This comment was on the CBS Cleveland website.

Here is what the article looks like now; they have since corrected it. When I first viewed the article the spelling was still incorrect; I failed to get a screen shot fast enough...

It's funny when people find these things. I wonder who the editor is, and if they still have a job?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

What does all of this really mean? Well there are a few ways to look at it. From what I can tell from the stories I have read; most of the people going to the "Occupy whatever" protests are not really sure what they are for or against.

Take note of how those in the "movement" consider things. It seems to be more about anti structure more than anything else.

A worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics is underway right now that bodes well for the future. The spirit of this fresh tactic, a fusion of Tahrir with the acampadas of Spain, is captured in this quote:

The beauty of this new formula, and what makes this novel tactic exciting, is its pragmatic simplicity: we talk to each other in various physical gatherings and virtual people's assemblies … we zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy of the future … and then we go out and seize a square of singular symbolic significance and put our asses on the line to make it happen.

The time has come to deploy this emerging stratagem against the greatest corrupter of our democracy: Wall Street, the financial Gomorrah of America.

On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.

Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?

The most exciting candidate that we've heard so far is one that gets at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it.

This demand seems to capture the current national mood because cleaning up corruption in Washington is something all Americans, right and left, yearn for and can stand behind. If we hang in there, 20,000-strong, week after week against every police and National Guard effort to expel us from Wall Street, it would be impossible for Obama to ignore us. Our government would be forced to choose publicly between the will of the people and the lucre of the corporations.

These people actually think that Obama is going to end corruption? Do they not realize that the Solyndra scandal has Obama's name all over it? There were Senators paid off with promises of federal money in order to get the Obama health care bill passed. The list goes on and on.

In reality I think the people behind this movement have their own best interest in mind. I'll explain. Once you take the wealth from those who have it, what's left? If you destroy the mechanism by which wealth is created, there will be only a finite and decreasing amount of wealth. The people who are behind this movement are already wealthy, otherwise they would be (like those at the protests) chopping themselves off at the knees. As I have said before, once public opinion is so against the wealthy; who will want to work their way up to the "hated class"?

This "movement" is not a movement at all because there are large financial backers namely unions. The protesters are nothing more than people who want something for nothing. Since when is a large grouping of misinformed people a "new tactic"? Obama was elected by a large group of misinformed people; did they get what they were after?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Is it possible that this is one of the Democrat's voter scams?

ATLANTA - So far, no one has proven it's a scam, but they haven't proven it's for real either.

This week more than 700 senior citizens filled out a rather skimpy form promising a $500 check from the American Opportunities Stimulus Program.

They filled in sensitive information like their name, address, birth date and social security numbers, all with the promise of getting a Visa Check card in return.

But on Thursday, Fulton County government put out a warning that it might be an identity theft scam.

They even sent their own camera crew to the Atlanta headquarters of Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where the forms were being handed out by Vanessa Emerson and her son, Brandon.

After the alarm went out, Brandon Emerson returned hundreds of the forms to the NAN headquarters at 632 Peoples Street so they could be given back to the seniors who filled them out.

Even though his mother was wearing a NAN T-shirt in the Fulton County government video, her son claimed they are not affiliated with the organization.

Eventually the Southeast Regional Director for NAN showed up at the headquarters and began reassuring seniors no one was going to compromise the information.

Tyleis Speight admitted to 11 Alive News the forms had been collected there, but claimed she was a victim, too.

"National Action Network has been frauded as well," Speight said.

She said they're still trying to find out who was responsible.

Nobody tries to steal the identity of people, for monetary gain, when people will give the info for the "promise" of $500. It's obvious what was going on here. I wonder why there is so little information about this on the Internet? I also wonder why nobody has been charged with fraud yet?

I wonder if these people will be "voting" Democrat? Wink, wink...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

By now just about everyone has heard about Solyndra. Solyndra is a producer solar panels, mostly roof mounted solar power systems typically for large commercial buildings. The Obama administration made sure that Solyndra received government backed loans totaling 535 million dollars even though there was disagreement within the administration over whether or not Solyndra was financially stable. Now the administration is trying to make sure that the blame is shifted away from Obama and onto Energy Secretary Chu.

This is an example of what happens when the government tries to interfere with the marketplace. If Solyndra were competitive in the market there would be no need for a large government backed loan. Solyndra can't produce it's solar systems cheaply enough to compete on the world market, or with existing energy sources. Also Solyndra was backed by the government so it could operate without the financial constraints which exist with no government backing. Solyndra could waste money knowing that the government was there to prop them up. Solyndra was supported by the wishful thinking of politicians and the taxpayer's wallets.

The situation gets worse though. There seems to be a trend with government backed ventures. These government backed companies receive more assistance as performance decreases. In other words, why would any government backed company try to succeed when it can be more successful financially by either maintaining or slightly decreasing performance. If Solyndra actually succeeded it might have to run on it's own. Solyndra has benefited from the ultimate corporate welfare program.

The waste the company exhibited is absurd. Take a look at some of the things within the facility alongside Interstate 880 in Fremont, California.

It wasn’t just any factory. When it was completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, including proceeds from a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, it covered 300,000 square feet, the equivalent of five football fields. It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.

“The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra, said in an interview.

Amid the still-unfolding postmortems, the factory stands as emblematic of money misspent and the Field of Dreams ethos that seemed to drive the venture, said Ramesh Misra, a solar-industry analyst in Los Angeles for Brigantine Advisors.

“When you don’t have the demand, you can’t go into something with the attitude, ‘Build it and they will come,’” Misra said. “You have to make sure the customers are already there when you build it.”

When will the socialist government types get it? People buy things they want or need. You can't fabricate a need. You don't artificially increase prices to drive people away from one product and towards another, it never works as planed. For all the talk of alternative sources of energy there have been none that are competitive cost-wise to what we have now.

Until someone comes up with a way to produce energy that is at least as cheap as we have now, these ventures are always going to fail. People aren't looking for "alternative energy sources" in the real world; they are looking for energy, if it's competitively priced and works people will buy it. So far that hasn't happened yet.

In the mean time the government is throwing money into ridiculous ventures like Solyndra instead of allowing the private market come up with something. The government is eating up capital and directing it without regard for results. When results are negative, the answer is always more money.

There was a very good reason that private sector investors didn't fund this venture. Government obviously didn't share their foresight.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I recently had an interesting conversation with a few people commenting on a BBC article (I'm jefff1979). We were discussing the riots in the UK. I posted a link to a Max Hastings article. It's at the end of the exchange that things get creepy.

You might find this enlightening.

Comment number 400.
jefff1979
26 Minutes ago

I agree with an article by Max Hastings. The social system has created a large underclass of people who show contempt for any form of authority while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds them. The rioters are the product of having all of the basic needs of life provided them without any need of returning the favor. A lot of the rioters are probably just bored...

Comment number 401.
jefff1979
22 Minutes ago

Check out Max's article...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

Comment number 402.
Richard
17 Minutes ago

"jefff1979

I agree with an article by Max Hastings. The social system has created a large underclass of people who show contempt for any form of authority while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds them. "

I think that's far too simplistic a view. As a member of that underclass (created by politicians) in economic terms, I can understand the frustrations (but not condone their actions).

Comment number 403.
jefff1979
12 Minutes ago

Richard:

Of course I didn't mean that everyone thinks or acts that way, but it's understandable how one becomes that way in those circumstances.

Some people have the convictions to do what is right, some people don't. Still some people actually don't have any concept of right and wrong because they have been without guidance their whole lives.

Comment number 404.
jefff1979
5 Minutes ago

Richard:

Without a time machine; the government can't fix these sorts of social problems. The politicians' lack of foresight is indeed the reason these economic positions exist in the first place. They can; however, start to demand more from those who live on the government's dole.

When people are provided for without demand you can't expect them to prescribe to your rules. Laws allow for this.

Comment number 405.
Chemical-Mix
4 Minutes ago

@401.jefff1979
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

The problem with the article is that, other than classroom discipline, he hasn't given any real solutions. Also, the effects he describes are actually symptoms of a root cause(s) he fails to discuss. Why are youth so disconnected from the national syllabus? Is it bland/unengaging? Why the compulsion to steal a pair of trainers? Ceasless marketing?

Comment number 406.
Richard
3 Minutes ago

"jefff1979" 403

True in an ideal world, but youngsters where there is high unemployment see no future from a very early age, they give up and are given up on - they feel they have nothing to lose. They probably shouldn't, but if the government keeps kicking them while getting away with being caught with their hands in the till the line gets blurred.

Comment number 407.
Chemical-Mix
5 Minutes ago

...Modern life, new freedoms, societal expectations and the absolute requirement to submit to a worker-wage-slave system has consequences. Youth described in the article don't see any difference between the perpetual misery of working 45 hours a week in a job they hate and; their current miserable situation of doing nothing and not caring. Come 2012 when the cuts hit, things could get much worse

Comment number 408.
jefff1979
4 Minutes ago

Richard:

That's in part my point. Why is it that the youngsters have to look to government for guidance. If there's one thing in politics that most people can agree on, it's that politicians are NOT good role models.

Where are the parents to explain these things? It's as if they are forever doomed because they are never going to get a wake-up call from politicians.

Comment number 409.
Richard
7 Minutes ago

"jefff1979

They can; however, start to demand more from those who live on the government's dole."

The riots were *not* about people on the dole, or any one age group. Many were employed. Ages run between 11 and late 30's.

That's what's being missed by most commentators, they comment solely based solely on their prejudices, and that's why they have no solutions, or understanding.

Comment number 410.
jefff1979
4 Minutes ago

Chemical-Mix:

The solution he mentioned is family. As he said, he wouldn't have done those things (rioting and the like) for fear of his parents not the police. But the current legal system stands against honest parents who try to discipline their kids. They can call and have their parents arrested.

The viability of families must again be realized, because current practices are not working.

Comment number 411.
Chemical-Mix
11 Minutes ago

And to top it off, it is beat into them that they will have to work longer, harder, save more with less payoff to fund the retirement of the previous generation, while putting up with less disposable income and; higher taxes to pay for the mistakes of a few bankers who by the way, proved to the youth you can get away indebting the Earth to the tune of $40trillion. I'd be demotivated and; lose faith too

Comment number 412.
jefff1979
10 Minutes ago

Chemical-Mix:

"Come 2012 when the cuts hit, things could get much worse"

Indeed. That's why government dependance is so dangerous. It's all based on the presupposition that those at the top are going to make the right decisions. When they don't you are all the more at their mercy.

That is why I take issue with an overbearing government support structure. When it falls it takes even more down...

Comment number 413.
Richard
11 Minutes ago

"jefff1979" 408

I don't think it's government they look too, it's society. The riots weren't about the unemployed, but about the disaffected. Thatcher created an underclass, and the current underclass is often second generation. The poverty creates dysfunctional families (many causes, poverty always has), and so the circle is complete - they join a gang that becomes their 'family'.

Comment number 414.
Richard
7 Minutes ago

"jefff1979
That's why government dependance is so dangerous. "

But what is the alternative?

Comment number 415.
Chemical-Mix
6 Minutes ago

Jeff:
"That's why government dependance is so dangerous"

The problem is that this is almost required to a great extent. In a profit-based model, if there is no profit in a benevolent, system of looking after the lower rungs of society, it won't happen. And with just under 500k job vacancies with 2.45million unemployed, approx 80% of those on the dole literally have no choice in the matter.

Comment number 416.
peter Baston
6 Minutes ago

Super-cop might want to remember that the LAPD insignia and credo says " To Protect and Serve " and not " To Scare the crap out off "

Any beat cop will tell you that when you lose the respect of the people on your beat that's where the rot starts and the riot begins

Respect is totally different to fear or are we going to study Syrians crowd control and bring in Tanks and Warships

Comment number 417.
jefff1979
14th August 2011 - 19:12

Chemical-Mix:

"The problem is is that this is almost required to a great extent."

It is, in a sense, required. That was done by design, that is my point. It's not like the politicians did this with the idea that these people would actually be happy. The politicians created this underclass to insure votes. Now that it's in motion, it will be up to individuals and families to get out.

Comment number 418.
Chemical-Mix
14th August 2011 - 19:19

@417.jefff1979
"it will be up to individuals and families to get out"

Very chilling thought. So along with everything else that poverty and opportunity disequilibrium throws at these people, they are also faced with societal abandonment at the most fundamental level. If they think their is no hope, perhaps they believe there is nothing to lose by opportunistically taking what they can...

Comment number 419.
Richard
14th August 2011 - 19:22

"jefff1979" 417

I think this where our two societies start to diverge. We talk about keeping the rich rich, whereas you talk about votes. It might amount to the same thing, but up to the mid 80's we had true left vs. right (we now have 2 x centre right). We lost 100% employment in the late 60s and dealt with it, I don't think the US has realised that it has yet to address that issue.

I can only hope that Richard is wrong.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!