Time's Person of the Year Is "The Protester" 543
Hugh Pickens writes "Time's editor Rick Stengel announced on The Today Show that 'The Protester' is Time Magazine's Person of the Year: From the Arab Spring to Athens, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow. 'For capturing and highlighting a global sense of restless promise, for upending governments and conventional wisdom, for combining the oldest of techniques with the newest of technologies to shine a light on human dignity and, finally, for steering the planet on a more democratic though sometimes more dangerous path for the 21st century.' The initial gut reaction on Twitter seems to be one of derision, as Time has gone with a faceless human mass instead of picking a single person like Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who Time mentions in the story and is widely acknowledged as the person who set off the 'Arab Spring.' In 2006, Time chose "You" with a mirrored cover to much disappointment, picked the personal computer as 'Machine of the Year' and Earth as 'Planet of the Year,' proving 'that it should probably just be "Story of the Year" if they aren't going to acknowledge an actual person,' writes Dashiell Bennett. 'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'"
I am the 1% (Score:5, Funny)
Who make first post
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WHY? (Score:4, Insightful)
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Credit is Freedom
Money is Speech
Capitalism is Democracy
Corporations are Persons
Q: How do you account for the fact that the bombing campaign has been going on for thirteen years?
A: Beginners' luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I am the 1% (Score:4, Funny)
I resent your sexist accusations. This basement is my grandpa's.
What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are not all protesters created equal?
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Teabaggers == true Amerikuhns (Score:4, Interesting)
We also find great disparity between the issues the Americans protested vs. the issues we protested. Don't think you have any solidarity here. If you were dropped off in the streets when we protest, you would not last very long.
Your issues are petty. Our issues deal with freedom, liberty and survival.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Teabagger
Oops, your bias is showing (maturity level, too).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone still subscribe to Time? I thought it had become another vanity publishing rag like Newsweek, with a few thousand copies made each month just for the ego of the publishers and the few doctors offices who hadn't bothered to cancel their subscriptions.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Funny)
Hate to say this, but on /., at least, inability to use homophones properly seems to be spread across the political and social spectrum pretty uniformly.
Homo-phones? Maybe he's scared of Telephone HIV, and that it can lead on to Hearing Aids.
What about RTFA? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or are not all attention spans created equal?
Re: (Score:2)
That wasnt in 2011. Nice try though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
And against same-sex marriage. And disbelieving of Obama's US citizenship, despite proof. Oh, and highly approving of the Patriot Act.
Also completely invisible during the biggest expansion of government in modern times.
Fucking ninjas.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're just lumping all the right wing concepts into one pot and calling it the Tea Party
While it's true that the TP organizers emphasize that they're all about /fiscal/ conservatism, if you'll look at who makes up the movement and who said movement has collectively elected to represent them, it's pretty socially conservative as well, and hawkish, i.e. conservative Republicans.
a true conservative republican wouldn't approve at all of the Patriot Act
No true Scotsman.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's true that the TP organizers emphasize that they're all about /fiscal/ conservatism, if you'll look at who makes up the movement and who said movement has collectively elected to represent them, it's pretty socially conservative as well, and hawkish, i.e. conservative Republicans.
This is what I don't get about the United States. Why is there a connection between social and fiscal conservatism? Just because you believe there should be legal same sex marriages means that you want to fund everything, raise taxes sky high and spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave? Or that you believe in God means you don't believe there should be nationalized healthcare? It doesn't make sense. You would think that the time is right for a social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party to rise up and take the middle ground.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
This 'merkin is just as mystified as you are. I don't see the necessary connection either, especially in a party that's not particularly fiscally conservative anyway (at least not when in the majority).
Thanks to our fucked-up political system (and because of mass hysteria), we're basically stuck with two parties, forever.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there a connection between social and fiscal conservatism?
The connection is "social conservatives" are ripe for manipulation because of the emotional nature of the narrow band of issues they really care about: hating gays, making Christianity the national religion and criminalizing abortion. In steps large corporations and plutocrats, who want to be free from taxation and regulation (rule of law). They have the money to convince social conservatives their interests are the same and organize them to elect politicians to eliminate taxation and regulations, while *maybe* throwing a bone or two of legislation for the goals of the manipulated.
Re: (Score:3)
The connection is "social conservatives" are ripe for manipulation because of the emotional nature of the narrow band of issues they really care about:
The same can be said about fiscal liberals in the US - they continually used emotional arguments about how "it's mean" to not make a more successful (and thus wealthier) person subsidize / give a free ride to those who weren't as successful. No, really - go around the internet and read blogs, forums, or news articles. You'll see just as many, though I'd say probably more, references to the opposition being "soul-less" and "cold hearted" in posts by fiscal liberals in the US than you will social conservati
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
The connection is "social conservatives" are ripe for manipulation because of the emotional nature of the narrow band of issues they really care about: hating gays, making Christianity the national religion and criminalizing abortion.
Strange. I'm fairly "social conservative" and I don't hate gays or want to Christianity a national religion. For that matter, no laws should be based solely on any religion. Of course, I am against abortion because I don't feel that man should be able to determine when someone is human and when someone is not. When governments are able to start declaring that someone is NOT human, very bad things happen. I'm "socially conservative" because I have children in the house and would like to be able to turn on the TV without hearing and seeing non-stop sex jokes while the channel is set to something other than Nickelodeon. (I also feel that any cable channel should have no rules, but channels over the airwaves....)
Hmmmm. I guess that means you are either ignorant or a liar. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are simply ignorant. That means that you should not be spouting off about things you know nothing about which is especially inexcusable in this information age we live in.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
The religious types took over the GOP- simple as that.
Back in the day (hey, stop yawning!) even the likes of Nixon actually *warned* against mixing politics and religion. He was buddies with Billy Graham, but Nixon, a Quaker, is said to have expressed concerns that his dealings with Graham would be interpreted as politicial rather than personal.
Even wacky Goldwater figured out religion and politics shouldn't mix.
I'd say the real turning point was when Pat Robertson beat then VP George Bush in the 1988 Iowa Caucuses. That was where the religious right figured it all out after about a decade of working the system. Robertson's campaign eventually failed, but they learned a lot there. In hindsight it's clear why they disbanded the "Moral Majority" in the following year- they realized the big preachy public organizations didn't work. they needed to hit the system at it's innards.
I hate to say it as I pretty much loathe organized religion of any type, but I kind of admire what they did. They set a goal of taking power, and quietly and within the system did so. They didn't squat in parks. They didn't walk around rallies with rifles slung over their shoulders. They didn't take dumps on police cars or draw arbitrary divisions between two emotional sounding percentages. They proceeded logically and deliberately toward their goal.
Sometimes you have to respect an enemy, even if begrudgingly, before you can defeat them. Patton understood that one.
You would think that the time is right for a social-liberal/fiscal-conservative party to rise up and take the middle ground.
I'd like to see a Party that has no agenda other than "We will do whatever it takes to most efficiently mitigate a problem without concern what ideological banner that solution falls under, and we will not get lost in an endless and fruitless quest for perfection that cannot exist."
Bonus points for: "If government involvement will clearly make things worse, or fails to make reasonable improvements after a predetermines trial period, we will consider not doing anything until the situation changes or new resources/concepts justify revisiting the issue."
Re: (Score:3)
Don't kid yourself, fiscal conservatism really doesn't play into American politics. For most, fiscal conservative means spend money where I want it spent or "cut off money to socially liberal programs." Take the Tea Party for example, they state they want responsible economic policy for the US, and that sounds great. Sign me up. Then you ask how they plan to do that and the crazy comes out. Usually this involves getting rid of the government programs they don't like such as welfare, the EPA, Department of
Re: (Score:3)
Because people and the media are stupid. If you say "conservative" or "liberal" all the other words go in one ear and out the other. I'm a fiscal conservative in the sense that the Fed Gov needs to spend less money (though I have yet to see any plans that really make any sense), but I don't give a hoot on social issues. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. I don't really care because I got my views and what you do isn't hurting me (until you get into the extreme and people start getting hurt and killed).
I guess
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
I invite you to leave your house and go talk to some of them. You might be surprised.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The Tea Party was co-opted by GOP schticks, then funded, then majority-swamped by GOP supporters.
The Tea Party that I was part of, the one about Ron Paul in 2007/2008, is long gone.
The white knight you're defending is on meth, with a habit supported by big corporations. You will notice that Ron Paul gets no corporate backing, but the novo-TP (GOP 2.0) members get tons. Wake the fuck up.
Re: (Score:3)
The following Republicans voted for the Reauthorization fo the Patriot Act in 2006:
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll take Devil's Advocate here:
It's because of our broken-ass political system. You end up with extremists[1] in the primary because that's what gets the base out to vote, and then in the general election you've got 1) an extremist who agrees with you on most hot-button issues, and 2) a moderate who your side has painted as extremist, agrees with you on a few things, but not on "big" items.
tl;dr: you've only got two choices, both are bad, and you hold your nose and vote for the less bad.
[1] Obviously this is more a problem with the Republicans. The Dems are not liberal, they're centrist and have been moving to the center since about the time of Reagan. Genuine liberals in the Party are few. The Republicans have been moving further and further right since the early '90s if not earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't seen them complaining about prohibition either. You'd think that the government spending billions telling people what they can and can't grow and consume in their own homes and jailing those who get caught doing it anyway would be seen as a pretty big violation of government overstepping its bounds (especially given that it would put a few of the founders in a federal prison, but sometimes I think they are more into idealized characters of the founders then historical accuracy anyway), but I haven't heard anything about them protesting that one. Small government is not something they care about. They want their government. I think the most damning piece about them is, as you pointed out, that they suddenly appeared once Obama won. I heard nothing from the right about small government until then, but suddenly once the little R after the president's name changed to a D, then they were all about the concept of limited government....but claimed it was for totally non-partisan reasons, natch. Although it remains to be seen (and I'll certainty change my opinion of them if proven wrong), I suspect the majority of the calls for limiting government from the right will stop the moment the little D after the president's name changes to an R, and I highly doubt much else, like what that president actually does, will affect that. You'd think if they really were for small government they'd be for better or worse supporting Ron Paul, but they're not. That says something, namely that real small government would cut the parts of big government they like.
I don't see how the concept means much anyway. I don't care if the government is big or small, I care about the results it gets. For some things, sure, there's too much government, for others, maybe there should be more. Some programs and regulations are excessive, others are necessary. Seems like the 'small government' thing, whatever merit is sometimes has and sometimes doesn't, is more of an easily digested talking point than anything meaningful.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
One group is for smaller, less intrusive government
No, they're for dismantling the government's power to regulate large industries so those large industries can screw you over; for dismantling the EPA (let corporations pollute all they want), FAA (as if flying isn't bad enough that I refuse to any more), the department of energy (as if we're not close to peak oil), deregulating banks so they can screw you over easier, etc.
Oh, and they're for lower Federal taxes even though taxes are lower than any time since the Truman administration. But they don't want to lower my middle class taxes, they scream bloody murder when the Democrats want to lower them, they want to lower taxes on the rich and only the god damned rich. Oh, and they pretend to be Christians even though Christ was against everything they're for (e.g., taxes -- "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" and "it's as hard for a 1%er to get to heaven as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle").
Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans, free healthcare, not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up. Generally want somone else to support them.
Where does this incorrect garbage you teabaggers spew come from, anyway? That is NOT what Occupy is for. In fact, it's the 1% that you idiot teabaggers support that demand government entitlements -- like grants to oil companies, for example.
Tea party is for the 1% and the 1% only, and anyone in the 99% who support them are incredibly stupid.
Can't remember, which group was throwing malatov cocktails at police?
Neither one, that was rioters in England. Or did Rush tell you different?
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another group want someone else to pay thier student loans
What we want is to pay reasonable price for a reasonable service. There are two ways really to fix this problem: get education costs under control (they were NOT always this high, there is SOMETHING WRONG somewhere), or, get employers to stop demanding four year college educations for positions that clearly do not require that. If your choice is between $200k of debt and permanent unemployment, that's just a fucking crappy choice.
free healthcare
Sure, I guess you could call it "free healthcare" in the sense of "free interstate highways," i.e. I don't write a check for it, but I do pay for it through my taxes. I do not want free healthcare, I want healthcare that will be there when I need it (you know, so I don't die), and to pay a realistic price for that. Yes, that means everyone needs to pay into the system.
not willing to start at the bottom and work thier way up
That's what I did. I graduated school with about $60k of debt, which I repaid within two years by living at home and literally spending NO MONEY on ANYTHING. I got dinner and a roof over my head, other than that, I was on my own. I couldn't afford to see a movie or buy a beer. Once those two years of misery were over, then I moved out. Now it's ten years later and I'm making over $100k and the only debt I have is a mortgage (a mortgage on which I make significant overpayments). What made this possible was my mother throwing me a bone by letting me stay at home and pay off that debt. I would have been crippled by it if not. She made a sacrifice (really, the same sacrifice she'd already been making for twenty years) for me, and in exchange I became a very successful son who will be there for her when she's old. So you see, it's possible to get help from somebody even if you're "starting at the bottom."
I'm employed, married, self-reliant, and quite well off. And somehow the OWS movement resonates very strongly with me. They might be young, naive, and feel somewhat over-entitled but these are very real problems affecting millions of people. You can call them losers and parasites if you want, but I have a feeling they will not be going away for a LONG while.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Half the country pays no taxes
That's a brain-dead lie. About half the country pays no federal income tax. They still pay state (and sometimes local) income tax. They still pay sales tax. Property tax. Gasoline tax. Social Security. Medicare. Other taxes.
Get your facts straight, else you won't be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Health care's been an issue since forever, long before the current occupant was elected.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between you and me is that I come from a family where the right-wingers who have held office have always had left-wingers exclusively as advisers and where the left-wingers who have held office have always had right-wingers exclusively as advisers. In short, I come from a family where it is NOT the political wing you are on that matters but the message you deliver.
I hold to that value as an absolute. I also hold that the Tea Party is completely incapable of comprehending such a stance, that it is so obsessed with the "purity" of its ideology that it cannot comprehend the fact that there IS no constructive ideology. An ideology, in and of itself, will ALWAYS be destructive. You CANNOT construct through deconstruction. The ONLY way to construct is to build, and the only way to build is to disavow purity and blend to perfection.
THAT is why the Wall Street protests are constructive and THAT is why the Tea Party is destructive. The former blends, the latter splits.
To call me a liar is to demonstrate your ignorance of the definition of the word, for a start, but it is to also demonstrate that you are ignorant of the history of what works and what doesn't. I know that history well and in detail far beyond the understanding of the Palins of the world.
To call me a karma whore is to be ignorant of my own posting history. I post what I say, frequently with vicious - and incredibly naive - backlashes like your own. When I posted about the Fukoshima reactor and my research into the history of TEPCO's actions, I was sand-blasted with hatred -- only to be demonstrated correct as the findings of the various investigations have been revealed. That is because I DO THE LEGWORK. You and your pathetic little worms of friends do not.
If I post a comment, it is not to get it modded higher (hell, I -average- +20 a week even after the vitriol I receive) it is because my research states that this is the hypothesis that is most likely correct and that the rival hypotheses have been falsified and thus safely ignored.
I am not superior to you through greater intelligence (though that does help), I am superior to you because I actually understand the questions AND the answers, whereas you understand neither.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you don't trust it because you're not interest in discourse - the only form of politics that actually exists. All else is militancy disguised as politics.
You say "that's all I need to know or care about" not because of some God-given knowledge of yours but because you aren't interested in constructivism. Constructivists add. Destructivists remove. Tell me, are you adding or removing? The latter? Then you are making my point abundantly clear.
To call me ignorant and a liar (and yourself a poor speller) is to be a revisionist. You say yourself that you don't trust what I say, that you don't care what I say. That *is* revisionism. You are editing reality to suit your preferences. That's what revisionism *IS*. I edit my beliefs to suit reality, because I learn. I construct, you destruct. It's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1st: No h isn't. There re dozens and dozens of reports showing tea party crashing town hall meeting and disrupting them. Literally the definition of rabble rousing. You are stupid to think otherwise.
2nd: NO he isn't.
You are a typical tea bagger. Provable lying, and relying on Ad Homs and deflection instead of owning up to facts.
" TP members are polite in comparison to the OWS members. "
uh, no. Again, the disrupted town hall meeting, threatened people, and tried to stop people from voting.
" OWS leave a wake
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analysis of the OWS is provably false because the OWS doesn't have any such stance. That you would bother to post without doing any research is evidence of your ignorance and vindication of my point. The ignorant are destructive, the knowledgeable are constructive.
I would also point out that the nations with free health care have longer life expectancies, lower child mortality and fewer preventable deaths. That has nothing to do with the rich being "evil", that has to do with the ethics of not butchering those segments of the population you don't like. Or can I take it you approve of selective culls of anyone not sharing your politics?
I would further point out that the US not only ranks below virtually every Western nation on happiness, education, corruption prevention and crime prevention, it also ranks below virtually every Western nation on political involvement, political transparency, political ethics, political discourse and political maturity. The cause of these latter ones is simple to identify -- ideological "purity" fetishists, of which you are clearly one. The cause of the former is through LACK of government, not excess of it.
OWS has nothing against people being rich, and it's hard to call 80% of the American population a voting minority -- well, unless you first believe that you have suddenly gained the UNCONSTITUTIONAL right to disenfranchise 80% of Americans.
The Tea Party has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution, pressured the House to ignore one amendment (which requires the Government to make good on debts) and has sought to repeal another. Sorry, but the Tea Party is not about adhering to the Constitution, it is about the Constitution's destruction.
The Tea Party likes the role model of Somalia - a nation run by religious extremists with heavy weapons but without any kind of government structure. It doesn't? Well, care to explain (a) why the religious extremists are the ones in America with the heavy weapons, (b) why those extremists are the ones the Tea Party wants as political leaders, and (c) what the hell you THINK would happen if the US had no government (the smallest government you can have)? Perry has already stated he wants the Presidency dissolved, so no, you can't get away with saying they want "minimal" government. They've made it clear they want NONE. Anarchy. Somalia-style warlord fiefdoms. THAT is what the Tea Party is explicitly advocating and THAT is what you are supporting.
Re: (Score:3)
1% isn't "anyone making more money then we do"
It's the fucking richest people.
"We want government to stop taxing us so much"
we aren't taxed much. Lowest amount since Truman.
" wasting so much of the taxes they take from us,
by any actual measure, the governemnt isn't actually all the waste full. Down right lean compared to large corporations.
Not that I expect you to have actually read the reports and look at the accounting over runs, bumps, or an comparative metric.
Just spout what you think is 'obvious' . I
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Interesting)
OWS: We want the "rich" (anyone who makes more than we do) to pay more taxes so the government can give us free stuff! Only evil people are rich (except for the rich politicians and other rich political players on *our* side...that's *different*!)! And if we don't get what we demand despite being a voting minority, we'll use violence (*this* is what democracy looks like!!!1!!one) to achieve our goals.
OWS: We want the top 1% to stop passing laws benefitting only themselves, killing the middle class. We want the trillions of dollars of subsidies to Haliburton, Schlumberger, Corn, Oil, and such to stop. That's our inheritance you are pissing away, leaving us nothing but debt (not just student loans, but national debt).
TEA Party: We want government to stop taxing us so much and wasting so much of the taxes they take from us, and to actually start obeying the laws and the limitations on government power that's in the Constitution.
Teabaggers: We want bigger government to look over our shoulders, tell us who can marry whom, push the message of God and Jesus on the heathens in the Middle East and cut taxes to not pay for all that and the subsidies to run up a debt I'll never pay.
If you are going to make up what you like, we can play the same game.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quit taxing us so much" would also have a bit more, ummm, credibility if the Tea Party were in support of extending the tax cuts for the poor. However, the Tea Party is actually pressuring tax INCREASES on the poor. Thus, their message has nothing to do with tax reduction EXCEPT on the high-earners. The Tea Party has made it very clear that tax increases on those who don't view the world the Tea Party way is the best way to crush those whose views are different.
To me, crushing those you don't like is not rational. Listening to those you don't like IS rational. Those who post flammage as a reply to me are therefore not rational. Not because of their world view, but because of their destructive attitude. I have stated this more than once on many, many forums -- if you believe politics is about killing your opponents or crushing them beneath your feet, you are not into politics. I don't know what you're into, but it's not politics. A psych ward may be able to help in figuring it out, but that's the only hope for such cretins.
A reply that is constructivist, listening and coherent, even if it flies 100% in the face of everything I think, IS rational. That is not a view you will ever hear a Tea Party advocate say, but it IS absolutely core to who I am.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but only one of the movements actually had people bringing guns to the rallies, and it wasn't OWS.
Yes, a few carried firearms. Legally. Peacefully. Responsibly. As is their Constitutional right. I carry a firearm every day. Many, probably far more than you think, do. Without anyone getting hurt or arrested.
How many TEA Party protesters were arrested again? How many people were shot?
Oh yeah, none & none. You have no point.
OWS didn't even *need* guns to become violent. Judging by their behavior so far, it's probably a very, very good thing for everybody's safety that they generally don't believe in ca
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post was one of the dumbest things I've read on Slashdot in a while. This is the single worst (best?) example of stupid guns-fix-everything arguments I have ever heard.
In this case, instead of claiming that arming everyone would prevent people from being victims of crime, you actually claim that they would prevent police (paramilitary force as of 2011) from abusing people? When it comes to cops, bringing guns into the mixture only serves to guarantee that they will use lethal force without hesitation.
Tea Party protests avoided police intervention because their cause aligns with the interests of the powerful. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tea Party protests avoided police intervention because their cause aligns with the interests of the powerful. Period.
Oh. I thought it was because Tea Party demonstrations occurred at targeted locations (such as town halls attended by politicians), and after the message was delivered, they cleaned up and went home.
I'm sure law enforcement's reaction to OWS has nothing to do with the fact that they have soiled public gathering places for weeks on end, obstructed the daily business of normal working stiffs li
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...
That's what happens when you show up, wave signs, yell and shout, give speeches ... and go home when the park closes.
that's not a protest, that's a gay rights celebration party.
tea partiers drive their suv's home. the egypt, tunisia etc protesters didn't - they stayed until something happened.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's *interesting* that people I know who sympathize with teabaggers think that OWS protesters should quit whining and accept what they've got.
No, wait, that's self-serving hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, not being a thorn in the side of people "Who Own You And You Should Shut Up And Take It, Stupid Unworthy Prole" was also a good benefit.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment. The Tea Party merely chooses to voice their opinions by voting rather than collecting their poo in jars to throw at the police.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Informative)
...and driving down the tone of political discourse everywhere they show up. And by bringing assault rifles to public political gatherings. Apparently you mostly pay attention to Fox News.
Hardly. I sometimes watch both MSNBC and Fox to be amused by both extremes.
The fact that a rifle was present at a gathering and no police were needed strengthens the idea that everyone conducted themselves in a lawful manner. Somehow I don't think that was the message you were hoping to convey, but it is none the less.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a person who actually believes in personal responsibility and in the power of small communities of people working together, and as a person who has attended tea party rallies. I for one believe that there would not be many in the tea party that would want to be grouped with OWS or those people in Greece.
A bunch of spoiled people demanding more free shit is the antitheses of what the tea party is about.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
This selection was more for the Arab Spring protests than the Occupy protests. I think it's a sensible choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who writes the article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are not all protesters created equal?
No. We are not created equal. We do however deserve equal rights. Some would even argue equal opportunity.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
The protestors in the middle east were met with violent resistance from a government that suppressed them when they were unable to work through the system for their goals. They worked for years (decades?) to bring about change without any results, making it obvious this was their only recourse. They were able to effect change through revolution because their government could not sustain order in the face of widespread opposition TO the government.
The OWS groups, on the other hand, have no real goals that can be met to end their protest. Their stated goals can never be defined. For instance, when does profit become greed? Ending corporate influence is only possible if all groups are tossed out from impacting politics, such as unions, environmental groups, and AARP. And even then the rich will always have more access simply because they can buy more ads and travel more. Utopia is a beautiful concept, but very difficult to implement without trashing freedoms.
OWS has only been doing this for a few months, have made NO attempts to work through the existing processes, they feel free to deny access to public places and businesses to both workers and consumers, and in general are just a bunch of clueless drones who grab onto catch phrases that have little meaning. They basically have done nothing to even generate the smallest amount of sympathetic emotions among the general population, and the only change I've seen them bring about is more regulations about camping in public places. If anything, their lack of direction and willingness to follow ANY laws has resulted in people making fun of them and outright disgust with their stated goals.
So I'll agree with Time that the Tea Party shouldn't have been included. But the attempt to place the OWS groups with the middle east protestors denigrates the middle east protestors and their worthy goals.
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see what's so "not-protest" about opposing what another entity has expressly stated a desire to do. Consider SOPA, for example: it has not actually been enacted, but some elements are actively trying to do so, and people protest against that. What makes the Tea Party different, other than that you disagree with a caricature of their position that you have projected onto them?
Re:What about the Tea Party Movement? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, this is exactly the type of pompous pinhead slashdot response I was expecting to see.
Nice, a self-referential response.
Re: (Score:3)
The conservative right hates science mostly due to demographics. Rural locations trend towards conservative, urban locations trend towards progressive. Is it too big of a leap to say that scientific advancement is progressive? Universities especially trend away from conservatism.
The right doesn't fundamentally hate science. But as long as they tie themselves to religion and conse
Re: (Score:3)
Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives. For example union support and funding leading to a morphing of banning donation by organization to banning donations by corporations. Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees. Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.
Plus there is the whole problem of the real Occupy movement voice being crowded out by the fringe far left, the campers, much as the real Tea Party voice was drowned out by the fringe far right. The real voices just are not as interesting to TV as the fringe.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like one of the largest unions, that of the Police, are far from siding with OWS;
Of course, the whole point, of being anti-corporate and anti-corruption of Capitalism, is one that goes against the core fiber of both the Democrats and the GOP. So it is quite silly to equate the OWS with the DNC in the same way as the Tea Party was/is essentially just a fringe classification of the actual GOP base.
Re: (Score:3)
On the West Coast, they're starting to irritate the dock workers and truckers, too, by attempting to shut down the ports. There is such a thing as taking a point too far, and I think that while OWS had majority sympathy for the first few weeks, they pushed it too far and now many people just want them to shut up.
Re:Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're actually not irritating all the truckers. See:
http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2011/12/12/an-open-letter-from-america%E2%80%99s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports/ [cleanandsafeports.org]
http://www.alternet.org/economy/153393/how_goldman_sachs_and_other_companies_exploit_port_truck_drivers_%E2%80%94_occupy_protesters_plan_to_shut_down_west_coast_ports_in_protest/?page=entire [alternet.org]
Re:Occupy hasn't been co-opted? (Score:4, Interesting)
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season. Again, the example of morphing no political donations from organizations, only from individuals, into no political donations from corporations. Their message is now aligned with the democratic political theme for 2012 and protects union contributions.
Many prominent Democrats
Occupy a creation of Adbusters media organization (Score:5, Interesting)
Deluded much?
No, just misinformed. While Occupy may have been co-opted by the Democratic Party, ACORN and related groups who are desperate for a tea party organization of their own, Occupy is a creation of the Canadian media organization Adbusters who is related to the former.
... Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day, TV Turnoff Week and Occupy Wall Street, and is known for their "subvertisements" that spoof popular advertisements."
"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism,[3] it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-18-2010/george-soros-plans-to-overthrow-america [thedailyshow.com] This guy?
Re: (Score:3)
The tea-party is a very small US-only thing. the OWS is international.
Not a Person (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the important thing is that a idea is the driver for change, no just an individual.
It is much harder for the daily news media to sell an idea than it is sell an individual being the center of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's so interesting about the recent wave of protests themselves, they're so leaderless - not only the protests, but the movements themselves. Where's the strongman (or even an anti-strongman like Ghandi)? Is this because technology has reduced the need for a single mouthpiece? Is it because everybody is discontented but doesn't what to do about it, so every specific proposal
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a reaction to the normal police method to distrupt protests by going after the leaders.
If you have a single point of failure in the form of a small core group who are organising (not necessarily the leaders of an event) the police can come along and arrest that core, the entire event fails, even if there are still plenty of people who feel str
Re:Not a Person (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
... There is no George Washington apparent...
Sometimes great leaders are drafted from the ranks, and George Washington was one of those. Essentially he was drafted out of retirement to gain fame and respect during the war. He was living a rather comfortable aristocratic (1%) life in semi-retirement when he took up the cause of the american revolution.
One of the main problems with the recent arab-spring "protest" movements is that in many respects, it happened too fast. There was no time for anyone to prove their worthiness (so to speak), by demons
Re:Not a Person (Score:4, Insightful)
They Didn't Choose 'No One' (Score:5, Insightful)
'By not picking any one individual, they've basically chosen no one.'
Aside from the obvious one percent that didn't protest, there's another element of society that I happen to belong to. I'm not the 1% but I have a job. As such I stood by with at most sympathy and some odd feelings of survivor's guilt as I saw protests unfold in cities around my country. Yet I still had deadlines to make at work. So I'm not Time's Person of the Year but the protesters are because I sat here and sipped Lapsang Souchong tea while they made headlines. And that isn't no one, I think that's actually a very select group of people that were there, were non-violent and had a message. Other people that used the opportunities to loot or arson probably aren't proud enough to say it but Time Magazine has definitely selected a small set of people from around the world to be the Person of the Year. And I disagree that it was a bad choice and that it somehow represents 'no one.'
Sort of off-topic but every time I hear about protesting, this video pops into my head [youtube.com]. I will opine that in this video you will see what aspects you want to see about protesting. But I think that it encapsulates a lot about protests -- even from the comparatively non-violent protests of G20 last year in Toronto. From the pacifying elements of society to the occasional brutality involved from either side, this video is oddly satisfying for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Their presence *is* their message.
Re: (Score:3)
Given how angry wealthy people and politicians seem to be about them, and how ambivalent most other people I know are, that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
You don't seem to have been paying attention. The ambivalence turned into disapproval long ago.
http://theweek.com/article/index/221562/occupys-plummeting-popularity-4-theories [theweek.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Economic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree with you except for the part about having a message.
What I garnered from the more cognizant participants was they wanted one thing: economic justice.
I still can't figure out what they were protesting other than the fact that some people have a shitload more money than other people. As for those rich people getting their money in ethically challenged ways...
Yeah, so I think the real upsetting aspect of "some people have a shitload more money than other people" is how that came to be. I mean, just watching the Daily Show I see it all the time like my hard working father is now jobless and has to drive across three states to work and lives out of an RV away from his wife and home while the fed hands out $13 billion in just free cash to banks [bloomberg.com]? Are you serious? That's not economic justice! Our government bought up tons of shitty toxic assets from dumbshit investors to 'save' them yet no one tried to 'save' the jobs of the working class by just dumping billions of dollars into the rest of America. And when are those investments sold back to the original investors who made the stupid mistake to buy them? When do those people that made imprudent investment decisions get their comeuppance? Or is it only people that just tried to hold on to their jobs that have to pay for that fuck up?
well that's not particularly new, nor is it ever going to change.
You know I think people are okay when you can present them some convincing argument why the 1% deserve the Lion's share of the wealth. But when you paint them as bitching hippies who don't know what they want, you are really part of the problem. I don't want corporations to have more rights than individuals. Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act [wikipedia.org] to regulate speculation and stop corporations from internationally shifting funds in order to avoid paying the same damn income taxes I pay!
To just say "Aw, the 1% are just harder workers than you and deserve these rewards" is more ignorant than the protesters who don't know what they want.
The POTY has become pretty lame (Score:5, Insightful)
When they chose the president, a famous person, non-entity, etc, it's just lame. Last year was Mark Zuckerburg. That was a possible pick since Facebook has changes much of what we do online.
But when they chose "you" and "the protestor", I feel like they just had a dart board and just saw what stuck.
Story of the Year is probably a much accurate title, but won't sell as many mags or get as many people talking about it.
It went off track (Score:5, Insightful)
The second they backed down from choosing OBL.
Re: (Score:3)
>They're simply this decade's Geocities.
OH SNAP, that is the harshest thing I've ever heard about Facebook.
That was low, man, real low.
This is an outrage! (Score:3)
I am going to protest. Big time. Occupy Time Mag. yeah, yeah.
Now where do I collect the brownie points for being the person of the year?
Oh, that guy (Score:2)
Prediction for 2012 Person of the Year (Score:2)
TGINS (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank God It's Not Steve Jobs.
And although the Occupy people are not as hardcore as the Arab Spring guys, it's good that they didn't restrict it to one movement or country since there seems to be new protests in Russia and China...
Re:TGINS (Score:5, Interesting)
Although on second thought, "Anonymous" would have been a good choice as well.
Not just the hacker group or 4channers, but all people acting anonymously, like whistleblowers and protesters. Would have been an counterpoint to Zuckerberg.
The way Time is going... (Score:5, Funny)
The way Time is going, next year they'll name "The Subscriber."
Re: (Score:3)
"By subscribing to TIME magazine, The Subscriber has chosen truth in a time of lies. Chosen real news, news you know is real because it's printed on actual paper, rather than succumb to the unverifiable voracity of the blogs that threaten to wipe out humanity. Make sure that everyone you know also becomes a Subscriber to save their humanity!"
Time is weird? (Score:3)
They also made the PC or maybe it was the computer in general person of the year back in the 80's or 90's. Next up a terrorist is person of the year.
Stopped being credible in 2001 (Score:5, Interesting)
When they made the cowardly decision not to make it Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't intended to be a high school popularity contest; it was the biggest news maker of the year; e.g. Hitler during the WWII era. That's when they started the slide into marketability-driven choices.
Re:Better double check who you pick (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it matter? Person of the year is about the "person" who had the biggest impact, not necessarilly in a positive way. At the risk of Godwining this thread, Hitler was Time Man of the Year.
Re:Better double check who you pick (Score:5, Informative)
That's nothing. Look what Stalin did. He won the it twice. Hitler won in 1938.
The funny thing is, the Time "Person of the Year" has been pretty stupid ever since they changed it from "Man of the Year" to "Person of the Year." To me, that represented when they decided to prioritize political correctness over honesty (1999). We had GWB in 2000 (the year he spent mostly on vacation), Rudy Giuliani in 2001 (the year Osama bin Laden was the clear 'winner'), 'The Whistleblowers' in 2002 (inciting this trend of non-persons - it had been done in the past but sparingly), 'The American Soldier' in 2003, GWB again in 2004, 'The Good Samaritans' in 2005, 'You' in 2006 (probably the worst choice ever), Putin in 2007, Obama in 2008, Bernanke in 2009 (first justifiable choice of the decade - the last year of it), Zuckerberg last year (Julian Assange clear 'winner'), and now this protestor bullshit.
Basically, Time Person of a Year is a joke.
Also, the chart you cite is full of inaccuracies, bias, and lies.
Re:Better double check who you pick (Score:4, Insightful)
"Person Of The Year" could be man or woman, or group. "Man Of The Year" is one male. So giving more people the ability to be represented is "politically correctness"?