Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[Vanadium 50]

To be honest (and yes, let's be honest), you have the relation exactly backwards. Corporations have had some rights as persons for a much longer time than have unions.

And indeed, corporations were around for centuries before unions.

 

[chiro]

You started talking about debt. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. A smoothly flowing economy does not equate with debt, as you hope to imply with this straw man.

And don't put words in my mouth.

This is what you said:

(Saving money is the monetary analogue of your body going into starvation mode and storing fat, to protect against the next drought. Yet everyone knows how unhealthy that is. Proper eating and exercise, resulting in a throughput of calories is the healthy way to live.)

You talked about starvation in your paragraph. I made a reference to that. You said this, I didn't conjure it out of thin air.

I didn't say that you said anything else.

Getting back to the debt argument, what do you think money is, and how is it created? When credit is created from a bank it is a form of debt. Circulating the debt around banks does not change that fact.

Economic activities including businesses involved in production (like manufacturing) or services require resources, and resource allocation is largely controlled by access to credit, and in the current system credit is tied to debt. Swapping notes between groups doesn't erase this one bit.

This kind of theatrical outrage won't fly here, chiro. What flies is critical thinking. That starts with not creating straw man arguments and not putting words in other people's mouths.

You want critical thinking? Why don't you re-read this entire thread showing a number of people outlining arguments for why debt is a bad thing. All you are doing is using the straw-man card.

You are encouraging debt, and I am posting the behavior of what is happening with the US government. Your government is doing this exact thing: funding debt with debt, and look at what is happening.

All a straw man. I said none of those things, nor are they implied by what I said. Listen to what I said not what you want to hear.

When people start stuffing money in their mattresses, it slows the economy, which means all those small businesses you speak of don't make money, which means they start stuffing their money in their mattresses, and the problem snowballs.

Contrarily, what works for everyone, and for the economy as a whole, is when people feel free to spend within their means (i.e. not necessarily any debt).

If you read what I said, the most important thing is capital. Capital can come in many forms, but the current form that it comes in nowadays is in credit based on money.

The current credit system is one based on perpetual debt, but it doesn't have to be this way. The US has not always had this form of credit. Back in the day the government actually created money and did not rely on a central bank in the way that they do today.

The form of capital in these circumstances was different to what is being used today.

I am not suggesting everybody must spend everything they have or that any of this is inevitable. What I said (and you can reread post 571 it f it will help) was that encouraging a flowing economy over a save-for-later attitude is not necessarily a bad thing and not necessarily a flaw in the system.

I know what you said: I reposted the exact quote in this post.

So let me ask you a question: if you think the save-for-later system is not a good system, how you define the amount of acceptable debt? Where does it end?

If you want to respond to the actual argument, feel free.

 

[DaveC426913]

You talked about starvation in your paragraph. I made a reference to that. You said this, I didn't conjure it out of thin air.

Show me exactly where I said anything about debt. You made that jump - yes, out of thin air. It's a straw man. And totally missing the point.You're stuck on the word starvation. Starvation is bad. Agreed? We both agree on that.

Let me walk you through the analogy again.

People who save money by stuffing it under their mattress are analogous to the body stuffing calories into fat cells. The body does this is a runaway fear of some future starvation. Stuffing money in a mattress is also a fear of poverty. Granted, it may be necessary, but that's doesn't make it a desirable or stable plan.

Lethargy in the metabolism is as bad as lethargy in the economy.

A healthy body takes in calories through healthy food and outputs them as healthy exercise. This is analogous to a healthy economy, where cash flows, every one gets to spend - wisely - and no one gets economically lethargic or economically starves. Anjd absolutely no mention of debt.

See it now?

You want critical thinking? Why don't you re-read this entire thread showing a number of people outlining arguments for why debt is a bad thing.

I agree debt is a bad thing. And once again, I never suggested it wasn't. I never said anything about debt. You insinuated that into your response as if I did.

All you are doing is using the straw-man card.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

You are encouraging debt,

Again, do not put words in my mouth or ascribe to me things I am not doing.

So let me ask you a question: if you think the save-for-later system is not a good system,

I did not say it was not a good system. I simply said that the encouragment of healthy economic throughput over saving money in your mattress does not constitute a flaw in the system.

how you define the amount of acceptable debt? Where does it end?

I never suggested anything about debt. I don't suggest any amount of debt is acceptable.

Debt is your drum to beat, and has nothing to do with my post that you so theatrically objected to.

Again, stop trying to ascribe things to me I never said or suggested. You're beating a straw man to death while I stand next to it saying 'uh, hello? I'm over heeeere...'

 

[chiro]

I agree debt is a bad thing. And once again, I never suggested it wasn't. I never said anything about debt. You insinuated that into your response as if I did.

I have to apologize to you, as your are correct about the insinuation of debt remark.

Just realize that some people in this thread have been advocating or at the very least not seeing a problem with debt, and quite frankly I thought that you were advocating the same argument.

 

[mege]

Given your logic - why do we have unions for Government workers? Isn't the Government required to follow the labor laws?

Public worker unions are there because the greedy government makes too much money, and someone needs to catch it!

Then, the government needs to raise taxes because its workers are making more than before. But, if the government raises taxes, shouldn't its workers be paid more too? Then, the government needs to raise taxes because its workers are making more than before... oh...

Seriously though - public worker unions are a taxpayers worse nightmare. I understand the balance that unions provide against corporations, but I don't understand the balance against government. I feel like there's more crony-capitalism because of unions than anything else.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have to apologize to you, as your are correct about the insinuation of debt remark.

Just realize that some people in this thread have been advocating or at the very least not seeing a problem with debt, and quite frankly I thought that you were advocating the same argument.

Acknowledged. I attempted to start a mini-argument without considering the context of the larger argument it was nested in. Probably not the wisest plan.

 

[Bacle2]

DaveC: I asked you this a while back; you may have missed it: don't you believe the disincentives against saving are too extreme? I agree you do not want people putting their money in mattresses, but you don't either want an empty bank account when times turn bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC: I asked you this a while back; you may have missed it: don't you believe the disincentives against saving are too extreme? I agree you do not want people putting their money in mattresses, but you don't either want an empty bank account when times turn bad.

I don't really have a judgment on whether they're good or bad for anyone except myself. I am not the average American citizen.

 

[Proton Soup]

wrt to the whole fat thing, males need about 10~15% or so fat to be healthy, and a bit more increases longevity as we age. problem is, way too many of us have no savings at all, it's all debt. we'd all be a lot better off if we all had at least a few months' expenses saved up. of course, building up a healthy fat reserve does take money out of the economy, at least temporarily. but in the long term, it's a healthy thing to do. in fact, if people didn't have so much credit card debt, they'd have even more disposable income to spend into the economy instead of giving it to BoA to stuff into its own Treasury Note mattress. which is another thing, btw. another way to take money out of the economy is for banks to stop lending. which is one of the things having the FED buy out worthless assets from them was supposed to free up. you see, money is not exactly a zero sum game here, because of fractional reserve lending. in a normal economy, banks are lending out several times the amount of assets on their books. but when they stop lending, well, it takes money out of circulation and slows things down.

 

[DoggerDan]

Sorry, I have a job.

I don't, but am actively looking for one, and am with you 100% Pengwuino.

 

[DoggerDan]

I agree debt is a bad thing.

I liken it to a hobbles.

 

[OmCheeto]

How does this have anything to do with either Occupy Wall Street or Naomi Wolf's arrest?

I have to admit, I'd never heard of Naomi Wolf, so I googled her.
She did write up an interesting article about the experience:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street"

Arresting a middle-aged writer in an evening gown for peaceable conduct is a far cry from when America was a free republic

...

Then a phalanx of perhaps 40 white-shirted senior officers descended out of seemingly nowhere and, with a megaphone (which was supposedly illegal for citizens to use), one said: "You are unlawfully creating a disruption. You are ordered to disperse." I approached him peacefully, slowly, gently and respectfully and said: "I am confused. I was told that the permit in question allows us to walk if we don't block pedestrian access and as you see we are complying with the permit."

He gave me a look of pure hate. "Are you going to back down?" he shouted. I stood, immobilised, for a moment. "Are you getting out of my way?" I did not even make a conscious decision not to "fall back" – I simply couldn't even will myself to do so, because I knew that he was not giving a lawful order and that if I stepped aside it would be not because of the law, which I was following, but as a capitulation to sheer force. In that moment's hesitation, he said, "OK," gestured, and my partner and I were surrounded by about 20 officers who pulled our hands behind our backs and cuffed us with plastic handcuffs.

And why isn't anyone talking about the rape anymore?
I watched one of those http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy.html" the other day, and it reminded me of the "cry rape" incident.

Dave Meslin: The antidote to apathy
...
The media plays an important role in developing our relationship with political change, mainly by ignoring politics and focusing on celebrities and scandals.
...

I likened it to the acts of a magician. If one distracts the viewer from reality, one can get away with all types of things. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz in a way; "Ignore that man behind the curtain!" Focus on the big fiery loud head, that speaks the "truth".

I've also noticed that relayed opinions have been marginalized. So I thought I'd regurgitate some stuff from our local paper:

http://wweek.com/portland/blog-27713-occupy_portland_note.html"

First things first: I did not attend the Occupy Portland protest on purpose; I was in Old Town for my own reasons. Like many who stayed away, I have always been leery of large masses of people shouting for one side or another, whether at stadiums or in street marches, even if the side they’re on is my own.

...

Some responses of the assembled when asked why, in fact, they were there:

"It’s just a kind of roiling dissatisfaction."
“I’m an old guy who’s genuinely ashamed of what’s happened to my society on my adult watch since 1980."
“I’m just fed up with the way that things are being portrayed in the media."
“Because the top 1 percent owns close to a third of the wealth"
From a young man with stretched ears: “I don’t want to talk to you.”

(35 minute phone interruption from my 73 year old friend, who's still trying to convince himself that he's 17 years old)

Sorry. I'll have to re-collect my thoughts. I think I had five more observations to post.

 

[Naty1]

What mayor Bloomberg is communicating:


To the " Occupy Wall Street "Crowd:

illegal drugs: ok

sex in public: ok

pooping in public: ok

violation of occupancy: ok

littering: ok

blocking traffic: a "constitutional right"



To the residents of NYC

transfats: illegal!

salt: must be restricted!,

drugs: you will be proscuted!,

leaving dog poop: illegal!

"block the box": illegal! (If a red light catches you in the cross walks, you ARE ticketed)

parking in the wrong spot: illegal!

(idea: thank you Mark Levin, ABC radio,New York City)

 

[Evo]

I have to admit, I'd never heard of Naomi Wolf, so I googled her.
She did write up an interesting article about the experience:

I'd never heard of her either and from reading that article she sounds like an idiot. (IMO) She also doesn't know what an evening gown is.

 

[OmCheeto]

What mayor Bloomberg is communicating:

To the " Occupy Wall Street "Crowd:
illegal drugs: ok
sex in public: ok
pooping in public: ok
violation of occupancy: ok
littering: ok
blocking traffic: a "constitutional right"

To the residents of NYC
transfats: illegal!
salt: must be restricted!,
drugs: you will be proscuted!,
leaving dog poop: illegal!
"block the box": illegal! (If a red light catches you in the cross walks, you ARE ticketed)
parking in the wrong spot: illegal!

(idea: thank you Mark Levin, ABC radio,New York City)

I'm always leery of listening to people who make their living primarily by writing books and talking on the radio.

Since google doesn't seem to be able to catch any of your above post, I'll assume it was a radio broadcast, and therefore true, and an unbiased report.

But I'm running late, and have to go to the store for my meds, and have only the following to report from my googling:

http://www.poopreport.com/BMnewswire/1190.html
NYC Mayor Bloomberg poo poos buttwipe blunder

NYC mayor, Michael Bloomberg called foul when parents raised a stink about having to pay for toilet paper used by their school aged darlings.

Fri, 10/15/2004 - 13:58

 

[OmCheeto]

I'd never heard of her either and from reading that article she sounds like an idiot. (IMO) She also doesn't know what an evening gown is.

She struck me as a person who made their living from writing books, so I was a bit leery of her. But it was interesting to read of her first person, being arrested, experience.

ps. Apparently, I don't know what an evening gown is either. We'll have to start a new thread.

 

[Evo]

She struck me as a person who made their living from writing books, so I was a bit leery of her. But it was interesting to read of her first person, being arrested, experience.

I don't like histrionics, and she does write as if she suffers from Histrionic personality disorder. That's an opinion, not an official diagnosis.

ps. Apparently, I don't know what an evening gown is either. We'll have to start a new thread.

She was wearing a knee length dress. But her calling it an evening gown would be inline with being histrionic. A perfect example of the exaggeration and self importance in her writing, and possibly the much worse sin of fashion ignorance. (I don't expect men to know the difference)

 

[WhoWee]

I don't like histrionics, and she does write as if she suffers from Histrionic personality disorder. That's an opinion, not an official diagnosis.

She was wearing a knee length dress. But her calling it an evening gown would be inline with being histrionic. A perfect example of the exaggeration and self importance in her writing, and possibly the much worse sin of fashion ignorance. (I don't expect men to know the difference)

We know that dresses don't USUALLY include pants and that skirts don't USUALLY have hats attached - is there more?

 

[edward]

She does have a bio on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf

 

[Evo]

We know that dresses don't USUALLY include pants and that skirts don't USUALLY have hats attached - is there more?

 

[Evo]

She does have a bio on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf

In the current video she looks like 10 pounds of potatoes shoved into a 5 pound bag. The wiki page fails to address her histrionics.

From the link

Wolf's other books include Fire with Fire on politics, female empowerment and women's sexual liberation.[32] The New York Times assailed the work for its "dubious oversimplifications and highly debatable assertions" and its "disconcerting penchant for inflationary prose,"

Wow, I'm not the only one that noticed. I've only read her pathetic diatribe in the linked article, but I'd have to agree. She's what I'd refer to as a "pompous windbag" if it wasn't for her histrionics. I guess "histrionic pompous windbag" would be appropriate.

I'm not being nasty, she actually wrote in her first sentence "for standing lawfully on the sidewalk in an evening gown". She wasn't wearing an evening gown, so I have trouble believing anything else she wrote. It's like a guy in a business suit claiming to be in a tuxedo, it's ridiculous. Is she so deluded that she did not realize that pictures of her being arrested would be posted? Of course one crank being arrested does not have anything to do with the other people there.

 

[edward]

Wow, in the current video she looks like 10 pounds of potatoes shoved into a 5 pound bag. The wiki page fails to address her histrionics.

From the link Wow, I'm not the only one that noticed. I've only read her pathetic diatribe in the linked article, but I'd have to agree. She's what I'd refer to as a "pompous windbag" if it wasn't for her histrionics. I guess "histrionic pompous windbag" would be appropriate.

I guess the point now is; will the histrionic pompus windbag attract attention. It always worked for my mother in law.

 

[edward]

I am really impressed by this group from Iowa. The OWS could learn some lessons from them.

http://johnalchin.info/2011/10/11/before-occupy-wall-street-the-iowa-cci/

 

[Evo]

I guess the point now is; will the histrionic pompus windbag attract attention. It always worked for my mother in law.

I think it's turned people off, if she could have written a well thought out and non-sensational piece she might have won over people on the fence. What she's done, IMO, is turn undecided people off, those that go for her type of writing are already convinced.

 

[Char. Limit]

The first thing I remember her as is one of Gore's campaign advisors... I think she was telling him to be more of an alpha male or something. Link relevant:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov1999/nf91102e.htm

 

[Evo]

The first thing I remember her as is one of Gore's campaign advisors... I think she was telling him to be more of an alpha male or something. Link relevant:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov1999/nf91102e.htm

Love it! No wonder he wound up a loser and his wife left him.

That e-mail just sickens me, just shows how fake and staged everything is, and how the wrong advice can ruin your chances. Did Gore get his money back?

 

[John Creighto]

I don't like histrionics, and she does write as if she suffers from Histrionic personality disorder. That's an opinion, not an official diagnosis.

I don't know how she writes in general but the article seemed pretty matter of fact to me. Unfortunately there wasn't anything in the video to support her story. There wasn't really much in the video. I wasn't clear what, she was trying to do, why she was arrested and why the officer didn't explain the charges. I know in Canada you have a rite to be informed promptly of the charges against you but perhaps not at the time of arrest. I don't know if such a rite exists in the United States.

There was a lot of interesting legal stuff in the article about permits and this history of protests. Can anyone here confirm these facts in the article. I am not an expert at law.

She was wearing a knee length dress. But her calling it an evening gown would be inline with being histrionic. A perfect example of the exaggeration and self importance in her writing, and possibly the much worse sin of fashion ignorance. (I don't expect men to know the difference)

I confess, I don't know the difference, perhaps she didn't either. Anyway, what's wrong with self importance? Don't we all matter?

 

[Evo]

I don't know how she writes in general but the article seemed pretty matter of fact to me. Unfortunately there wasn't anything in the video to support her story. There wasn't really much in the video. I wasn't clear what, she was trying to do, why she was arrested and why the officer didn't explain the charges. I know in Canada you have a rite to be informed promptly of the charges against you but perhaps not at the time of arrest. I don't know if such a rite exists in the United States.

There was a lot of interesting legal stuff in the article about permits and this history of protests. Can anyone here confirm these facts in the article. I am not an expert at law.

I confess, I don't know the difference, perhaps she didn't either. Anyway, what's wrong with self importance? Don't we all matter?

The officer repeated his request about 5 times, then said "ok" and signaled an officer to arrest her.

From the article she admits that she's only guessing and doesn't know the current laws.

If you want to be a credible reporter of current events, you can't be the diva everything revolves around. You need to be able to report objectively.

 

[OmCheeto]

I am really impressed by this group from Iowa. The OWS could learn some lessons from them.

http://johnalchin.info/2011/10/11/before-occupy-wall-street-the-iowa-cci/

Not quite as well edumutated as this group I joined about 4 years ago:

Jan1-08
Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.

Sep27-08
We need to create an environment that attracts investment into a competitive manufacturing base at home. Before someone says it, manufacturing doesn't have to mean pollution.

Our companies need to quit thinking in 90 day increments and start thinking long term.

Feb28-11
In the middle is a list of people we'd like to see go to jail but won't.

Mar6-11
You can pretty much thank Phil Gramm for all the economic mess and $4/gallon gas we a paying for now.
...
Apparently he learned nothing from the Great Depression, gutted the Glass Steagall act, and also ushered in legislation that paved the way for the current, almost completely unregulated, derivative market as well as for all of the speculation that is artificially driving up prices for energy.

And my personal favorite:

Jul6-11
The debate reminds me of a bunch of monkeys, with most all the banana's in the hands of very few monkeys, while the spokesmonkey on TV tells the monkeys with very few banana's that we shouldn't force the monkeys with the banana's to share, because they earned those banana's fair and square. And we should ignore the fact that in the olden days, the monkeys with all the banana's had to share two or even three times as many banana's as they do now, and were still sitting on mountains of banana's.

I pretty much ignored politics from the day Reagan was elected up until I joined that group. They are really a smart bunch, and I'd be clueless without them.

Especially that "O" guy. He reminds me of Chance Gardener. Pure genius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgGvd1UPZ88

 

[Evo]

Not quite as well edumutated as this group I joined about 4 years ago:

OMG, I love the monkeys with bananas.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not quite as well edumutated as this group I joined about 4 years ago:

i would love to have Phil Gramm tried for treason, i truly would.

 

[John Creighto]

The officer repeated his request about 5 times, then said "ok" and signaled an officer to arrest her.

From what I saw, he asked her once and then cut her off three times with the word please as she tried to speak. She seemed calm and peaceful and she was the only one in the area and she was cuffed before given an answer. If there was an urgent need for police action I could understand hasty action but otherwise to me it seems heavy handed.

I do not know if there was any need for quick police attention well she was being arrested. I do not know if they were blocking the sidewalks but as for creating a disturbance isn't the whole point of a protest to get noticed? In your view what should the right to protest entail and how much protection should it be given?

It may not be the case in the United States but in Canada you are suppose to be informed of what you are being arrested for upon arrest:
"The Canadian Charter warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge), do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you say can be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Canada

I'm sure there is probably exceptions when hasty action is required given that in the Canadian charter or rights, the right is, to be informed promptly of the reason for arrest which I presume means as soon as reasonable. However, I saw no such evidence of a compelling emergency. Consequently there was no reason she couldn't be informed of why she was being arrested apon arrest. Well, you may not think Canadian law is applicable, I do given the number of times I here American's claim how free they are compared to the rest of the world.

From the article she admits that she's only guessing and doesn't know the current laws.

I remember reading something like that but I tried a few word searches including searching for every word law in the article and found nothing so if possible could you quote at least the paragraph where you are paraphrasing her from. You are at least taking her out of context though given she is clearly claiming some knowledge of the law. For instance:

"I went up and asked them why. They replied that they had been informed that the Huffington Post event had a permit that forbade them to use the sidewalk. I knew from my investigative reporting on NYC permits that this was impossible: a private entity cannot lease the public sidewalks; even film crews must allow pedestrian traffic. I asked the police for clarification – no response."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street

but laws do change so she may have acknowledged not knowing of some change that had taken place since she previously investigated the law. Do you dispute the accuracy of any of the legal claims she made in the article or do you just question her as a source. She did write a book that devoted at least a chapter to the use of permits in protests.

If you want to be a credible reporter of current events, you can't be the diva everything revolves around. You need to be able to report objectively.

I have no idea how objective or nonobjective she is or who much of a diva she is but I'd rather someone address the facts in the article then attack her character. I don't think anyone here is holding her up as a credible source to support any of the claims she is making so what is the point of attacking her character?

I know that cops need some leeway to do their jobs so it is necessary at times to comply with requests by the police to avoid unnecessary trouble from the police but at what point does the compliance contribute to the destruction of the rite of free speech and to peacefully assemble? Should we not question the use of ordinances to interfere with political expression and diminish the protections given to citizens under the constitution?

 

[LaurieAG]

And indeed, corporations were around for centuries before unions.

But they only received their rights from the people in 1776.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

 

[Evo]

From what I saw, he asked her once and then cut her off three times with the word please as she tried to speak. She seemed calm and peaceful and she was the only one in the area and she was cuffed before given an answer. If there was an urgent need for police action I could understand hasty action but otherwise to me it seems heavy handed.

She was screaming at the officer who was calmly asking her to move.

In case it's not clear to anyone what she did wrong, the protesters were allowed to legally protest on *one* side of the street. This woman told a bunch of people to follow her to the other side of the street to protest, so now there were protesters on both sides of the street, which is not legal.

 

[mheslep]

I don't like histrionics, and she does write as if she suffers from Histrionic personality disorder. That's an opinion, not an official diagnosis.

She was wearing a knee length dress. But her calling it an evening gown would be inline with being histrionic. A perfect example of the exaggeration and self importance in her writing, and possibly the much worse sin of fashion ignorance. (I don't expect men to know the difference)

I dunno, does thinking of oneself as a prophet self important?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933392797/?tag=pfamazon01-20

"[URL[/URL] [I]Fascist America, in 10 easy steps[/I], Naomi Wolf
[/URL]
[QUOTE]Right now [2007], [B]only a handful of patriots[/B] are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us[/QUOTE] :rolleyes:

Theme song:
[QUOTE]They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa![/QUOTE]