read the article and the comments after it will have a much more informed opinion.

UC Berkeley Occupy

Extreme poverty is now at record levels

According to this article one out of every 15 Americans are considered to be very poor. There are more than 20 million Americans living in extreme poverty.

http://www.alternet.org/story/153005...Nl3t&rd=1&t=12

Yes, there are differing views. I am not supporting the article in terms of "sides", just posting for information on new developments.

From local news, it seems like there are two sides to this and the businesses close to the Occupied park are the ones wanting it moved out and feel that they are being hurt because people are just staying away from the "heart" of the protest after incidences of violence. Also, some don't want a tent city and the sanitation issues around them.

I hope that they can all meet and discuss this whole thing with council members that are getting complaints and come up with solutions in compromise.

I hope that there is no more situations in which anyone gets hurt physically. But, it looked like tempers could flair when the council members that are being pressed by constituents tried to have a press conference about all of this.

This is really interesting in terms of how do we use our rights to assemble and bring our grievances to our government, yet, respect the rights of those that also are part of a community at large? And what responsibilities do bodies like city councils have in terms of representation of ALL of the people they were elected to represent? There are many people demonstrating that are not residents of Oakland or even Alameda County camping in the park. In fact, most of the people camping do not live in Oakland. So, who does the council act for- non-residents are not part of their consituency and also do not pay taxes in the city or county.

How do we address this in terms of a national protest? What is fair and what is not to the people that live and support the public funds of a municipality? Whose rights do we put above someone else's?

I have been thinking a lot about this in terms of a public park near me. It is a great park that is used by lots of groups and people from my city. Schools as well as city groups use the baseball diamonds and our rec department and senior center uses its facilities too. There are numerous activities that go on in it all of the time that are planned in advanced and people have to sign up for use permits. some plan events a year in advance and these are open to the public. There are two great play grounds there that families use every day (unless it is raining) and the fact is that our property taxes go to support this public park. It belongs to all of us.

if all of a sudden a bunch of people that do not even live here decided to take it over and camp, I have to be honest, I wouldn't like it. There is already traffic from 3 schools, a theater, and our community center and several city sports leagues (soccer, baseball- all kids programs) have secured use permits for their activities. So, they should have to give up their events and activities to people that just move in and want to use the park as a camp ground?

Now, having people gather there to protest in the areas not already spoken for to protest is different to me. But, I am talking about day use that does not impact the rightful use for others. Also, there are reasons for permits- sanitation needs and clean-up as well as any emergency services that might be needed. These are all supplied by the city because this is a public park and we all pay for this as residents here.

Frankly, most of the sports activities that go on in this city park are for kids that have few resources and want to participate in a sport or other community activity. There are all kinds of booster clubs that do fund-raisers to help support these programs as well as the city giving use permits to these kids groups. So, what do we say to a group of 3rd graders that have been all excited about the winter league they are in and ready to go play? I see the excitement and joy of these kids as they walk by or their parents park near my home as they go to participate. It is important to them. So are the old rose shows (senior citizens) and holiday children of light festivities that go on in this public park. All of which are open to the public and the park is intended and supported for by residents here.

I think that the OWS movement is important and needs to go on. However, it also has to compromise in terms of public use areas and abide by city and county ordinances of the 98/99%. Wall Street barons do not use public parks for activities like the general population- nor do their kids need to sell candy to buy school supplies.

Be Afraid..........Be Very Afraid.....

The Oakland Chamber of Commerce and some members of the City Council have done a grand job of making people afraid to go to downtown Oakland and the reason to be afraid is a bunch of folks in a whole bunch of tents camped out in the City Center Frank Ogawa Plaza (renamed Oscar Grant Plaza). Be afraid they are violent. Be afraid they are hurting your business. Be fucking afraid of your fellow Oaktown residents.

I am sure there are some folks who won't go downtown because of OO. I am also sure that many many of the business around Oscar Grant Plaza are doing better business than before OO.

If the Chamber and the Council actually gave a shit about downtown business there would be an ad campaign to bring folks into downtown to eat and shop. There is not a damn thing to be afraid of in downtown Oakland on a normal day and/or evening.....

Be Afraid........they will get you......Be Afraid....

i extracted this comment from this article that Miss Tick posted:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...nancial-system


Understanding the puzzle of derivatives

The Commodity Futures market is one of the largest derivative trading arenas with many commodities; currencies; precious metals; and energy products listed – .

It all revolves around “Price” and “Time”. You will notice that on all traded contracts there are time periods listed noted by contract months going out up to three-years out.

Whatever the price is today (minute by minute as the contracts are traded) someone can buy or sell a contract with a 1% to 3% of the value of the contract in their account (buying or selling on margin)

Most from the public are psychologically conditioned that they have to buy first and then sell to make a profit. In derivatives that is 100% incorrect. You are making a “time” bet for higher or lower prices. If you think the value is going down, you sell a contract. If you think it is going up you buy a contract.

With the markets now primarily being traded electronically, when a buy or sell order is entered and at your price your fill usually is instant. This means you can jump in and out at your choice. If you choose it could be 10 minutes, an hour, a day, a week, or longer that you hold your position. The following is an example of the best profit in the shortest period I personally made:

It was back in 1981 and on on day when I was watching silver towards the close, it looked like it was very top heavy after moving up a few dollars over a couple of weeks. I said to myself: “I think it is going to collapse in the last few minutes before the close. It was 4-minutes to the close and I at that time having an account balance of about $32,000 slapped in two orders; (SELL) 35 DEC SILVERS at Market, and (BUY) 35 DEC SILVERS (Market on Close)

Well, got filled on the 35 sell orders in about 5 seconds and in the next 4-minutes silver collapsed by 42c where my Market on close orders were filled. No more 35 derivative orders held, just accounting of the instant CASH collected on the trade. Here is the accounting: 42c X 35 = $14.7 X $5,000 ($1 value of a silver contract move) = $73,500 + $32,000 (my account balance before the trade)= $106,500 (account balance after the trade) or not bad after a 4-minute derivatives trade. Now those that had the “other side” of the trade got burnt. The commissions I was paying at that time was about $15 per contract X 35 contracts traded = $525 that went to the House and exchange that “cleared” the trade.

Most commodity contracts have active participation in the front months but the further the time goes out participation dries up and thus no liquidity to trade those contracts.

For every contract being that it is a bet on “time” will reach its expiration and delivery day. When that happens all speculators are out and those wishing to take or make delivery stay in to the last day and then the exchanges match up the “real” buyers and sellers to each other on the outstanding contracts where physical delivery of the underling commodity is made.

Come that last day the volume of contracts held dries up to usually less that 1% of what it was a few days earlier (over 99% were speculators and less than 1% actually wanted to take or make delivery)

The 600 trillion notional value is: the value of all the bets.

EXAMPLE: on the commodity futures market has a $100,000 face value of the bet and the margin requirement to hold it over night is $2,500 and day trading margin can be $1,000. As of today the “Net” contract volume is at about 289,000 contracts. So based on notional face value that is 289,000 X $100,000 = $89 billion-dollars but the “margin deposits being used is substantially less.

So that 600 trillion is the “full contract value” of all contracts being traded. That 1.5 quadrillion is when you take into account both sides of the contract. For every buyer holding a contract there is a seller holding the other side. So when counting each side 600 X 600 = 1.2 quadrillion.

Here is the “Bottom Line”:

With 99% speculators, yes it is a casino. But “who” are the primary players that are liquidating tens of billion of dollars a day from the trading activity (remember when the trade is closed in 5-minutes or 5-months it is all a “cash” accounting for the winner’s and loser’s account balances)

Well, those from the general public that tries to play this game, they get their account balances decimated to the tune of 98% of those player that participated in very short periods of time. (bought on highs; sold on lows; got stopped out or force liquidated for not having the proper margin after being depleted from quick adverse market moves)

So who are that 2% factor that takes everyone’s money to the tune of over a few trillion dollars a year (some times in a month as happened at the end of 2008) ?

The answer may surprise you. Now the House and the Exchanges get a small cut from each side. There are a few magnates on the inside track that also make good money: But the “Primary” profiteer for several decades now are: Institutional Government Fund Management.

They in so many words all subscribe to the same News Services and consulting groups. They have the fund resources in trillion dollar collective totals managed from around the globe. They can act in loose concert and roll the markets up; down; sideways and do so as fast or as slow as they wish.

The end of 2008 showed how fast they could move the markets by exercising their multi-trillion dollar trading accounts and massive contract volume they can move in and out.

At the end of 2008 in a month and a half about 25 to 30 trillion-dollars was “sucked” right out of players accounts globally that were on the wrong sides of the trades. Now some government investment funds where they were on the outside track got burnt. The primary government institutional global accounts that “were” on the inside track made a killing of several trillion dollars.
Now here is the definition of arrogance:

Government (USA) global institutional funds now after having liquidating trillions out of the playing loser’s accounts at the end of 2008, (which caused massive defaults from the loser’s who ended up with severe deficit account balances)now uses a trillion here and a trillion there of taxpayer revenue to shore-up their own casino and friendly corporate interests.

Is there a “bubble” in the derivatives market?

As of 2009, Oh yes.. You can not suck so many trillions out of others accounts at the end of 2008 without destabilizing the playing field. Commodity futures contracts back then were settled after weeding out defaults so back to normal there. I note the definition of normal is those government institutional accounts rolling the market up and down, quick and slow; as they liquidate that 98% factions cash on the trades.

The danger lies in those “Mortgage Interest Rate Swaps” where there is a substantially reduced value of the underling commodity and in some cases the contract instrument traded had no underling commodity to back it up at all(real-estate home and commercial properties)

Here the balancing act is precarious to say the least. Offsetting those contract instruments to balance out with “real” underling value market to market is a nightmare for the players.

Those trillions in bailouts to the global banks and financial institutions have primarily gone to that end.

Are they getting closer to balancing the books? Yes..

Are they there yet? No, they are about 60% there and it will take more time to balance the remainder and the beat goes on..

Walter Burien – (CTA) Commodity Trading Advisor) 1978 – 1992 and
commodity Futures Trader of 33 years.


i highlighted some key points.

On Thursday, November 10 at 8pm, The New School in New York City will be hosting Occupy Everywhere: On the New Politics and Possibilities of the Movement Against Corporate Power, a discussion featuring award-winning filmmaker and author Michael Moore (Here Comes Trouble), best-selling author and Nation columnist Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine), Nation National Affairs correspondent William Greider (Come Home, America), Colorlines Publisher Rinku Sen (The Accidental American), Occupy Wall Street Organizer Patrick Bruner and Richard Kim, executive editor, The Nation.com (moderator). Sponsored by The Nation and The New School.

Watch the live stream here and visit The Nation's special section front on Occupy Wall Street for more coverage of the movement.


http://www.thenation.com/video/16449...whats-next-ows

A man was shot and killed on Oscar Grant Plaza about an hour and a half ago. Occupy Oakland medics were first on the scene followed by regular first responders. The shooting was on a part of the Plaza that has no tents and is a place where folks hang out and play hacky sack, drum, etc.

Occupy Oakland was to be celebrating their 30 day birthday tonite. That's not happening of course. Folks are already packing up their tents and leaving.

go to KRON TV4 for more info.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...eir-money.html

Big Banks Plead with Customers Not to Move Their Money
Posted on November 9, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
Yes, The Big Banks DO Care If We Move Our Money

650,000 customers moved $4.5 billion dollars out of the big banks and into smaller banks and credit unions in the last month.

But there is a myth making the rounds that the big banks don’t really care if we move our money. For example, one line of reasoning is that no matter how many people move their money, the Fed and Treasury will just bail out the giants again.

But many anecdotes show that the too big to fails do, in fact, care.

Initially, of course, if the big banks really didn’t care, they wouldn’t have prevented protesters from closing their accounts.

NBC notes that – in response to inquiries regarding how many people have moved their money – Bank of America refused to provide figures, and instead sent the following defensive email:

“Bank of America continues to be a great place for customers to manage their everyday finances and achieve their savings goals,” [Colleen Haggerty, a spokeswoman for Bank of America's Southern California operations] said in an email. “We offer customers more choice and convenience, including industry-leading fraud protection, access to thousands of banking centers and ATMs, and the best online and mobile banking, which allow customers to bank on their terms 24/7.”

A writer noted at Daily Kos:

At Wells Fargo, my sister walked up to the teller and politely asked to close her account. The teller said, “No problem.” She pulled up her account and saw the balance and told her that due to the amount she had to speak with the branch manager. The branch manager came out. He was probably 30 years old and was very arrogant. He asked my sister why she wanted to close her account and my sister told him she thought Wells Fargo was part of the problem with the economy. He went thru some talking points about why she shouldn’t move her money, but my sister didn’t back down. When he asked her where she was going she told him that she would be banking at the North Carolina State Employees Credit Union. She isn’t a state employee, but anyone can join if you are related to a state employee. It turns out her husband is. Anyway, the bankster told her “You’ll be back. Credit unions can’t provide the services you need.” We’ll see about that. She withdrew over $200k from Wells Fargo.


READ FULL ARTICLE AT THE LINK...

I'm sorry to hear that someone got shot.

do you have a link? i can't find it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-oakland-camp/

OAKLAND, Calif. - A man has died after being shot just outside the Oakland encampment that anti-Wall Street protesters have occupied for the last month.

Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan says the victim was pronounced dead at a local hospital Thursday evening, less than two hours after two groups of men got into a fight near the Occupy Oakland camp on a plaza near City Hall.

Jordan says no suspects have been identified. He asked members of the public participating in the protest who may have taken photographs or video that captured the shooting to contact authorities.

The chief says investigators do not yet know if the men in the fight were associated with Occupy Oakland. But protest organizers say they weren't.

The shooting happened just before 5 p.m. on the edge of the plaza outside Oakland City Hill. The Occupy Oakland encampment sits in the middle of the plaza.

Paramedics on the scene were tending the bleeding man, whose condition wasn't immediately known as it was earlier reported. Police were interviewing witnesses and trying to contain a crowd of protesters who had tried to prevent television cameramen from taking video.

A woman from the encampment, Barucha Peller, told CBS station KPIX San Francisco: "The only direct Occupy Oakland involvement was in order to provide emergency first-aid services."

The shooting comes a day after a group of Oakland city and business leaders held a news conference demanding the removal of the encampment, saying that it has hurt downtown businesses and has continued to pose safety concerns.

Many protesters fear police will eventually move forward with another early morning raid to remove them. A tear gas-filled clash between demonstrators and police on Oct. 25 resulted in more than 100 arrests and left an Iraq War vet with a serious brain injury.

Mayor Jean Quan allowed the protesters to return to the encampment the day after that raid. The camp has since grown to about 180 tents.

But tensions and safety concerns have resurfaced in recent says, and on Wednesday, Quan asked members of the camp to show respect to the people of Oakland by peacefully leaving.

Earlier Thursday, a man was shot and killed at the Occupy Burlington protest in Vermont. Fellow protesters indicated that the gunshot appeared to be self-inflicted.

The fatality near the OWS Oakland does not in any way appear to be OWS related. Unfortunately, street shootings in Oakland happen quite often and it looks like was yet another sad incident of inner-city street violence that simply happened near where OWS Oakland people are.

Something that happened in the midst of this is that a TV cameraman was attacked and hit in the face by someone that does appear to be part of OWS Oakland (although he is possibly one of many of the homeless that has moved into the camp and frankly, not really an actual OWS supporter). The camraman has a concussion from this. The guy was just doing his damnj job.

There have been several stories about theft concerning both Oakland and SF OWS camps and demobnstrations and the fact that they have become places for people that really have no interest in the social change that the core of this movement are interested in. There are many homeless people with untreated mental illness and drug/alcohol addictions moving into these camps and causing problems. It is time to face this and address it. My fear is that this will become a real problem for this movement in terms of keeping and gaining support from people that are ALL part of the 98/99%. In fact, that support social programs that are aimed at helping people with these kinds of problems.

The best idea to make it clear what this movement is really about for me is Atlanta's wanting to focus on "occupying" foreclosed homes- those taken from working and middle class people from big banks that wre involved in the biggest rip-off ever in the US.

thanks AtLast. i've seen this in my local occupy movement as well... it seems to be a widespread issue, which doesn't surprise me since the spaces are public. they've been talking (here) about establishing a permanent space here indoors... where people don't have to camp out, but can participate in organizing and demonstrating. i see issues with occupying houses... i know of local anarchist groups that have already been doing this in sf and berkely (in my experience they are mostly spoiled rich white kids) and i think that the occupy movement would need to distance themselves from these groups to have any credibility and be very discerning in choosing their targets
...and i think it's important to remember that the housing crisis is only part of the issue. it's so much more complicated than that... it's about big companies not being accountable in many situations (gambling with tax payer dollars, owning and controlling the food supply even as we subsidize it), regulations that don't benefit the people or the planet, but allow corporations to do as they please, the dollar being the biggest motivation in our economic system at the expense of all else. there need to be fundamental changes, and i don't think that blaming the big banks is going to get us there, i think that puts us in the victim stance and keeps us stuck. i'm not really sure what i the next steps should be, but i think that there needs to be a shift in thinking before we can get there. imho.

I'm inspired by the detailed, compassionate and innovative work of OWS Oakland
 

The General Assembly is held on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday at 6pm in Oscar Grant Plaza.

Veterans March Against Police Brutality

Friday November 11

4:00 PM – 7:00 PM

14th & BROADWAY, OSCAR GRANT PLAZA, Amphitheater

As part of Veterans Day, veterans will be leading a march against police brutality on November 11th, 2011 in Oakland. We will start with a press conference and rally with an update and statement from Scott Olsen at Oscar Grant Plaza starting at 4pm.

We welcome all veterans of the 99% to lead the way and all supporters to join us as we march the streets. We march not only for injured veterans Scott Olsen, Kayvan Sabeghi and Doug Connor, but for all those who have been killed or injured as a result of police brutality.

Kayvan Sabeghi and Doug Connor were injured on November 3, 2011 while being detained near Oscar Grant Plaza. Kayvan was severely beaten and suffered a lacerated spleen and internal bleeding. He was abused and denied medical treatment. For hours, Kayvan waited in a holding cell in severe pain before receiving medical attention. Doug is an ex-army flight nurse who was attempting to help injured protesters in jail when he was then put in additional handcuffs that were so tight on his wrists that his hands turned blue and were numb. He was left in those handcuffs for several hours until he was released.

Numerous injuries have been incurred at the hands of the police in our communities. This is unacceptable. We strongly believe that the 99% should be free to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech and peaceful assembly without fear of harm.

Oakland citizens have long been on the receiving end of police violence. The most recent victims have been military veterans who served their country in foreign wars, only to be seriously injured at home as they exercised the freedoms they served to protect.

While it has been the recent injurious of three of our military brothers that has catalyzed us, we stand against violence and brutality toward ANY of our people- veteran, civilian or otherwise.

As military members, we put our lives on the line in the name of protecting our country and its citizens (including the police). We take our oath to protect and defend the Constitution very seriously and while we may have departed the military, we never disavowed our commitment.

We will return to the streets this Veterans Day to remember our brothers and sisters who have served to protect the freedoms that the Oakland Police Department and the Alameda County Sheriffs have decided do not exist. We join the people of Oakland in affirmation of our Constitution, our right to peacefully assemble and to do so without fear of violence from those sworn to protect and serve.

Wow. So hard to decide...
 

http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/whoarethe1percent/

Who are the 1%? We Film. You Decide.

Inequality has ballooned over the last three decades as some of the wealthiest Americans have enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else. Who are the worst offenders?

You tell us. We'll compile your suggestions and hold a vote to decide which ones Brave New Foundation will expose. We have just two criteria: they have to be in the wealthiest 1%, meaning a net worth of over $9 million, and they have to be using their wealth and power to keep down the other 99%. The rest is up to you. Have at it:

Oh, yes, complex! Something I remember quite clearly from "back in the day" and standing up by demonstrating was just how important it was to have media coverage be accurate. When the media just shows the folks that are not really invested in OWS and are just there to hang out and shit disturb, tghe public will turn against the movement and get behind actions to remove people and even not care about how police do this.

It just seems to me that there are county fairgrounds that could be utilized in ways that would benefit everyone and stop some of the local business owners complaints. Also, inviting these business owners into movement dialogue and compromising with them could build a stronger coalition that actually speaks to more of all of the 98/99%. We are business people, students, nurses, teachers, sales clerks, waiters, and even physicians and other professionals. The 98/99% is huge and covers so much!

Something I keep thinking about is that are a lot of people that agree with what the movement is trying to do, yet, just don't like what is going on in the encampments. I had a neighbor the other day say, "Hey, I'm a working man and when I camp, I pay campground fees and don't crap on sidewalks." He is a nice guy really (except I didn't like the working man- women work too) and did go through a year of being laid off- he gets what is happening to the working and middle class and doesn't like it, but also gets pissed off with some of what is going on- or what the media puts out there as representation of the Occupy camps.n he and his wife want to see their kids go to college and worry about the costs and if they will even get a job afterwards.

I do remember back in the 60's & 70's the very same things happening. And the spoiled rich kids out there just partying and flipping off authority do not help! Not then, not today. People will react negatively to seeing their municipality coffers spending $ on clean up and extra personnel when cities and counties are dealing with deficits.

Many bridges that need to be woven together in compromise- colaition building that represents us all.

Ugh- on the local news (not the Faux News affiliate station), there was a report that the man that shot the other man and killed him was living in the Oakland camp. But, I haven't heard or read anything that really confirms this. I hope this is not true. Although, these kinds of things always become part of the "stories" around social movements.

On another note, the mayor of Richmond, CA attended an OWS rally yesterday. However, she was criticised too- because she went to that instead of the Veteran's Dat related re-opening of the Red Oak Victory ship in Point Richmond. But, there were city council members there. She can't be in two places at once. I thought this was unfair because the council split up members to be at different events and that seemed logical to me.

Ugh- the media management is key with this stiff. channel 2 here in the Bay Area will always do a negative spin on anything "liberal" because it is a Fox affiliate, but, the station I was watching does not belong to Fox. The report about the shooter in Oakland just seemed pointed and I think there needed to be some kind of confirmation about his being involved with OWS. Plus, there just are people camping out that are not really OWS people. Just as some of the Occupy Cal folks are not students there or anywhere.

Sometimes I think it would be good to do a spot on the fact that there are "professional" and life long protesters that will show up at any demonstration no matter the cause. It happens and there is always something made of this that discredits a movement/cause. maybe just getting out in front of this is a good idea. Make the separation from the people that are really part of a movement and working to resolve issues.

So we don't know if the shooting in Oakland was involved with the Occupy movement or if law enforcement did it?

What do you all think about occupying the media? Do you think they help or hinder the OWS movement? Has anyone seen ads on tv or heard any on the radios for or against OWS.. besides maybe politicians or the news addressing it ?

The cops did not shoot this guy............ffs

One of the suspects (according to the local TV news I watched) has spent a couple of nights at Occupy Oakland encampment. The local news I watched has never said he was part of OO.......just that he slept there a few times.

OCCUPY PATRIARCHY
 

Massive Women's Action at Occupy Wall Street, Nov 25th, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women:

http://www.af3irm.org/2011/11/wall-s...n-dismantle-it

http://occupypatriarchy.org/2011/11/...n-november-25/

The 10 Lowest Paying Jobs In America: BLS

The Huffington Post First Posted: 11/8/11 02:54 PM ET Updated: 11/8/11

What do fast food cooks, amusement park employees and farm workers have in common? They are among the lowest paying jobs in America today.

The mean hourly wage for all U.S. workers was $21.35 in 2010, but workers that get paid the least have seen their mean wages get dangerously close to minimum wage levels, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics. The data examined wages for workers in 22 major occupational groups and almost 800 detailed occupations, and found that fast food cooks made $8.91 per hour on average, only cents more than the highest state minimum wage of $8.67 in Washington state.

Those working in the restaurant and service industries account for many of the occupations with the lowest wages, including hosts and hostesses, as well as dishwashers. The low wages may not be surprising as eateries look to make due with fewer customers; a recent survey from the U.S. Census found that nearly half of Americans said they didn't dine out from fall 2009 to fall 2010.

But it's not just restaurant workers that are suffering. Americans' income growth has fallen off drastically in the last decade, a trend that only accelerated in the wake of the recession. Personal disposable income dropped by around 4 percent between the spring of 2008 and the second quarter of this year, Christian Science Monitor reports. Likewise, median household income fell $6,298 from 2000 to 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Currently, median household income is at its lowest since 1999.

While nation's median income has fallen, the wealthiest Americans have seen huge boosts in the amount of money they're taking home, boosting income inequality and making income mobility increasingly difficult. From 2002 to 2007, two of every three dollars of income growth went to the top 1 percent of Americans, The Atlantic reports. Now the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.

The wage decline has hit all workers including those with college degrees. College graduates have seen their starting wages drop by nearly a full dollar over the past 10 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...e=4_Shampooers

An Oldie But A Goodie
 

Sometimes it's hard to understand how the Occupy Movement is actually affecting change. This article brings some clarity to this.

Ten Ways the Occupy Movement Changes Everything

Thursday 10 November 2011
by: Sarah van Gelder, David Korten and Steve Piersanti, YES! Magazine | News Analysis

Before the Occupy Wall Street movement, there was little discussion of the outsized power of Wall Street and the diminishing fortunes of the middle class.

The media blackout was especially remarkable given that issues like jobs and corporate influence on elections topped the list of concerns for most Americans.

Occupy Wall Street changed that. In fact, it may represent the best hope in years that “we the people” will step up to take on the critical challenges of our time. Here’s how the Occupy movement is already changing everything:

1. It names the source of the crisis.
Political insiders have avoided this simple reality: The problems of the 99% are caused in large part by Wall Street greed, perverse financial incentives, and a corporate takeover of the political system. Now that this is understood, the genie is out of the bottle and it can’t be put back in.

2. It provides a clear vision of the world we want.
We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%. And we, the 99%, are using the spaces opened up by the Occupy movement to conduct a dialogue about the world we want.

3. It sets a new standard for public debate.
Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% will not suffice, nor will claims that the subsidies and policies that benefit the 1% will eventually “trickle down.”

4. It presents a new narrative.
The solution is not to starve government or impose harsh austerity measures that further harm middle-class and poor people already reeling from a bad economy. Instead, the solution is to free society and government from corporate dominance. A functioning democracy is our best shot at addressing critical social, environmental, and economic crises.

5. It creates a big tent.
We, the 99%, are people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs. We will resist being divided or marginalized. We are learning to work together with respect.

6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.
No one is in charge; no organization or political party calls the shots. Anyone can get involved, offer proposals, support the occupations, and build the movement. Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down.

7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.
The call for deep change—not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms—is the movement’s sustaining power. The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options. The occupiers and their supporters will not be boxed in.

8. It combines the local and the global.
People in cities and towns around the world are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. What they share in common is a critique of corporate power and an identification with the 99%, creating an extraordinary wave of global solidarity.

9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.
Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power. Occupy sites are set up as communities in which anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams, and where all can experiment with living in a space built around mutual support.

10. We have reclaimed our power.
Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us. Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.

Like all human endeavors, Occupy Wall Street and its thousands of variations and spin-offs will be imperfect. There have already been setbacks and divisions, hardships and injury. But as our world faces extraordinary challenges—from climate change to soaring inequality—our best hope is the ordinary people, gathered in imperfect democracies, who are finding ways to fix a broken world.

"Instead of a singular Dylan for the movement, there are poets cropping up everywhere and providing the soundtrack of this era in real time. Indeed, this is as it should be: everyone’s a bard, and all the world’s a stage. The curtain is finally closing on the old order, and a new paradigm of peace is being hewn from the colossus."

Wow. Beautiful. Just beautiful.
________________

QUOTE=Miss Tick;462796]Pax Occupata
by Randall Amster

Decades ago, on the eve of a period of widespread societal upheaval, Bob Dylan famously intoned that “the order is rapidly fading.” For a time, this appeared to be so: around the world people were in the streets, revolution was in the air, and structures of oppression were being openly contested. The headiness of those days brought many advances and opened up significant space for later movements to operate, yet in the final analysis somehow it all delivered us into even higher degrees of wealth stratification and greater consolidation of power. The order had flickered, but not quite faded, and in the end reasserted itself stronger than before.

Today we stand poised at a not-dissimilar crossroads. While perhaps no one has yet penned a Dylan-esque anthem of the movement -- although stalwarts such as David Rovics and Emma’s Revolution have dropped some poignant opening stanzas -- a mass chorus of voices is drawing lines in the sand literally everywhere: public spaces, workplaces, shipping ports, shopping malls, community centers, corporate banks, schoolrooms, boardrooms, and more. The Occupy Movement has transcended the narrow confines of Zuccotti Park, and in doing so has seemingly asserted itself wherever the forces of elitism and subjugation rear their heads. As Frederick Douglass said, “power concedes nothing without demand,” and whatever else transpires in the days ahead it can at least be said that the movement has reminded us all of this basic tenet.

Still, critics continue to ask, “where is your list of demands?” as if such can be reduced to movement letterhead in bullet-point fashion. To be sure, some concrete demands have been advanced, largely in the economic and political spheres and triggered by the exigencies of the Great Recession. But on some level, most everyone understands that this bill of particulars is just the surface of the movement, and that its essence really draws down to the core workings of the system itself. Adjusting debit card rates or mollifying student loan debts may bring some minor relief, but it has the feel of rearranging a couple of deck chairs, whereas many Occupiers are more urgently clamoring en masse for the dismantling of the Titanic itself.

At root, multitudes are demanding no less than a re-visioning of our political and economic relationships, and likewise of our collective human relationship with the larger environment. The time for single-issue tinkering is winding down, as the ecological and social fabric of our lives similarly degrades. After generations of living mainly as cogs in a mechanistic Moloch -- at times being reasonably well-compensated for the sacrifice of our mere freedoms and human dignity -- many people are experiencing new bonds of exchange, camaraderie, and community. There is a growing sense of engaged optimism in this moment of healthy rebellion.

And it is healthy, in contrast with the dead-end dispiritedness of corporate capitalism, in which everything and everyone are little more than raw materials for the robber barons’ assembly lines. This archaic and apocalyptic system of production and reproduction is sick at its very core, revealing a form of mass insanity masking as progress, and leaving illness and misery in its wake just beneath the shiny veneer of development. At the height of colonialism, blankets with smallpox were presented as “gifts” to unwitting natives, and in many ways this has become the central operating premise of the entire enterprise, a living metaphor for environmental despoliation and the ensuing political economy of toxification.

No more. The pox must be cast out, by necessity, if any part of the organism is to survive at this point. What began as a movement to occupy a symbolic place -- the plexus of financial machinations -- quickly became a call to occupy everything, and has further expanded to include the earth itself as a living participant in the calculus. Now, as the teeth of abject repression are bared in Oakland and elsewhere, a critical juncture is being reached in which the politics of practicality are slowly being supplanted by the poetics of possibility. People who have tasted freedom can no longer be kept conveniently in prisons, even if their cages are designed to appear like comfortable condominiums.

The technicians of empire thus stand stripped of their authoritarian mystique, increasingly so as they resort to heavy-handed tactics against peaceful people, including even those who have served in their infantries. A crisis of legitimacy is in the offing, as counter-institutions steadily replace those that run counter to even the pretense of democracy and equity. Hegemony yields to autonomy, corporatism to communitarianism, and warfare to welfare. There will be no placating the people by piecemeal legislation or token redistribution at this juncture; it is the reins of power themselves that are being demanded, and not merely the spoils.

But are the power elite quaking in their jack-boots? Are the walls of Babylon actually crumbling? This time, is the order really fading? Others have tried mightily before and come up short of changing the underlying paradigm, but there is a qualitative difference in evidence today: horizontal integration. Vertical structures, such as capitalism’s pervasive pyramid schemes, are inherently vulnerable to vicissitudes in the base -- whereas horizontal systems, such as those being forged in occupations everywhere, are inherently unbreakable since there is no a prior of power apart from every single piece of the whole. This is, in fact, how healthy organisms function, and further reflects how nature itself is organized at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels.

To a system of death and destruction, we interpose one of life and liberation. Consumption is remediated by creation; plutocracy by democracy; exploitation by participation. This is not merely a movement, but is in practice more akin to a global health care plan -- and this time, we will get universal (or at least earthly) coverage, with the only mandate being the basic imperative that is embedded in the undeniable interconnectedness of our existence. No legislation is needed, only the laws of nature; no medication, just dedication; no co-payments, merely co-creators. We are going to get well, all of us together and the habitat itself, and in the process we will work to wipe aside the sickly stain of the colonizer’s history.

Power may not abdicate, but it does change its garb at times. The Empire’s cloak of imperial majesty is threadbare, and a new wind is chilling its inner workings to the marrow. We neocolonial beneficiaries have infected others, and ourselves as well, with everything from acne and austerity to zoster and zero-sum thinking, and now it has come to pass that the global organism itself is essentially on life support. This is the reality that must eventually be confronted, both in terms of ecology and political economy: the externalities of disease and despair cannot be indefinitely outsourced. The only genuine form of wellbeing is one that injects itself everywhere, coursing through the veins of society at all levels and in every locale within the system.

Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana -- all made claims to establishing a “relative peace” within their ambit. But these forms of peace were imposed at the point of a bayonet or the nosecone of a warhead. They were all poisonous peaces, ultimately self-defeating enterprises of subjugation in which the masters could not escape their own systems of enslavement. Today, we are aiming for something more like Pax Populi, a form of peace made by and for people, not nations or corporations. In order to accomplish this, the ailing empire du jour must be supplanted by a constellation of healthy communities, interlinked by virtue of desire rather than dictate. This is the ambitious horizon of the burgeoning movement in all of its manifestations: Pax Occupata.

Instead of a singular Dylan for the movement, there are poets cropping up everywhere and providing the soundtrack of this era in real time. Indeed, this is as it should be: everyone’s a bard, and all the world’s a stage. The curtain is finally closing on the old order, and a new paradigm of peace is being hewn from the colossus.[/QUOTE]