The Hippie Problem: Andrew Sullivan on OWS
“A lot of us have to confess something about the Occupy Wall Street protests: we have a hippie problem. As a post-boomer, I’ve been trained to giggle at them my whole life. And anyone who has had to listen to an unsought diatribe about corporations in a line at Target, or has a friend who’s been trying to talk you into going to Burning Man for a decade, will know what I’m talking about.”
“So what are these dishonest banking practices the protestors want to hold banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, accountable for? Here's what the protesters allege:”
Encouraging risky loans. Allowing highly speculative investing. Taking taxpayer money for bailouts. Carrying out illegal evictions.
Daily Finance doesn't seem to have much trouble defining the OWS message, so why the confusion on the part of most mainstream media outlets?
Where are the “radical” elements in these points of fact, borne out with hundreds of informed analyses by established, knowledgeable reporters, government agencies and reputable news organizations? This is not only the mainstream view, fairly obvious to anyone with basic reading skills, it has been simmering below the surface for years because the traditional media have conspicuously avoided the subject. And yes, “It will be interesting to see how the action unfolds in upcoming weeks, and whether protests have a lasting impact on public policy and corporate behavior in the banking sector.”
From our friends at Seeking Alpha, home of Avery Goodman, the following assessment which is common knowledge among investors and regulators, (but not so much the general public).
“When the Chief of the EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility) is pessimistic about the capacity of the EFSF to be leveraged to an extent that is adequate to the task at hand, then you might as well kiss the whole thing goodbye.”
The Brits have unequivocally decided their best interests lie elsewhere, England and Germany having similar doubts about sacrificing their own economic interests, their sovereignty, to save the euro. At this point it has become clear that financing the toxic debt of the worst offenders in the EU is throwing good money after bad. Oh well. Another excerpt from the above article:
“It has been estimated that roughly two trillion euros of funding are needed to simply merely meet projected roll-over and fresh financing needs through mid 2013. Therefore, the 800 billion projection is totally insufficient to the task at hand.”
“Because Merkel and Sarkozy are unwilling or are unable to support the only viable option available to them that is to fund bond purchases via the ECB, they appear to be engaging in preliminary speculations regarding a possible exit plan. The problem is that there is no viable exit plan that would not entail a total economic and financial disaster.”
That's right folks. To address the problem of toxic debt by EU banks, it would require at least $2 trillion in bailout money, and the government officials that are trying to stave off a doomsday scenario know that the money isn't available.
It would have to be re-borrowed on top of the existing bailout money that has already been generously dispersed to the same banks, a shell game of massive proportions. This of course, would add to the massive debts that are the fundamental problem at hand because every time an agreement is reached to underwrite failing banks, Americans go further into debt, and in many cases the collateral for these loans doesn't exist. It is also underwritten by taxpayers when companies like Bank of America shift their toxic paper products into FDIC-insured subsidiaries . The economy suffers, jobs are lost, and the valuations of residences and investments stagnate or decline.
Look out below: EU video
"What I have done is made sure Britain's national interest is protected. We have the right deal for Britain in Europe."
And so now we see a secret meeting, contrary to law, that results in legislation that appears to be more of a crowd control device than anything else. Expecting problems with your citizens because you know they are going to find out they have been screwed over by their representatives and institutions? No problem. Pass a law and become a military junta before anyone notices.
"Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey says the European Union faces potential breakup and civil unrest"
'We are extraordinarily concerned by the health and viability of the euro because in some ways we're exposed literally to contracts but also because of the potential of civil unrest and breakup of the union that has been forged over there,' he pointed out.”
Are we expected to believe that the NDAA just happens to surface at the same moment that the global financial system finds itself on the precipice of collapse? The banking sector is a mess, and not because typical hard-working Americans decided to go on strike. The Occupation Movement was predictable and remains a political voice for the disenfranchised and dispossessed.
Maybe Carl Levin and John McCain should come forward and explain why they crafted this abomination in secret, what their intentions are, and why is there any confusion over the language of the bill? If the mainstream media doesn't want to ask these questions, those of us in the alternative media are obliged to do it for them
Here's more from Andrew Napolitano on the NDAA:
Apparently the 93-7 passage of the NDAA in the Senate, particularly section 1031 which authorizes the military to detain American citizens indefinitely, didn't pass muster with Anonymous either. A new message popped up according to Yahoo! News. Expect them:
“'Anonymous – Message to the American People' on YouTube, in which a fabricated voice went over the group’s objections to the bill, then signed off by stating 'U.S. Senate, expect us.'”
Record low approval for Congress:
New York University plans to offer two classes next semester on the protest movement, whose participants frequently marched and rallied around the school’s Greenwich Village campus this fall.