Comments of the Week: November 11, 2011

Comments of the Week: November 11, 2011

Comments of the Week: November 11, 2011

Each week we post a weekly run-down of the best of our reader comments with the hopes of highlighting some of your most valuable insights and encouraging more people to join the fray.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

fredfawcett: Economic envy is a false argument. Those of us in the 99% that have watched wages stagnate, benefits disappear and our votes become meaningless have more important things on our minds than material envy. The wealthy 1% with their insatiable greed seem to be the ones with an envy problem. They look at what little most of us have and can’t stand the thought that they don’t own that too.
In Response to Bill Moyers’ “How Wall Street Occupied America.” November 2, 2011.
 
smolsen: Thank you for this pithy and poignant piece, Mr. Moyers. To illustrate the ways corporate power leads to excess, I applied for a loan modification when the recession gutted my small business’s revenues. Bank of America gave me false information about what the process would do to my credit, resulting in late payments on my credit history that was perfect before. As a result not only can’t I qualify for a conventional refinance, I can’t even get a car loan! I’ve started a petition and would be grateful for any of you to sign it, and share it. Thanks for taking a stand on this small issue and the larger reforms we must seek to save the US democracy!
In Response to Bill Moyers’ “How Wall Street Occupied America.” November 2, 2011.

ant0n1us: Wall Street has not always been in conflict with Main Street. Wall Street is America’s marketplace where investors with capital can fund good ideas with the hope of making a wise long-term choice. The emphasis here is LONGTERM. What separates Wall Street of the Bush-Cheney era from traditional Wall Street is the domination of Wall Street by short-term gamblers–not investors–but roulette players. Investment houses like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns came into the market betting on 1) short-term, and 2) mainly betting that stocks would go DOWN. You can make money when the market turns down, and these scum discovered it. What we need badly is a transaction tax, not just to discourage short-term gamblers, but to give regulators a gauge on who-when-where these bets are placed. A marketplace dominated by short-term gamblers (without proper collateral) is a market working AGAINST MAIN STREET.
In Response to Bill Moyers’ “How Wall Street Occupied America.” November 2, 2011.
 
Katcg: Posterboy makes some good points in this latest post. I agree that focusing on the failed American dream of someone with a degree in puppetry to symbolize the occupation was maybe a poor choice on the part of the author of this article. However, I do think Joe did what a lot of us are told to do by our parents (and society, pop culture, etc.): pursue your dream, no matter how crazy or impractical, and success will follow. Sure, Joe’s choice was risky. And maybe we’d be more sympathetic to someone who chose to "risk" 8 years of his life and thousands of dollars on medical school–because supposedly it’s easier and nobler to get a job as a doctor than as an artist. Obviously it’s hard in any economy to really "make it" as a famous artist, let alone puppeteer. But does that mean someone who is truly passionate about puppetry (and maybe even using puppetry for social good) should be criticized for trying to pursue his dream to the fullest?  I worry about many of the below comments de-legitimizing the role of artists in society, and implying that art is not a real profession. Artists are also suffering from the challenges of the current economic climate and the failed promise that pursuing the highest level of education in one’s chosen field pays off–an MFA used to be associated with getting higher-paying teaching jobs, more networks, etc but many artists these days are realizing it’s just not worth it, or are crushed with student debt like the rest of us. These artists deserve to have their stories told as much as anyone else.
In Response to Richard Kim’s “The Audacity of Occupy Wall Street.” November 2, 2011.

badworker: Dave, great piece. How could ESPN cover the breaking story Monday night and air three minutes of pablum without ever mentioning the words race, black, white, culture, war, etc? I was only 13 in ‘75 but Frazier to me is forever linked to Ali and all the roiling crosscurrents you explained. Are they just brain dead? Or afraid of reality? Reminds me of when Driving Miss Daisy won the Oscar and Do The Right Thing was not even nominated. One put a happy face on race in America and contained it to the past. The other went upside our heads with some present-day ground truth. Keep swinging, South Carolina doesn’t deserve to claim Smokin’ Joe. He belongs to us all
In Response to Dave Zirin’s “Smokin’ Joe Frazier: The Death of the Disrespected.” November 9, 2011.

aussieview: Thank you, John Nichols, for keeping this issue in the spotlight. However, I fear that only the battle has been won, not the war. The multinational corporations that you mention are attacking labor rights here in Australia, as well – and have become rather ingenious about it. The new Premier of the State of New South Wales (where Sydney is) has outsourced union busting. He recently told companies contracting to do some major infrastructure improvements to break their unions so that the project costs "don’t blow out." Unfortunately, we do not have a John Nichols – or a magazine like The Nation – to call him to task.
In Response to John Nichols’ “Labor Rights, Abortion Rights, Immigrant Rights, Voting Rights Prevail.” November 9, 2011.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x