Comments for Occupy America http://occupy-us.org A weekly magazine for the Occupy movement Mon, 26 May 2014 21:47:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 Comment on Notes on Understanding the UCSB Killings by Monday Links | Gerry Canavan http://occupy-us.org/uncategorized/notes-understanding-ucsb-killings#comment-25 Monday Links | Gerry Canavan Mon, 26 May 2014 21:47:30 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=368#comment-25 [...] * The challenge is to see the killings as reasonable and normal. Notes on Understanding the UCSB Killings. [...] [...] * The challenge is to see the killings as reasonable and normal. Notes on Understanding the UCSB Killings. [...]

]]> Comment on Frackonomics: Economic Strategy for Fractivists by disqus_ECbCKTMDA5 http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-4/frackonomics-economic-strategy-fractivists#comment-15 disqus_ECbCKTMDA5 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:03:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=342#comment-15 Hi Julian, I just shared your article--so that means I like it. It's practical and educational. I knew that the gas industry was economically challenged, but now I know more details than before and have an overall sense of how the industry is structured. I also admire the tone. Factual, detached, and calmly educational in a way that rouses action but not anger. That's partly my age speaking, but partly the Buddhist influence in my life. Even if we're angry (and I am), we are more likely to get what we want by sticking with the kind of information you are compiling and sharing so creatively. Thank you for your excellent hard work. Elaine Mansfield Hi Julian,
I just shared your article–so that means I like it. It’s practical and educational. I knew that the gas industry was economically challenged, but now I know more details than before and have an overall sense of how the industry is structured. I also admire the tone. Factual, detached, and calmly educational in a way that rouses action but not anger. That’s partly my age speaking, but partly the Buddhist influence in my life. Even if we’re angry (and I am), we are more likely to get what we want by sticking with the kind of information you are compiling and sharing so creatively. Thank you for your excellent hard work.
Elaine Mansfield

]]> Comment on American Militarism: Destroying Societies, Protecting No One by rhizomatic http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-3/american-militarism-destroying-societies-protecting#comment-14 rhizomatic Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:15:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=232#comment-14 Further reading: On the "emotional labour" of capitalism.. http://mindhacks.com/2013/02/01/emotions-are-included/ Further reading: On the “emotional labour” of capitalism.. http://mindhacks.com/2013/02/01/emotions-are-included/

]]> Comment on American Militarism: Destroying Societies, Protecting No One by groupuscule http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-3/american-militarism-destroying-societies-protecting#comment-13 groupuscule Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:18:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=232#comment-13 The cognitariat thinks they are privileged, and they're right, but they are also paying a high price with minds occupied by a fictional world so elaborate no one participant could comprehend the whole thing. And you are right about the challenges to the 'class consciousness' model, as workers are atomized and the fruits of their labor is increasingly ephemeral. This will only become more true as we find data and identities can be given and taken away through an increasingly well-controlled "cloud". Meanwhile on the outside, the politics of "class" difference divide people like never before, with human beings actually unable to acknowledge each other's existence or think about the mutually shared experiences of consciousness. Although the outward trappings of feudalism are gone, we are closer than ever to a Brave New World caste system where different being are bred for different roles in the hierarchy. The cognitariat thinks they are privileged, and they’re right, but they are also paying a high price with minds occupied by a fictional world so elaborate no one participant could comprehend the whole thing. And you are right about the challenges to the ‘class consciousness’ model, as workers are atomized and the fruits of their labor is increasingly ephemeral. This will only become more true as we find data and identities can be given and taken away through an increasingly well-controlled “cloud”. Meanwhile on the outside, the politics of “class” difference divide people like never before, with human beings actually unable to acknowledge each other’s existence or think about the mutually shared experiences of consciousness. Although the outward trappings of feudalism are gone, we are closer than ever to a Brave New World caste system where different being are bred for different roles in the hierarchy.

]]> Comment on The Fear Economy: No Thinking, No Safety by Bobo Bose-Kolanu http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-2/fear-economy-thinking-safety#comment-11 Bobo Bose-Kolanu Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:24:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=186#comment-11 The device is actually spelled "NARUS." Sworn testimony of Mr. Binney here: https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/ The device is actually spelled “NARUS.” Sworn testimony of Mr. Binney here:

https://publicintelligence.net/binney-nsa-declaration/

]]> Comment on The Fear Economy: No Thinking, No Safety by Bobo Bose-Kolanu http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-2/fear-economy-thinking-safety#comment-10 Bobo Bose-Kolanu Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:23:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.org/?p=186#comment-10 An important development: an RT interview with NSA whistleblower William Binney, reporting on a "Naris" device that taps directly into the U.S. telecom fiberoptic lines, granting the government access to "virtually all" emails. We see the fear machine at work again. Fear reproduces itself infinitely here. Every communication is a potential marker of risk, archived so that in the event that an individual becomes an enemy (or simply a victim of internal politics) the government can re-examine all records to construct guilt however it wishes. http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/ An important development: an RT interview with NSA whistleblower William Binney, reporting on a “Naris” device that taps directly into the U.S. telecom fiberoptic lines, granting the government access to “virtually all” emails.

We see the fear machine at work again. Fear reproduces itself infinitely here. Every communication is a potential marker of risk, archived so that in the event that an individual becomes an enemy (or simply a victim of internal politics) the government can re-examine all records to construct guilt however it wishes.

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

]]> Comment on Participatory Budgeting: Towards Militant Citizenship by Bobo Bose-Kolanu http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-1/participatory-budgeting-towards-militant-citizenship#comment-9 Bobo Bose-Kolanu Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:26:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.dev/?p=18#comment-9 I think this idea about angel investors providing an "out" for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending is pretty interesting. The argument I see against it is that some things should not be left to the whims of any individual. Nothing about being rich gives one more qualifications to make ethical decisions that impact others. And to the point of persuading people of the value of diversity, well, the possibility of persuasion presupposes a democracy. To me it seems we either decide to believe in democracy, and figure this stuff out together, or we decide we don't believe in democracy, and stop pretending (a la representative democracy, which I feel is a sham). And I feel uncomfortable with this "not forcing people" claim. It seems to resonate with arguments made against school integration to support "separate but equal," which of course was not equal but was ethically abhorrent. Finally, if angel investors really were the answer, then there would already be angel investors swooping in to protect those less fortunate. Given America's rising social inequality that's clearly not happening. I think if we take the ideas of community, nation, and common good seriously, then we have to come together as the commons, as the people, and act together. I think this idea about angel investors providing an “out” for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending is pretty interesting. The argument I see against it is that some things should not be left to the whims of any individual. Nothing about being rich gives one more qualifications to make ethical decisions that impact others.

And to the point of persuading people of the value of diversity, well, the possibility of persuasion presupposes a democracy. To me it seems we either decide to believe in democracy, and figure this stuff out together, or we decide we don’t believe in democracy, and stop pretending (a la representative democracy, which I feel is a sham).

And I feel uncomfortable with this “not forcing people” claim. It seems to resonate with arguments made against school integration to support “separate but equal,” which of course was not equal but was ethically abhorrent.

Finally, if angel investors really were the answer, then there would already be angel investors swooping in to protect those less fortunate. Given America’s rising social inequality that’s clearly not happening. I think if we take the ideas of community, nation, and common good seriously, then we have to come together as the commons, as the people, and act together.

]]> Comment on Participatory Budgeting: Towards Militant Citizenship by Matt Cavedon http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-1/participatory-budgeting-towards-militant-citizenship#comment-8 Matt Cavedon Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.dev/?p=18#comment-8 I think freedom is the fastest way to get socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending - you only need one angel donor, or a few like-minded Kickstarters, instead of half of everyone who cares to show up pissed at you (and I would be if abortion were the funding in question). Besides, that would mean you wouldn't have to fund me plus 50%'s abstinence-only sex ed programming. Either of us could opt out even if the other won the vote tally. I think freedom is the fastest way to get socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending – you only need one angel donor, or a few like-minded Kickstarters, instead of half of everyone who cares to show up pissed at you (and I would be if abortion were the funding in question). Besides, that would mean you wouldn’t have to fund me plus 50%’s abstinence-only sex ed programming. Either of us could opt out even if the other won the vote tally.

]]> Comment on Participatory Budgeting: Towards Militant Citizenship by Matt Cavedon http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-1/participatory-budgeting-towards-militant-citizenship#comment-7 Matt Cavedon Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.dev/?p=18#comment-7 Then I think you have to persuade people of the values of diversity, not force everyone into one big mess of a democratic commune. The latter will breed a lot of resentment, especially when the system is abused and denies people the right to provide for their own selves and families first. Charity and love are grown by expanding those first obligations and appealing to free will, not by trying to supplant them. Then I think you have to persuade people of the values of diversity, not force everyone into one big mess of a democratic commune. The latter will breed a lot of resentment, especially when the system is abused and denies people the right to provide for their own selves and families first. Charity and love are grown by expanding those first obligations and appealing to free will, not by trying to supplant them.

]]> Comment on Participatory Budgeting: Towards Militant Citizenship by Bobo Bose-Kolanu http://occupy-us.org/issue-no-1/participatory-budgeting-towards-militant-citizenship#comment-6 Bobo Bose-Kolanu Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000 http://occupy-us.dev/?p=18#comment-6 I'm just not sure it's wise to split the people up too much. Voluntary association is cool and I'm for it, but certain things are bad and should be overcome: racism, sexism, etc. So people need to learn how to talk across differences and work that stuff out. Building civic engagement in participatory budgeting might afford a platform for that process to begin. Self-selecting affinity groups with their own private money pots reproduce and intensify pre-existing social ties, including hierarchies. That seems bad to me. "Besides, if it's voluntary, every last person gets a say in how much they are willing to contribute and what purposes they'll help with. Democratic participation means 50% plus one sets both of those" -- these are questions about taxation, which are good to raise and I'm not entirely sure how to respond to them. The point about transparent taxation being dangerous for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending still stands though (I know I provided sexual and reproductive rights as my example, which you probably disagree with, but I'm sure you can think of other examples which you would agree with). I’m just not sure it’s wise to split the people up too much. Voluntary association is cool and I’m for it, but certain things are bad and should be overcome: racism, sexism, etc. So people need to learn how to talk across differences and work that stuff out. Building civic engagement in participatory budgeting might afford a platform for that process to begin. Self-selecting affinity groups with their own private money pots reproduce and intensify pre-existing social ties, including hierarchies. That seems bad to me.

“Besides, if it’s voluntary, every last person gets a say in how much they are willing to contribute and what purposes they’ll help with. Democratic participation means 50% plus one sets both of those” — these are questions about taxation, which are good to raise and I’m not entirely sure how to respond to them.

The point about transparent taxation being dangerous for socially unpopular but ethically necessary spending still stands though (I know I provided sexual and reproductive rights as my example, which you probably disagree with, but I’m sure you can think of other examples which you would agree with).

]]>