[FoRK] The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy

Gary Stock gstock at nexcerpt.com
Mon Nov 28 12:29:51 PST 2011


On 11/28/11 2:34 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> I understand your point, but that's related to his statement.  
> Corporate influence and small retailer's influence are not commensurate. 
Taken each in their ~own~ context, they certainly are.

I've observed many examples within one 36-square mile township.  A local 
builder granted a rezoning which never would have gone to an out-of-town 
builder, by his friends in municipal office.  A store owner installing 
signs or storing materials that block traffic lines of sight, because 
close friends involved in enforcement will overlook it.  A building 
inspector granting himself permits for construction projects after the 
fact, to avoid scrutiny or fees. A small-town attorney comfortable 
ignoring court dates or orders, because he contributes to all the 
judges' campaigns.  An elected official using public funds to create and 
distribute flyers opposing his political position (and personal goals as 
a Realtor).  A board paying huge sums to fence a local park, to save a 
friend the cost on an adjacent development site.  An attorney purchasing 
public land without public notice or bidding, because he represented the 
agency that owned it.

Taking ~unfair~ advantage of connections, and of private influence, is a 
way of life for the most wealthy and powerful, in this and in other 
societies.  They don't need to be billionaires, or even millionaires, to 
be abusive.  They only have to ~want~ to be rich.

It's not as cash-based as some third-world instances, but still endemic.

> Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination and a some blurring 
> revisionism can they be construed to be what the OWS group is 
> protesting against. 
That's primarily because any broad coalition must have some common 
target.  If every rally had to mention every violation of trust, law, 
and ethics in every small town, county seat, and statehouse in the 
country, there would be no time left for any group to form.

> They are protesting big corporate influence resulting in favorable tax 
> positions not available to others without the influence, hidden 
> government bailouts, crony capitalism, overpsending, governmental 
> corruption by way of bribery, kickbacks and earmarks, and the lack of 
> economic opportunity because of these things.
Yes, that is an appropriate scope and target for OWS. Just as the 
national "Civil Rights Movement" couldn't focus constantly on every 
certain lunch counter, every particular seating arrangement, or every 
specific lynching.

Some participants in OWS ~also~ are expressing their disgust for local 
abuses of power, because there are no means to express that (in situ) 
without suffering forceful retribution.

> Everyone agrees on the problems.   You don't get rid of these things 
> by giving the very institution that's causing them more authoritarian 
> power and money.
Correct:  by giving more authoritarian power and money to the police, 
you do not halt abuses of power by the people who control the police.

GS

>
> Greg
>
> On 11/28/2011 11:18 AM, Gary Stock wrote:
>>
>> Please note that corporate "influence on government" is not the same 
>> as corporate "influence on controlling legislation."
>>
>> When it is so obvious that "He who owns the cops, controls the form 
>> of speech," the Constitution becomes scarcely relevant. (Presuming it 
>> ever had been.)
>>
>> Denying the use of public areas to OWS isn't what created our current 
>> Twilight Zone. That freakishness began years ago. A relatively recent 
>> case in point:
>>
>> http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDMGO1A74E901-5CG1C7JPCU5J1O688G3J3C73JE 
>>
>>
>> "Morgan Stanley was the top borrower with a peak of
>> $107 billion on Sept. 29, 2009. That was eight days
>> after then-CEO John Mack said the firm was
>> “in the strongest possible position.”
>>
>>
>> More on that issue, indexed 38 seconds ago:
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html 
>>
>>
>> On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) 
>> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=BAC:US> Corp.
>> Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to
>> shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest
>> and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t
>> say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm
>> owed the central bank $86 billion that day.
>>
>> Serling would've found plenty of material there...
>>
>> GS
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>
>


More information about the FoRK mailing list