For preview only. Get it at

American Autumn: an Occudoc

2012, Society  -   107 Comments
Ratings: 8.50/10 from 2 users.

American Autumn: an OccudocWhat would a world look like that had a culture and an economic system that places human need above corporate greed, and how do we bring that world into being? Who cares what it is called. Call it Socialism, Call it Real Democracy Now, and Call it Chunky-Monkey-Cherry Garcia. The world needs to change radically, it needs to change dramatically, and it needs to change fast. American Autumn: an Occudoc is an invitation for you to participate in that positive change.

Shot on the front lines and meeting spaces of the Occupy movement in NYC, Boston, and Washington, DC from the earliest days through the end of January 2012, American Autumn: an Occudoc is an inside looking out view of the occupy movement.

With interviews and insight from key organizers, thinkers and activists including Medea Benjamin, David Degraw, Dr. Margaret Flowers, Lee Camp, Naomi Klein, Nathan Schneider, Ashley Sanders, Vlad Teichberg, Sgt. Shamar Thomas, Dr. Cornel West, Kevin Zeese and many more, writer/director Dennis Trainor Jr weaves commentary and a fearless style that often puts the viewer right between police and protesters.

More great documentaries

107 Comments / User Reviews

  1. thank you American autumn!

  2. Oh I agree with you jACK I am certainly not partof the solution but I know I am not part of the problem . In fact anyone that partakes in theis fraud of election is part of the problem , , voting is rigged we know that , the two party system is a fraud, and the very same people that are elcted thru this broken system are the very same ones that staba us in the back ... go figure that one out . If you dont think the system isnt already socialism and at the least facism then myabe you need to rethink what this voting debacal really is . Your voting for the lessor of two evils everytime which still leaves you with evil and I dont think i need to prove that to you. I am not sure what the solution is as a whole butI know what isnt working !! VOTING !

    1. You couldn't be more wrong. If voting couldn't make a difference, no one would be trying to take that right away from so many people. Your giving up is a good result for the duopoly. They encourage it every day by making it seem unrealistic to even try to affect change. What does NOT make a difference is not voting or voting for one of the major parties. I encourage everyone to vote for third parties. If you decide to just not vote, no one (out of your immediate circle) will know why or even care. As long as the duopoly gets the vast majority of the vote, they can pretend they have a mandate, even if the majority of the people don't agree with their policies. Mass rejection of both parties, in the form of protest votes can be quantified. Even if your third party candidate doesn't win, a mass defection in favor of third parties will demand that notice be taken. The larger the number of people who do this, the more weight their decisions carry.

      (And, yes, I realize I am responding to a 2 year old comment. I take every opportunity possible to denounce apathy. Others will read...and, I hope, maybe think.)

    2. how old ae you krista ? and its not apathy its common sense

    3. My, my....aren't you condescending and superior?

      As if it's any of your business, and as if it makes a difference. IS apathy. Common sense to let others choose your government? You can dismiss my words as "immature" (as you insinuate by your comment) if you want to. I am not the only person who has this view. Many astute voters have the same view. Your dismissive attitude shows a tendency to justify your inaction. You don't even attempt to show why your view is correct. You simply state your opinion and expect to be respected for it, which is either laziness or arrogance. You do, however, find it necessary to insult.

      “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you”

      To pretend It's "common sense" to disengage
      and let whatever happens happen shows the immaturity for which you berate me. (Notice I've not insinuated anything. I say what I mean.)

    4. LOL You have no idea the political history I have and the activism I have done around this country and I wont bore you with the details . Your going to have to work alot of years my dear to catch up with my politician activism , but hey let me know how that all works out for ya :) keep on voting for the lessor of two evils keep on compromising thats what put us into this mess.

    5. Nor do you mine. You certainly make a lot of assumptions that are in no
      way alluded to. The lesser of two evils? Where did you get that?
      I've voted third party for decades, and that is exactly what I
      promoted. Maybe you should re read my post:

      "I encourage everyone to vote for third parties. If you decide to just
      not vote, no one (out of your immediate circle) will know why or even
      care. As long as the duopoly gets the vast majority of the vote, they
      can pretend they have a mandate, even if the majority of the people
      don't agree with their policies. Mass rejection of both parties, in the
      form of protest votes can be quantified. Even if your third party
      candidate doesn't win, a mass defection in favor of third parties will
      demand that notice be taken".

      A third party is one of the
      two? Which third party is one of the two? And what, pray tell, is the
      correct one? One of the two major ones? I mean, if you don't want
      dems, you don't want GOP, and you don't want a third party, what do you
      want? Or should I add "lack of reading comprehension"? You really want
      to argue that much? People like you are what's wrong with this
      country. Please...bore me. I am quite interested in what activism you
      participated while supporting no dems, reps, or third parties.

      call me "my dear". And you STILL have done nothing but type your
      opinion, I guess I'm supposed to be awestruck by your "alluded to
      activism". Sheeesh. Some people.

  3. We need for this government to work as 50 individual governments. You want to live in socialism? Cool. Go to California. Maybe it will be a utopia. Maybe you'll love it!

    You want to live in a gun toting "greed is good" uber capitalistic government society? I'd imagine Texas would go that way.

    You want creation taught to your children in schools? The south.

    You want...?

    Get my point?

    1. Yep. And the government you describe is the government the founders envisioned...and the government they described in the Constitution. The majority of the power was to be held by the people and the states. We're supposed to be 50 individual, sovereign states, each with it's own constitution. The federal government was just supposed to be the 3 main branches and that's it. Some of the founders didn't even want a standing army.

      Instead we have literally hundreds of departments and thousands of programs paying for everything imaginable from the the public coffers.

      But, if we would have followed the Constitution, we'd have 50 individual states, each competing for people by trying to offer the lowest taxes and best benefits for those taxes... and like you said... if you don't like the way your state runs things you can vote with your feet. People are already doing that... moving out of NY and Cali in droves... and into Texas and Fl...because they offer much lower taxes.

      But there is no way to escape the oppressive, bloated leviathan that is the federal government.

    2. We need the federal government. The problem is we need them to watch the state governments and corporations. Some of the state governments are just as corrupt as you think the fed is. We need some kind of government that is watching out for the rights of human beings.

    3. The majority of the power, according to the founders' vision, was to be held by the people, you say? Would you mind describing these people to me?

    4. certainly not the ones that got us in this mess. anyone other than these crooks. the people should be REAL public servants, not just puppets for the corporations, to do their bidding. TAKE ALL MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.

  4. Our government is too big. The incentives for the money that it passes out are too large. That's the reason that politicians are bought and paid for.

  5. Deregulation and privatization are government sanctioned theft from the people.
    If the properties,commodities and resources were sold at true replacement value. There would be no market to sell it to or the investor would make no profit.
    So this all leads to a very simple conclusion.
    Every cent that's being charged as profit margin is one that you shouldn't be paying because those resources weren`t sold legally in the first place.
    Its immoral to make money on essential goods.

    Without exploitation and speculation there is no business.
    So any privatization deal leads to a worse deal for the consumer.
    We got robbed blind, fair and square, by the people we appointed in government worldwide...

    The only reason monarchs were stepping down in the last century was because they realized they couldn`t keep their power on the long term.
    Look at the russians , that scared the **** out of them.
    So they formed a fake democracy to sell the illusion that we have a choice. Before democracy was a fact, there were not many people properly educated to even know what they are voting on.
    So isn`t it obvious that its fundamentals were being laid by the people in power to stay in power with consent of the people???

    Privatization was nothing else but masking up property so if there is a revolt,revolution or unrest in the people and a government gets overturned, the rich stay rich, the elite stays elite, and the royals stay royal.
    This way all a smart way of getting all the real riches in "private hands" where they are protected by the same law that lets you keep your house.

    A solution ?
    Its not pretty....

    1. so go start a milk, egg, poultry farm and don't make any money at it but give yourself a wage and sell your product as you say others should not make a profit. Then you get married and have 5 kids that need or want to go to university. But you can't charge any more cause you can't increase your profit margin. Maybe you think next winter will be a bad one or maybye you think next summer will not be good for crops etc or maybe it will be great. You can't hedge your risk by buying or selling futures on wheat or Corn for feed for your animals because that is all capitalist nonsense.

      What has happened in the exploitation of the financial crisis ought not to be brought down to a level of hatred for capitalism. Greedy bankers are not all that is capitalism. The bankers got a chance to exploit something driven by pure greed. People making a good that is in demand and making a profit for said good based on what others are willing to pay is not bad.

    2. Capitalism is not wrong.
      Its wrong to apply it to essential goods and services and allow speculation with other peoples livelihood for the sake of making a little bit more on the exchange.

      There`s nobody trading on Wallstreet with the money they need to eat .
      Why not ?
      Because there`s a risk.
      And hedging is like playing black jack against the bank on multiple tables and on multiple boxes at once and allows you to manipulate the outcome in your favor.

      You cannot defend a system in which the extra influx of capital is not utilized for actual operations and is only used to represent supply/demand values for a stock which are not based on pure business data but the investors trust in the future and the outcome of the algorithm that determines long term profitability and growth.

      If companies would actually use the money wise and are also protected from sudden withdrawals of capital then the money would be to good use.

      But we all know companies go public when the founders want to cash out and they think they can sell at top dollar.

      Obligations and bonds have a more constructive role to provide capital since they are given and returned at predetermined times allowing for strategic investments.
      Something the stock exchange has nothing to do with.

      Its obvious you are not well informed about the consequences of corporate greed across the globe or you would not make such a cheap typically conservative republican "get off my property" type attitude.

      Look at the world as a whole.
      (If your brain can grasp that perspective)

      Forget what you learned and use analytic skills to figure out the long term issues to eventual lead to a better place to live for us all.

      Any person who has seen the world first hand. (and not only the shiny tourist resorts and metropolises)
      Would never make your statement.
      I bet you wouldn`t even dare traveling outside the first world.

      Everybody has a right to an opinion.
      But its also wise to keep an open mind to other options to discuss the merits.

      ITs fine to make profit.
      But 2000% ?
      1200% ?
      thats pure rape.

      Especially if because of speculation.
      Prices of rice go up 300% in a year (2009)
      Prices of wheat are unaffordable for many importing 3rd world countries.
      And this has nothing to do with supply and demand but endlesss hedging against a hedge thats hedged into another hedge.

      Contracts switch hands between pure speculators because they know the good has a stable value and it switches hands at slightly higher rates each time.
      After a split up futures contract has been traded 300-400 times before the actual "goods" are produced its obvious that the end buyer is worst off in this process and is unfairly charged more money for the same goods to fill the pockets of the speculators.
      Total nonsense.

      Its for people like you that resource wars are fought out.
      Hardheads that won`t face the music and reality of 21st century existence.
      Just pollute all you can , drive as far as you can and eat all you can.
      Because one of this days its all going to run out.
      And then you`ll going to have to do with the memories because the direction things are heading.
      Personal transportation, good food and long vacations will soon become unaffordable for most of us pushing the middle class into poverty and the upper classes in several classes with about 70% of the population at poverty level.
      Only a spark away from apocalypse.

      I`m not a doomsday preacher.
      But we have to start taking responsibility for our own actions and hedge against the end of the world.

      This is a dangerous game and nobody realizes everybody has run out of credits and is playing with their last life.

      And just like in a computer game you`ll grasp on to that little bit of health hoping to make it to recovery.
      But sometimes you just have to face you lost.

    3. Companies make profit from what someone is willing to pay for a product or service. You make it sound like purchasing something is being forced on someone. That is simply not the case.

      What companies in general go public so people can cash out? Its a small percentage. People start companies work harder and longer than a 9 to 5 5 day a week job and they get compensated for that.And they stay with the company til they retire or the board tosses them for not doing a good job. Mark Zuckerberg will have his day in the boardroom one day.

      The futures markets have speculation in them but they are a vehicle for actual commodities producers, distributors and consumers to hedge against future risks or not realizing their desired prices.

      Derivaitive markets on mortgages provide the same thing but got abused on a monumental scale. But at the same time basically stupid people took on debt they realistically had either no plan on repaying in their lifetime or no ability to repay period.

      So we can point the finger all the way around. Some will say people need big brother to say ....people you can't take on so much debt while others like me would say what person in their right mind would buy a residence that they can only pay the interest payments on?

      We are clearly seeing in Europe that socialism is not sustainable with extreme benifits. It is sustainable with cooperation from the private sector and the workforce.

      But to the people with no money and I guess brains with regards to personal debt will hate the rich who created their jobs for as long as this goes on.

      And so it is because of people like me that resourse wars are fought? Not the fact that the USA imports $500 billion in Oil anually. Its me? You are ignorant on a monumental scale.

      And the reason why people will not be able to afford vacation and all those good things you suggest is because something can be manufactured in Asia for a fraction of the price. Make it in america then and pay triple the price so people can complain yet again that they cannot afford to take those nice vacations.

      I shake my head at your lack of logic or a real grasp of the situation

      And I am a doomsday preacher. The debt and money printing is gong to result in one of two things. The worst depression in history or hyper inflation the likes of the world has never seen. But this would be the result of socialist societies being supported by debt and personal debt that is unsustainable. Not capitalism making goods and providing services that there is a market for.

    4. "You cannot defend a system in which the extra influx of capital is not utilized for actual operations and is only used to represent supply/demand values for a stock which are not based on pure business data but the investors trust in the future and the outcome of the algorithm that determines long term profitability and growth."

      The US stock market trades billions of shares a day. You want to say that the companies traded there are not valued based on business data and that a company on the brink of bankfuptcy will still be valued high in dollar terms because some investors trust in algorithm and thus the algorithm in the black boxes is actually making the market move? If that was the case then we could just have programed the black boxes to buy Bear Stearns even though it was illiquid and bankrupt and everything would have been fine. But actually hard data was suggesting that they were having trouble in the overnite repo market and thus had cash or liquidity problems and thus the PURE BUSINESS DATA suggested there was a problem.

      APPLE makes great products and people want them. They are of high quality and high price and people still want them. Its the highest valued company on the planet and the people who own the stock over the long term have benifited from that based on hard business data. Maybe Apple could expand the price elasticity model and sell twice as much and make the same amount in profit I do not know but regardless your thinking is simply wrong.

    5. I`m sorry i have not expressed myself more clearly, my mistake
      online everything is the way it`s written down and it's hard to have a clear open discussion.

      In this case we`re both wrong but its better to discontinue this discussion because we`re both hardliners anyway and will never admit wrong/right.

      So what a few million was given in charity.
      That makes them all saints... come on please.

      People in London buy water supplies in Africa and South America.
      There`s no justifying that.

      Buying fertile land abroad to grow grapeseed oil instead of wheats starving local populations.
      That`s very moral.

      The list is endless and i admit also good is being done with profits.
      Charity will never exceed 1 or 2 % though...

      The fact that a large part of the population of a certain country has reaped the benefits of years of colonisation, exploitation, manipulation and strategic investments does not justify it , or make it alright. It just means you got your share, and until now got away with it, so you defend the concept that made you wealthy.
      Its perfectly understandable. I would too.

      People need to grow balls and wipe each other out, keeping our composure is whats killing us. Less people, less problems...

      We need a good old fashioned world war.
      Maybe my country will come out victorious this time and piss on your people for 100 years...

      And then we can resume this discussion.
      The problem is not philosophy, business data , right or wrong.
      Its a problem of perspective and that is something i cannot fix.

      I`m european btw but i did work on broadening my perspective and world view.

      And in my continent.
      Contracts negotiated at gunpoint(forceful) are deemed illegal and can be overturned.

      While that's exactly what your wonderful private sector is doing in all American war zones, rebuilding after you bomb the **** out of it at 1000% rate paid with interest.
      Good business concept.
      Sounds like a good old italian/russian extortion racket.
      I think they should even profit more.
      I hear its hot in iraq...
      Poor contractors..

    6. Apple could sell twice as much at half price and make the same profit.
      There`s plenty of margin !!!!!!!!

    7. What if all that money on the stock exchange would be used to actually boost businesses , and domestic production ???
      Or what if it would just be spent ????
      It would be much better for the economy then a billionaire adding another 4% to his wealth.

      I`m not saying we should buy every poor person a cake on his birthday..
      Its just weird that the stock exchange system works in a way that the house always wins... or did you forget about trader comissions.

      They can take 100k$ of your money , advise you to invest in their AA+ fund. Make wrong decisions on their investment.
      Still get their paycheck
      And when you see your investment lost 40% value and you want your money back.
      You can pay a sell comission to the trader and probably a fine for taking your money out early.
      This is pure theft because if they hit profit they`ll spend as much of it as possible to prevent payout or taxation and give you your 15% that was on the brochure.
      Even if they made that in a week.

      How can an investor be responsible for the losses and not get a full share of the gains ?

      Idiots that took mortgages they couldn`t afford.
      I also don`t have mercy with them.
      They tried to live it up and failed...
      But if they are talked into an unsafe product by a financial institution that makes money no matter the outcome. That's pure treachery.
      And that the taxpayer has to bailout those losses to the banks and still let them keep the assets.
      That's a double dip situation.
      4-5 years after the bailout.. most of the companies do 3-4 Billion $ profit per quarter now..
      Didn`t they just get rid of their toxic assets in a very smart way ?
      Couldn`t they borrow against their own future operations ?
      These people messed up big time, lost other peoples money and made other people pay for their mistakes.
      There`s no justifying that..
      They should go to jail.
      OR at least give up a large part of their rewards..

  6. Ok, OWS got the worlds attention and got people talking. What's next? How about a campaign upset? What would happen if a sudden surge was created to elected a relative unknown like Gary Johnson of New Mexico? Not because he is an independent, but simply as a break from the 2-party system caused by a sudden change by the people. Now, wouldn't that make the 1%ers scramble and fall over each other trying to figure out what went wrong? A good time to strike when they are weakest.

    1. how do you see a "let's privatize all" libertarian as appealing to OWS supporters? libertarianism is about the most self centered political affiliation, OWS is based on "lets work together for betterment of all". they are OPPOSITES. 1%ers love libertarians, as the "party line" of libertarianism would allow them to rape and pillage without restraint. voting for a candidate "just because he isnt one of those from the big 2" is a ridiculous concept. that causes nothing but logjams of legislation. ineffective governance is better than nonfunctional governance. your "solution" champions the latter. he advocates public funds being siphoned into private schools. he advocates social security medicaid funding being handled by state governance, rather than a nation wide uniform policy. he advocates elimination of income tax, but champions taxing purchases (such a system places the highest tax burden on the POOREST). in his defense, he does advocate elimination of government as "moral police", and elimination of torture, open ended incarceration without charge, and repeal of the patriot act, but on the same page says stem cell research should get no government funding. he chants the worrisome mantra of "deregulation". ive seen what happens when a country has no OSHA, no EPA. the workers suffer. the environment gets destroyed. he is no solution, just more problems.

    2. i know i am a little late but i just now found this info. i agree with you but it would never work. the policies of this giant monster we have let grow, will never let enough people get together to change this rhythm they have going on. we all would fight to the death for what each one of us believe is right. my opinion is small because i don't have millions in the pot. but the best way to stop a lot of this crap is take the money and benefits out of politics. that will slow it down anyway. but you can't fix something that is wrong to start with.

  7. in response to all the posters toeing the "job creating rich folks" line, i have to say you might want to read your history books again. "america the supplier of the world" was NOT created by capitalists, it was the fruit of the labors of industrialists. they are NOT the same thing. capitalists have actually, time and again, done extensive damage to our economy. our current state of economic woe is directly related to the complete stewardship of our economy by capitalists. ford motor company was a product of industrialists. facebook is a product of capitalists. the near defunct american steel industry was the product of industrialists. ebay is a product of capitalists. jp morgan was a capitalist. eli whitney was an industrialist. if you cant see the distinction, perhaps a visit with your optometrist is in order

  8. Right theme, social justice....but poor delivery in my view.

  9. if the majority doesnt vote, the remaining minority decides who runs the ship. minority rule (numerical, not racial, of course) is the problem the occupy folks are seeking remediation of. "opt out" and you insure more of the same, only with an assurance of things getting worse. fortunately, i like my kraft mac n cheez without the milk or butter (just have to add the cheezy powder slowly and mix quite a bit). as to why the worshippers of hayek, freidman, rand and the whole "austrian economics" clown college ALWAYS feel a need to inject religion into US politics, well, the truth is the majority are christian reconstructionists. they hope to stimulate a more rapid collapse, thus allowing the "talmudic law" society they dream of to come to fruition here. if you're unfamiliar with the precepts of the CR folks, educate yourselves by some quick research. they are a VERY scary bunch (in a political/social sense). just the idea of stopping the machinations of these retro bronze agers is enough to inspire me to actually participate in the electoral process for the first time in my fairly lengthy stay on this planet. ron and rand paul are poster boys of their plot. my governor (rick scott) and his tea party cartel in power in tallahassee are as well. the arizona xenophobes as well. if you dont vote en masse, these folks WILL take over, and you'll be treated to such niceties as the stoning of adulterers, witches, and homosexuals, the church (as in THEIR church) holding great political and social power, and elimination of much of the good in governance here. this is not just a national level threat, these tealiban folks are working grassroots as well, so extreme scrutiny of all candidates for ALL offices with any power need very careful examination. i have long been disillusioned with the "crap on rye/crap on wheat toast" choices we are offered here, but this genuine threat trumps that. stop them, please.

    1. Hear, hear-- Thankyou sir- well said and very true. Even if these clowns don't take over we will end up with the conservative republican crowd, which is just as bad for different reasons. They want to go back to trickle down economics and remove all regulations on big bussiness, which is the same policies that landed us in our recent mess. They deny all climate change science and evolution, and want to teach creationism in our schools. These people are going to vote in massive numbers to try and remove what they see as a secular leaning liberal president. Now if they think that about Obama, who has actually not gone far enough to the left if you ask most liberals, what do you think it will be like under them?

    2. 100% agreement here wald0. obama is just another corporate fascist, but he's the less objectionable corporate fascist running. opting out of the electoral process by a single side merely insures the other side is given a default win, as our american "conservative" taliban will mobilize at the very least the geezers who took advantage of the policies they now object to for decades. an america without trade unions, or minimum wages, or jobsite safety requirements, or food for the hungry, and myriad other services and regulatory checks and balances. a return to 1890s vintage america, only without industry, is not a prospect id like to see come to fruition. the answer is to support the sock puppet that leaves the least objectionable taste in ones mouth for now, and begin a grassroots movement of finding viable candidates to fill the house of reps and local governments with in a genuine 3rd party. it's how the repubs displaced the whigs. the house is the target to shoot for in the beginning due to the smaller districts. it's the strategy the CR folks have been using, only they are co-opting the repubs rather than striking off anew. such seats dont require huge warchests of cash to win, just lots of effort, and a message that is VIABLE. it would mean many interest groups will have to cooperate, and many will have to be willing to compromise. you cant idealize society in a single election, and the diversity of political desires means nobody can be 100% satisfied.

  10. I'd like to thank those innovative millionaires whom taken the hard life of productivity and forfeited their pleasures in order for me to have a good job, pay my bills and letting me waste time on my pleasure pleasing lifestyle

  11. Nothing will change until the people realize that Jewish supremacists and Israeli dual-citizens are at the helm of this sinking ship.

    1. Oh yeah! Suddenly everything makes sense! 9/11, area 51, the grassy knoll, 2012! How did I not see it before? Gosh, I feel enlightened, thanks for that!

  12. OCCUPY is not dead. COPWATCHELLENSBURG and COPWATCHERS is not dead. WE are making progress both local and not (check my channel on youtube russelljds or copwatchellensburg). Americans are fed up and that is what we have ALL been waiting for. Thing are going to change fast and furious soon so we must be prepared - with -

    WE THE PEOPLE offer? the following solution:

    WE call for a Constitutional Convention to add an amendment!

    28th Amendment

    Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights? of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise? over $XXX.00 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

    1. How do i get involved? I love the amendment and would love to help. But i live so far away from where it all happens, in rural southeastern U.S. Like I said people down here think occuppy has died, we haven't heard anything in so long. When occuppy first started i wanted to get it going here, but there is nothing but conservative, religioius, republicans here- so I couldn't get any support. I really can't drive to New York either so how do I get involved?

    2. YES, SIR!! Do it in such a way that they will NOT be permitted to reject it!

  13. Henrose if ya aint gonna contribute to the "win" and post demoralizing speculation and fantasies - maybe get out now. You clearly have no idea or experience.

  14. Our American system is great its the people who are broken, there are no "gods and devils" why even bring that up, and if you are not willing to FIGHT maybe even have to kill - you may wanna get out now.

  15. Douglas Cox worked in the Office of Legal Counsel for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Here is what he stated in the Wall Street Journal, February 2, 1998: “The entire justice system is predicated on the theory that witnesses will tell the truth. Permitting a culture of lying to take root in the justice system would ultimately destroy the system” He believes a lying culture would ultimately destroy our justice system! (Or has it already?)

    That means the nation would collapse into anarchy or worse.Our leaders, both secular and religious, should be the chief examples and enforcers of the law. That is what unifies the nation. If our leaders are examples in breaking the law, our system of justice must certainly fall apart. Can we afford not to care about adultery and lying in America? If Americans don’t care, how much longer they can stand?

    1. @henrose,

      I don't know from where are you copy/pasting the text, but it appeared completely unedited/unformatted. I had to edit all of your comments.

  16. Before former President Clinton testified, and before the Starr Report was released, this was written in the February 3, 1998, New York Times: “In Norman, Oklahoma, David L. Boren, the former United States senator who is now president of the University of Oklahoma, said that when he asked his freshman American Government class about the scandal, almost all the students said they believed President Clinton was lying, and they tended to respond: ‘All politicians are crooks, very few of them tell the truth, few of them are faithful to their spouses, so why not have one who’s smart and knows how to get things done?’ he said. ‘That’s almost an exact quote. The attitude is, we really don’t respect him, but what do you expect from a politician?’ “‘To me it’s deeply disturbing,’ he went on, recalling the awe he felt when he saw his first president, Harry Truman. “‘In times of crisis, times of hardship,’ Mr. Boren said, ‘a level of trust between the American people and their government particularly their leader, is an essential element of what’s needed in the country.

    We have passed from anger about what’s going on in our political system to cynicism and alienation. And to me, cynicism and alienation are more frightening than anger’” These students believed the former president committed adultery and lied—and it made no difference to them! Boren found this deeply disturbing. And so do we. But more importantly, so does God! As Boren said, “In times of crisis, times of hardship,” you must have a deeper trust and character to survive. And those times of crisis are fast approaching. Do we grasp how fast our morals are declining?

  17. “[John Adams said that] children learn the meaning of morality, religion, and respect for law from the habitual fidelity of their parents to one another.”

  18. Many of us have been victims of dysfunctional families to some degree or another. If our families are sick, they produce sick children! The solution lies in strong, moral-building families. Let’s look at what our first two presidents believed about the family. “In short, the Founders’ generation believed that men’s and women’s interests were complementary, and they saw marriage as the divinely ordained, naturally good way to organize life.

    George Washington had started his presidency by pointing out that public life must be grounded on private morality. His successor, John Adams, devoted husband of Abigail, was even more specific: The ‘foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.’ He went on to say that children learn the meaning of morality, religion, and respect for law from the habitual fidelity of their parents to one another” (Angelo Codevilla, The Character of Nations; emphasis added).

    John Adams said the “foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” That means the family must strongly teach its children not to lie and commit adultery! If the families are not moral, how can the nation be moral? Our forefathers laid the foundation of a great nation. They built America with God’s blessings. Today, we are destroying America and bringing God’s curses upon ourselves.

  19. Today, Americans have departed from the ideals of their forefathers. We reason that religion and morality are nice, but certainly not necessary for the overall well-being of the nation. We have been led to falsely assume that private morality and public duty are separate issues. George Washington would have been appalled by such reasoning. And he was the father of our nation.

    Abraham Lincoln would have been appalled. And he saved the nation from ruin during the Civil War. Times have certainly changed in the United States of America. Imagine a fornicator or adulterer being publicly ridiculed because of his sin. For that matter, imagine a public official even calling those acts sinful. Does it seem old-fashioned?

    It wasn’t 200 years ago. Consider the changes in America over the past 200 years. President Clinton received his highest approval ratings while in the midst of numerous White House scandals. This is what should disturb America, and even frighten America, most of all. That would not have been the response of Americans even 20 years ago!

    A White House scandal is not just about the White House. It’s about America and Americans. It’s about all of us. It’s about you! When Americans go from proclaiming that a free society can only exist when founded on private morality to thinking that character just doesn’t matter, it is time to ask some hard questions about the future of this nation.

    The American people’s response is a frightening portent of their nation’s future. If they fail to understand, that doesn’t make the bad news go away.

  20. When we have the capacity and know how to digitally record each event and use the internet to inflate their value globally, we would soon BE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA should we exercise this tool. If a single person like myself (a cyber dunderhead) could use these methods effectively, then why would this movement, whose expertise lies here, play by the opposition's rules on their playground? I am a very reluctant conspiracy theorist. I didn't even accept 9 11 until 2005. What I believe is that it seems very fishy to me that the name of a movement, "OCCUPY," would actually enshrine a loosing tactic: "Concentrate all of our limited resources so that they can be easily corralled and taken out by police action." Wouldn't overthrow, demolish, or abolish Wall street be our goal, a better choice of movement names breaking away from the tradition of changing the guard, as in a new set of occupiers?

  21. Abraham Lincoln stated, “Unless the great God who assisted [President Washington] shall be with me and aid me, I must fail. But if the same omniscient mind and almighty arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me, I shall not fail. … Let us pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now.”

  22. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington

  23. Indeed, George Washington, America’s first president, championed this cause: that high morals and sincere religion had to be the fundamental building blocks of American society if it was to succeed and prosper. In his first inaugural address on April 30, 1789, President Washington said, “The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.” What we do in the privacy of our own home does matter! For Washington, this was not a peripheral issue. It was the foundation of our national policy!

    At the end of his presidential oath, Washington himself reverently added the words “so help me God.” Every president since has followed in his tradition. And according to Washington Irving, after our first president concluded his oath, he bowed down humbly and kissed the Bible. Without religion and morality, Washington knew the American “experiment” was doomed to fail.

    Washington’s ideals were not unlike those of his fellow Founders. Benjamin Franklin, a self-proclaimed non-churchgoer, was nevertheless very religious. In his autobiography, he listed 13 points to follow for attaining moral perfection, the last of which was to “imitate Jesus.” During the Constitutional Convention, when the delegates arrived at an impasse, it was Franklin who offered this solution: Pray for the “assistance of heaven.” That from a non-churchgoer!

    Even Thomas Jefferson, not considered very religious by many, demanded this of the American people in his Notes on the State of Virginia: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

    1. Why do people try to inject religion into every conversation or issue? The last thing this country needs is more closed minded religion making smart people do st*pid things. Morality is not and never has been contingent on religion, period. And as far as I know most of the founding fathers were deists, not theists. In fact Benjamine Franklin was not only a non curch goer he was not religious, here he explains it in hs own words since I know you will refuse to accept mine.

      "Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those
      influenc’d the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when,
      after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said
      to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which
      were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

      Now if he were alive today and knew what science knows today there is no question that the he would be an atheist. The only reason he remained a deist is because of the same reason he became one instead of an atheist, because there was no other plausible explanation for where man and the great diversity of life came from at that time. Franklin was one of the biggest supporters of Elightenment style thinking taking over religious reasoning, which means he beleived in the power of science.

    2. So what is the point of your comment? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the documentory about the Occupy movement.

  24. I wish this movement had more impact but, I haven't even seen or heard anything about it except this doc. for months. I thought it had died out already. I watch all kinds of new shows and get most of my real info off line from independant journalist, why is no one reporting anymore on this movement? I have heard some people saying it turned into more like a big hippy festival then a real serious demonstration in places and lost its credibility to a large extent. Maybe the powers that be found out that if they would not send the police nothing much would really happen and the movement would die. Because if they had of sent them I would have seen it on t.v., I garantee that. Every news show comes a runnin when there is blood to record, arrests being made, any drama in general that suggests we should be scared. I remember when all the occupy stuff was going on in new York and the police were out there arresting people and beating them, it was all over t.v.

  25. When you are outnumbered, overwhelmed in firepower, the best tactic is not a frontal attack. It is surprising that a movement which claims to be expert in internet knowledge (smart enough to be co creators of the internet) would then put all of its eggs in one territorial/real estate occupy movement. I have learned how effective even one determined person can be, demonstrating only one hour per day in front of the local courthouse and effectively writing about it on the internet. The Judge's words several times to me were "There has been a lot of discussion about you in Judge's chambers." I even had the Prime Minister's office on my blog twice in 2010. I wonder why a tactic of roving, simultaneously timed, set of large numbers of short lived demonstrations, in front of Police stations, courthouses, Post offices tax offices, municipal offices, financial districts, every where all the time, wouldn't be a more effective tactic? THAT WAY THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO DISPERSE ITS RESOURCES AND THIN THEM OUT. LARGE NUMBERS OF DEMONSTRATIONS, EACH CONVENIENTLY LOCATE NEAR WOULD-BE DEMONSTRATORS/recruits WOULD DRAW OUT THE GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCES AND COSTS TO COUNTER THEM. As the government realizes that they can't go to these instant demonstrations and effectively disperse them before they disperse themselves and fade quietly away back into the urban jungle, they will abandon trying to jump here and there to stop them. Effectively that will mean victory on the entire landscape of North America. I can't see why a culture that can invent internet treasure hunts or instant gatherings on Facebook wouldn't do this instead of trying to hold wall street or Zucatti Park .

  26. What has turned me off the OWS movement is its focus on holding ground, as in public parks. This strategy, imo, can only lead to failure. Why? Because the real territory that must be occupied to win is the mind-scape, not landscape. Because the "enemy"is strongest in military tactics, armed uniformed men, and firepower. This conventional action, imo , sets the movement up for failure. We don't have the strength, nor do we want to use violent conflict, as our main tactic because it will turn us into terrorists in the easily duped eyes of the public. The establishment can easily inflate fears of social unrest in the public, into a rout against us. That is why I still wonder who is behind this, really. It sometimes seems to me to be a set up designed as a preemptive tactic to show the public that even large demonstrations can be easily controlled and squashed, that it is futile to attack the state. I wonder? A government that is capable of 9 11 is going to use every subversive tactic to win. Do you think that a country that has a century of covert destabilizing operations around the world, would not try this type of tactic? It sure beats overt armed conflict, like police state tactics, open to world media scrutiny as they did in the 60's and 70's. They almost lost that one because of the direct conflict which lost them support for the war in vietnam. Maybe it is just that the OWS have poor tacticians, logistic experts, and leaders, but it sure looks like it was set up to fail, to me.

  27. Having nobody vote would not mean an end to government. There are other ways to put people in power. It might be considered a draw and therefore a hung parliament and I believe in the UK the the Queen still has the power to form a government in an emergency, that or perhaps the monarchy would rule again. Don't forget, politicians can vote. It only takes one vote to win or lose an election and there is no minimum number of voters required for an election to be valid. Best to spend your vote as wisely as you can I think ;)

    1. It is impossible to spend a wise vote in the coming elections. The wisest is to refuse to vote and to make sure they know that.

    2. You don't live here and do not understand what is even at stake, please don't tell people that. There are real people that will suffer as a direct consequence of people not voting. You guys get on some forum and just say what you think is cool, whay you think because you watched a few documentaries. What do we tell the poor kids that no longer get free lunches because people didn't vote? What do we tell the family that no longer gets food stamps? What do we tell the people like myself that will not recieve the treatment and medications they need, seniors who lose thier prescription benefits and have to deal with the wonderful coverage gap again that we just got rid of, the poor young girl that needs a pap or birth control, etc. These things will end under the candidate that already has his voters raring and ready to get to the polls. I know you are a compassionate person, a person that loves the environment, someone that understands the plight of the less fortunate and talks about health care for everyone- don't let idealist and people who have a set agenda in mind and nothing else talk you into the correctness of what you are saying. Research these candidates and what Obama has done so far, what Romney says he will do and you will see I am right, there is a huge difference.

      Not voting does nothing but give the people that want to see a future you say you despise the presidency, nothing more. Now really I would think that a laugh at this point seeing how arrogant you guys are being and not even realizing it but, I have to live with the direct consequences- I have to watch my parents live through it as well- the whole time it is some game you are playing, you have no horse in the race really because when all this happens you can say, "Wow, glad I don't live there." Well you remember you told people here not to vote, you helped it become reality.

    3. wald0
      i agree that telling people not to vote is a terrible idea. and i had a reply all typed that i stared at for a while before deleting. the reason i deleted it is due to the respect i have for your ideas and i kept telling myself that i misunderstood your post. so i will just ask. did you mean to give the impression that non Americans shouldn't comment on the upcoming elections? if i misunderstood i apologize.

    4. No, they should comment all they want, as long as they understand fully what the situation is. Most people from outside the U.S. don't know about all the little stuff, little in their eyes because it doesn't affect anyone not living here. I don't blame them for not knowing about it, like I said they don't live here and it is domestic policy. But if they are going to tell people to do something this potentially destructive they should understand exactly what the outcome would be. I would never tell someone not to vote in thier country without knowing exactly who was running and what they stood for.

      I know Az, she is a great person- there is no way she wants what will happen if people do not vote, she rants against those very things right here on this site all the time. There is no doubt what so ever that if we, the more liberal minded secularist types, don't vote the climate change denial, pro-religion/anti-science, hate immigrants, intervene in foreign countries, privatize everything and deregulate crowd will win.

      How can you guys think that will be a good thing, how will it help the cause in anyway. Mark my words if you guys don't vote they will not even miss you, no one will even know- oh, maybe a few hundred you guys tell or even a few thousand- but they will all be lost in the millions that do vote. It will simply place in charge the very people that you can count on to deregulate corporations, increase corporate influence, put religion back in our schools, continue and expand the the military industrial complex as well as the wars that they feed on like vampires slowly sucking the life out of our children, our elderly, and us- all in the name of more profit, thats all they want more profit. And we are going to give it to them if we don't vote!!! Obama doesn't begin to hold a candle to these people, I am not assuming they will do the things I list they boast about it, thats their so called platform. People that live outside the U.S, have and will fair better under Obama than under oe of these hawkish republicans. Romney criticizes Obama for not using military force against Iran and North Korea already, and he says Russia is our biggest geo-political enemy. He supports the war in Afghanistan and has criticized Obama for pulling out of Iraq, if you can call it pulling out. This guy is another American Empire type just like Bush was, now we all know how foreign countries around the globe faired under that psycho.

      Please don't let these people win, please I am begging. I will come and march with you, throw the first stones and go to jail right beside you- just vote if you live here and don't tell people not to no matter where you live. That is unless you know all this and you make the informed decision that people should still not vote, then I suppose its your right but, even then don't say the candidates are completely the same because that isn't true at all. If Romney wins the world will find that out the hard way, at the point of a gun.

    5. wald0
      i agree 100% with your assessment on Romney. and i obviously misinterpreted your other post. apologies.

    6. Or use your vote for someone else as a tool and upset the system. i.e. Gary Johnson.

  28. I am not voting ! I am not going to be part of the problem rather that the solution . I am not helping to to put another politican in office to stab me in the back , HELL NO. when you participate in voting fraud , fixed elelctions , the elite candidates and the puppet dictators than you are the fool they think you are. Groups of people are easier to control precisely because human behavior is patently predictable. It is the behavior of the individual that is statistically anomalous. Voting is not just rigged it it is the block and tackle of the system. It is statistically perfect. You can not beat it.

    1. Ok, so what do you think will happen if we all refuse to vote? I mean I agree that both sides have almost the same bent towards big money and special interests, that is apparent. It is not just a matter of convincing people like me of these things, because contrary to your arrogant rant about how f00lish someone must be if they dare disagree with you- there are other things to consider.

      I for instance desperately need the affordable care act to stay in place. Every month I have right at 900 $ worth of medications and doctor bills to pay for. Now under Romney I can look forward to simply not getting the care I need to stay alive, period. There is no way I can pay for it and he has already said he would turn it all back over to the states, my state has said they will turn it back over to the privately run insurance companies. So what do you expect of people in my situation? There are thousands of us across this country that will not recieve the care we need under Romney or anyone of his particular ideological bent- the whole Ayn Rand conservative movement aka the tea party and republican conservatives. Sure I would love a single payer system and I will continue to fight for it but, I have to live some how in the mean time. So, are we to just not vote and let whomever wins win? Would you do that if you were in our shoes?

      Because when you say they are all the same you are dead wrong, period. They may both be the same on issues such as- federal reserve, trade agreements, how our system is structured but, they differ greatly on many other things that do touch our lives on an everyday basis. I don't want to see planned parenthood closed, I do not want to see privatization of social security, medicare, our educational system, I do not want to see entitlements slashed while we give tax breaks to the rich, and I do not want private insurance companies running the show exclusively as they have in the past- the candidates do differ on these things. Obama is not everything I want, but he is what I want if the other choice is Romney. Letting Romney get elected will not help your cause, it will hurt it.

    2. if ya dont get it ya just dont get it.

    3. But what is the solution? Problems are easy to spot. It is easier to blame than it is solve the problem.

  29. Ask your self why DHS has ordered enough ammo to shoot every one twice in USA the Feds know whats coming... Don't vote and get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank they are not run by the FEDS but big banks.
    This will be your last chance.

    1. STOP telling people not to vote, please. You guys forget that while these larger issues are very important smaller issues are also important and they touch our lives daily. These comparatively smaller issues will be decided by who gets elected. Yes I want to get rid of the federal reserve as well and do away with fractional reserve banking all together, stop intervening in other countries, get off oil, etc. Now neither candidate is going to do these things, you are right about that as well. But, there are still huge differences in the America Romney would create and the America Obama is pushing for.

      Now I am not going to get into whose vision I think is better or who everyone should vote for, it’s pointless and I don't feel like the argument, but if issues such as health care, taxation, war, civil rights, abortion and family planning, etc. mean anything to you, and they should because they touch your life directly every day, you should vote. If we don't like corporations and the upper 1% ruling this country, if we don't like trickledown economics (which I hope by now is apparent to everyone for what it really is), if we don't like tax breaks for the already under taxed, ultra-rich, so called job creators, then lets at least elect the candidate that has fought against such things.
      Then we can return to this fight and at least have the confidence that we did the best we could with what was offered for now. You guys seem to think that if everyone didn't vote it would really shake up the powers that be and they would change things- wrong. They will applaud and say, "Ok. You guys don't want to be bothered with who is in charge so we will decide for you." That's all that will happen. You will be in affect giving them exactly what they have wanted all along, not to have to bother with the people at all.

      Another problem with telling people not to vote on this site in particular is that this site tends to draw people of a certain ideological predisposition. I tend to meet more liberally minded people here that support science and reason more than spirituality and intuitive reactions, they tend to support putting human rights and flourishing before profits and blind patriotism. Now these are the last people we need to stop voting because trust me there are plenty of these neo-conservative, religious types out there and they are going to vote. Do you want to live in their America?

    2. "Voting" ESPECIALLY since "electronic-voting" came into being, is like smoking pot and not "inhailing." What Mr. Clinton (CONVENIATELY) FORGOT to say, was that he inhailed it INTO-HIS-MOUTH! What a dumbass, people are who bought THAT ONE!
      Voting makes as much sense as spitting into the wind. NOT TOO SMART! BESIDES, lets be honest. (A word most politicains can't even spell.) "THAT'S CLASSIFIED." Which MEANS, "we know" but we aint telling you! "National Security" is another FRASE, just like "that's classified." Meaning WE AINT TELLING YOU! Classify THIS!

    3. ok man, I am pretty sure you wouldn't vote for the guy I want to win any way- so whatever floats your boat have at it.

    4. I don't say stop voting for ever, i say do not vote next time...and let it be known that we will not vote for the clowns that wish to represent and control our well being.. All politicians are owned. Name me one election where within weeks the mass did not expose some cheating, lies, abandonned promesses and the likes.
      We need to have a strong message that we will no longer follow in the wheel because the wheel is greased with interest for money and power, not interest in making a better country, a better world.
      What else will they listen to. They won't even listen to the mass accupying the streets, they do their best to create a mutiny among them.
      We need to unite against power because together we are much more powerful then they are, and seperated we are control against our will.

    5. az, by such a protest, you only insure the side you find most objectionable wins, because their supporters WILL vote. here in the us, we have no minimum count of voters required to have an election validated. that means your formula is instant win for the MOST objectionable candidates. that is known as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". never a good tactic, no matter the arena of competition. the true answer is to support the least objectionable for now, and build viable competition for the future. there can be no quick win. you have to chip at the wall brick by brick. it also means finding a platform that will have some mainstream appeal.

    6. the problem in americais that no matter who gets elected into power they all push forward with the same policies. the only solution, i believe, is that all presidential candidates get an equal donation for their campaign which would come from the state treasury. that would go a long way towards removing the government within the government; but im sure that would come at the cost of a few lifes along the way.

  30. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner. In theory Communism works great, blah blah blah.

    Know what would work great? A dictatorship, in theory of course. One person deciding what is best for him/her is best for everyone. And I am talking about food for all, clothes for all, transportation for all, with a bit of spending money thrown in for a hard days work. You will never see this in a democracy as long as you have different classes all voting for two evils (or three if you are Canadian).

    Imagine what the world would look like if they took one person from each country and let them decide the fate of the whole Nation? And I mean a person not voted for, but a person who has earned such a title because they were "parent of the year", or even you. You no doubt cannot stand the site of a homeless person living off the streets because he or she has a mental disorder and has been cast off by the system. Or half a school full of children who attend school with empty bellies, because their parents are unemployed and smoke crack just to forget they cannot feed their children. (I know, spend the crack money on food...Life is not that easy, get over yourself).

    Some of you are thinking I am r*tarded, and I wish I were. Life would be so much better not knowing about the seedy underbelly of this planet.

    Or at least make it mandatory that politicians can never have practiced law.

    1. I like that last phrase.

  31. know what creates jobs? very low pay wages. this is the world we live in, and this is the world we will die in. Hope you like Kraft dinner, without butter or milk.

  32. Great doc...

    At several of you commenting on the characteristics of a revolution:
    Look up what Thomas Jefferson had to say...

  33. Democracy died with the birth of the first corporation!
    Get grounded, STOP BUYING , start trading, mending, sharing, storing and loving.

    1. Don't forget to start growing! Even in a tiny space you an grow some healthy veggies and herbs. If people have a lawn they have plenty of space to grow kitchen garden.

  34. We need a huge change in this country but until we uproot the virus that is now in place we will continue to suffer as a people.

  35. Regardless of anything that is negative to be said about this movement it is obvious that there is a problem, and having a bitch fit about the people who support this movement is just as useless as throwing gasoline into a fire. We need to stop putting money before people, it's time for a mass revolution.

    1. Question and point. You say - " it's time for a mass revolution." - whose blood do we shed? It's sorta axiomatic - factual too that revolution calls on blood shed. Maybe - well no doubt I am dreamer but let the next revolution be without blood. Imagine that.

  36. Great doc! I feel we need a greater vocabulary for any economic model that isn't Capitalism. Because in the Western world it seems if it's not Capitalism, it's a model that carries a negative connotation - "this shit's got to go!"?

  37. We need to stop relying on big business and the government and build our own world with our own hands.

  38. Whoever posts after this is first after me. But I will watch this one.

  39. What the id**t occupiers call "greed" is natural self-interest. These fools would sack the coffers of the people who create jobs in America, and turn us into a third world nation. These parasites already pay zero taxes, yet feel entitled to ever more of the earnings from those who drag their ***es into work every day. Pathetic.

    1. Giallo, how do you honestly see this group? Do you think these people are lazy, do you think they don't have interest in helping others? Define natural self-interest, is that where you put your money before another living conscious being?

    2. giallo, can't take you seriously when you show absolutely no understanding of what "creates" jobs. Rich people don't create jobs, ambitious people create jobs when they see that an economic need needs to be filled and then hire people to help create whatever it is that will fill that need(this is all brought on by economic demand, and that is how jobs are created). The speculation of rich people is not the driver of the economy... speculation is just a result of the greedy trying ride the coat-tails of a good idea and take advantage of someone elses creativity. What most of you Reagan-likers fail to understand is the very biological basis of humanity is one of social interdependence... it is the baseline level of human interaction and that natural socialism is in conflict with your belief. Greed is natural, but it is also like juvenile delinquency. It is aspect of humanity that was comparatively rare before the industrial revolution and then exploded in our society with artificial and arbitrary rules, laws and regulation.

    3. EXCELLENT comment. This giallo is buying into the propaganda a little too much... And, among all the other details that could be gone into, when all those regular people (you know, the ones who ALSO drag their asses into work everyday) are making SO MUCH less (sometimes as much as 350 times less, according to some of the stats I've seen) than the "geniuses" at the top, well, there's something wrong with that, alright. Greed is NOT inherently good, and these Gekkos are never going to get me to buy into the idea that it is.

    4. If you really want something to get mad about check out the bad behaviour of Barclays and HSBC. Fixing interest rates etc, basically ripping people off, again! They have been fined but not enough, other banks are involved, obviously. Old Boys network, they probably went to school together :/ And where is Bob Diamond? Hiding in his penthouse and offering nothing but hollow apologies.
      I wonder how well a fat wallet works as a salve for a pricked conscience, supposing he has one that is!

    5. They're ripping people off again because nothing happened to any of them in '08! They are almost completely above the laws that apply to the rest of us, and they know it. And over here, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in '98 permitted financial institutions to gamble with peoples money legally, anyway, so, hey!... if they lost big on a roll of the dice with our money, they were just in Vegas, anyway, right? Let's let it stay there, shall we? The ONLY thing that needed to be decided was who was going to cover the losses. When you permit banking institutions (which SHOULD be separate from commerce, in this regard) to gamble like Wall Street, when they don't even understand Blackjack all that well, the "house" always ends up footing the bill.

    6. Well this time were throwing the book at them, we're going to show them we mean business! We're going to have....another bloody enquiry and then they might say sorry and promise not to do it again. By then though we'll all be bored witless with the whole thing and nobody will care anymore. Like the Leveson Enquiry. In the mean time they'll find a sacrificial goat, we can all pick on some office junior to make us feel better and they can find new ways syphon the money from our pockets. How do we change that? Regulate the pants off them maybe?
      Who's qualified for that job?
      I would offer but I still get a bit stuck on my 12 times table ;)

    7. Regulations, you bet! Regulate the HELL out of those mofos... Pay someone COMPLETELY UNLIKE THE RANDIAN GREENSPAN (or Bernanke...) an unassailable FORTUNE to keep their heads on the blocks with the axe raised over them AT ALL TIMES.

    8. I forget how much the fine was, 290 million I think? Whatever, it's a drop in the ocean. By insurmountable fortune, would you be thinking more that that? I'd be corruptable for a whole lot less ;)

    9. We're in a "who watches the watchers" type scenario, aren't we? But... yes, SOMETHING like that... if there's a good person left anywhere who is capable of accepting it, and then refusing to act in any way that is unethical to the people and the laws (which need to be changed).

    10. We are indeed. Would you trust those that choose the watchers? Maybe we should employ the Occupiers? British tax law fills about fifteen thousand pages, so much of it and it seems the more laws they add the more room they make for legal loopholes. I wonder what the Big Bankers Book of Rules' looks like. Laws don't make people ethical, they just punish them if they're caught :)

    11. You're right, they don't. But... while my father was an executive his entire career (with a background in economics and mathematics, as a matter of fact), he spent that career helping the poor and disadvantaged, when he was way, WAY smart enough to have started his own firm and been more or less completely employed for his own profit. Some of his friends in later years (one of them a state legislator in South Carolina) even tried to get him to run for political office, but he refused... So I know for a fact such people exist, but one problem is, how in the hell do you get people like that into positions where they can do the most good, when they know well enough what's going to come with the territory, and that goes against their grain too much?

    12. If you want to change it you have to be in it... You know it's not that easy! I don't believe people are inherently bad or willingly corrupted. I think most people are good, they just make mistakes now and then. Maybe after a hundred tiny mistakes your threshold for corruption changes. Maybe these people have become bad by degrees. I guess it doesn't matter how they got there though, unless you realise that it could happen to anyone. Its a shame people like your dad don't find themselves in the right place at the right time, but maybe he knew that he was doing more to help right where he was. Where he was needed. :)

    13. I think that is exactly the way he felt about it. He also had a congenital heart defect that I THINK made him a little reluctant to take on any more stress than he was already under, though he never complained... and died (relatively young) in his sleep after working that same day.

    14. Sorry to hear that Mr P :( big cuddles!

    15. Humans are dual animals...Jonathan Haidt got it right in The Righteous Mind when he described us as 90% chimp (independence loving) and 10% bee (hive forming). We tend to be social only when the time is right, sporadically, whereas true super organism members (as people like George Soros and perhaps you wish humanity was) relinquish all individuality for the good of the group, all the time. There is no outside the box creative thinking in a super organism. It would be a dismal life indeed for humans of it were the case.

    16. Dual animals? Well, that is a serious limitation of humanity. Humans are as social as chimps. There are no chimps living alone by themselves and it is very rare, to non-existent, for a human to live their whole life without any help from other people. That is a fantasy. Second, it is undeniable that our society is now in the process of transition into a 3rd world nation, so your solution is no solution. The central banking system is based on enormous power held by an extremely small minority (an infinitesimal minority!) to profit sort of like a Queen bee. But unlike a Queen bee without having to contribute anything tangible. I would argue that the super organism of humanity is society, but unlike insects it is malleable and can be hammered into a different structure. The current monetary system is the problem, the movement and manipulation of money is what just happened in the recent past and it is the result of failed neo-liberal ideology promoted by those like Milton Friedman and many from the University of Chicago and all others who espouse the same. It is failed policy and Occupy is one of it's many more vocal products.

    17. Oh- I see, so we are all strict individualists or we have to be completely of the hive mind, there is no middle ground- sounds like you may hae read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Human beings are much more social than you want to admit but no one ever said we should all completely relinquish our individuality to the hive, nice straw man you created to tear down though. Since when did having the common everyday compassion necessary to place human beings before profit require giving up your individuality? Something tells me that if you had of been at Jones town you would have been first in line for the kool-aid, yet you think you are an individualist- they really have you hooked like an addict, and you don't even realize it. You have been convinced to beg twice as hard for half as much by the very people that placed you in hardship in the first place.

    18. If you read what I wrote, that I agree with Haidt that we have both individualistic and hive compulsions, perhaps you wouldn't stupidly suggest I have proposed and either- or scenario. You one world liberals are so reactionary, that any suggestion that individual freedoms are innate in man send you screaming like little babies whining for the tit of big government to suckle. This country was founded on the idea of inalienable natural rights of individuals, and government was seen as a necessary evil to keep the worst among us from ruining it for everyone. But you utopian socialists, who haven't learned from the disastrous history of the Eastern Bloc that trashing individual rights in the name of your bogus idea of "fairness" destroys a entire nations. There is no such thing as equality in the real world...not of outcome. But that doesn't stop the whiners and parasites from doing their best to bring down the successful, and steal the fruits of their labor. This battle has raged from the beginning of the human race. The weak and inept will always try to steal what they cannot produce on their own. Our Constitution was written to prevent this redistributive thievery masquerading as "fairness."

    19. Nice try, insults are not an argument. They are however a good indication that you have no real arguments or facts to present in defense of your ideology. No, instead you practice the bravery of being out of range and hidden behind a computer screen- very honorable. Can you offer any substantive arguments why we should see things your way? Or is spouting tired libertarian ideology all you can do? You say I have government t1t in my mouth simply because I collect government assistance that I paid into while working for over twenty years, well its better than sucking on the corporate *&^% like yourself.
      I hardly feel bad for the government helping pay for the medicine I need when the corporate dogs you support made this medicine for pennies a pill and yet they charge the public seven dollars and change for each one. That is right, seven dollars and change for one pill that costs maybe fifty cents at most to make. Yeah boy, your corporate buddies really have our well being at heart. Besides I pay over 100$ a month for the coverage I get through the government, it isn’t free- as badly as you want to make it out to be. I own my own land, car, home, livestock, etc. all paid for with money I earned working. So I fail to see how it is that I am taking anything from anyone. Especially considering what I give back to my community as a volunteer drug counselor, working through programs like santas work shop, and coaching soft ball and tee ball. What do you give back, anything?

    20. When I read your comments, health care costs etc, I can't help but thank my lucky NHS stars. For now anyway. The current government here seems intent on chipping away at it. Their weapon of choice is the Private Finance Initiative, a mix of private and public money. Hospitals unable to repay the loans are closing, bankrupt. They are now run as businesses and not as a public service.

    21. Try getting them to give back their tricorne hats and "Don't Tread On Me" flags... You'll have to kill them first!

      edit- a la their Patrick Henry fantasies, I mean.

    22. You know if they really created jobs here in America we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Do you realize how many millions of jobs were created by American corporations throughout this whole recession in foreign countries? In 2011 alone U.S. companies created 1.4 million jobs overseas, simply so they could recognize record profits instead of simply good profits. For instance, the giant retailer Wal- Mart added 100,000 jobs in 2010-2011. Zero of them were in the U.S., while Honeywell International cut its U.S. workforce by 1,000 in the same period and added 11,000 jobs abroad. Kraft Foods lopped 4,000 workers off its U.S. payroll and hired 33,000 overseas. These are your American job creators? And another thing you seem to forget is that creating jobs without people to do those jobs is just as pointless as looking for a job that isn't there, they need us just as badly as we need them- that is if they are really creating jobs here in America. Since when do we, the American people, assume the role of begging for what falls off the plates of corporations that only exist because of the environment we have created?
      These companies are quick to defend their unethical hiring practices by telling us that here in the U.S, we don’t train enough people in the mid-level management skills and technical skills needed to run their businesses. That is pure b.s. and I know this for a fact because I work in education, though I am not a teacher. I manage the chemistry lab and work as a research chemist at a local community college and I know for a fact that we and many other colleges across this nation have purposely changed our curriculum to match what the companies say they need. In fact colleges have always done this in this country, we listen to the job market and set curriculum accordingly. The reality is they want the cheaper labor and that is it, period. Now we can’t talk American workers into working for less than what it takes to live here, what would be the point of that? It is these corporations and their respective profit margins that set cost of living prices here, so if they want cheaper labor they know how to get it right here- lower their profit margins. But why would they do that, among other more obvious things it would destroy their main market for cheaply made foreign goods, which they manufacture in foreign countries and then ship back here to sell to the very people they refuse to hire any longer.

    23. There is a solution: "volunteerism". If enough people stopped using currency and continued working as volunteers, The .1% would become poor and the 99% would reap 100% of the benefits. (Also using the barter system). ++++++++++++