dagblog - Comments for "The Elusive Point B"

OK, now I am really far out

The Decider — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:50:39 +0000

In reply to Sorry, this is way OT... But

OK, now I am really far out to the right. This is super cool! But I'll bet Romney replies to me so he can try to get to the right of me. Fake conservative!

I don't really have anything

The Decider — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:17:53 +0000

In reply to But, the specific success

I don't really have anything to say but I really do like writing way over here on the right side of the paper like that. It's cool, Heh, heh!

God bless America!

--W

Sorry, this is way OT... But

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:23:35 +0000

In reply to Zag. I'm firm on

Sorry, this is way OT...

But I was wondering what your take on climate scientist Hulme in the UK is.

(An actual question, Q, not a provocation, k?)

DON?T TRUST THOSE ALREADY IN

RAnonymous — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:37:37 +0000

In reply to I think Wicked brings the

DON’T TRUST THOSE ALREADY IN AUTHORITY, The movement will suffer.

Is that the message? Trope

“There are many main themes in Wicked. One widely acknowledged theme of Wicked is a statement about authority or esteemed figures, and how they are not always as wonderful and truthful as everyone thinks they are."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_theme_of_in_wicked#ixzz1bxP9uORT

Thanks. My take basically is

Anonymous LisB — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:45:55 +0000

In reply to something is happening with

Thanks. My take basically is already written in my comment, so until I read a bit more in the days ahead, and/or get on a writing roll, I think I'll hold off on posting at Paradigm about it.

It just angered me that the media is covering OWS like crazy and yet not understanding the underlying message behind it. I suppose they're too busy getting paid by the corporations we're trying to fight. But for all of them to say that they don't "get it", when over 70% of Americans are pissed off at the bank CEO's who make millions while laying off their employees...it just makes me want to laugh (or cry, or both).

Again, I think Point B should be a solid step/movement towards pushing credit unions and ending corporate "sponsorship" of political candidates in the year ahead. Two things we should all be able to agree on, given the climate right now. Here's hoping, anyway.

something is happening with

Anonymous Tropey — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:38:12 +0000

In reply to Wow. Funny that you wrote

something is happening with the server it appears so none of us can stay signed in.

but any ole how thanks for a little support here. I don't mind a little push back, and in fact invite it, but I wasn't quite ready for the total resistance to mere idea that one should ponder the current path.

Ultimately I would say at this moment that having a majority like the OWS is the same as if one asked if one liked universal health care. Most will say yes. But if it requried a sacrifice in their personal household income then the answer becomes differeent.

But you should post your take. The more voices the better.

Good to see you're not

Anonymous LisB — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:21:31 +0000

In reply to Good to see you spelling it

Good to see you're not getting amped up about Trope, Q :)

Wow. Funny that you wrote

Anonymous LisB — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:18:08 +0000

In reply to The Elusive Point B

Wow. Funny that you wrote this, seeing as how I was just about to blog about it at Paradigm, albeit in a different way.

I've been out of touch with politics lately, mostly by choice, but today I took Mom down to New Jersey for a doctor's appointment and I found myself reading a TIME article on the OWS movement. This being a day after struggling to read an article about it in Mom's "National Review" magazine, which I only picked up and read because I was bored yesterday.

Anyway, I found it enlightening to see that both magazines chose to cover OWS yet both articles basically said, in a nutshell, "It's a movement, it seems bigger than the tea party, but no one knows what in hell it means, nor what the outcome will be."

TIME was kinder and gentler, of course. I was able to read the entire piece without gagging, anyway. But, long story short, while OWS is seen as big news by the media, its message still isn't getting across. You'd think "Big Banks Suck" would be an understandable message, but apparently Republicans think OWS activists are nothing but whining Liberals and TIME thinks they are whining college students who don't want to pay off their student loans.

Meantime, TIME did a poll and found that over 70% of Americans LIKE the movement. So apparently the overall message has gotten across to people. The media, however, can't seem to even get past the squirrelly points in A and a Half, let alone get to Point B.

Personally, I think Point B should be about getting a clearer statement out there, such as, "We are NOT whining, we have a message!" and then, of course, we have to solidify that message and plan a Point B. In my opinion, Point B should be about dropping the big banks (moving our money - what's left of it - into Credit Unions, etc) and about getting corporations out of campaigns. By 2012.

Of course, my Point B won't be someone else's Point B, and therein lies the root of the problem.

Good piece, Trope. I'm glad you saved me the trouble of writing a post about it. :) Oh, and a belated happy birthday to you.

(PS: For some reason, I am not able to sign in tonight)

Good to see you spelling it

Qnonymous — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:52:56 +0000

In reply to The Civil Rights Movement was

Good to see you spelling it out, Trope.

I can see now that you're clearly in a different kind of business. You're into a bafflegab ass-kissing thing, designed to get resources from big deal "CEOs, COOs, CFOs et al."

Because you're far above those sorts of people and projects - how did you say it - that involve "a few volunteers in Birkenstocks helping the poor."

I liked that. The disdain - palpable, really.

Which showed up again in the jibe about how "laughable" it is to think cultural change could come about by - again, you have such a way with words - "gathering around some tents in a public space here and there."

Laughable.

Clearly, you're a much more serious person, as you bring them together around... "tables." Not the "uberwealthy" (certainly not), but the ones in the "upper reaches of the 99%" (God, I so love how you put things), those are the ones you want.

The ones who merely "make 6 figures etc."

I'm sure theatre has a term for when someone makes this sort of comment, in the middle of a debate.

Escapes me at the moment.

However. I'll repeat. I do think it's worthwhile standing back a bit from casting too much judgment on OWS, or working any particular theory too hard, or getting too amped up about the need to force it into any pattern.

That's what I'm doing.

But you can't have the zag

Elusive Trope — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:41:25 +0000

In reply to Zag. I'm firm on

But you can't have the zag without the zig

Which at least morphs all blather into pure genius.