Who Killed Che? by Michael Ratner and Michael Steven Smith, OR Books, 2011, 200 pp., $16 (paperback)In Who Killed Che? radical attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Steven Smith lay out a forceful case indicting the U.S. government of having, in effect, killed Ernesto “Che” Guevara on October 9, 1967. They base their argument on what has been written since the event but also rely heavily on official documents secured under the Freedom of Information Act, after years of waiting. The authors establish beyond a reasonable doubt that, while the man who actually shot Guevara was Mario Terán, a Bolivian army sergeant, the order to liquidate the wounded guerrilla came from Washington. This goes against the standard story, propagated by former president Lyndon B. Johnson and other high-ranking U.S. officials, that the Bolivians ordered Che’s death.“The history of who is responsible for his murder has heretofore not been understood accurately, especially in America, where it is commonly believed that the Bolivian military dictatorship had him killed,” the authors write in the first paragraph. “Documents which have recently been obtained from the U.S. government lead to a different conclusion: that the U.S. government, particularly its Central Intelligence Agency, had Che murdered, having secured the participation of its Bolivian client state,” write the authors.But this book is no dry legal brief. Nor is it just an account of Guevara’s capture and assassination. It is both an impassioned look at Che’s life and deeds and an inside glimpse into the inner workings of the CIA and U.S. foreign policy. The book is dedicated to the late Leonard Weinglass, a lawyer with extensive Cuban experience as the lead council for the Cuban Five from 2002 until his death in March 2011. Ricardo Alarcón, president of the Cuban National Assembly, penned the preface, which stresses Che’s importance today and briefly comments on the continued U.S. aggression against Cuba since the inception of the Revolution. A lengthy chronology introduces the main body of text, highlighting leading events in Che’s career as a revolutionary.The actual text is quite short, just under 60 pages. The first section covers background material on the creation of the CIA, emphasizing the agency’s autonomy and its function as a covert military and political operator, which has allowed U.S. presidents to deny any knowledge of its actions taken to further national policy. The section “The Written Record Relating to Che’s Death” reviews the literature about Che’s Bolivian foray, underlining that most authors buy the official line that the Bolivians had sole responsibility for the killing. There follows material on the use of political assassination as a consistent instrument of U.S. policy, including congressional testimony on efforts to eliminate Che and both Fidel and Raúl Castro, among others. The authors then dissect the development of counterinsurgency strategy, beginning in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with the development of rapid-strike forces, Green Berets, and weaponry appropriate for small-scale combat against guerrilla forces.The rest of the text is devoted directly to Che, from his early background in Argentina through his demise in Bolivia. It reads like a set of chronological snapshots. Short sections cover each particular topic or event: Guatemala, Che’s first encounter with Fidel Castro in Mexico City, the Sierra Maestra campaign. Two sections highlight Che in Africa and quote from his speeches on the need for third-world revolution and solidarity. The book, however, is not a complete biography but rather a highlight film with commentary. It shows that the CIA tracked Che even before his appearance in Cuba. Frequent quotes from both Che and the U.S. government dot the pages, as do references to the official documents in the back of the book.The authors tackle two controversies surrounding Che, including the thorny question of Che’s attitude toward the Soviet Union, which they correctly identify as one of critical support. They also scoff at the idea that a rift developed between Che and Fidel, despite the fact that the CIA wrote about “the fall of Che Guevara” and even cited rumors that Fidel had had him killed.“The CIA files reflect the vast rumor-mongering that spread worldwide as to whether Che and Fidel had split,” the authors write. “The truth is that there was no split. When Che joined up with Fidel and the Cubans in Mexico City in 1956, it was with the understanding that if they succeeded in Cuba, Che was free to move on.”The last section of the book deals with Che’s Bolivian expedition, and relies heavily on Che’s diary because it is the only testimony that exists (CIA agents had lost track of Che for a considerable amount of time). This section covering Che’s assassination is the most original. It examines official accounts in detail, concluding that the U.S. government was really calling the shots and is responsible for the killing. As the authors highlight, the Bolivian government under General René Barrientos and Félix Rodríguez—a CIA operative who was present at Che’s death—lied in their reports about the killing. With the support of accompanying documents, it is clear that the United States was responsible for the killing. Two memoranda from the CIA and the Department of Defense Intelligence Agency support this thesis by saying that Che’s death vindicated the U.S. strategy of having Green Berets train Special Forces to combat guerrilla uprisings and would discourage future would-be guerrillas. This section, “Che Guevara, His Life and Death,” closes with an examination of the official death certificates and comments on Fidel’s eulogy for his dead comrade, reminding the reader of Che’s powerful and lasting legacy around the world.By far the longest part of this work is the chapter “Documents,” which reproduces 43 secret reports, correspondence, and memoranda upon which much of the text is based. Each document is accompanied by a paragraph indicating its significance. The documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, come from many sources, including the Lyndon Johnson Library, the CIA, the White House, and the State and Defense departments. Although some key texts are released in their entirety, many have been extensively censored to hide the names of informants and operatives. Nonetheless, the documents contain fascinating information for any reader with the patience to wade through them. As a whole they reveal that the U.S. spy system reached deeply into the highest echelons in both the United States and abroad, but also show that intelligence sources did not always provide accurate information. The several differing accounts of the capture and death of Che offer proof of this.The authors fail to touch on one controversial question. Was Che’s campaign doomed to fail before it started? Che’s theory of foquismo—that a small band of rural guerrillas could lead an impoverished peasantry to rebellion—is attractive as a model for revolution. But were the Andes the Sierra Maestra of South America? Did Bolivia really meet the criteria at this time? Many argue that it did not, since some agrarian reform had already been implemented after the Revolution of 1952. In fact, the miners, not the peasantry, were the most radicalized sector of Bolivian society. Che himself notes more than once, in the referenced documents, that his group had no chance to recruit peasants, because they were always on the run and because their operations brought further military backlash against the agrarian communities.“The peasant base has not yet been developed,” Che wrote in his diary in April 1967. “Of all the peasants we have seen, there is only one who appears to be cooperative, but with fear.”On October 7, 1967, a local peasant named Pedro Peña informed the counterinsurgency forces of the group’s whereabouts. Che was captured the next afternoon after a fierce battle.Overall, this is a very interesting book. It presents new material about Che and most particularly about the whole episode in Bolivia. It also opens small windows onto the operational workings of U.S. imperialism. This is significant. Too often this kind of examination comes either from retired operatives who have axes to grind—pro and con—or from scholars with predetermined views. Ratner and Smith give us a measured, unbiased account of the revolutionary life of one of Latin America’s most controversial figureHobart Spalding is a member of the NACLA Editorial Committee and the Socialism and Democracy Cuba collective, which has published two special issues on Cuba, the latest in March 2010.

The Law  in These PartsA remarkable film about the “legal” system in the Israeli Occupied Territories. A devastating look at how law and especially the Israeli Supreme Court has  been employed for 40 years to legitimize the illegitimate, the cruel and the immoral.  Amazingly the judges themesleves are the confessors–although often they are unaware. For many years the Israeli Supreme Court (and its former Chief Justice Barak) have gotten more than a pass–it (and he) have been lauded as a beacons of justice.  That may be true for Israeli Jews, but its that very reputation that has allowed the court to make it appear that Palestinans arrested, administratively detained and tortured have had a day their day in court. Its the Supreme Court that has approved the stealing of Palestinian land–giving “legitimacy” to theft.  When you get a chance–see this film- you will see the Supreme Court for what it is—worse than a rubber stamp–but a key part of the machinery of repression.

Whatever you think of Paul Simon’s music and especially Graceland (which I like a lot) a new movie at Sundance about the recording of that album could undercut the BDS campaign against Israel, and especially the cultural boycott. The film Under African Skies follows Paul Simon as he returns to South Africa 25 years after the release of his hugely popular album Graceland. As many of you may not recall, Simon travelled to South Africa in the mid 80’s to record portions of this album at the height of the economic and cultural embargo (boycott) of South Africa–an embargo imposed by the United Nations and supported by the African National Congress. He came under plenty of fire for doing so.

The movie, while it claims to deal with both sides of the question of whether Simon should have violated the embargo, amounts to a justification for Simon breaking the embargo. It could be said that the primary purpose of the film (which Simon’s brother Eddie helped produce) was to validate his having done so and the right of other cultural figures to do likewise. In this respect the film has a dangerous potential: convincing wide audiences that cultural boycotts such as that against Israel should not be adhered to.In the film Simon does engage directly with those who disagreed with his breaking the embargo, but he comes off as self-involved, not particularly astute, and never gets the importance of the embargo as a means of ending apartheid. His claim is that he as an artist should be beyond politics and those politicians should not tell him or any artist what they can do. He looks at his violation of the embargo entirely as a question of artistic freedom and has no understanding of its importance. For him, it’s about him. In fact, the original trip to South Africa was made for selfish reasons: his career was in a lull and he wanted to make a new album.

A telling moment in the film is where Simon describes a meeting he had with the African National Congress at which he was told he should not have broken the embargo. (As I recall he had already gone and returned.) Simon reacts by saying that if that’s the kind of government they will be–telling artists what to do—he wants nothing to do with it. He entirely misses the point. The embargo was a political necessity to bring apartheid to an end; it was not about censorship. Here we have Simon claiming that “artistic freedom” was more important than an embargo imposed by the UN and the ANC as a means of ending apartheid. Mandela himself spoke of the importance of the boycott in ending apartheid and commentators have pointed to the isolation of South Africans as key. The fact that Simon was invited back to South Africa by Mandela does not wash away Simon’s actions, especially as he never wavers from his view, justified by this film, that it was right for him to have violated the boycott

.The film also tries to rationalize Simon’s breaking the embargo by interviewing and filming the Black musicians with whom he worked. They seem to have real affection for him, and Graceland helped launch some of their careers outside of South Africa. The film describes how important it was to bring the voices of Black musicians to the wider world– which arguably helped undercut apartheid. But, of course, that is not the point. Violation of the embargo by someone as famous as Simon undercut a key means of bringing down apartheid—isolating South Africa– and potentially encouraged other artists to do likewise. Moreover, measuring in retrospect whether Graceland helped or hurt apartheid is an after the fact justification.I still like Graceland. I still listen to Graceland. It is joyful and life affirming. But I will always be haunted by its history.

http//mondoweiss.net/2012/01/sundance-docy-on-paul-simon-playing-south-africa-undercuts-power-of-cultural-boycott.html

Michael Ratner: January 11th, here we are. We’ve completed ten years after 9-11, going into the eleventh year. The tenth anniversary of Guantanamo opening. On the actual annivesary, January 11th, I will be in London commemorating the opening of Guantanamo with other lawyers but particularly with men who have been freed from Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners.Commemorating the 11th year of the practices that underlie imprisonment at Guantanamo: the capture of detainees anywhere in the world or their kidnapping; their imprisonment indefinitely or forever under a preventive detention scheme; and their trials, if at all, by rump trials or military commissions. Here we are, the Guantanamo Syndrome — that series of illnesses, sickness and outrage that represent both Republican and Democratic administrations are still with us.I’m commemorating it with a group set up after Guantanamo, set up by some of the very people who were formerly impisoned in Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners. And I’m in London going through three days of commemoration of not just those who remain in Guantanamo, but of those who remain in secret prisons all over the world, particularly Bagram.I’m with a number of the people who have been freed — freed from Guantanamo,  for example, Moazzam Begg.   I’m with him today in London  and his story actually tells us a lot about what happened at Guantanamo. I met Moazzam Begg in in the United Kingdom. He’d been freed because of the huge amount of efforts by the British citizens — led by the Redgraves [the late Corin Redgrave and his sister Vanessa Redgrave of the British acting family dynasty] in particular and other efforts  to get the British citizens out of there.I met a group of detainees known as the Tipton 3 in 2004. When  I walked into the room, I remember it like it was yesterday, here were these young men — I mean they were young like my own children in a way — and the idea that these three men were ever kept in Guantanamo as the ‘worst of the worst’ or ‘terrorists’ just struck me as completely impossible. They could joke with me, they could tell the stories of what happened, they could talk about Guantanamo, they could talk about their own lives and, of course, they were kept in Guantanamo after being picked up in Pakistan and forced to give ‘confessions’ when they were at Guantanamo.They figured when they were at Guantanamo that after they were being tortured in various ways that they were better off just saying, ‘Yeah, we knew Osama bin Laden, etc.’ And they thought it would go better for them but of course it went worse. And even though they had alibis of where they were at the time and why they were in Afghanistan — and good ones, correct ones — the government forced these ‘confessions’ out of them under torture and kept them there year after year. When I met them, they talked about the torture.And when I talk to you, our listeners, about it, you have to understand that when I met them, no one knew publicly what was going on in Guantanamo, there’d been no access to Guantanamo. But there was the testimony of the Tipton Three. And everybody said, ‘Oh, they’re lying, they’re not telling the truth.In the room with me that day, they went over what’s called a “Rumsfeld Technique.” Those are what we now know are everything from hooding, stripping, dogs, sexual assault — all these kind of terrible things that Rumsfeld Techniques did to people at Guantanamo as a means of coercing what turned out to be false confessions out of people. And I sat there and I believed them. But I had trouble believing it because, of course, I’d always looked at Guantanamo as a horrible place because it was incommunicado detention — we couldn’t get them into court to test their detentions, we couldn’t get them lawyers, we couldn’t visit — and I looked at that as the worst aspect. And while I suspected that there might be interrogation issues, I didn’t realize that there would be abuse amounting or equivalent to torture.Was I naive in that respect? Possibly so. But of course within a couple of months after my interview with the Guantanamo Three or the Tipton Three, the Abu Ghraib photos came out on April 24th of 2004 and then, of course, it was public for everybody. The Rumfseld Techniques came out and then the Tipton Three’s testimony — that people had said, ‘Oh, we don’t believe it’ — was proven to be utterly, utterly accurate to the actual use of the Rumsfeld Techniques, the dozen techniques.And so then Guantanamo became synonymous not just with incommunicado detention but with torture as well.Today, of course, Guantanamo is still there. And as we talk about Guantanamo, I want to give people the numbers. Guantanamo is still there. 171 men remain in Guantanamo. 46 have been approved — whatever that means — for indefinite detention and will be there forever as far as I know. 36 men have been referred for prosecution.(4 of those have been convicted)  What kind of prosecution? Most likely military commissions which are just rump courts which are just rump trials for nothing.The remainder? Not clear. But most of the remainder have been approved for release.So that means the remainder shouldn’t be there at all. People like the Uighurs from western China who were picked up wrongly — admittedly wrongly — and have now been there for ten years and will be going on I don’t know how many years. So that total is about 89 people, most of whom have been approved for transfer. So of those 89  none of them should be there. So there’s our numbers again. 46 indefinitely detained forever, 36 supposedly subject to prosecution and 89 who shouldn’t be there at all — or most of whom should not be there at all, some of whom they may not have decided yet. That’s Guantanamo today.Michael RatnerCenter for Constitutional RightsSent from my iPad

Although I am sitting here in Suriname on this New Year’s day, it’s hard not to think of Obama’s gift to us for the New Year: the signing of the NDAA and it’s nasty confirmation of detention and kangaroo trials that Bush and now Obama have been employing for 10 years.  He signed on a no press day, just like Bush used to do; and just like Bush issued a meaningless and unconstitutional signing statement.   On January 11 we enter the 11th year of Gitmo–just another broken promise for Obama, but a Hell Hole for prisoners there and around the world.Last night Paramaibo had the most spectacular fireworks I have ever seen.  Over 75 sites shot rockets in the air for two hours–we were entirely surrounded by a gorgeous intense display that went on way past midnight.   For now here is a list of many of the animals seen in the rainforest:Jaguar fresh paw printToucansBlue Morpho butterfliesMacawsGreat blue heronsBush Police birdBoa consrtictorWhiptail snakeHowler monkeyCormorantPacaCaiman alligatorToadsIridescent lizardsIguanaHawksTermitesAnd more

1.By claiming roughly similar detention and trial by commission powers as Bush employed-powers which I find illegal and immoral– Obama, as a Democrat,  has made them part of  of the fabric of our laws. No longer are they the aberration of a right wing Republican in a time to “terror emergency.”   And now having legislation confirm those powers makes matters worse.

2. That confirmation as some on the list serve said, makes detention of US citizens easier.

3. But I  am also concerned by the focus on US citizens.  Why is it ok to do do non-citizens what we say should not be done to US citizens? Sure, the constitution. But as a matter of human rights  should not all of us have similar fundamental rights regarding detention and trial.  Is not all the debate about US citizens a form of exceptionalism  that reinforces some of the worst aspects of what we are doing to others? By focussing on US ctizens we allow people in the US to forgot about human beings jailed at gitmo, bagram etc.

From my daughter: I’ve been reading about the new bill that was passed by the senate, what does it mean exactly? How is it different than what we have now? What does it mean for Guantanamo, Anything? My Answer:

1. Both Bush and Obama have claimed the right to kill and capture alleged terrorists anywhere in the world or hold them in military detention indefinitely—ie Guantanamo.
In their view the world is a battlefield—not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
Their claim is that alleged terrorists –at least those related to al Qaeda, Taliban and associated forces (whatever that means) are at war with the United States and that the US can make war on them which includes capturing them and holding them forever without trial—no matter where they are: Yemen, Somalia, United Kingdom, South America or anywhere.
The determination of whom to capture and/or kill is made by the President without any court.
Bush and Obama have always claimed that US citizens can be so treated as well—so that is why under Obama we saw the killing of an American citizen by a drone in Yemen—al-alwaki.
Both Presidents have also acted as if they can kill and capture alleged terrorists that have no relationship to 9/11—the new law confirms this practice.

2. CCR and I have always asserted that the attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act and that the people allegedly involved in that act or other similar acts against the US at other places in the world should be treated as alleged criminals, arrested, and tried in regular courts. And we think we are right on the law—especially international law.

Unfortunately, CCR’s position is not the position of Obama or the courts in the US—and we have mostly lost on this issue—that is one reason Guantanamo and the polices that underlie it are still there and will be for a long time.

3. What the legislation does is make what have been the practices of Bush and Obama into law—prior to this legislation, it was more or less what the presidents did—but without congress passing a law.
So in that sense the legislation does not make worse many of the bad practices of Bush and Obama—but it does make it harder to change back because now congress is behind it. Of course it’s bad for that reason but the real blame here is on Bush and Obama.

4. Many of those writing about the legislation are upset that it may require the President to put US citizens captured in the US into military custody—the legislation does not do that—but it does not prohibit the president from doing so. In fact Bush did that in a case called Padilla. —he is an American citizen who got off a plane in Chicago and was allegedly going to commit an act of terrorism. He was put into military custody and only given a trial to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on whether holding him in military custody without trial was constitutional.

Conclusion: Obama already broke his promise on closing Guantanamo; he has gone along with most of the Bush policies regarding Guantanamo and the “war on terror:” indefinite detention, military trials etc. This law gives a congressional imprimatur to what he has been doing—and requires him to jump through some more hoops to get people out of Guantanamo. However Obama had already made it almost impossible to close Guantanamo and impossible to end the practices which underlie it—as he supports those policies: this law makes it a bit harder.

I took this photo on the Nov 15 march when we went back to Liberty Park in NY to try and reoccupy!  Who says the Feds are not involved in smashing the OWS?

Activist and senior at Bard College, Ana Ratner joins the discussion on Occupy Colleges student movement in the Hudson Valley. Ana is Michael Ratner’s daughter is also involved with bringing awareness to mistreatment of workers at the college, specifically employment contractors.

• I think people on their own (at Bard College) had been concerned about the Occupy movement. It was around that time when people found each other and wanted to do something, weekly teach ins, general assemblies.
• At Bard we have a sub-contractor called Aramark that is control of the all the buildings and grounds and housekeepers and workers on campus. They treat their workers very badly.
• Through the Occupy movement more kids on campus are becoming concerned about worker’s rights and financial transparency and where our money is going, how it effects and who it effects.
• Occupy Poughkeepsie, a local movement, trying to connect the regions in the Hudson Valley. OccupyHudsonValley. They have tents and a kitchen.
• At Bard College: until the Occupy movement, no one really came together. I’m learning about the whole community at Bard.
• For the most part the workers are mostly invisible, they clean your dorm and campus. There’s a group called the Student Labor Dialogue.
• Aramark was kicked off at Bard College, now they want to hire another contractor.

Guest – Ana Ratner, activist and senior at Bard College. Ana has been active with the Occupy Colleges student movement and Occupy Wall Street.

http://lawanddisorder.org/2011/11/law-and-disorder-november-28-2011/

The Facebook Thread 

A protestor wakes up from his former home in Zucatti Park. Walks over to (SBUX) and grabs his morning coffee. Then heads over to (WFM) to grab some organic fruit and yogurt. After he heads back to Wall Street and begins vigorously typing on his (APPL) device through the (ATT) network about how capitalism has provided nothing but greed….Just saying..

R    They tried to block Diana from getting to work…Luckily she is a ninja, and cannot be stopped.

T  Same with M. I told her to use pepper spray but she has this weird trait that the y chromosome eliminates called compassion.

R    hahaha.

Ana Ratner it’s better than consuming without thinking and using without caring. At least they do the best they can.

TJ  I swear every single one of the occupy SF protesters is homeless

T   I agree. Ana. Those OWS are wasting resources at an excessive level. Using my gas to drive their Prius. Drinking my water and breathing my air.

R  yeah. its insane they have ruined any chance they had of correcting some of the minor injustices by attacking the wrong people, the wrong places, and generally not having a clear message, with incredibly unfeasible and un-american ideas. I say we ship them off to some other fuckin’ country…problem solved..

T Send em to china. Thy will have a blast with communist capitalism if they think things are bad in the US. People like them fail to realize what a great country we live in. Pathetic traitors.

R fuck man, china is better. As your mom said. Capitalism with complete government control…

R Yeah they are just lazy fucks.

A Too True

Ana Ratner MINOR INJUSTICES are you insane?

Ana Ratner We are currently fighting three wars in countries we have no need to be in - killing civilians daily and tearing apart families. There is no help given to people that have been consistently fucked over for decades (Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos..). We own prisons over seas where human rights don’t apply to the prisoners, where they are tortured until they admit to committing crimes they did not. We have separated over 1 million families because the people who we need in order for our country to run our country are “illegal”. We are building a pipeline from canada to texas that will basically ruin any hope for controlling climate change. There are no regulation on what goes into the food that you eat or slave labour employed to make it. Innocent people are put to death by our own government without any evidence except evidence proving their innocence. And do you know who pays for that? ME and YOU and everyone else in this country. Imagine if our tax money went to paying our workers more, putting kids through school, paying for people who can’t afford healthcare. But wait, you are right! It is so “Un-American” to have equality, free-speech, the right to live, eat, go to a decent hospital, and have any say in what decisions are being made by the government you elected.

R If you go to Zuccati park you will see its a bunch of drug addicts, and people who are getting violent.

R They have no idea what they want its just a bunch of left wing nuts pissed that the kid in class has a cooler bike.

R we will CRUSH our economy if we tax the corporations more. They already pay some of the higher taxes in the world, and the rich…ohh yeah they pay for more than 40% of the taxes. There is so much to this issue, and lord knows I think its fucked up when a CEO fires people to get out of a hole and then takes a bonus. But we need to exercise good business practices, and get rid of some of the people who got us in that hole, other than that these people are going against the ideals our country was founded on.

R My main point is these people need to come together and write plans of action, not be violent and rude to people like me and my girlfriend who are just trying to make an honest buck through good old fashion hard work. I do this because I know that in this country I make myself whoever I want to be. I heard one girl on a youtube video talking about going back to agriculturalism or some bullshit she made up where we went to hunter gatherer, fend for yourself. She feels that if everyone were equal its perfectly fine that masses of people die adapting to this new proposal, yes not ok for her to not have a new car.

Ana Ratner For me the movement isn’t about forming one demand - yet. I think that the most important thing it is accomplishing is that people are talking and getting educated about what goes on in this country. Once people have gotten to a point where they have read and learned enough then it’s time to make change and that happens whether or not you take action as long as people are well-educated. The most successful part of the action is what happens outside of it, communication. Like what we are doing now. Talking, learning, being open to new ideas and people. Forming community, I’ve lived in NYC my whole life and never have I seen people come together the way they are now. That said, it’s a movement about inclusion and transparency, so as with any large group of diverse people you are going to get some anger and some hatred and some “nuts” but you can not judge a whole movement off of some individuals you don’t like. People should do what makes them happy - for me that is knowing how to live using as little money as possible and grow my own food and know what’s in it and where it comes from. That’s something that is important for me and a lot of other people (like the girl you mentioned), if what makes you happy is hard work and making honest money then that’s great, making fun of people for having a different lifestyle (as long as it’s not harmful to others) is irrelevant and mean.

T Find me 2 people who have a point in OWS. They are all hypocritical little bitches. yes this isn’t a perfect world. Maybe that pipeline is not the best thing for nature. But it will create hundreds if not thousands of jobs and decrease our dependence on the countries we are currently at war. This movement is not about communication. To communicate you must have a message and no one in Zuccatti park seems to have their story strait. If they want to make a difference, how about coming up with an idea. The people they are fighting got to where they are by having ideas, being innovative and creating all of the products that have been used to spread the messages of these protestors. If they want to be included, they need to make a difference not just complain. Mediocrity and entitlement do not further our cause as a civilization. I think the only message that seems to be clear is these people want some of the money the 1% are hoarding. Ok, understandable, who doesn’t? But they didn’t fall into it, they worked for it. Some of the most successful people in our history came from nothing. The only reason I make fun of these protestors aside from they approach is their counterintuitive message. Lets not work, sit in a park and yell at our bosses so we can get a better job. We live in the only country that allows people that crazy to speak their mind. Their therapy session is over. They have been the most fantastic neusance in the last few months. Now stop waisting everyones time, get back to work and keep this country driving forward. You don’t like our ideals or how we get shit done, move to Canada.

R I understand some of what they are trying to accomplish, but they have fucked it all up. And now people are getting into a mob mentality that includes as some videos saw straight up Marxist communism. I love my country because I can survive off of fixed income investments living in some remote spot in the woods, or in the big city hustling. I heard one girl say she wanted to go back to growing our own food hunter gatherer style, the person interviewing said “do you realize how many people would die from that” she shrugged it off as though oops too bad, people die…well on the flip side we could just let them die since they have not adapted to our work hard, hustle, prosper plan. Same thing. Having to work for what you earn is why people strive to work hard, our country does not have more Nobel prize winners, and innovations coming from it because we reward mediocrity. Granted I feel there is a certain level where you should give back, but I am here to push my point. Go protest the federal reserve for its bailouts, not wall street. Stocks are a good idea. It allows for companies to fund themselves, and any person to make money off of the corporations success.

R  We need to get the nuts out of there so we can see what if any valid points occupiers hold. Until that happens it is just chaos and communism. Things we do NOT allow in this country. One protestor said “yeah capitalism is as damaging to the country as al qaeda, they are just a political group reaching their goals” I mean come on…Lets get some fuckin’ rubber bullets flying and get the few smart ones that are out there to show me a valid point, and a solution that is feasible. “We need to go 100% green” Ok…true, show me how…don’t shut down our system while showing me.