Tuesday, October 18, 2011

why Occupy Wall Street exists, reason #1,734

I'm afraid I don't know who is responsible for this image, so I can't give credit where it's due, but I thought this was too enraging not to post. (Note that the bottom story is from 2009.)


Handle said...

The real mastermind behind the Taylor-Bean fraud was Lee Farkas who got 30 years for it. If that's not enough justice, maybe you'd be willing to countenance capital punishment in this instance. I might.

As for the story Roy Brown at it's dual-spiked lifetime as an internet meme, well, it seems just a tad suspect.

Freddie said...

I'm confused, Handle-- the post you link to suggests the story is authentic.

Handle said...

My fault, I didn't specify the character of my suspicion. I don't doubt that Mr. Brown was booked for bank robbery, but I don't think the story presents us with the full explanation for the sentencing.

I don't know Louisiana law, but what is typical in a case like this is that when the criminal history is presented at sentencing as an aggravating factor one sees a long track record of prior felony convictions which tends to support a judgment of irredeemably.

At any rate, it's odd not to see that reported, so it triggers my suspicion. When one sees a story like this as it was reported, one is reasonably being led towards a conclusion of inexplicable and unjustifiable class and race bias. That is what, after all, is the point of that juxtaposition of images, is it not? Those biases might be at play in Roy Brown's case, but I'll suspend judgment without more detail.

Skye said...

"which tends to support a judgment of irredeemably."

What in God's name are you talking about?

Adam James said...

I think there are better examples of the bullshit that occupy wall street is protesting. Not to downplay the presence of bias and racism in our justice system, but in this case, could these actions also be interpreted as a deliberate attempt by a homeless man to go to prison for regular food and shelter? Might a judge interpret them as such and oblige the man?

Anonymous said...

Might a judge interpret them as such and oblige the man?

An insane question demanding an insane answer...why did the judge not sentence him to clothed, housed, and fed without impinging on his freedom?

Jim McCord said...

This is RACISM at its worst! Our legal system SUCKS... Period!

Anonymous said...

So, oddly this image gets at why I find OWS so repulsive.

Look, minimum sentencing laws and crap like that aren't there for the bankers, they're there for the middle class housewives. And yet, yeah, the OWS guys who are telling e the middle class is getting shafted by the bankers, are trotting this thing out: it ain't THEIR fault, they're real sure.

And in general that's the problem. Inequality is terrible and growing. The presumptions our society operates under suck. But after years and years of prisoner abuse, national security shenanigans and anti-Muslim bigotry -- all generally approved of by that 99% -- we find what really gets the folks, right and left, into the street: the suspicion that somewhere someone is getting a better fucking _deal_. And that's outrageous.

Because in the end those bankers and financiers really suck, but they're there in part because of a bottomless desire to consume all through the culture. You can achieve many of the OWS goals just fine by getting the hell out of Zucotti, throwing away your TV and _not buying any more useless crap_. But nobody wants to do that, do they?

I don't have a lot of love for folks telling me, 99% of the people need to get theirs from 1% -- hell, anytime anybody cuts society into 99-vs-1, I will stand proudly with the one. What I want to hear is folks telling me, it's time for a new deal where these guys stop living high off the hog -- and this is what the rest of us will give up for that, this is the useless crap consumption we're willing to forego to make that happen. But instead a bunch of kids are telling me, they want _more, more, more_ iPhones and fun, and maybe we can get that from bankers. Screw that.

Judd said...

Did you see the Snopes about this? It turns out there were mitigating factors - the fraud was already underway when Allen became CEO, and it was a nonviolent crime, unlike Brown's.