October 16, 2011

"Demands are disempowering since they require someone else to respond."

"It’s not like we couldn’t come up with any, but I don’t think people would vote for them."

50 comments:

Craig said...

Looked like Laverne and Shirley Night during the seventh inning stretch.

Chef Mojo said...

That there's some funny shit. Occupy this, morons.

America's Politico said...

Bold Prediction for 2012:

- The GOP will lose the majority in the House. Democrats gain back. Speaker Pelosi returns.

Why? The Occupy protests are all over the country. My internal polls show that this is seriously insanely bad for the GOP.

- The GOP nominate Perry in a brokered convention. Romney supporters do not vote. Cain supporters are let down. GOP loses the White House in a landslide. Obama is re-elected with close to 60% votes.

- Senate stays with the Democrats with Reid as the leader.

This is the prediction you heard on October 16, 2011. A year before the election.

DADvocate said...

“We have to get it right this time.”

Try voting for someone besides a Democrat every once in a while.

There's a certain amount of truth in the "disempowering" statement, but if you demand they get out of your way and quit controlling every possible aspect of your life, ultimately it's empowering. Although, I hate the use of the word "empower."

traditionalguy said...

Democracy now looks like a block party after a football game.

Everybody is welcome, and all the mob requires is affirmation that they exist...again...and again...and again...and again.

Got that? Its Process and the are in the place of true authority that cannot operate because: they have no quorum, or they are unable to be heard, or they are ridiculed continually.

Now give up or they will keep doing it. That works on NYC's Mayor. It also worked in Madison until Scott Walker asserted legal authority.

In Madison the wild card was supposed to be Judicial corruption by Kloppenburg, but Prosser won.

The SCOTUS is Obama's wild card.

Anybody want to help the GOP to run Romney to lose to Obama now?

The point is that we cannot let the mob run the place and put of control until latter.

Before later arrives a police state will begin ordering the end of voting rights until further word.

Ann Althouse said...

So... yeah... don't ask anybody for anything. It's disempowering.

Isn't that what conservatives tell you to do? Self-reliance. Quit asking for the government to help you?

David said...

From the article:

Although Occupy Seattle has a running tally of votes on its Web site — 395 votes to “nationalize the Federal Reserve,” 138 for “universal education” and 245 to “end corporate personhood,” for example — Mike Hines, a member of the group, said the list would soon be removed because the provisions had not been clearly explained . . .

Nationalize the Fed? Hey, why not? What nation do you have in mind?

Synova said...

Heh.

Elsewhere, someone was ripping into Cain because his father told him not to spend his time protesting, but to (supposedly) keep his head down and work hard making something of himself.

This someone was of the opinion that it was shameful to sort of go along instead of protesting.

And I said that all protesting is, is asking permission. Instead of asking permission Cain just went out there and made his big bucks.

I think there's a lot of truth to it. Protests or demands are disempowering, after a fashion, because it all amounts to (particularly in the case of civil rights) asking permission. Implicitly, you've put yourself in a subordinate position by asking permission.

At some point, no doubt, asking permission is what has to happen. The civil rights movement, it seems to me, was people saying "let us in, let us in" from the outside. And people were persuaded that this was right and good.

But to criticize Cain because he followed his fathers advice not to spend his time and effort that way but to simply *do*, is almost perverse. The professional protesters depend on finding someone, anyone, some remnant of someone out there who isn't ready to give minorities permission to succeed so that they can make a living out of asking permission.

OWS isn't quite the same, of course, but there still seems to be this notion that there is moral virtue inherent in the protest and agitation without any focus required, without any real goal, and without checking to see if it really is necessary to sit on their bums waiting for someone else to grant them what they want.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

1. Eliminate personal personhood

2. One free Pez dispenser for everyone, and free Pez thereafter.

3. Elect politicians based on their auras.

4. Get my Schuco racer back from that kid in fourth grade.

5. No more Old Navy commercials.

6. That store down at the Mall of America where they wouldn't give me my money back for the scratched DVD of Shakespeare in Love? I hate them.

7. The Cubs win the World Series.

8. Peace and love for all mankind, be they black, be they white, be they colored, be they whatever.

9. And those bankers! You know what I mean.

10. Turn Guantanamo into a permanent rave.

Carol_Herman said...

Not quite the Tea Party!

But, ya know what?

These people are anti-Obama. And, they're afraid to say so!

It's an interesting affect. It's the opposite of the Nixon, or Dubya, effect. Where the disliking the president was part of the label.

Will this be the end of PC?

Chip S. said...

@Althouse, It seems pretty clear that's not what "pay off my loans for me" types are thinking. The more likely alternative is simply to take stuff. Direct action is very empowering, unlike wimpy shit like demands.

Also, as we've been told, they know where the 1 percenters live.

YoungHegelian said...

My personal favorite: an end to corporate personhood. No free speech for for non-persons.

Because, of course, these little asswipes know exactly what a corporation is. It's this big, bad thing that abuses people in order to make profits for evil management.

The fact that unions, non-profit NGO's, the press, churches, & universities are corporations just doesn't seem to register.

Until, of course, they declare corporations have no 1st amendment rights, and then the next wicked Republican admin. in power decides to muzzle:

the SEIU
the NYT
World Council of Churches
Amnesty International
Columbia's U School of Mideast Studies.

That'll be fun.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Althouse: So... yeah... don't ask anybody for anything. It's disempowering.

Isn't that what conservatives tell you to do? Self-reliance. Quit asking for the government to help you?

Their ideology tells them self-relioance is just an old superstition. They put all their faith in government, in someone else (Obama) to solve their problems, and he's failed them. In response they've created an entire movement but don't know anything useful to do with it. It's like ‘Atlas Shrugged’, except nobody went John Galt on them, they've created a movement which excluded all the John Galts.

Charlie Martin said...

"It’s not like we couldn’t come up with any, but I don’t think people would vote for them."

Exactly. So the only option is to keep them concealed and attempt to impose them by force or fraud.

Charlie Martin said...

Bold Prediction for 2012:

Dude, whatever you're on, can I have some?

Charlie Martin said...

395 votes to “nationalize the Federal Reserve,”

What the FUCK does "nationalize the Federal Reserve" mean? how much more nationalized could it be?

Maguro said...

Dude, you mean to tell me that the Federal Reserve is already part of the Federal government? Why didn't anyone tell me before now? I've been camping out here for two weeks for no goddamn reason whatsoever!

EDH said...

Of course, "ending corporate personhood" would largely eliminate the ability to form a private organization capable of pooling enough capital to employ more than a few people.

But net-on-net, does "corporate personhood" actually confer more rights than impose responsibilities on corporations?

Off the top of my head, I'd say corporate personhood imposes more responsibilities, since not all rights of personhood are conferred on corporations.

J Allen said...

If these guys were really smart then they would make resolutions like what the UN does. Then, when when those resolutions are blown off, they could sanction the US government do something about getting blown off. But preferable in a non-violent manner which would not offend anyone.

traditionalguy said...

It's getting late.

I came back and thought I had read a new post about women's struggle with men...just change the first word to Diamonds.

How do you spell dyslexia?

Kirby Olson said...

It's a revolution of those thrown out of work by Obamacare, but they are blaming the 1% -- because it COULDN'T be Obama that's in charge. He's only the president!

Luke Lea said...

Ann, I think the basic demand is clear enough. How to meet that demand in another matter. It is a complex, technical question in political economy with more than one answer. To expect ordinary citizens to understand, let alone agree, upon such answers is a little on the silly side.

It can better be dealt with later, by policy experts, when and if a general agreement in principle has been reached through the democratic process.

Something similar took place in England a hundred years ago. Here is an interesting analysis of the problem then, which is reminiscent in a number of ways to the problem we face today. Now if only we could produce men (and women) who could write so clearly.

Cheer up, girl. The tide is turning. And while the water may be cold, you'll feel good once you are in.

TerriW said...

More skin on HBO!


(Hey, wait a minute -- I think HBO finally *did* give in to L.H. Puttgrass' demands...)

Synova said...

"To expect ordinary citizens to understand, let alone agree, upon such answers is a little on the silly side.

It can better be dealt with later, by policy experts, when and if a general agreement in principle has been reached through the democratic process.
"

If ordinary citizens can not understand, how are they supposed to reach even a remotely correct agreement through the democratic process?

If ordinary citizens can not understand the principle, how can they arrive at the principle?

I swear, the excuses for not having to bother with either understanding the issues or advocating solutions are completely amazing to me.

Coketown said...

Yeah, and you can't make demands because that's what hostage-takers make, and Obama has already demonized hostage-takers. Remember the Republicans holding the middle class hostage? With their unreasonable demands? We can't have that again.

Instead of demands, how about suggestions? That's more cordial. And instead of "Occupy Wall Street," how about "Haunt Wall Street"? It's appropriate for Halloween, and has less of a grassroots militia vibe than does "Occupy."

But if you must continue with making demands, Obama can be the negotiator, mediating outside the bank with a megaphone. And Wall Street, after donating tons of money to Democrats (again), can be the Stockholm Syndrome Brigade. The metaphor just keeps on giving.

ic said...

Coketown: How about Obama holds a beer summit between WallStreeters and the Occupiers? Or, the Occupiers could hold pitchforks and Superhero Obama could stand between them and demand Wallstreeters to pay up or else...

Boldest prediction: Either Obama, the peacemaker, or Obama, the Superhero will win the election in a landslide in the asylum. America's Politico will make sure of that.

bagoh20 said...

"Demands are disempowering." Look forward to hearing that from your students, Professor. Then tell them: "It depends who's doing the demanding, and whether or not you need something from them." It's a good lesson.

bagoh20 said...

You don't make demands unless you have no other choice.

Clint Eastwood never made demands, and he always got what he wanted.

showhank said...

They have no demands because what they want at the core is power.

From 1984:
‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’

David R. Graham said...

"So... yeah... don't ask anybody for anything. It's disempowering."

Oh Yeah!

David R. Graham said...

"I think there's a lot of truth to it. Protests or demands are disempowering, after a fashion, because it all amounts to (particularly in the case of civil rights) asking permission. Implicitly, you've put yourself in a subordinate position by asking permission."

Yeah! Sanity at last!

But please, not "after a fashion": "disempowerment" absolutely. Every demand is self-demeaning/self-defeating/bathetic. Or, put another way: "If you're going to shoot, shoot, don't talk." (reference *The Good, The Bad And The Ugly*).

Libido = Love for an inferior.
Philios - Love for an equal.
Eros = Love for a superior.
Agape = Self-less love.

Canuck said...

"I think there's a lot of truth to it. Protests or demands are disempowering, after a fashion, because it all amounts to (particularly in the case of civil rights) asking permission. Implicitly, you've put yourself in a subordinate position by asking permission."

I would quibble with this. Rosa Parks didn't ask permission. She sat down. She was asked to leave. She refused. Likewise for the men and women in Greensboro.

Eric said...

Why? The Occupy protests are all over the country. My internal polls show that this is seriously insanely bad for the GOP.

Hahahaha. So... you and your internal voices agree this is bad for the GOP? We may as well give up, I suppose - the future has been decisively... eh, decided by a handful of layabouts and ne'er-do-wells. Who knew it would be so easy?

ddh said...

America's Politico,

You seem to have an active fantasy life.

The Occupy protests in Washington had maybe four dozen participants, and they were outnumbered by the media. The total participants in the protests nationwide probably didn't reach 20,000.

Your internal polls?!? When you talk to yourself, do you lose the argument?

Kirk Parker said...

ddh,

"You seem to have a boring fantasy life."

FIFY.

Really, is anyone here as purely, sublimely, mind-numbingly boring as our friend AP? Nothing remotely clever, amusing--or heck, even shocking--about his/her blatherings.

Well, ok, "J", but I figured everyone would assume I meant "besides J".

edutcher said...

Ah, yes, demands.

Especially non-negotiable demands.

They worked so well last time.

ddh said...

America's Politico,

You seem to have an active fantasy life.


You don't get it. AP is the Lefties' comic relief.

And people like harrogate are the Lefties' tragic relief.

Carol_Herman said...

Not quite the Tea Party!

But, ya know what?

These people are anti-Obama. And, they're afraid to say so!


These people are anti-Obama. And, they're too stupid to know so!

FIFY

PS Tyrone, I think you're on to something with #5.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Demands are not disempowering. If you have the power, and you make a demand, the demand will be met. If the demand is not met then you never had the power.

Thus, the reaction to your demands reveals how much ( or how little ) power you actually had.

Mom said...

"an end to corporate personhood"

Now THAT'S a good plan. Let's do that, and then whenever a corporation does something negligent that injures somebody, there will be no way to hold anyone accountable at all.

What do these people imagine that the corporate fiction is for??

The Crack Emcee said...

Edward T. Hall III, 25, was barefoot and dressed in loud, multicolored tights. He wore a beaded American Indian necklace and New Age jewelry, with a baseball cap pulled sideways over his long hair,...He has spent the past month sleeping in the park and is one of the organizers of the protest.

Of course he is, and these fools will unquestioningly follow the NewAge pied pipers anyplace they say to go - with Oprah/Obama's blessing.

They are the nonety-none percent.

Paco Wové said...

"I think the basic demand is clear enough."

Really? Perhaps you could summarize it then.

"To expect ordinary citizens to understand [...] such answers is a little on the silly side."

What an appalling thing to say.

Molly said...

What would a constitutional amendment to "end corporate personhood" look like?

DCS said...

Here's what the Flea Party protest will accomplish: more donations to Republicans/Tea Party candidates. An opportunity for Republican campaign media types to juxtapose Obama's class warrior blather with footage of the Flea Party acting like drugged cultists, repeating every word that they hear. I'm sick of watching the MSM coverage but in the long run they are not going to help their man.
Good night and good luck, Barry.

AllenS said...

From Wikipedia:

Corporate personhood refers to the question of which subset, if any, of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment

AllenS said...

So, in order to get rid of corporate personhood you would have to enact legislation and then have the Supreme Court reverse an earlier ruling.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)



We don’t have a solution, we just want to complain…

Kirk Parker said...

Crack,

That paragraph you quoted--that's from an Iowahawk parody, right? Right....?

[clicks on link, clicks on other link...] Oh my Ghu, we are doomed.

Molly said...

to Allen S. at 7:15

pass a law and persuade the supreme court to overturn a previous ruling, OR amend the constitution to overturn that ruling. So what would such an amendment actually say?
Is there a proposal out there somewhere?

Peter said...

Synova said...
"To expect ordinary citizens to understand, let alone agree, upon such answers is a little on the silly side.

It can better be dealt with later, by policy experts, when and if a general agreement in principle has been reached through the democratic process."


“I want a good job that pays a “family supporting” wage. And unlimited access to medical care. And free higher education. I want it, now you figure out how to give it to me!”


If you ask these ‘protesters’ how their wants are to be funded, they’ll tell you to “tax the rich.” Yet we know that even if we took everything every rich person had (and didn’t worry at all about killing the golden goose) it wouldn’t pay for any of these ‘demands.’

And, as long as figuring out how to do it is optional, why think small? Why not insist on cheap, renewable energy (from fusion, or whatever)? Why don’t "they" give us drugs that extend healthy, active life out to two centuries, or more? Why are petroleum plutocrats suppressing anti-gravity machines and other technologies that promise unlimited riches for all?

The flaw is in assuming that just because you want something, (1) someone else is obligated to provide it for you, and (2) assuming that what you want is even possible (because “policy experts” can just figure it out).

In short, banging your drum and insisting that others give you what you want is, if not actually infantile, at least seriously toddler-esque. Because outside magical fantasy worlds, things don't happen just because you want them to happen.

Could you tell me again why anyone should take this seriously?

David R. Graham said...

Pursued too far, which means diligently and thoroughly, the argument for corporate personhood requires a thoroughgoing (and agreed upon, as in "accepted science") description of personhood. And that description would comprise a picture that almost no one in positivist society wants to accept or even think about. The picture would defeat the positivist frame of reference. Talk about economic disaster! There would be one, at least until an humane economics were developed from, if it could be achieved, a thoroughgoing awareness of personhood. So the question of personhood for anyone or anything isn't going to be pursued in any significant depth or breadth by positivist society. Rampage, acceptable and unacceptable, on persons and personhood will continue, must continue. It's what positivist society does in consequence of its trivializing, its skimming of personhood.

Beldar said...

Demands are disempowering, but diamonds are a girl's best friend.