OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Cin]

This article made me feel sad, a bit worried, and just little sick to my stomach. But then so many things I read lately have that effect. Maybe I need to read less and perhaps play more video games. Video games never make me sad or worried. Well, unless i'm losing badly.

How Zuccotti Park Became Zuccotti Prison: Creeping American Police State

America may not be a traditional police state (yet), but it is an increasingly militarized policed state in which rights are regularly tossed out the window.
November 28, 2011 |

When I arrived at Zuccotti Prison one afternoon last week, the “park” was in its now-usual lockdown mode. No more tents. No library. No kitchen. No medical area. Just about 30 leftover protesters and perhaps 100 of New York’s finest as well as private-security types in neon-green vests in or around a dead space enclosed by more movable police fencing than you can imagine. To the once open plaza, there were now only two small entrances in the fencing on the side streets, and to pass through either you had to run a gauntlet of police and private security types.

The park itself was bare of anything whatsoever and, that day, parts of it had been cordoned off, theoretically for yet more cleaning, with the kind of yellow police tape that would normally surround a crime scene, which was exactly how it seemed. In fact, as I walked in, a young protestor was being arrested, evidently for the crime of lying down on a bench. (No sleeping, or even prospective sleeping, allowed -- except in jail!)

Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg’s police assault on the park, OWS has largely decamped for spaces unknown and for the future. Left behind was a grim tableau of our distinctly up-armored, post-9/11 American world. To take an obvious example, the “police” who so notoriously pepper-sprayed non-violent, seated students at UC Davis were just campus cops, who in my college years, the 1960s, still generally wore civvies, carried no weapons, and were tasked with seeing whether students had broken curfew or locked themselves out of their rooms. Now, around the country, they are armed with chemical weapons, Tasers, tear gas, side arms, you name it. Meanwhile, some police departments, militarizing at a rapid rate, have tank-like vehicles, and the first police surveillance drones are taking to the air in field tests and capable of being weaponized.

And keep in mind, when it comes to that pepper-spraying incident, we’re talking about sleepy Davis, California, and a campus once renowned for its agronomy school. Al-Qaeda? I don’t think so.

Still, terror is what now makes our American world work, the trains run more or less on time, and the money flow in. So why should we be surprised that, having ripped Zuccotti Park apart, destroyed books, gotten a rep for pepper-spraying and roughing up protesters (and reporters, too), the NYPD should propitiously announce the arrest of yet another “lone wolf” terrorist. And can anyone be shocked that we’re talking about a disturbed, moneyless individual -- he couldn’t even pay his cell phone bill, no less rent a place to live -- under surveillance for two years, and palling around with an NYPD “informant” who smoked marijuana with him and may have given him not only a place to build a bomb but encouragement in doing so.

It was a police-developed terror case that evidently so reeked of coaching even the FBI refused to get involved. And yet this was Mayor Bloomberg’s shining moment of last week, as the NYPD declared his home a “frozen” zone, the equivalent of declaring martial law around his house. And who was endangering him? An OWS “drum circle.” In the United States, increasingly, those in power no longer observe the law. Instead, they make it up to suit their needs. In the process, the streets where you demonstrate, as (New York’s mayor keeps telling us) is our “right,” are regularly transformed into yet more fenced-in, heavily surveilled Zuccotti Prisons.

This may not be a traditional police state (yet), but it is an increasingly militarized policed state in which the blue coats, armed to the teeth, act with remarkable impunity -- and all in the name of our safety from a bunch of doofuses or unhinged individuals that its “informants” often seem to fund, put through basic terror courses, and encourage in every way until they are arrested as “terrorists.” This is essentially a scam on the basis of which rights are regularly abridged or tossed out the window.

In twenty-first-century America, “rights” are increasingly meant for those who behave themselves and don’t exercise them. And if you happen to be part of a government in which no criminal act of state -- torture, kidnapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad, the launching of wars of aggression -- will ever bring a miscreant to court, only two crimes evidently exist: blowing a whistle or expressing your opinion. State Department official Peter Van Buren, whose new book about a disastrous year he spent in Iraq, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, learned that the hard way. So did former Guantanamo prosecutor Morris Davis when he got fired from his job at the Library of Congress for writing an op-ed. So may we all.

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst...te?page=entire

[persiphone]

Occupy L.A. protesters defy eviction
Occupy Wall Street protesters who defied a deadline to remove their weeks-old encampment on the Los Angeles City Hall lawn stood their ground Nov. 29 as they faced uncertainty over when or if police would push them out of the park


http://news.yahoo.com/photos/as-dead...191717305.html

that's a link to the slideshow, but i can't dig anything up on the story. how many rocks i gotta look under to get the news around here in this country?

[persiphone]

ok here we go.....geeeze....it was buried


Police hold off on eviction of Los Angeles Occupy camp
By Jason Kandel Reuters – 14 hrs ago


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Throngs of anti-Wall Street activists hunkered down in their Los Angeles camp for another night of uncertainty early on Tuesday as police stayed largely on the sidelines 24 hours after a deadline to vacate passed.

But crowds that had swelled to more than 2,000 at their peak late on Sunday as protesters from outside the City Hall encampment streamed in to help forestall a raid had dwindled to a core group of several hundred by late Monday night.

Compared with the raucous atmosphere at the encampment a day earlier, the mood was subdued on Tuesday, with campers milling about or playing drums and other instruments.

Police in riot gear had closed in on the Occupy LA compound early on Monday as protesters started blocking traffic, but a force of about 300 officers stopped short of clearing the camp and withdrew once they reopened streets for Monday commuters.

Four people were arrested on suspicion of being present at an unlawful assembly.

The Los Angeles encampment, which officials had tolerated for weeks even as other cities moved in to clear out similar camps, is among the largest on the West Coast aligned with a 2-month-old national Occupy Wall Street movement protesting economic inequality and excesses of the U.S. financial system.

Los Angeles Police Department Commander Andrew Smith said the number of tents had declined since the weekend to about 270, down from 500 pitched at their height.

"It's calm as can be over there," he said from a nearby corner on Monday night. Small clusters of officers stood by casually at various intersections at the fringes of the park, with no imminent sign of large-scale police action.

WAITING GAME

Smith declined to say when police might try to enforce the eviction order issued last week by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who gave the activists until 12:01 a.m. on Monday to dismantle their tents and clear out or face forcible removal and arrest.

Occupy campers seemed resigned to the fact that their 8-week-old presence was nearing an end.

"Now, it's like any time they could come in," said Elise Whitaker, 21, one of the organizers of the group. "They're going to come in, and I'm going to be arrested and it's going to be a lot of fun."

Attorneys for Occupy LA asked a federal judge on Monday for a court order barring police from evicting the camp, arguing that city officials had violated their civil rights by ordering it dismantled.

Villaraigosa initially had welcomed the protesters, going so far as to supply them with ponchos for inclement weather. But as city officials complained of crime, sanitation problems and property damage they blamed on the camp, the mayor decided the group had to go.

He issued his eviction notice last Friday after talks on a plan to induce the protesters to leave voluntarily collapsed, setting the stage for the latest showdown between leaders of a major U.S. city and the Occupy movement.

The mayor has promised to find alternative shelter for homeless people who had taken up residence at City Hall and were estimated to account for at least a third of those camped out there since the start of October.

Whitaker said there was widespread speculation that eviction by police might come after the city opens its winter shelters on December 1, a point at which homeless residents of the Occupy LA camp would drift away on their own.

[persiphone]

i thought this was interesting.....


Los Angeles Shows an Alternative Approach to Occupy
Tom Hayden
Posted: 11/29/11 09:31 AM ET on The Huffington Post


Compared with the brutal police crackdowns against the Occupy movement in New York City, Oakland and even the pacific Davis campus of the University of California, the Los Angeles eviction last night was almost entirely peaceful. The question is, why?

One reason was the leadership of the liberal Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ordered the eviction but also no beatings, tear-gassing or police violence. Another was the leadership of the Los Angeles Police Department, eager to show a new approach after years of controversy. The City Council came out early in support. Organized labor and local clergy joined the Occupiers and insisted the mayor do the right thing. And the Occupiers themselves adhered to a code of non-violence in an effort to keep the focus on Wall Street.

But to believe the writer Naomi Wolf, who was arrested during one of the New York protests, the Occupy movement inevitably faced a brutal crackdown because of its threat to the status quo. Wolf has written in the UK's Guardian that the recent crackdowns on Occupy in multiple cities have been a coordinated conspiracy between local officials, police, the FBI and Homeland Security. As evidence, she points to conference calls between officials and police in 18 cities that preceded the raids. She claims that a "shocking truth" behind the crackdown is the vested interest of Congress in protecting its own insider stock dealings on Wall Street. In one passage, Wolf accuses the White House of blessing the "war on peaceful protesters."

Wolf is not entirely off the mark. But her monolithic conspiracy model needs more investigation and cannot explain the case of Los Angeles.

There is no doubt that the conference calls were conducted, and public records act requests may yet shed light on what was said. The mayor of Los Angeles was not on those calls, and says he didn't want to be.

What is naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that crackdowns coordinated by the FBI are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street. Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked "anarchists" will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protesters be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for "security" (acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case). Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs.

The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 DNC), Washington D.C. (2000 IMF/World Bank, 2002 anti-war/IMF/World Bank), Genoa (2001 G8), Quebec City (2001 FTAA), Oakland (2003 anti-war), Miami (2003 FTAA), New York (2003 anti-war, 2004 RNC), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008 RNC), Denver (2008 DNC), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf's inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression.

Of course there were earlier eras of FBI-backed repression, deportations, and localized violence. But the current cycle began with Seattle and has morphed into the larger "war on terrorism."

There was one exception to this recent pattern: Mexico's handling of the anti-WTO protests held in Cancun in 2003. Instead of following the FBI's script, Mexico decided to de-escalate the police response, perhaps to protect Cancun's tourist economy, perhaps to improve their security forces' tattered reputation. It was quite remarkable to observe. In spite provocations by the so-called Black Bloc, in spite of protesters taking over the streets, in spite of a horrific ritual suicide by a South Korean farmer, the police and army remained largely disengaged or passive. When they arrested one group for sitting in an intersection, they placed them on an air-conditioned bus, which drove them back to the protest site.

The lesson that was driven home for me in Cancun is that the police, and those who dictate their policy, have enormous discretion over whether a confrontation turns violent. It mostly depends on what image they want to project. That is, it depends on politics.

To return to the case Los Angeles, I am not arguing in favor of the Mayor's eviction order. There was no particular reason for the order to be imposed last night. Left alone, the Occupiers might have decided on their own that it was time to move on. Or they might have descended into negative feuding and folded their tents. There was a serious risk in forcing them out of their encampment. Nor do I believe the mayor bowed to pressure from downtown property owners to clear the encampment. His own explanation as an elected official makes more sense: that sooner or later, an incident would occur at the encampment -- a death, a rape, a fight -- for which he would be held accountable politically.

But the way the LA eviction has been handled so far is a very important achievement for a city plagued by fifty years of police scandals, brutality, corruption, and court-ordered reforms. Only four years ago the LAPD's fabled Metro Division went wild and trampled peaceful protesters and media at a huge immigrant rights rally. The LAPD still stops and frisks hundreds of thousands of inner city youth each year, a potential scandal that is so far invisible.

Under the direction of the mayor and Chief Charlie Beck, however, the LAPD officers last night were as "tactful" as could be, in the phrase one Occupy sympathizer who works at City Hall.

Once considered an "occupying army" projecting a threat against the least disturbance, the LAPD allowed Occupy LA to co-opt their former brand.

The Occupy movement also showed an evolution in thinking about street tactics. A decade ago, the phrase "diversity of tactics" allowed a range of actions from strict nonviolence to "fucking shit up," as certain anarchist factions used to say. Experience showed that such "diversity" only allowed the most violent sensational tactics to dominate the media narrative, despite being employed by a tiny handful of activists (and provocateurs, in some cases).

So far the clearances in LA have been peaceful. Yesterday morning (Monday) the mayor met with a delegation of inter-faith leaders who have been joining the occupiers for several weeks. The clergy communiqué from the meeting commended Chief Beck for "the restraint shown so far by the LAPD," and made a "commitment to sustain the Occupy presence and message in LA going forward," including a promise by the Mayor to use his "bully pulpit" as head of the National Conference of Mayors to push the major themes of the national Occupy movement:

"the need to halt the avalanche of home foreclosures, the need to reverse corporate 'personhood', the need to fully enforce the Dodd-Frank law, and the need to gain needed federal and state tax revenue to support municipal services in LA and throughout the nation."
The dire scenario painted by Wolf in the international media does not tell the story of Los Angeles, where a crack of hope has been opened after one of the country's longest occupations.

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by persiphone

i thought this was interesting.....


Los Angeles Shows an Alternative Approach to Occupy
Tom Hayden
Posted: 11/29/11 09:31 AM ET on The Huffington Post


Compared with the brutal police crackdowns against the Occupy movement in New York City, Oakland and even the pacific Davis campus of the University of California, the Los Angeles eviction last night was almost entirely peaceful. The question is, why?

One reason was the leadership of the liberal Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ordered the eviction but also no beatings, tear-gassing or police violence. Another was the leadership of the Los Angeles Police Department, eager to show a new approach after years of controversy. The City Council came out early in support. Organized labor and local clergy joined the Occupiers and insisted the mayor do the right thing. And the Occupiers themselves adhered to a code of non-violence in an effort to keep the focus on Wall Street.

But to believe the writer Naomi Wolf, who was arrested during one of the New York protests, the Occupy movement inevitably faced a brutal crackdown because of its threat to the status quo. Wolf has written in the UK's Guardian that the recent crackdowns on Occupy in multiple cities have been a coordinated conspiracy between local officials, police, the FBI and Homeland Security. As evidence, she points to conference calls between officials and police in 18 cities that preceded the raids. She claims that a "shocking truth" behind the crackdown is the vested interest of Congress in protecting its own insider stock dealings on Wall Street. In one passage, Wolf accuses the White House of blessing the "war on peaceful protesters."

Wolf is not entirely off the mark. But her monolithic conspiracy model needs more investigation and cannot explain the case of Los Angeles.

There is no doubt that the conference calls were conducted, and public records act requests may yet shed light on what was said. The mayor of Los Angeles was not on those calls, and says he didn't want to be.

What is naïve in the Wolf analysis is her notion that crackdowns coordinated by the FBI are new with the advent of Occupy Wall Street. Since the 1999 Seattle protests, the involvement of the FBI with local police has followed a repeated pattern. First, an FBI counter-terrorism task force warns local officials, media and the public that thousands of masked "anarchists" will be invading their cities to break the law, fight the police, break windows and destroy property. They then advise that all protesters be literally fenced into protest cages. To sweeten the coordination, tens of thousands of federal dollars are offered to local police forces for "security" (acquisition of the latest in gas grenades, launchers, surveillance cameras, even paper shredders in one case). Young people and their convergence centers are targeted for prior detention, with the assistance of informants and provocateurs.

The list of cities where this has occurred is a long one, starting with Seattle: Los Angeles (2000 DNC), Washington D.C. (2000 IMF/World Bank, 2002 anti-war/IMF/World Bank), Genoa (2001 G8), Quebec City (2001 FTAA), Oakland (2003 anti-war), Miami (2003 FTAA), New York (2003 anti-war, 2004 RNC), Minneapolis-St. Paul (2008 RNC), Denver (2008 DNC), to list only the most dramatic and recent. None of these are remembered in Wolf's inflated narrative, as if the Occupy movement has been unique in provoking the ruling class to order up repression.

Of course there were earlier eras of FBI-backed repression, deportations, and localized violence. But the current cycle began with Seattle and has morphed into the larger "war on terrorism."

There was one exception to this recent pattern: Mexico's handling of the anti-WTO protests held in Cancun in 2003. Instead of following the FBI's script, Mexico decided to de-escalate the police response, perhaps to protect Cancun's tourist economy, perhaps to improve their security forces' tattered reputation. It was quite remarkable to observe. In spite provocations by the so-called Black Bloc, in spite of protesters taking over the streets, in spite of a horrific ritual suicide by a South Korean farmer, the police and army remained largely disengaged or passive. When they arrested one group for sitting in an intersection, they placed them on an air-conditioned bus, which drove them back to the protest site.

The lesson that was driven home for me in Cancun is that the police, and those who dictate their policy, have enormous discretion over whether a confrontation turns violent. It mostly depends on what image they want to project. That is, it depends on politics.

To return to the case Los Angeles, I am not arguing in favor of the Mayor's eviction order. There was no particular reason for the order to be imposed last night. Left alone, the Occupiers might have decided on their own that it was time to move on. Or they might have descended into negative feuding and folded their tents. There was a serious risk in forcing them out of their encampment. Nor do I believe the mayor bowed to pressure from downtown property owners to clear the encampment. His own explanation as an elected official makes more sense: that sooner or later, an incident would occur at the encampment -- a death, a rape, a fight -- for which he would be held accountable politically.

But the way the LA eviction has been handled so far is a very important achievement for a city plagued by fifty years of police scandals, brutality, corruption, and court-ordered reforms. Only four years ago the LAPD's fabled Metro Division went wild and trampled peaceful protesters and media at a huge immigrant rights rally. The LAPD still stops and frisks hundreds of thousands of inner city youth each year, a potential scandal that is so far invisible.

Under the direction of the mayor and Chief Charlie Beck, however, the LAPD officers last night were as "tactful" as could be, in the phrase one Occupy sympathizer who works at City Hall.

Once considered an "occupying army" projecting a threat against the least disturbance, the LAPD allowed Occupy LA to co-opt their former brand.

The Occupy movement also showed an evolution in thinking about street tactics. A decade ago, the phrase "diversity of tactics" allowed a range of actions from strict nonviolence to "fucking shit up," as certain anarchist factions used to say. Experience showed that such "diversity" only allowed the most violent sensational tactics to dominate the media narrative, despite being employed by a tiny handful of activists (and provocateurs, in some cases).

So far the clearances in LA have been peaceful. Yesterday morning (Monday) the mayor met with a delegation of inter-faith leaders who have been joining the occupiers for several weeks. The clergy communiqué from the meeting commended Chief Beck for "the restraint shown so far by the LAPD," and made a "commitment to sustain the Occupy presence and message in LA going forward," including a promise by the Mayor to use his "bully pulpit" as head of the National Conference of Mayors to push the major themes of the national Occupy movement:

"the need to halt the avalanche of home foreclosures, the need to reverse corporate 'personhood', the need to fully enforce the Dodd-Frank law, and the need to gain needed federal and state tax revenue to support municipal services in LA and throughout the nation."
The dire scenario painted by Wolf in the international media does not tell the story of Los Angeles, where a crack of hope has been opened after one of the country's longest occupations.

Sorry I'm with Naomi on this one. I think she put shit out into the open, now the cops want to act right or "learn" how to deal with peaceful protests in a peaceful manner when they should have been doing that in the first place. Why are they evicting them anyway for a peaceful protest? So it's ok for the cops to shut down our freedom of speech as long as they do it peacefully? I call BS.

[persiphone]

i agree with the writer's point that FBI~like assistance in matters like this are not a new thing. and i thought it was interesting that L.A. claims to not have been in on any of the conference calls with PERF by choice even.

[Corkey]

Scott Olsen on Ed tonight.

[persiphone]

Citigroup: Gutsy Judge "Preoccupies" Wall Street
By Steve Denning Forbes – 10 hrs ago


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

Margaret Mead

My recent article, What Shall We Do With The Big, Bad Banks, noted how over the last 15 years, some 19 large major financial institutions have been found by the SEC to have broken anti-fraud security laws at least 51 times—laws that they agreed “never again to breach”. The group of offenders included Citigroup [C], Bank of America [BAC], JPMorganChase [JPM], UBS [UBS] Goldman Sachs [GS], Wachovia [WB], and AIG [AIG]. In this period, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has never once brought a contempt of court citation against any of the banks for repeated offences.

The party ends
Yesterday, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of US District Court in Manhattan took a stand. He rejected a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in which, once again, Citigroup admitted no wrongdoing and promised “never again to breach the law”.

Judge Rakoff said that he could not determine whether the agency’s settlement with Citigroup was “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest,” as required by law, because the agency had claimed, but had not proved, that Citigroup committed fraud.

According to the SEC, Citigroup created a $1 billion mortgage fund that it sold to investors in 2007 and filled it with securities that it believed would fail so that it could bet against its customers and profit when values declined. The fraud, the agency said, was in Citigroup’s falsely telling investors that an independent party was choosing the portfolio’s investments.

The SEC, Judge Rakoff said, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.” But it is difficult to tell what the agency is getting from this settlement “other than a quick headline.” Even a $285 million settlement, he said, “is pocket change to any entity as large as Citigroup,” and often viewed by Wall Street firms “as a cost of doing business.” While $285 million sounds like a lot of money, it compares to the $700 million that investors lost and the $160 million that Citigroup made from the deal.

A practice hallowed by history not by reason
Robert Khuzami, the SEC's director of enforcement, said that the decision “ignores decades of established practice throughout federal agencies and decisions of the federal courts.”

Judge Rakoff’s response was that the established practice makes no sense. It is “hallowed by history, but not by reason”and creates substantial potential for abuse.

In his decision, Judge Rakoff called Citigroup “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, for having previously settled other fraud cases with the agency where it neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed never to violate the law in the future. Citigroup and other repeat offenders can agree to those terms, the judge said, because they know that the commission has not monitored compliance, failing to bring contempt charges for repeat violations in at least 10 years.

A comfortable club
Judge Rakoff put his finger on a comfortable arrangement that has been going on for many years. A bank commits a fraud and makes a lot of money. The SEC brings a suit for fraud, but settles the case while the bank admits no responsibility and offers a “never again” promise. The judges blesses the agreement. The SEC declares victory. The bank continues with business as usual and commits another fraud. The SEC brings suit and so on, ad infinitum.

Almost everyone is happy. The judges are saved from a series of messy and expensive trials. The SEC gets a headline and a fine. The banks can continue with business as usual.

Who loses? First, the investors suffer continuing losses, as they have little chance of bringing a successful suit against Citigroup when the SEC is unable to extract the slightest admission of doing anything amiss.

Second, the taxpayers also suffer when they are called up on bail out the big banks when the practices become so egregious that they endanger the entire global financial system.

Third, the shareholders also suffer big losses. Citigroup has lost 92 percent of its share value over the last ten years.


The really big winners in this wonderfully comfortable club are the bank executives and traders. Even in 2010, just two years after banks like Citigroup were bailed out by the taxpayers, compensation for the 29 largest financial organizations was an astonishing $135 billion. (That’s billion, not million.)

What if others followed Judge Rakoff’s example?
Other judges are not obligated to follow Judge Rakoff’s opinion.

“The crucial question,” worries Peter Henning in the New York Times, “is whether Judge Rakoff’s decision has led to an end to the S.E.C.’s policy of settling its cases without any admission of liability by the defendant? Although Judge Rakoff is only one federal district judge, his approach may be influential with other judges who do not wish to be seen as mere 'rubber stamps' for the S.E.C.”

What if other judges began rejecting questionable settlements that effectively give a green light to "recidivists" to continue with business as usual?

What if the SEC developed a backbone and started bringing contempt of court cases for “recidivists” like Citigroup?

What if business schools started teaching that maximizing shareholder value systematically results in declining shareholder value?

What if investors wised up just a tad and grasped that investing in banks that systematically “disadvantage’ their customers is a very poor investment decision?

What if banks themselves started to realize that disadvantaging their customers does not make long-term business sense? What if they sent their traders back to Las Vegas where they could continue their taste for gambling without risk to the public, and started focusing their business on activities that would grow the real economy?

What if the banks even began to find ways to delight their customers by practicing radical management?

Would it be so terrible if judges began living more authentic lives by actually implementing the law, and bankers started living lives that were personally worthwhile?

And what if that led to an end to financial crises and in due course to a rebirth of the real economy and the growth of jobs: would that be such a horrible thing?

[persiphone]

Occupy Wall Street Takes Aim at Student Debt
By Giuseppe Giannet Mon, Nov 28, 2011


With the ever-increasing chance of eviction facing "Occupy" movements across the country, Occupy Wall Street has been forced to consider its next step. Whether the movement morphs into a political group capable of reform through the ballot box is yet to be seen. However, some specific action is already taking place. One thing Occupy Wall Street has taken aim at is the growing student loan debt carried by the nation's college students. Here are some interesting facts relating to the "Occupy" campaign and student debt in general.

* According to Washington Square News, protesters in Zuccotti Park are trying to gather one million signatures from students vowing to ignore their loan payments. The campaign is consistent with the "Occupy" movement's larger belief that college education is a fundamental right of citizens.

* The campaign is being run by the Education and Empowerment Committee of Occupy Wall Street.

* The price of studying and living on campus at an average public university rose 5.4 percent for in-state students, or about $1,100, to $21,447 this fall, according to CNNMoney. Meanwhile, community college, which is usually a low cost alternative for lower income students, tuition posted an 8.7 percent gain.

* The New York Federal Reserve Bank puts the total student debt at $550 billion, according to the Economist.

* Sallie Mae, the college loan giant speculates there is $757 billion of outstanding student loans.

* Lending this year alone is projected to be in excess of $112 billion, which will send the total student loan debt owed by American students to over $1 trillion.

* Depending on the estimate, America's students now owe more in college loan debt than Americans owe in credit card debt, reports the USAToday.

* According to the Huffington Post, the average debt students owed in 2010 was $25,250, which represented a 5 percent increase from the previous year.

* Out of the nation's 50 states, New Hampshire had the highest average debt load at $31,048, while Utah had the lowest at $15,509.

* The Obama Administration has tried to deal with the student loan crisis by capping monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. The White House estimates this could assist 1.6 million students in lowering their payments.

[persiphone]

i thought this was super fancy

We Didn't Know About the Fed's $7.7 Trillion Loans To Wall Street
By Robert Lenzner Forbes – Mon, Nov 28, 2011


......"What you see is all there is. We don't react to things we don't know about."

This remarkable but common sense insight is a major theme of economist Daniel Kahneman's new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow, " just published and already on the best-seller list.

We did not know that the Fed has spent the mind-boggling total of $7.7 trillion in loans to many of the key financial institutions in the world during the 2008 meltdown; including $1.2 trillion in a single day, December 5th, 2008-- after other costly steps had been taken to put capital in the major banks, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley-- and a host of European banks as well.

Had we known the extent of the money being lent through the Fed open market window-- even though the money had collateral behind it-- would we have been more frightened-- or more secure in our temperament, and so willing to risk our money as well.? I reckon I would have been more frightened, and I'm glad I didn't know.

But, the revelation after the fact is bound to stir up the conspiracy gang and lead to sharp political debate about the independence of the central bank. Thank God Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever.

What we still don't know is whether all that nearly $8 trillion was necessary. Instead of looking backwards, it's more crucial to look forwards.

What don't we know about Europe, about the murky, non-transparent plans to stabilize Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and the U.K.? It's frightening to think what isn't known about the machinations in Paris, Rome, Frankfurt, London and Lisbon All we know is there's a mountain of debt everywhere (see my "The UK has 460% debt to GDP") Both sovereign debt and bank debt-- all interwoven in a web of danger.

We cannot know for certain-- but only imagine-- that the solution will involve that tired warhorse of more debt floated to pay off or service old debt. We can only hope that the ECB, the Bundesbank, the IMF and others will copycat the Fed-- and make funds available.

As our behavior is often ruled by what we can't see, I guess the safest route is to sell European sovereign paper and bank shares. We'll not know the true extent of what is happening in Europe that we can only see on a piecemeal basis-- until we become more aware of what is in store for us.

It all makes me edgy, and wondering about all the other things I don't know-- like the hope that China will have a soft-- not hard landing; that Pakistan's nuclear warheads are indeed under tight, sane control; that Iran is far from developing a nuclear bomb; that the US will resolve the debt crisis at home without going into a lost decade like Japan. That's just the top rung of what we don't know. "What you see is all there is." What level of discount does Kahneman's finding deserve? I'm not sure.


i agree. i think this pit is much deeper than we know about despite all the horrors that have been trotted out thus far. but i've been saying that for a while.

[persiphone]

and in other news...from Denver....



Occupy Denver march halts traffic; no one arrested
By: DAN ELLIOTT 11/17/11 10:59 AM
Associated Press



Boisterous but peaceful Occupy Denver protesters marched through downtown Thursday chanting "We are the 99 percent" and bringing traffic to a halt.

Police followed them on horseback, motorcycles and bicycles but made no move to arrest anyone or clear the streets. Officers in squad cars zipped ahead to block traffic on cross streets once it was clear which direction the crowd was moving.

There appeared to be little or no violence, although one protester threw a small white object at an SUV that darted out of an alley and forced one marcher to jump out of the way.

After a rally outside the Denver City and County Building, protesters streamed down a pedestrian mall, stopping in front of a Federal Reserve branch to denounce big banks and corporate excess. They briefly blocked at least two busy intersections before returning to the downtown park where they started.

The crowd appeared to number about 100. Police said they don't issue crowd estimates.

A similar scene involving a crowd of about 300 played out again in the evening.

The rally and march were among several staged across the nation to mark the date two months ago when the Occupy protests started.

One of the Denver protesters, Claudia Livingston, 63, said she lost her job after eight years and hasn't been able to find another. She had to move out of her home and rent it out to pay the mortgage, she said.

"I can't afford to live in my own home," Livingston said.

She went to Thursday's rally to protest what she called violations of the First Amendment Rights of some Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Some Denver bystanders looked on with amusement and few appeared upset — not even the drivers who were forced to wait while the crowd blocked intersections.

"It's good to be right here and see it," said Kai Syliece, 19, who was driving to a college class when she had to wait for the marchers to pass. "We've been talking about this in class."

Russ Glissmann, 48, watched as four protesters briefly sat in the middle of a street facing a half-dozen police cars before they stood and retreated to the curb.

"I think they're absurd," said Glissmann, who works in information technology.

He said he had no beef with the protesters' message, only their methods.

"They have yet to say how they want (the economic system) changed," he said. "They're causing more problems than they're solving."

Police spokesman John White said he didn't know whether the protesters had a permit to march but said the department has allowed the protesters to stage previous marches without official permission.

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock said that's been the city's position throughout the protests

"The whole idea (is), we're not trying to provoke," Hancock said.

"We believe that their right to free speech and assembly is first and foremost," Hancock said, adding that police have confronted protesters only when a situation threatens the health and safety of the public or the protesters.

Police and protesters have had three run-ins, twice at the protesters' encampment near the state Capitol and once on the Capitol steps.

Three protesters face state felony charges from two of those incidents, prosecutors said Thursday. The charges include inciting a riot, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

Prosecutors said at least 23 others have been issued citations on state misdemeanor charges, and more may have been issued citations for violating city ordinances.

[SoNotHer]

Good and finally...

Originally Posted by persiphone

Occupy Wall Street Takes Aim at Student Debt
By Giuseppe Giannet Mon, Nov 28, 2011


With the ever-increasing chance of eviction facing "Occupy" movements across the country, Occupy Wall Street has been forced to consider its next step. Whether the movement morphs into a political group capable of reform through the ballot box is yet to be seen. However, some specific action is already taking place. One thing Occupy Wall Street has taken aim at is the growing student loan debt carried by the nation's college students. Here are some interesting facts relating to the "Occupy" campaign and student debt in general.

* According to Washington Square News, protesters in Zuccotti Park are trying to gather one million signatures from students vowing to ignore their loan payments. The campaign is consistent with the "Occupy" movement's larger belief that college education is a fundamental right of citizens.

* The campaign is being run by the Education and Empowerment Committee of Occupy Wall Street.

* The price of studying and living on campus at an average public university rose 5.4 percent for in-state students, or about $1,100, to $21,447 this fall, according to CNNMoney. Meanwhile, community college, which is usually a low cost alternative for lower income students, tuition posted an 8.7 percent gain.

* The New York Federal Reserve Bank puts the total student debt at $550 billion, according to the Economist.

* Sallie Mae, the college loan giant speculates there is $757 billion of outstanding student loans.

* Lending this year alone is projected to be in excess of $112 billion, which will send the total student loan debt owed by American students to over $1 trillion.

* Depending on the estimate, America's students now owe more in college loan debt than Americans owe in credit card debt, reports the USAToday.

* According to the Huffington Post, the average debt students owed in 2010 was $25,250, which represented a 5 percent increase from the previous year.

* Out of the nation's 50 states, New Hampshire had the highest average debt load at $31,048, while Utah had the lowest at $15,509.

* The Obama Administration has tried to deal with the student loan crisis by capping monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of discretionary income. The White House estimates this could assist 1.6 million students in lowering their payments.

[SoNotHer]

Wow just wow... thank you for posting this.

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

[VintageFemme]

[ruffryder]

Does anyone think we do not need all the law enforcement present at the OWS movements?

Do you think people can really assemble peacefully if there wasn't security there?

There is an issue arising about it starting to become costly and our tax dollars going to law enforcement. Just wondering thoughts on that.

[SoNotHer]

"The table is tilted. The game is rigged." You think? I miss him.

And yes, Ruff Ryder, we should be talking about the money involved in the policing of protests. And in fact at some point America should be discussing how much it wants to spend proactively in the form of decent and quality education and health for all or re-actively in the form of maintaining our status as the world's number one incarcerator.

Originally Posted by VintageFemme

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Does anyone think we do not need all the law enforcement present at the OWS movements?

Do you think people can really assemble peacefully if there wasn't security there?

There is an issue arising about it starting to become costly and our tax dollars going to law enforcement. Just wondering thoughts on that.

There is a lot being spent on over time and contracting with other forces in other jurisdictions, etc. Also, the sanitation workers are involved as well as fire and the required emergency medical teams for protests/using free speech designated areas.

I think there is overkill, yet, I think that there needs to be police presence just as there is for any permitted demonstration. I certainly don't want a lack of emergency services available in case of illness or injury and things like heart attacks or strokes, drug overdoses and sexual assault- all things that are factored into any public gathering. And actually, the OWS demonstrators are entitled to the same kinds of public services utilized for free speech activities, including police protection, if needed. Unfortunately, other than the terrible acts of stupidity by some police departments in handling the protests, there have been crimes committed such as rape, and a 20 year old woman died due to a drug overdose at one Occupy protest. Public health administration is also needed with large, longer term demonstrations in which things like TB and hepatitis are transmitted- or other communicable diseases. There have been reports of both in Atlanta, but, I need more info about this as this is one of those things that something like Faux News could trump up and report. Just a fact of public gatherings and communal living. Again, these are services that all of us should expect from our public agencies, including public health info on how to take care of yourself in these kinds of settings.

The other thing is that there have been some tense interactions between groups that really attend these rallies and simply want to disrupt things and loot or damage property- they are not part of the Occupy movement- an example are the various anarchist groups that show up- and have for years.

This is straining municipal budgets that are already running in the red. But, people have been hurt at these demonstrations and there needs to be ER services available. People can get hurt at any kind of gathering and I do want there to be trained people on site to handle what could happen to anyone.

On another note- I watched the Ed Show and the interview of Scott Olsen, the ex-Marine that was severely injured by a tear gas canister at the Oakland OWS. It is obvious that his head injuries are serious and he is still having problems with speech. My heart was in my throat as I watched. This just should not have happened. The tear gas spraying at UC Davis, either. The guy is also being called un-American by right-wing jackasses. He is exercising the very rights he fought in Iraq for- and he gets called this! There are many vets that come out of war that speak out against war and other inequities. That is part of our democracy- and one I hope continues- I'm having a hard time with so much of how our freedoms are in danger via the Congress right now and giving police or federal agencies the right to search, seize or arrest without probable cause at all!

I really am upset after seeing this young man and his struggles with recovery- really bothering me. This could be my kid or Grandchild, yours, any of our loved ones (or our members here that are going out to the demonstrations) participating in a legal activity afforded us under our Constitution.

[SoNotHer]

Does anyone figures on emergency services and response? How much typically is being spent?

This is one of my morning emails. Does anyone know about this either?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, has a long history of enabling Wall Street misconduct.

Yet President Obama is allowing Secretary Geithner and other top officials in the Obama administration to pressure state Attorneys General to agree to a horrible settlement deal with banks that would let them off the hook for massive amounts of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.2

In exchange for meager penalties, the banks get immunity from future prosecution, even for misconduct that has not been fully investigated and misconduct that might still be ongoing.3

Any settlement like this would amount to little more than another bank bailout4, and according to published reports we might only have a small amount of time to stop it.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Americans are paying a heavy price for Wall Street greed. Millions are out of work, millions face foreclosure, and millions more are feeling the pain in some other way. But not one of the Wall Street crooks who drove our economy off a cliff has gone to jail. And without aggressive investigation and prosecution of misconduct, none of them will.

President Obama's political advisors have said that he plans on running against Wall Street as part of his reelection campaign.

But if President Obama really wanted to hold the banks accountable, he'd ensure his administration does nothing less than support investigating, prosecuting and punishing unscrupulous banks to the full extent of the law.

Top officials in the Obama administration cannot act in their official capacity without the backing of President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for what they do. The buck stops with him.

President Obama must stop his administration from pushing this terrible deal.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Does anyone figures on emergency services and response? How much typically is being spent?

This is one of my morning emails. Does anyone know about this either?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, has a long history of enabling Wall Street misconduct.

Yet President Obama is allowing Secretary Geithner and other top officials in the Obama administration to pressure state Attorneys General to agree to a horrible settlement deal with banks that would let them off the hook for massive amounts of mortgage and foreclosure fraud.2

In exchange for meager penalties, the banks get immunity from future prosecution, even for misconduct that has not been fully investigated and misconduct that might still be ongoing.3

Any settlement like this would amount to little more than another bank bailout4, and according to published reports we might only have a small amount of time to stop it.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Americans are paying a heavy price for Wall Street greed. Millions are out of work, millions face foreclosure, and millions more are feeling the pain in some other way. But not one of the Wall Street crooks who drove our economy off a cliff has gone to jail. And without aggressive investigation and prosecution of misconduct, none of them will.

President Obama's political advisors have said that he plans on running against Wall Street as part of his reelection campaign.

But if President Obama really wanted to hold the banks accountable, he'd ensure his administration does nothing less than support investigating, prosecuting and punishing unscrupulous banks to the full extent of the law.

Top officials in the Obama administration cannot act in their official capacity without the backing of President Obama, who is ultimately responsible for what they do. The buck stops with him.

President Obama must stop his administration from pushing this terrible deal.

Call President Obama and tell him not to sell us out to Wall Street. Click here for the number to call and a sample script.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

I already knew this about Geithner. I was not pleased when Obama first named him treasury secretary at the beginning of his presidency. It's an example of his two-faced strategy. It is why I won't vote for him next fall.

On another note, right on Dennis:

[persiphone]

wow....1400 cops to take out Occupy L.A. i wonder what that cost


http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-la-camp...GVzdAM-;_ylv=3