Occupy Wall Street | Seattle | The Economy

BigGayDeal.com

A Very Pretty Occupy Wall Street Music Video

CuntsVid

Seeing as this is the biggest weekend yet for Occupy Wall Street, howzzabout beginning your Sunday with a haunting, gorgeous music video featuring a bunch of OWS'ers in Seattle? I'm not lying. It's vivifying stuff. Thanks to The Stranger for finding it.

Take a look AFTER THE JUMP ...

(Note: The chorus of the song is tough to decipher, but still probably NSFW.)

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Perfect on-target video. Fantastic song.

    Posted by: trees | Oct 16, 2011 10:36:42 AM


  2. Big Biz owns gov't.

    Gov't policymakers are on their payroll.

    All of USA wants change but things stay the same.

    Are we certain this is what "Freedom" looks like? Yes, we vote, but in elections that are completely slanted in money & media influence; gerrymandering, the Electoral College, religious influence, etc.

    The SCOTUS is nothing but an Executive Board for Wall St/Drug Industry/Finance Industries, etc.

    True freedom means equality & equal access to law & gov't for all of us. We kid ourselves, even the Colonial War was about someone else's money interests.

    Posted by: Pete n SFO | Oct 16, 2011 10:45:46 AM


  3. It's hard to know where to start - what do protesters want?

    We have a rather-well-functioning Representative Democracy. To have a true Democracy, we need a well-educated populace, which we don't have.

    Do they want Socialism? It doesn't work. Russia, China, Cuba - they're all gradually embracing market-driven Capitalism (like we have).

    I join protesters in support of ensuring equal opportunity and protections for all. But equal opportunity does NOT mean equal results. If I make different choices than you, it's reasonable to expect I achieve a different outcome.

    I'm all for equal opportunity, freedom, choice...and even for helping those who are disadvantaged (through education & training).

    But don't try to tell me you have some right to compel me to give you what I've worked honestly & fairly to achieve.

    Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. I can help you do better without doing worse for myself.

    We do need political reforms to make government work better, and reduce the influence of lobbyists.

    I'd consider term limits (practical), and public-only funding of election campaigns (possibly Unconstitutional).

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 16, 2011 1:09:01 PM


  4. "But don't try to tell me you have some right to compel me to give you what I've worked honestly & fairly to achieve."

    So if you actually are part of the 1%? Go away. If you're part of the 99%? Thanks for proving how clueless you are.

    Posted by: Robert | Oct 16, 2011 1:35:40 PM


  5. Chris said"But don't try to tell me you have some right to compel me to give you what I've worked honestly & fairly to achieve."

    Thats the problem so many of these big corporations haven't achieved what they have fairly and honestly they bribe and make things more in their favor and screw the other guy who IS playing honest and fair. Thats the message I'm getting.


    Posted by: Akula | Oct 16, 2011 2:32:30 PM


  6. "We do need political reforms to make government work better, and reduce the influence of lobbyists," says Chris above...

    But you see, therein lies the problem. If gov't is paid by the very people that want status quo at all costs, what kind of change do you expect? That's how Nat'l Healthcare became Obama-care; they screwed w/ it til it preserves only their profit.

    Remember Halliburton, Cheney, & the fabricated wars? Who got magnificently RICH... Gov't pay Corps, who pay Gov't... repeat.

    Posted by: Pete n SFO | Oct 16, 2011 4:01:55 PM


  7. hmmmm, 99% and yet can't win an election most of the time, or at least often enough to give Dems a solid majority over the Repubs who have made it as plain as the nose on your face that they are only going to take care of the rich and the mega-corporations.

    The "haves and have mores" as Bush used to call them have been given enormous wealth these past ten years. So where are the jobs these "job creators" are supposed to create?

    And yet the Repubs are running on the same message still

    Posted by: Inexplicable | Oct 16, 2011 5:00:42 PM


  8. @Chris: If we had publicly funded elections, your other solution (term limits) would be unnecessary. The number of terms are naturally limited when the people vote for someone besides the incumbent. The only reason it seems that term limits are necessary is because incumbents' pockets are so well-lined with big donor money that it's very hard for challengers to overcome the advantage.

    We have term limits in California. It doesn't work. All we have is a legislature full of newbies who get turned out just as soon as they finally start to grasp the skills necessary to accomplish the very difficult task of legislating. And guess where they go when we "term limit" them out – straight into lobbying jobs.

    Posted by: RyanInSacto | Oct 16, 2011 5:37:43 PM


  9. Glad to see good discussion.

    No, I'm NOT the 1%.

    But business is not inherently evil. If it weren't for big, profitable businesses, we wouldn't have good prescription medicines. Or hi-def TVs, or plentiful and affordable food, or any number of things the OccupyWallSt folks would miss.

    Government needs to protect us from short-sighted and unscrupulous business practices.

    But broad policies which cause businesses to be more long-term-oriented in decision-making might work even better.

    How about encouraging companies to put "claw-back" clauses in corporate executive's bonus plans? If they were later to be found to have willfully violated laws, damaged the environment, etc., they'd retroactively- lose bonuses.

    Or promote making bonuses payable for results over the course of a decade instead of a year?

    If the overall value proposition is better to make toys in China, they should be made in China. NO good can come of forcing a company to be inefficient.

    Rather than penalize companies for sourcing from China, we should make sourcing from US factories a better value proposition.

    We can do this by training workers better, streamlining our tax system, improving public transportation, Internet and other infrastructure.

    @RyanInSacto:
    I agree, term limits are not a panacea. Public-only financing of campaigns would work better...I just think disallowing private money in the political process might be unconstitutional (violation of freedom of speech).

    So, yes, we need change...but it has to be the CORRECT change.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 16, 2011 6:59:12 PM


  10. nice thoughts Chris, but the cat is out of the bag. Corporations already own America, Çongress, the Courts, the whole Government. bought and paid for. transactions complete.

    no going back possible to what we have now. it doesn't work. just feudalism by other words.

    people need an incentive to work. not just the 1%. we, the 99% are just fed up with you 1% taking all our hard earned money. if it was cheap and easy, Americans don't fight. this is hard earned money. as the results of the 1% have shown. all the rewards go up to the 1%. ever heard of John Galt.

    we are John Galt. we are going on strike. that is what the 99% means

    Posted by: Bernard | Oct 16, 2011 10:01:13 PM


  11. For the record, I'm NOT the 1%.

    I'm underwater on the mortgage for my modest $120,000 house, and have $80,000 in credit card debt.

    But I've worked hard to build my business, and I'm doing well.

    Here's what we need:
    More legal immigration (and probably a "path-to-citizenship" for those already here who are otherise-law-abiding people).

    Population growth creates more demand for goods and services (DEMAND IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL CREATE JOBS).

    Population growth also absorbs excess housing (putting a floor under real estate prices).

    Couple this with education/training/re-training (and other stuff I suggested previously), and workers will have real opportunities for advancement.

    Workers newly trained/retrained for semi-skilled and skilled jobs will be paid good middle-class wages...which (in a virtuous cycle) will drive more demand...and create more well-paying jobs.

    Protesting Wall Street will NOT achieve this.

    And protestors: PLEASE STOP saying the banks got "bailed out". Banks were FORCED to take loans, which they didn't think they needed, and which nearly all of them have repaid, with interest. The Federal Govt MADE MONEY on the "bank bailouts".

    I understand you're angry & frustrated...but it's hard for anyone to take you seriously if you don't have the facts straight.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 16, 2011 11:16:06 PM


  12. @Chris: Term limits are unconstitutional as well at the federal level. The Constitution clearly lays out the rules on this, which is why an amendment was needed to limit the president to two terms. (We couldn't have anymore FDRs, don't you know.) Therefore, both term limits and public financing of elections would require a constitutional amendment. For my money (no pun intended), if we have to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, I'm going with public financing of elections.

    Posted by: RyanInSacto | Oct 17, 2011 1:10:16 AM


  13. ever heard the expression, 'useful idiots'? this is what they look like and this is their anthem.

    Posted by: el polacko | Oct 17, 2011 2:45:34 AM


  14. Things are bad. We need change. I don't understand the message to re-elect our current leader (Obama) if we want change. We were promised change and he bailed out the big banks and said they were too big to fail. His cabinet is full of Wall St Bankers and big time CEO's. There is just a logic problem with a revolution that wants to re-elect more of the same leader--if he is OUR leader then why doesn't he change things. I want someone different and I am not talking Sara Palin.

    Posted by: George | Oct 17, 2011 9:25:06 AM


  15. @RyanInSacto:
    I agree...public-ONLY financing of election campaigns would be a big step in the right direction.

    @George:
    I agree Obama has not provided much of the change I hoped he would. And it's a shame the Republicans have shut-out Gary Johnson, who would further our cause of civil rights for gays (and all citizens) while reforming government and the tax code and re-igniting economic growth and opportunity.

    But PLEASE STOP saying the banks got "bailed out". Banks were FORCED to take loans, which they didn't think they needed, and which nearly all of them have repaid, with interest. The Federal Govt MADE MONEY on the "bank bailouts".

    @el polacko:
    If that was directed at me...it's a shame you resort to name calling when the facts don't support your view of the world.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 17, 2011 9:50:32 AM


  16. @chris wrote: "Do they want Socialism? It doesn't work. Russia, China, Cuba - they're all gradually embracing market-driven Capitalism (like we have)

    The former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba had/have communist political systems, not socialist. They're not the same, even if they're related.

    Posted by: TRC | Oct 17, 2011 6:54:20 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NEWS: A Long Deferred Engagement; No Gays Survived The Zombiepocalypse; Playing Guitar And Dodging Bullets« «