Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« The 'smallness' of OWS | Main | Romney's trap »

October 17, 2011



You've tickled my funny bone this morning. Frederick Douglas was right!

Robert Lipscomb

I strongly disagree.

It is not encumbent on the protesters to formulate a remedy. It is not even encumbent on them to proffer a clear analyisis of the problem.

They are simplycalling 911 and reporting robbery and that the perp was last seen on Wall Street.

If my house is on fire, must I be able to describe the origins of the fire and propose a precise plan of action for the responders before I call?

I take umbrage with anyone who dismisses them as so much caterwalling when our supposed leaders have spent the past the past three years caterwalling about Obamacare and death panels and socialism and debt ceeilings and whatever.

While I welcome discussions about job creation, that is a remedy (albeit necessary and urgent0 tht does not address the underlying primary problem.

Yes, if someone has a heart attack, please take him to the emergency room and please formulate and put into action emergency care. But let's not forget the fact that he is obese, never exercises, driks a quart of liquor a day and smokes three packs of cigarettes a day.

i am unaware of any significant discourse about thetheives and assholes who got us into this mess in the first place. For God's sake, the nomination of Elizabeth Warren was not even allowed a vote because she wants to take away Wall Street's liquor and cigarettes.

There is a saying in engineering that a problem well stated is half solved. It is even more important to identify the real problem. Tthe Wall Street protesters are doing just that.

Rage on!

Tom D

Well said Robert Lipscomb!

The Occupy protesters are quite clear in a general message of discontent with the unequal political influence, gov't-guaranteed risk advantages and lack of accountability afforded in the US to the very wealthy and the very greedy, as exemplified on Wall Street.

I say they're also quite clear in a general path toward resolving that inequity, which is a serious effort from their democratically installed government to dismantle the unequal advantages and erect protections against dishonest, abusive or irresponsible market practices.

Peter G

I strongly agree. I would ask of Mr. Lipscomb , if his house was on fire, would call the fire to respond? Whatever changes need to be made to practices in the financial sector they will not be made by the financial sector themselves and the proper place to petition for these changes lies elsewhere. The problem lies in the very common misapprehension that freedom of speech includes the right to compel others to listen. In this case they not only don't have to listen they aren't going to for ideological reasons.

Tom D

The protests are on Wall Street and various financial centers around the U.S. (and some other countries now) because that's where the fire is. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find any protesters who think the arsonists are going to form a bucket line. It's not "the financial sector" they're telephoning for help.

Robert Lipscomb

Forgive me if this is a double post. Something happen with my computer.

@Peter G: My analogy includes making a 911 call.


"It is not encumbent on the protesters to formulate a remedy. It is not even encumbent on them to proffer a clear analyisis of the problem."

And who exactly do they want to do these things? Wall Street? Congress? the very people that they claim are corrupted? Because if the movement doesn't, who's left to do it?

Robert Lipscomb

@Alli: Well, the body politic should do it.

Please forgive my engineer's eye view of the world, but change 9corrective action) will (always) occur as a process. For instancein a complex scenario of competing "problems":

1. Indentify the most relevant problems.

2. Prioritize the problems as a function of importance and urgency.

3. State and define the problems in precise terms.

4. Develop one or more corrective actions.

5. Implement the corrective action.

6. Measure the response.

7. Take corrective action.

I know this abstract and obstruse. My point is that the WSO people are properly focused on Steps 1 and 2. Others correctly observe that nothing "good" happens until Step 5, and therefore insist they move to Step4.


Steps 1, 2 and 3 are necessary and appropriate.

In response to your question, I absolutely want government officials to be the instruments of change and I want corporate leaders to be changed. In a democracy, this will require much discussion, mnumerous elections, legislative action, regulatory reform and ultimately enforcement.

The other two options are No Change or Tyranny.

The comments to this entry are closed.