Final Fantasy Hacktics

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/michigan-gop-pass-bullying-bill-giving-license-to-bully/politics/2011/11/03/29580

Yup.  A bill that says that bullying is allowed as long as it is for 'moral or religious' reasons.  Not only students are allowed to bully others, but the fucking teachers are allowed to bully students.

At the very least, the Republicans that voted for this should have the shit beat of them, but honestly, I'd rather they just fucking die.  Monsters.

Basically, any non xian can be bullied to the extreme, and it is completely legal now. 

What the fuck is wrong in the US?   This is just more fuel for the fire.  If shit like this keeps up, it will lead to another civil war.
At this point, I wouldn't mind that.

Quote
At the very least, the Republicans that voted for this should have the shit beat of them, but honestly, I'd rather they just fucking die.  Monsters.

I often wonder why people have a habit of demonizing people and then threaten the exact same behavior back at them. It doesn't undermine the argument (tu quoque and all that), but certainly doesn't help it either.


Anyway, bill is obviously incredibly stupid.

This is horrible! In MY state!? Oh hell no!

Here is a link to the bill in its entirety: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBS-0137.pdf

The only section I can find the would even remotely (very remotely) address this issue would be this section:

Quote(8) THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.

Which clearly promotes the bullying of gays.  It also clearly states that Xian's can bully whomever they would like.  /sarcasm

Actually, what that section says is that a school's anti-bullying/anti-false accusation policy cannot violate the first amendment rights of any of the involved parties. You could argue that second sentence allows (not advocates) someone stating it is their religious right to bully someone. If it stopped there I would give you at least some credence anti-Xian rage (or any anti-religion rage), but it is followed up by the 'moral conviction' bit which opens it up to anyone, religious and non-religious alike.  So anyone who has a sincerely held moral obligation to bully a homosexual can do so.  Likewise, anyone who has a sincerely held moral obligation to bully a heterosexual can do so.

Really, I don't see this as "advocating" any bullying.  Moreover, I see this as an anti-bullying bill that is trying to cover its ass, by blatantly saying "This bill is not un-constitutional."

Thanks for the link, after reading it I don't really see the bill stating what the OP said anywhere.

I see anti bullying clauses in this bill.

New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

Quote from: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on November 03, 2011, 05:00:35 pm
New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

Better.

Quote from: Kuraudo Sutoraifu on November 03, 2011, 05:00:35 pm
New thread name: Michigan Democrats vote against bill that outlaws bullying gays.

Annoying. More bureaucratic work. Paper pushing. Help solve the problem or not, it is a very inefficient method. And inefficient methods slows down the solution/ process.... Very dumb bill.

Wow, just wow. 
Do you understand what that section allows?  The bill specifically states that everything is peachy keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction. 

Throwing around the first amendment like that is bullshit.  Freedom of speech applies to a lot more than just morals and religion.  So why single those out as being ok?  How is telling someone else that their existence is a 'sin' ever ok?  The Government may allow people to be racist, but it does not ever suggest that racism is somehow ok.  No one that wants to make the government racist is allowed to have a voice in politics.  Why is the same thing not being done for gays?  Why can't the government take the stance that homophobia is not ok, but individuals can be homophobic on their own time?

Instead we get bills like this.  You can't bully others, but constantly telling someone they are going to hell and that they need to repent because god hates them is ok, because somehow that isn't bullying.  How does that make sense?  That clause makes any homophobic moron able to get away with just about anything, because they can just argue that it is protected speech.

This bill is seriously fucked up, but leave it to conservatives to think that it is somehow a step forward.

It does not say a specific person can be targeted for bullying based on belief/sexuality or any of that. It simply says this bill does not encroach on the first amendment rights. It's no different than a man of muslim faith in america beating a woman for not being fully covered if she doesn't want to. That women as a citizen of the united states does not have have to abide by him if she doesn't want to, this is the land of the free, and whether you like it or not that includes free speech. If you don't like it, there's the door -> |.|

This bill helps people who are bullied, no matter who they are. If I were to walk up to someone and bully them and punch them for 'being gay' I could still have charges pressed on me. It's no different. First. Amendment. 'Speech' 'Freedom'

Basically your democrats voted against a bill that would help students being bullied, and you are mad that the republicans want to protect free speech

(http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-looney.jpg)

da bill of rights
It's why you can 'occupy wall street' or a dumbass can claim 'the world is coming to an end'

Hrm, I stand corrected.


I would like an actual lawyer to give an opinion on it rather than a distilled, biased interpretation. I'm one of the most anti-censorship people you'll ever meet, so infringing free speech is not something I'd be in favor of. My stance is people should not be inhibited from throwing insults... provided it does not result in harassment. Harassment requires more than a single condescending quip thrown in the hallway. When it becomes unrelenting or physical, that's when you can kiss your freedom of speech rights goodbye, because their right to be in school or whatever uninhibited overrides free speech any day.

Quote from: Kaijyuu on November 04, 2011, 02:03:20 am
Hrm, I stand corrected.


I would like an actual lawyer to give an opinion on it rather than a distilled, biased interpretation. I'm one of the most anti-censorship people you'll ever meet, so infringing free speech is not something I'd be in favor of. My stance is people should not be inhibited from throwing insults... provided it does not result in harassment. Harassment requires more than a single condescending quip thrown in the hallway. When it becomes unrelenting or physical, that's when you can kiss your freedom of speech rights goodbye, because their right to be in school or whatever uninhibited overrides free speech any day.

Right, your freedom ends when you destroy someone elses'.

Quote from: GeneralStrife on November 04, 2011, 02:05:21 am
Right, your freedom ends when you destroy someone elses'.

More accurately, when two people's rights seem to conflict (such as the right to speech and right to not be harassed), the repressive one wins out. You don't suddenly lose your right to freedom of speech after committing harassment or assault or vandalism or whatever... it just doesn't apply in those situations, because someone else's right overrides it.

That is the point. 
If you declare that all black people are evil abominations, that is considered harassment.  A teacher would be fired for saying that, and any black student who said that they felt harassed by the statement would be the more than justified in feeling that way.

This bill specifically protects students/teachers by saying that they can make those kind of statements, as long as they have religious or moral reasons behind it.  Never mind that that exception completely opens the flood gates to allow all sorts of harassment, so long as the bullies hide behind their ill informed version of the first amendment. 

I'm not a lawyer, but this is tort law territory. The point is, exercising your freedom of speech before and after this bill will not be illegal. However, you can certainly be sued for your actions if they're actionable. If you assault someone (this is a threat of violence), batter someone (this is any unconsented to physical contact), falsely imprison someone (detaining them or preventing their movement without their consent), intentionally inflict emotional distress upon someone, defame a person's character to a 3rd party in written format (libel) or verbal format (slander), invade someone's privacy (unconsented use of the person's information for commercial purposes, intrusion upon the person's day-to-day affairs or their seculsion, publishing information about the person that falsely depicts the person or their actions, public discolusre of private facts about the person), or appropriate a person's identity for your own benefit, you can be sued under tort law, but that doesn't make the tort (the damage) committed against the person illegal. There are other things that can make any of those things illegal, sure, but the point is that none of those things by themselves are crimes in the United States of America. You will never (and probably should never) have any right to get someone thrown into prison for non-criminal activity. However, it is your express right to sue someone if their behavior is actionable (that is, if it falls into one of those categories, can be proved in a court of law, and you take it to court in the form of a law suit). Does this solve your problem? No, not really. What remedy can you get out of a tort lawsuit? Money? An injunction against the person in a repeated or continuing case? That prevents one person from treating you badly at great personal cost.

Not to change the topic at hand but to show a parallel, there have been many anti-Sharia Law bills put forward stating basically that Sharia Law will not be permitted (within the state proposing it). However, even if such a bill passes into law, the parts of it that were illegal or tortuous before the bill passed will continue to be illegal and/or tortuous afterwards. That is, killing someone who gives up the religion of Islam still results in the act of manslaughter, which may or may not be criminal depending on malice aforethought and several other things. Beating someone up for dressing immodestly (without the person's consent) is still a tort; the person could sue for those damages.

Anyway, it's sad that children (who may see adults or popular topics as authoritative and unquestionably true) have to deal with this as part of their environment growing up, but you've no doubt seen (if you use YouTube) the umpteen videos about "It gets better!" Talking about appropriate behavior amongst peers, helping someone when they are unable or unwilling to protect themselves (though you may have to defend this choice in court), and generally exercising your freedom of speech to act as a counter-weight to a malicious or otherwise damaging source's freedom of speech is what you are left with.

That said, the first person who steps into the territory of criminal law with that law in mind will very likely be criminally charged, because its still criminal even with that law. Would the sentence severity take into consideration that law? I don't see why not, but there are all the other precedents to consider as well. There is no "getting away with it" if it's criminal, and, for the cases where it isn't illegal, there is only "getting away with it" if you don't help yourself to your legal rights in the presence of actionable behavior as described by tort law.

From a personal place, I think taking the actions of others to heart in part is damaging to yourself. On the other hand, if you attempt to understand what and why the other person is doing what they're doing, I think it's uplifting. It misdirects the brunt of whatever anger, sadness, or injustice you might immediately feel towards the person, and it provides you with an outside of the situation perspective. Imagine if you never grasped the concept of what a motive is and its serious purpose in driving human actions. You would miss out on some incredible things, like being able to understand or respect the feelings of a group of people who have just deposed their dictatorial leader largely by themselves. Without understanding the motive, it's just people cheering amid pictures of a dead man's body, right? The point is, figure out why the person (or people) behave the way they do, and use that as part of your strength. In the case of a bully, they may not know any better; they may know perfectly well. It may be partially unintentional; it may be completely sinister. If you don't express or have any curiosity about it, then you're just going to be mad/angry/sad/depressed/alienated/isolated/frustrated about something that can never ever change, since it already happened, but you can educate yourself about it (and move on in the process to protect yourself).

NOTE: I'm not specifically opposing any of the above posters.  I'm just pointing out my thoughts on the matter.

I personally don't think laws governing most behaviors can even be subject to state laws without the laws themselves being too arbitrary to be enforced.  In this case, anyone can publicly claim his moral teaching tells him Group X is bad.  If a member of Group X disagrees and claims persecution under this law, how would the court settle it?  The person who made the public claim has just as valid a right under the First Amendment as the violated member of Group X under this law.  (Note that the 1st Amendment does have exceptions, such as provocations.)  Obviously, the bias of the judge and jury would decide in such a case, as well as the strength of the lawyers of both sides.  (That, or the judge throws the case out of court as irrelevant.)  Now, if you consider all the public money wasted in this "worst-case" scenario, we may as well not have such a law.

One may defend this law by stating that the above is unrealistic; it probably will not come before a court for some time (if at all) and thus will actively affect many districts before it is challenged (and thus set precedents and raise awareness).  Unfortunately, what a reasonable person considers to be bullying isn't so obviously defined when it refers to beliefs not everyone shares.  For example, if Child A pushes Child B in the mud and makes fun of his mother, most people would consider Child A to be the bully.  However, if an effeminate Child B is routinely picked on by Child A as a "faggot", if the teacher privately sides with Child A, as do most of the people in the school, the teacher may see nothing wrong even if the parents do.  Local biases of each district will decide; thus, DaveSW's scenario certainly may happen in more conservative districts.  However, that doesn't preclude all the other biases of the people in this society.  The "fear" that some people may still be picked on will occur in every direction, depending on whose thinking is in the "unwanted minority" for a given area.
If we wish to argue that Dave's scenario is 10x more likely because of the superior mobilization of evangelical groups, and this law will only be used to further their pressure, we are arguing a red herring since even if that's true, that doesn't provide a reason to create a "liberal" version of this law; it's in fact a better reason to not have such a law for ANY party and more appropriately spend state attention to address economic and social desperation, the macro-level cause of this 'religious rebirth'.
If you wish to further argue that opposing a more "liberal" version of this law goes against the best traditions of US law, namely the Civil Rights Act, we still stumble upon far more disturbing quandaries.
1) The Civil Rights Act was justifiable under the Commerce Clause and the need to protect the sanctity of the vote.  Thus, the US government could use the power of the purse to punish public institutions operating under racist practices and use the full might of the Justice Department against attempts to block voting.  (Yes, I know that does not truly address inequality, which needs to be attacked systematically, and not with minor bandages.)  However, if the law said only "racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, ableist, or classist" rhetoric is illegal (political correctness), it crosses the boundary from punishing actions to punishing thoughts (because it's possible for a bully to only be emotionally snide without being openly provocative or physically violent/threatening).  Not only does this distort reality (there are blacks, Jews, women, gays... in the elite stratum whom you are now not allowed to publicly criticize in mainstream society), it is also anti-democratic by restricting what people are allowed to think (not just hateful and malicious thoughts but vaguely any oppositional thought against anyone who belongs to a group that was previously marginalized).  Obviously, if a person's job is to influence others, his thoughts do matter; hence, the teacher shouldn't say "all black people are abominations", but this law only addresses what students do to each other.
2) You set the precedent for arbitrary restrictions on the freedom of speech.  It won't be long (in an electoral system) for the political opponents of this law, empowered by an election, to scrap these rules only to institute new ones banning the rhetoric of their political opponents.  That's the surefire path to political degradation of democratic norms to the point of open conflict.  Nor would it be difficult to designate other kinds of thinking as "thoughtcrime" in other contexts, against other groups.  Schoolchildren are simply the test case.
3) To enforce the punishment of bullying thoughtcrime, you must create the mass mentality of snitching.  In fact, the current version of the bill does provide for this.  See items (K) and (L) on Page 3-4.  The fact reports are not anonymous and false reports will be punished as bullying (see most of Page 4) can equally be abused by corrupt administrators to dismiss or discredit students that the administrators don't like as well as faculty and parents who defend them.  The very fact students now know about bullying and are told to report it, while most students have lower impulse control than adults and are more fickle, while many instances are not clearly defined as bully/victim (more like instigator/resistor with role reversal), you'll have way too many partial and false positives to even merit such strict punishment, while students now learn to manipulate the system against people they don't like.
For most children, they will be emotionally battered by a classmate sometime in their life.  Most children don't suffer permanent mental damage from it, and the bully is usually socially isolated over time by his peers.  As they grow up, they learn to deal with such stress while around half of all bullies learn to stop being a jerk.  To penalize every instance of this to and fro might be psychologically unsound as well.  Furthermore, most children tend to vary their level of aggression towards each other; sometimes it'll run all the way up to assault/battery/defamation, and other times, it'll just be snide sniping; so an adult needs to practice discernment.  Even what might be "actionable", i.e. aggressive and threatening behavior, might written off as just a bad day for Student Y.  It needs to be consistent; it would always be the same bully/victim pair (or the same group of people going after the same crowd of victims) without any significant role reversals.
For the people who are persistently teased for being "weird or different" (and not your typical playground victims), the schools primarily need more resources so such kids can express themselves and gain friends (with either fellow children or with a trusted adult) without having to resort to suicide or drugs.  Education, not coercion!

3) is probably unfounded.  I trust most teachers in school have the common sense to realize this can't be taken too seriously and most students are too stuck in their own little universes to pay too much attention to this (especially since most kids have a "no snitching" code when it comes to doing things wrong and adults).  That being said though, since laws like this are being passed nationwide, I don't doubt there's a propaganda video being made for teachers and students to make them reconsider.

In other words, I don't like this law because I don't think we can easily enforce such a law fairly, such laws detract attention from far more significant problems in the schools (funding and equipment, educational equity and quality, teacher training and pay), and coercive attempts to tighten the law and heavily crack down on bullying would be counterproductive to democracy and normal child development.  That being said, the Democrats have no solution: their version of the law, an attempt to enforce anti-bullying against thoughts demeaning a traditionally disparaged group, would only exacerbate the latter aspect in the name of political correctness.

Holy Crap, Wall-o-text. FDC, you need some breaks in there.  Good stuff, though.  I especially agree with this:

Quote from: formerdeathcorps on November 04, 2011, 03:58:49 am
In other words, I don't like this law because I don't think we can easily enforce such a law fairly, such laws detract attention from far more significant problems in the schools.

But, I don't want get off topic and discuss that.

Quote from: DaveSW on November 03, 2011, 11:32:05 pmWow, just wow. 
Do you understand what that section allows?  The bill specifically states that everything is peachy keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction. 

Throwing around the first amendment like that is bullshit.  Freedom of speech applies to a lot more than just morals and religion.  So why single those out as being ok?

Again, I disagree that it says that bullying is peachy-keen as long as it is a religious or moral conviction.  The laws is saying "we can't make laws against that kind of stuff."  Which is true.  But like lirmont said, even with a a religious or moral conviction, you can still prosecuted for infringing on another persons rights.  If Person A murdered Person B out of moral conviction, even though Person A enacts the first amendment, it would not hold up because has infringed on another person's rights.  Similarly, if Person publicly printed and distriduted lies about Person B, even though Person A enacts the first amendment, it would not hold up because it has infringed on another person's rights.

QuoteInstead we get bills like this.  You can't bully others, but constantly telling someone they are going to hell and that they need to repent because god hates them is ok, because somehow that isn't bullying.

I do believe it is bullying. I do believe it is wrong. I do believe it is immoral to berate someone that way. But again, it does not say that it is not bullying. What it does say is that a school cannot make a policy that religious or moral belief.  Which is true already. It does not say that a school cannot act against religion inspired gay bashing.  It does not say that a school cannot act against religion inspired religion bashing.  It does not say that a school cannot act against _______ inspired _______ bashing.  But simply, that a school cannot make policy violating the first amendment.

The way that I see you portray it is that unless there is a law specifically forbidding an action, the government advocates that action.  As it is, they are no state-wide school bullying laws in Michigan. So right now, Dave, the way that you seem to portray it, any and all bullying is already advocated in Michigan school. If that is not what you believe, my bad, but I feel you would need to revise you stance then.  Because that it what it seems you are saying.

Also, why do you lump those dissenting from what you say into together as conservatives? I find that rather presumptuous and close-minded.  I just don't see a gay-hating bill where you clearly do. This isn't about conservative or liberal.  It's about what we perceive the bill to say.  If I am wrong, and every Michigan school bully's parent researches for some obscure law and presents it to the school counselor/teacher/principal/whoever to prove that their school cannot legally create policy to stop their child from bullying, and the school does not punish the bully anyway, then I concede to you. 

But I just don't see that happening.  What I think will happen is that if bully is caught bullying, he will be punished.  Even if a bully's parent would press the issue, I still don't think this law would come up.  In fact, the only reason I think a parent would know about this law would be because people are making a huge stink about it.  Otherwise, it would only be brought up by lawyers which, if lawyers are involved, it probably has moved beyond just bullying and has moved to some sort of criminal action.  In which case, you have moved beyond this bullying law into an arena that which was pointed out earlier has entered an arena where the bully's first amendment rights are forfeited in light of them infringing on another person's rights.

Minor note: I am operating under the assumption that you have read the whole bill.  If you haven't, please do.

tl;dr Don't worry about it.  Let go gets something to eat and talk it out in person.

Quote from: GeneralStrife on November 04, 2011, 01:32:47 am(http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-looney.jpg)

How is this helping?

Do you want me to lump you in with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, while we're lumping people together?  If you need me to remind you, the former was a person who sued Huslter for intentionally inflicted emotional damages (bullying) because they ran an advertisement featuring a parody of Mr. Falwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell).  Do you want me to lump you in with him, because I'm sure I can find a pretty good argument that will pull that off - just say the word.

And GS, I never pretended to understand the Tea Party movement, so I didn't say much about them.  Since you apparentally don't understand what the OWS movement is about, could you extend me the same courtesy?


I don't care what this bill says, because no law will ever stop bullying.  It seems like the Democrats who wrote it anticipated the religous backlash against the bill (the argument being, "I believe gays should be bullied because it will help them stop being gay and not go to hell"), and worded an incredibly ambigious statement in which everyone will see whatever they want to see.  Since you always want to see evidence of Republicans and Conservatives doing horrible things, that's what you saw.  I can't comment on the usefulness of your blinders, except to say that topics like this aren't helping.  There are real problems out there, ones more urgent than the latest mindfuck-inducing piece of legislation our gov't produced.

Quote from: Pickle Girl Fanboy on November 04, 2011, 12:51:19 pmTopics like this aren't helping.  There are real problems out there, ones more urgent than the latest mindfuck-inducing piece of legislation our gov't produced.

PGF has won this thread.

Amen PGF, I only joined in because it was bashing conservatives. Fuck no I hate pat robertson, nad whoever else you were talking about. They are an insult to my convictions, I don't watch fox news usually anyways.

Discussion is a pointless waste of time? Okay, whatever.

Being armchair philosophers and not going out and doing anything about it is being "useless" I suppose, but that doesn't mean said philosophizing is a waste of time. Some things are an end in themselves. Maybe it's just "useless" amusement... but I don't see you railing against people partaking in other useless amusements.

Once upon a time, discussion and discourse was a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. Dunno when that changed.

It's not that discussion is useless - it's not - so much as it is that discussion of how awful x group of people is, based on one ambigiously worded piece of legislation.  I saw this same story flash on CNN last night, so I suspect it's a red herring to draw everyone away from the real issue - how banks, corporations, and the wealthy are fucking everyone in this country while getting tax breaks and subsudies from the gov't.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Kaijyuu on November 04, 2011, 04:25:58 pm
Fair enough.

I accept your apology.

You've more or less told me why I'm leery of OWS.

Quote
*Wall Street, banking companies, corporations, and the wealthy in the USA have benefited from the economic crashes of the past 10 years, many of which were caused by their own personal incompetance (Enron, the Housing crash/unregulated derivatives scandals).

Although I mostly agree, this doesn't go nearly as far as it should.  First of all, the implication is that if these schemes had gone on forever (or if the Wall Street operators were not incompetent), we would have no problem today.  That in itself is wrong.  These economic crashes are INEVITABLE as long as the model for profit involves conning others for profit (asymmetrical power and information) over making actual goods that can be sold.  Sooner or later, your shell game will end because you'll run out of people to cheat.  Secondly, it must be emphasized that such tactics shouldn't be legal in the first place.  Some of them definitely violated existing (unenforced) laws, others violated laws that they helped lobby out of existence, and many were in gray areas not addressed by the law but would be immoral/illegal if translated into everyday equivalents.  Lastly, if you consider the history of other bubbles, you'll find the same group of banks involved.  Thus, it's more appropriate to say that the Crash of 2007 was engineered by them FROM THE START.
For example, Bank A creates a bubble, while constantly monitoring it for implosion.  During the growth phase, they use their media assets to trick people into buying in.  Right before the implosion, the bank sells what they can to gain control of real assets while the worthless speculated money remains on their books.  The coup de grace is then in forcing the government to hand over real assets to cover the speculated non-money.

Quote
And after they screwed up, they weren't held to the same standards as the average American, but were instead bailed out, first by a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and next by a Democratic President and a Republican Congress.  Not only that, but once they were bailed out, they refused to do what the gov't understood they would do, which was use the money with which they were bailed out to begin hiring and loaning again, to jump-start the economy.

The banks right now can enforce an economic blockade against any country that opposes them.  If the US dares to do the above, they'll just extort the US government, as they did to Greece or Iceland.  They'd orchestrate a 5000 point plunge of the Dow, which would prompt the credit agencies to downgrade the rank of the dollar.  That will pressure all of the creditors of the US to then demand the US follow whatever the banks/IMF wants.  If the US still disagrees, the status of the US as the reserve currency of the world will be removed, which effectively drives up the price of imports (including petroleum) to the point where you can trigger all kinds of crises here and globally.
In short, if you want to stop this cascade effect from leading to WWIII (which they'll then profit off of), the banks need to be disarmed politically in every major industrial nation.  Sadly, this is tied to their economic control of virtually every sector of the economies of the major industrialized nations.  Thus, the struggle against their political power needs to cut their economic power.  From what I've gathered from the OWS members I've talked to on campus, not many see it like this; I fear OWS doesn't have the vision needed to defuse this problem globally.

Quote
*So what we have in the USA isn't actually capitalism.  Instead, it is Corporate Socialism - welfare for the wealthy and for corporations, financed by tax increases on the rest of us ( in the form sales taxes, property taxes, and, if the Republicans have their way, a flat tax which will increase taxes on the majority of Americans while reducing taxes for the wealthiest minority) and the destruction of social safety nets (such as food stamps, Social Security, Pell Grants,...).

I agree, but I'd like to change one detail.  Corporate Socialism is fascism.  This means that we face not only an increasing war machine abroad and the reduction of welfare at home (with corporate subsidies), we also face the diversion of that money towards the structures of a police state.  Paramilitaries, violation of rights, torture, kidnapping, and assassination will become increasingly the norm for the police and related agencies.   Furthermore, the union of state and corporate power means that existing organizations (for profit or otherwise) that claim to speak for the people will be increasingly strained to follow the edicts of the state in deceiving and misleading the people, or will face increasing official harassment.  OWS, I feel, isn't willing to look at either of the latter two issues in sufficient depth.

Quote
*What Occupy Wall Street proposes is this: that we stop both the bailouts and the subsudies for the wealthy and for corporations and that they be treated as the rest of us are.  We don't want socialism for the poor, we want capitalism for the rich.

This sentiment feels like distortion.  I'd rather keep jobs, benefits, and welfare for the people and cut subsidies for the rich (this by the way, includes unnecessary foreign wars and a good number of federal departments, if we take subsidy to mean any activity using public money that mostly benefits a few rich stakeholders) over cutting both.  This is especially the case since much of the concern over the "national debt" is manufactured by the rich through their media and political operatives to justify cutting welfare.  The only "real" factors in the debt problem are the US trade imbalance (from insufficient domestic production) and the US war machine (which as I mentioned above, should be mostly dismantled).

Quote
**OWS aren't like the mid-century Baby Boomer Liberals.  We don't want more pay for less work.  If anything, we are more like the peasants than middle-class workers, in that we want jobs that pay enough for us to afford food, clothing, housing, and an education.  I personally have never made more than $7.40/hour, since I got my first job at age 16, and I'm now almost 26.  But incomes for the wealthiest 1% have nearly tripled in the same time period.

The problem is that you've also begun to adopt the mindset of a peasant: "I just want a guarantee of X, Y, and Z, and I'll leave you and your power alone".  The problem, however, is that a highly skewed system still remains in place against the poor and the radical.  All you've secured, at best, is a guarantee from the current crop of leaders that they won't use the tools they have.  However, unless you can directly influence the successor, the next person who comes into government can simply renege those promises and put your children back to where you started.  In short, if the stranglehold the rich have over political and economic decisions isn't broken, and the anti-democratic means (both violent and subtle) for subverting popularly elected officials or popularly demanded laws are not dissolved, these demands amount to nothing but a ceasefire.

What tactics, techniques, and procedures do you propose?  What is the overall strategy?  Most important, what is - or should be - the goal?

QuoteOn topic for once: I don't think there should be a global oversight comitee on business activities, and I definately don't think we need or should have/desire a "higher" moral code to guide a comitee in charge of overseeing business ethics (or the lack of it).

What we need is the technology which will make it impossible for any business, anywhere, to fuck over anyone. Social networking is part of the equation, as is cloud computing and cheap tablets and other hardware, but the most important variable is free and open source artificial intelligence, running on the computers of volunteers, which can sort through pentabytes of data to unmask the fuckery our wonderful business community gets into. Specifically, a set of AIs to find and detect fraud and deceit in financial markets.

^The above is a response I typed in reply to a discussion about the Vatican forming an international comitee on morality in business and idolatry of money and materialism.


^Random bits from another discussion I had.  I only copied my half of the conversation, so it might seem a little odd.

Since I doubt you'll climb into the pool without someone else jumping in first, I'll dump my stuff here.  My overall strategy is to use emerging technologies to make it impossible not to be transparent in your business transactions (this is a reversal of the "the internet is destroying the average person's privacy"), and to render the advantages the 1% has irrelevant (economic, production/manufacturing, connective/media, and what other advantages?).

The tactics, techniques, and procedures were touched upon in the wall of text above.  But they can still pull the extortion thing, unless the stock market is somehow rendered irrelevant as a symbol of our nation's economic well-being.

Well put FDC. This bill is quite redundant and of course arbitrary. I wont even get into that but I agree with all the points you've made.

Good read and some good points are coming from all of you. The bipartisan junk is really disappointing though..

So I propose this tactic; coming together on real issues to start.
Our goals should be focused on dismantling the Empire which will ineluctably crumble as all past have. We have over 850 bases that are official in other countries; mostly Iraq, Germany and Japan. We also have many more, I can only guess, undisclosed bases abroad. The President has had his own Praetorian Guard since 1947 With The National Security Act. The emperors have overridden the laws of the land and many others since. Pretending we are nothing but a divided and dysfunctional democracy is getting us nowhere but into deeper crap. We need to recognize distractions like this bill and move on.
I would like to hear more strategies and thoughts on this though. I'm just thinking coming together and recognizing the Imperial State for what it is would be a start.

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:24:23 pm
Well put FDC. This bill is quite redundant and of course arbitrary. I wont even get into that but I agree with all the points you've made.

Good read and some good points are coming from all of you. The bipartisan junk is really disappointing though..

So I propose this tactic; coming together on real issues to start.
Our goals should be focused on dismantling the Empire which will ineluctably crumble as all past have. We have over 850 bases that are official in other countries; mostly Iraq, Germany and Japan. We also have many more, I can only guess, undisclosed bases abroad. The President has had his own Praetorian Guard since 1947 With The National Security Act. The emperors have overridden the laws of the land and many others since. Pretending we are nothing but a divided and dysfunctional democracy is getting us nowhere but into deeper crap. We need to recognize distractions like this bill and move on.
I would like to hear more strategies and thoughts on this though. I'm just thinking coming together and recognizing the Imperial State for what it is would be a start.

You're operating based on the assumption that the USA is an imperialist state, correct?  Isn't that leaning towards left-wing radicalism?  And how do you propose we close those bases?  Should we all canoe out there and throw spears at them?

You can call the President an emperor all you want, but, unless you dismantle the kingmakers, another king will pop up.  And what better way to dismantle them than by bankrupting them?  But how to do that...

I'll just drop this here due to perceiving relevance to the USA's current condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy


It's not 100% one but there's lots of evidence to make a strong case, regardless.

"You're operating based on the assumption that the USA is an imperialist state, correct?  Isn't that leaning towards left-wing radicalism?  And how do you propose we close those bases?  Should we all canoe out there and throw spears at them?"
(don't see quote command)
I laughed..
But, I actually don't think we can do much about that. History will repeat itself. Only this time the technocratic and ubiquitous military industrial complex will go down bringing half of the world with it. It's pretty scary actually. I wouldn't go as far as claiming Left Wing radicalism-- wouldn't that be contradicting my views?
The comparisons to any Imperial power of the past is undeniable, even on small scales. This is just my own individual interpretation of what our government is. The same thing the founders fought against only with much much more power.

*sighs*

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmBut, I actually don't think we can do much about that.

Then why talk about it?

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmHistory will repeat itself.

Would you go into more detail?  What part of history will be repeated, and who will be in what role?

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmOnly this time the technocratic and ubiquitous military industrial complex will go down bringing half of the world with it.

Technocratic?  You mean they're linux nerds?  And how did the word "ubiquitous" get in there?  What does the military-industrial complex have to do with this?  What exactly do you mean by "military-industrial complex"?  Or is this in keeping with the "War is bad, 'mkay?" line of baby-boomer liberal thought?

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmI wouldn't go as far as claiming Left Wing radicalism-- wouldn't that be contradicting my views?

You haven't expressed any views yet.  So far, you just dropped a bunch of one-liners without explaining how they are relevant to this discussion, offering any context for them, or explaining what exactly you mean.

A view is what you believe, and, more importantly, why you believe it.

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmThe comparisons to any Imperial power of the past is undeniable, even on small scales.

What am I suppossed to do with this?  Are you saying the USA is the same as the Japanese Empire during WWII?  Did we rape the entire female population of every city we every invaded?  Did we bayonet and behead POWs for practice?  Did we march and starve undesirables and POWs to death?

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmThis is just my own individual interpretation of what our government is.

I really like you, lijj, but still, I gotta ask this: Are you high right now?

Quote from: Lijj on November 04, 2011, 05:54:13 pmThe same thing the founders fought against only with much much more power.

1. Why does everyone worship the founders?  Oooo, a bunch of slave-holding white men who fought another slave-holding white man, so they could be free!  Big fucking deal.  I'm going to admit right now that I think the founding fathers we're a bunch of assholes with a handful of good ideas.  Most of which they promptly tossed out the window once they had to stick to those ideas when dealing with non-whites and females.

There is no point in discussing the past, because nothing like the current times has ever existed.  We now have the technology to make a truly fair and progressive society, and we can't afford to get sidetracked down the alleys of failed philosophies out of the past.  If those philosophies are so good, then why did they fail?

What we must do now is change and grow, improvise and adapt, so that we may someday overcome.  If an idea works, steal it.  If a belief holds you back, throw it away.  Never be perfect, never be pure; so that you may encompass and absorb your opponents knowledge and experiences into your own.

PGF you are completely turning everything I said around and only perpetuating the basic point I first made. That arguing details and political views gets us nowhere. That is all was trying to say. I like you too but I think judging people's political ideals is a waste of time.

First question: Why even talk about it? Because I'm making a point that this is an imperial system we live under. The sheer amount of bases surrounding China alone proves that (Taiwan, S. Korea, Uzbekistan etc).

History will repeat itself.. as in: We are the Holy Roman Empire which started as a republic, then went into an elite class democratic system to an oligarchy to an outright dictatorship. Tell me Bush was not a dictator. Who completely trampled over justice and dignity in this nation. (think of Guantanamo).

To answer the third question I will have to ignore the first part because I don't need to answer those, look them up or something. War is bad m'kay; especially imperial war. Our military is most ubiquitous. Don't do anything with it (what the hell?).

Fourth quote response: I did say I was anti bipartisan bickering pretty much. Is that not holding some view? Saying that I think our democracy is dead?

Fifth quote response: Compare ourselves to the Romans again during Nero's reign for one small scale example of how we emulate the exorbitant culture of an empire.. One small scale example is reality TV or the Food Network. A whole station devoted to gluttony is rather fitting for an empire of excesses.

Sixth: A little. But don't use such a thing against me, that hasn't much to do with it.

And the last bit actually kind of pisses me off: I haven't displayed any worship of the founding assholes ok. I just used it to sum up the whole paradox of the current situation.

I like the idea of coming up with some solutions. But if me seeing the US as a global empire is too much than I suppose I should stay out of this topic. I really don't see that opinion as being too far fetched at all though.

The republican party freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln = Republican

Chew on that awhile.

Quote from: GeneralStrife on November 04, 2011, 07:28:34 pm
The republican party freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln = Republican

Chew on that awhile.

Correct.  This was back when the Republican party represented Northern industrial interests, northern abolitionist Christians, and banking groups; and was oppossed by the Democrats, who represented rural agricultural interests (slave holders and plantation owners) and southern pro-slavery Christians.  The whole thing got switched around in the 1960s and 1970s when conservatives, led by Richard Nixon, started courting fundamentalist Christian groups, most prominantly Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and the Southern Baptist Convention.  What Richard Nixon felt was the most useful part of these southern religious groups was the sense of eternal victimhood of the southern white that these groups propogated among their parishoners.

Quote from: GeneralStrife on November 04, 2011, 07:28:34 pm
The republican party freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln = Republican

Chew on that awhile.

Speaking of one-liners

Quote from: Pickle Girl Fanboy on November 05, 2011, 11:09:24 am
Correct.  This was back when the Republican party represented Northern industrial interests, northern abolitionist Christians, and banking groups; and was oppossed by the Democrats, who represented rural agricultural interests (slave holders and plantation owners) and southern pro-slavery Christians.  The whole thing got switched around in the 1960s and 1970s when conservatives, led by Richard Nixon, started courting fundamentalist Christian groups, most prominantly Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and the Southern Baptist Convention.  What Richard Nixon felt was the most useful part of these southern religious groups was the sense of eternal victimhood of the southern white that these groups propogated among their parishoners.

This is all the more evidence that there isn't really any distinction between the two parties.

GS:
Abraham Lincoln really cared for those slaves obviously.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."  -Abraham Lincoln

Seems like he more cared about retaining the Union.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln is the founder of the American Empire IMO.
He even allied with Tsar Alexander ll! http://www.reformation.org/czar-alexander.html (http://www.reformation.org/czar-alexander.html) http://www.russianamericaninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=32 (http://www.russianamericaninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=32)

Quote from: Lijj on November 05, 2011, 05:35:17 pm
Speaking of one-linersThis is all the more evidence that there isn't really any distinction between the two parties.

GS:
Abraham Lincoln really cared for those slaves obviously.

"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."  -Abraham Lincoln

Seems like he more cared about retaining the Union.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln is the founder of the American Empire IMO.
He even allied with Tsar Alexander ll! http://www.reformation.org/czar-alexander.html (http://www.reformation.org/czar-alexander.html) http://www.russianamericaninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=32 (http://www.russianamericaninstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=229&Itemid=32)

So American support for a foreign monarch makes us an empire?  Does anyone else who supports a foreign monarch also become an empire by doing so?

theres only one empire i support
(http://geektyrant.com/storage/post-images/star_wars_trading_card_propaganda_poster_01.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1267328125316)

I don't think there are any specific policy changes that can be made to "fix" the ambiguous problem the United States of America faces. What I mean is, even if there were some set of calculated, time-appropriate, risk-assessed set of changes put forward by some expensive think tank and those changes were perfect, people inside the country would still feel that there is some great and somewhat unfathomable problem looming. However, it can be argued that the United States of America suffers from an almost equal disagreement in the highest tier of their legislative branch. That is, with basically two opposing sides that have mostly loyal components in law-making seats, votes are basically even. There are two sections: the House of Congress and the Senate. Both sections need at least 50% votes plus 1 vote for a majority (approval to pass on to President). When it comes down to basically two groups voting on things, it is not unlikely that one will vote one way and the other will for opposite of them in many cases. However, I put forward that the current two parties do not represent accurately all possible combinations of beliefs. Considering that the large parties basically vote instead of the people who hold office from those parties, this is a crucial point.

To deal with this situation, there are two ways I can conclude would shake up the deadlocking situation. One, it should be recognized that having a political career represents a tangible conflict of interest during voting. People will know which way you vote (and they should, in my opinion). Because of this, the legislator voting must weigh their choice to vote for or against a bill against something totally unrelated, which is the ambiguous idea of their own re-electability by their base. What makes this possible? Any of the following make this conflict of interest possible: the possibility of re-election, the public voting record, and the idea of fierce loyalty demanded by large parties. In the first case, it is unlikely that the constitutional section describing requirements for senators and congressmen would be amended to prevent re-election. In the second case, if voting is made completely anonymous, the people suffer the inability to fact check political puffery during election cycles. In the third case, it's unlikely that something born out of the polarizing effect of political disagreement will ever change to something less polarized. So, what can be done, and, further, what need are we trying to fill? The need is to represent more closely in the voting on bills the actual beliefs of the people that are being represented (as opposed to the parties that are represented) so that voting on bills reflects a less-narrow set of viewpoints. As to what can be done, we need more people to run for public office. I think every last single one of those people participating in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations should run for whatever they're qualified to run for by age and also, for the presidency, by birth in the United States of America. With the ideas and emotions fresh in their minds and hearts, they have practically groomed themselves for the role: they don't like the amount of power corporations have (outside of advertising products and services and making revenue off of said products and services), they distrust the intentions of people who put the idea of making money at the forefront (i.e. referencing Wall Street's speculative nature versus anything that is more of a constructive investment-oriented, e.g. micro-loans; or, the idea of the success of a CEO is measured primarily by the financial state they leave the corporation in), and they likely know the importance of communication (as bizarre as seeing their seemingly jazz-hands inspired version of communication looks to someone outside of the demonstration). You wouldn't have to vote for one of them, but I think their benefits outweigh whatever experience, voting record, or party the people from a major party have to offer.

We could go with the old greek method for selecting representatives - random drawing of lots thrown in the pot by a group of people volunteering for the position.