cobl04
45:33
It's not achieving anything but traffic delays. It's not Wall Street. And if they're so outraged then why hasn't there been protests before? Why just small-scale apply Occupy Wall Street?
4pm Friday. I'm off to #OccupyThePub.
Is that you, Andrew Bolt?
Pathetic post.
What's Latin for Commie?The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a "global public authority" and a "central world bank" to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
The document from the Vatican's Justice and Peace department should please the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn. "Toward Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority," was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. "The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence," it said. It condemned what it called "the idolatry of the market" as well as a "neo-liberal thinking" that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. "In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale," it said, adding that world economics needed an "ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations. "If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid," it said. It called for the establishment of "a supranational authority" with worldwide scope and "universal jurisdiction" to guide economic policies and decisions. Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield "excessive power over the weaker countries."
Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the "indignant ones," who have criticized global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, said: "The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. We are calling for all these bodies and organizations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking."
In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said: "In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance." It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilize world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch "over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system."
...The document acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance. "Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation's powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalised world."
I got every one right.Tea Partier Or Occupy Wall Street Protester?
Can you tell them apart? It's not as easy as you'd think. Highlight the text under each photo for the answers.
Wow, this is going to be good: Occupy Wall Street is now officially an issue in what may be the highest-profile and most polarizing Senate race in the country. National Republicans are now attacking Elizabeth Warren for embracing the protests, seeking to make a liability out of the fact that Warren, a longtime critic of Wall Street excess, has now aligned herself with the movement’s intellectual underpinnings. What this means: The conservative effort to turn blue collar whites and independents against the protesters and their broader populist message—exploiting a traditional cultural fault line in our politics—will now unfold in the context of a high profile political campaign.
Warren was asked by the Daily Beast for a comment on the protests. She said: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.” Now the NRSC has opened fire on Warren for the comments, blasting out an email containing links to stories about protesters in Massachusetts battling with cops. Said NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh: “Warren’s decision to not only embrace, but take credit for this movement is notable considering the Boston Police Department was recently forced to arrest at least 141 of her Occupy acolytes in Boston the other day after they threatened to tie up traffic downtown and refused to abide by their protest permit limits.” The NRSC is also circulating that Doug Schoen op-ed [WSJ] painting protesters as wild-eyed extremists and arguing that Dems who embrace the protests risk driving away independents and moderates, even though it was subsequently proven that Schoen’s conclusions were not supported by his own data.
In other words, national Republicans are placing their bet. They are wagering that the cultural instincts of the working class whites and independents who will decide this race ensure that the excesses of the protesters will make them less inclined to listen to her populist economic message, which is also directed at those voters. This is an old story in American politics, of course. Conservatives have for decades been mining the tension between blue collar whites and liberal middle class activists who resort to outsized protest tactics and occasional violence. That’s why you hear conservatives constantly referring hopefully to today’s protesters as “McGovernites.” Warren, by contrast, is making the opposite bet. By unabashedly embracing the protests, she is placing a wager on the true mood of the country right now. She’s gambling that these voters will look past the theatrics of these protests; that they will see that she and the protesters are the ones who actually have their economic interests at heart; and that they will ultimately side with Warren’s and Occupy Wall Street’s general critique of the current system and explanation for what’s gone wrong in this country.
The early polling returns suggest that there’s no evidence that ordinary working-class and middle-class voters are being alienated by the protests. It still remains to be seen where public opinion will end up on the movement and whether there’s really any hope of tying it to a broader working class constituency.
Too early to tell IMO, but I agree Warren's statements were risky. That seems to be kinda her style though, go for broke. Not sure what I think about that.
deep said:I think the jury is in on the Tea Party - a net gain.
I love Elizabeth Warren. The woman has guts and courage to stand up for justice in the face of many threats. She is an American hero in my eyes and one of the few in politics that actually has integrity and a conscience to stand up for what's right.
It's absolutely a political gain: it rebounded the GOP from no man's land after the Bush years.Well a short term gain, but will it be a long term gain or even a national gain?
It's absolutely a political gain: it rebounded the GOP from no man's land after the Bush years.
There's a massive difference between political gains and gains for the country though. The GOP has been sacrificing our nation's interests for their political interests for nearly three years now.
Klobuchar/Warren 2016?
(or vice versa?)
Not too famililar with Amy Klobuchar, but if she has the integrity of Elizabeth, sure!
If people didn't come out in 2010, the GOP would have had to do an insane amount of rebuilding. That fact alone is a long term gain.I was talking about political gains. It helped get people out in 2010, but beyond that has it really helped them all that much?
They lost public support during the deficit debacle, the GOP still seems somewhat divided on platform, and will the tea party help or hurt gain independents in the presidential race?
So beyond a quick rebound, has it been a gain?
This may be true, but what if the Tea Party had gotten the based fired up, but hadn't gained as much actual power in the GOP and Congress? I think the GOP race for president would have been much easier. As of now, no matter what canidate they have to cater to the TP and still find a way to gain independents, I don't think that's an easy task. The GOPs biggest fear this round is that independents will stay home and that that loud minorty tea party group may not actually have the numbers needed. I don't know, I think the long term gain is still yet to be determined.If people didn't come out in 2010, the GOP would have had to do an insane amount of rebuilding. That fact alone is a long term gain.
If there were a "normal" Republican seating during that time, the Republicans would have come out smelling like roses, and probably big winners. They would have been able to make the right cuts but still be able to compromise, we would have probably kept our credit rating and a lot of that would gone to their favor. But as we know that didn't happen and they shot themselves in the foot big time.They lost public support? I think the deficit debacle just reinforced whatever people already thought.
You'll love her.
She will keep her Senate seat in MN next year with one of the highest reelection margins we've seen in decades.