Cwill, I've successfully traced that in the past on sporadic occasions but not in relationship to this movement -- yet.

If the evidence is out there I'll eventually find it. The problem with funding things like this is that there's always a trail somewhere, and eventually someone will sniff it out. That's why I tend to focus in that direction as you usually can find the truth if you're diligent enough.

Now it may be that there is some hard-core leftist group paying these guys, but there's also the very real possibility that it's people on the right who are getting damn scared that this is working -- it's very recent, and that's not the usual pattern.

If they are black bloc they are anarchists not leftists. Anarchism seeks to do away with the state, leftists want to preserve it.

Anarchists don't like centralized authority and most of them fund themselves as many of them are college kids or college educated.

If they are APs(cops), well it should be pretty obvious where the funding is coming from.

Nejla wrote..

If they are APs(cops), well it should be pretty obvious where the funding is coming from.

Oakland taxpayers?

Men in black not normally seen around except for the Global conferences are usually the anarchist.

We live in interesting times.

Rickl,

Indeed.

Ugrev said "A ticker like this, being read out-loud, at the protests would go very, very far in not only waking up some of the crowd, but also those observing; and perhaps start getting people to unite on who the bad guys are"

Good idea to post links to ticker on facebook posts (along with your own intelligent response) to people who are blatantly anti-occupy simply because the lamesteam media is telling them to be so. It's what I do. Karl's writing is much better than most of our work and imo his arguments have been unassailable in the years I've been reading them.

I've been tweeting some of Karl's recent, EXCELLENT posts to #occupyOakland and #oo and they have been getting healthy amount of retweeting. But even more so, I'm getting some freaked-out tweets from the hard-right who are convinced (or trying to convince) that every single one of us at #occupy are marxists.

I'm not sure whether this is the correct thread to post this, but I just saw it and thought it was hilarious.

Where Occupy Wall Street Headlines Come From
http://www.jest.com/video/52363/where-oc....

(hat tip American Digest)

Quote:

We need more engineers and scientists than sociology, psychology and history majors.

Sorry, but I cannot agree, because many engineers and scientists are also sociologists, psychologists and historians. Further, I've found that many people who bash sociology or psychology cannot explain what those disciplines are about, beyond a couple of very high-level bullet points -- and criticizing what one doesn't understand is not a good idea.

I've got a combined liberal arts and technical education. My technical education is now completely obsolete, and my career success comes from being able to deploy techniques from anthropology and cultural dynamics to design and build awesome products. The technology only matters in so much as it enables people to get the functionality they want (or the functionality they didn't even know they wanted until they saw it for the first time).

I tire of rhetoric that insists that only one discipline is "the best." The reality is that a student with a technical education, fresh out of college, is going to have just as difficult a time finding a job as a student with a liberal arts education. The problem isn't the distribution of jobs to degrees -- the problem is THERE ARE NO JOBS.

If you're smart enough, you can become an engineer without any formal degree (see Apple's Steve Wozniak, or Microsoft's Bill Gates for good examples of that). If you're looking for skills that will last a lifetime, a technical education will have more obsolete components to it (as technology changes) than a liberal arts education will. That has been my experience.

Quote:

subsidize fields of study were there is no demand

Using that standard, no field of study should be subsidized, since there is very little demand for college grads in ANY field.

I'm tired of the contempt for various individuals' degrees, and the characterization of a degree outside the hard sciences as "worthless" or "basket weaving." It shows a profound lack of discernment.

If the object of college is simply technical education in the hard sciences in order to become a worker bee, then college shouldn't be necessary at all -- 12 years of primary and secondary education should be enough to teach those disciplines.

A lack of understanding of cultural dynamics, art and aesthetics, design, and history also results in a lack of competitiveness in a global marketplace that requires them. Why do you think the Koreans have built HUGE centers in the USA? It's not because they're technically incompetent -- they have brilliant engineers. They lack designers who can create products that meet consumer needs, since their excessive focus on the hard sciences resulted in products that are technically brilliant and completely undesirable for the end user.

Remember the Samsung Behold and Behold II smartphones? No? There's a reason for that. They were completely designed in Korea by brilliant engineers. And they sucked. REALLY REALLY sucked. To make the Behold II usable, end users had to spend hours searching for customizable keyboards and skins and installing/tweaking them. Then he was still stuck with a slow piece of hardware with too many extraneous buttons and a horrendous interface.

Remember the Hyundai Excel? That was a truly crappy car -- built by highly skilled engineers who aimed for technical excellence in certain areas. But it sucked to drive, sucked to maintain and sucked to own (even though it did tend to last).

The Samsung Galaxy S or Galaxy S II that you (and tens of millions of others) lust for is designed in California, not Seoul and that LG television you crave was designed in NJ, not Pusan. The Hyundai Sonatas and Elantras that are winning design awards and setting eye-popping new sales records were designed in Southern California.

Design, aesthetics, and cultural understanding is necessary to successfully build desirable products -- it's every bit as important as the ability to design powerful integrated chipsets, crisp bright screens and long-lasting batteries. And you cannot compete without desirable products.

The overfocus on technical skills to the exclusion of all others has resulted in a lopsided focus on technology at the cost of practicality and desirability in American business too. Who wants a Dodge Caliber? How about one of GM's Impalas? Nobody, except for the rental fleets. The Koreans have figured this out -- American big business needs to as well, if we're to have a future. At Chrysler, it's taken an Italian takeover to refocus on the "soft" aspects of the products that actually make them desirable.

Quote:

What passive media?

Much of media is activist in the extreme.

Passive media is media where one goes "to turn his brain off." Television is pretty brainless. It reduces brain function significantly (something studied and documented by one of those "worthless" psychologists) ;) and tends towards repetition.

Passive media destroys real debate. It becomes a contest of talking heads shrieking focus-tested cliches at each other, demanding you pick side A or side B. In the FOX "News" or MSNBC model, it's presenting a clearly biased opinion piece as raw "fair and balanced" or "forward leaning" news.

Active media is media requiring engagement and debate, like this forum. It's multidimensional. It requires thought, interaction, a point of view. It facilitates debate and discussion. And it's often mentally stimulating and draining at the same time.

It's much easier to go plop down on the couch and watch the TV blare about how "liberals" or the "Koch brothers" cause your trouble than accept your own role in your troubles and understand just how screwed we are in a debate that goes well beyond the simplistic left/right divide. It requires active engagement by the participant -- something taxing for a guy who has worked a 12 hour day and just wants to relax.

Great Ticker Karl. Thanks for motivating us to use our God given intelligence to the fullest.

Before we can get a general uptick in discernment however, we first need an uptick in RESPONSIBILITY! I think this is happening, it is just happening too slowly. Why? Like Bert said: "emotional defense mechanism". I think many people are too emotionally weak to face the truth since deep down inside they know 1) it won't be pretty 2) their personal belief system could be challenged and 3) there is no immediate gain for them personally. We have no choice but to keep trying to educate and motivate people to become responsible and use discernment to find the truth first and foremost. I only hope that enough people will wake up in time before our system of government (by original design, not current implementation) is gone forever.

Quote:

I'm tired of the contempt for various individuals' degrees, and the characterization of a degree outside the hard sciences as "worthless" or "basket weaving." It shows a profound lack of discernment.

I didn't say they were worthless just there were far too many degrees earned that that do not prepare one for employment.

Banks would not loan you money for these degrees if they had no assurance of you getting a job in order to pay them back.

I have no problem with non-economic education as long as everyone involved is 100% paying their own way. I don't ask that anyone else subsidize me when I want to gaze at my navel for a while. Although I am still quite confused as to why there is even a degree for such things... if the education is of no economic value, what's the point of certifying it? They're like Special Olympics medals, only it takes effort to win one of the latter.

Quote:

Although I am still quite confused as to why there is even a degree for such things... if the education is of no economic value, what's the point of certifying it? They're like Special Olympics medals, only it takes effort to win one of the latter.

Here I will disagree. There are places in the world, and the world has a need for, people who are experts in all facets.

If you are purchasing a Rembrandt, it is nice to know that the person verifying it is an original Rembrandt has the education and background to certify that.
If you are purchasing an original copy of Mozart's hand written sheet music, again it is nice to know that the person you are taking it to for verification posseses the educational background and is qualified to do so.

I have no problem with anyone "pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge", nor do I have a problem with someone pursuing a career within the confines of a subject or area of expertise that they have a passion for.

My problem is the expectation of continued use of public funds for their future research, the expectation that a university will compensate them for their research or writing endeavors and the expectation that the lifestyle they enjoy while pursuing this goal should be higher than that of the engineer or techs that you mention.

Engineers and Techs go out to the world, get jobs, and make things in exchange for their wages.

Academics find something they have a passion for, such as the Laugerhead Tortise, and expect to pursue knowledge about that subject while earning an above average living and nice pension for doing so.

It's not my responsibility, nor the public's, nor that of publicly funded universities, to fund the research, travels, equipment, infrastructure, and academic work that is necessary to find out how often the Laugerhead Tortise breeds, the ideal temperature for said fornication, what type of sand is most condusive to it, and whether the predominant net gain of the Tortise's romantic encounter is male or female.

Nor, in my opinion, does the person who feels it is their life's call to find out about these things deserve to earn 100K+ while doing so, with a guaranteed pension after they have done so, unless they find someone in the private sector willing to foot the bills.

*****************************************************

I have no quarrel with studying whatever you wish.

However, if you borrow money to do so, the lender should be exposed to the full risk of loss if you are borrowing and fail or pursue an uneconomic career. This is the only way that the risk of that loss is properly priced, and the price of education does not get out of hand -- that is, beyond its economic value.

Quote:

However, if you borrow money to do so, the lender should be exposed to the full risk of loss if you are borrowing and fail or pursue an uneconomic career. This is the only way that the risk of that loss is properly priced, and the price of education does not get out of hand -- that is, beyond its economic value.

Absolutely. The decision to borrow money for an education in something that is not marketable, or for something that has no earning power, is a consious risk taken by the borrower. As such, the consequences belong to the borrower.

The decision to loan him the money is a consious decision made by the lender. As such, the consequences belong to the lender.

I should not be party to either unless I am involved in those decisions.
And both should either enjoy the rewards of their successes, or the consequences of the failure.

*********************************************

Quote:

there were far too many degrees earned that that do not prepare one for employment

A dodgy contention.

First, technical skills are not the only skills that prepare one for employment.

Secondly, there is very little employment available for the young today -- even a degree that fits your narrow definition would not likely result in a job, when even more skilled and experienced individuals cannot find a slot.

Let me tell you what will "prepare one for employment" in the future: 1) Skills/Experience. 2) Willingness/ability to work for low pay, note that people with little to no debt load (especially less of the nondischargable kind) have a serious advantage in the ability to work for less. 3) Willingness/ability to relocate geographically to follow the labor demand for the skills one does possess. Note again that debtors, those with bubble mortgages in particular, get the short end of the stick.

#2 is a big deal because the government will not and can not extend unemployment benefits forever. Eventually (after the 2012 elections of course) we will all either take a significant cut in our standard of living or we'll look together upon the smoldering aftermath of our refusal to do so.

Morla

I believe you are right but this needs changing:

Quote:

Note again that debtors, those with bubble mortgages or excessive student loan debt in particular, get the short end of the stick.

Black Bloc is a tactic; not an organisation.
There is no funding except sometimes for legal costs of arrested people benefit concerts are organised by friends.

Very good ticker; this song sums it up pretty good i think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9rSW03L4....

I'm half a year late but yes, student loans are very much in the same category as bubble-era housing loans. At the time of this writing the student bubble is very much alive, these poor young people believe in a world that does not exist, never did exist, and will never exist. I pray to any god that might bother to exist, but all I hear back is Karl's thread on Discernment.. The point, you heathens, is to pay attention.

Karl is writing down your mistakes, Karl is documenting your downfall.