You Can’t Cure Stupid – Page 69

The Numbers Game

One advantage to running a blog is that you have a public platform available for ranting. If something pisses you off you can tell the world (or at least a very tiny percentage of the world that reads your blog). This post is another one of my rants and it has to deal with numbers.

Everywhere you look today we see people throwing around numbers. Some will say politicians shouldn’t be allowed to accept gifts over $10,000, others say we need to pump $1 trillion into building infrastructure, and others claim no person should be allowed to own more than two homes. What irritates me about these statements is that the numbers are apparently selected arbitrarily. Whenever somebody makes a statement involving a number I always ask them how they come to the conclusion that number was valid. How comes a person making $1 million or more qualifies as “rich” and thus has to pay a 90% incomes tax? What criteria lead to the selection of $1 million and 90% tax rate? Demanding justification for the selected numbers seldom nets you any logical justification. After asking one person the logical reason for selecting $1 million as the threshold that defines “rich” and “poor” the answer I received was, “Uh, err, it’s just common sense! How do you not understand it?”

It’s not common sense though. Common sense involves culturally accepted norms and as humans are not good at dealing with large numbers there can be no cultural norm revolving around large numbers. Those who wish to restrict the number of homes a person can own also fail to provide any real justification. They will often say something along the lines of, “Nobody needs more than two homes!” Such statements are correct in a technical sense since one could always rent an apartment but from a logical sense the statements hold no water. What if a businessman periodically travels between four different company sites? Let’s say he spends an average of three months a year at each location. Why shouldn’t the businessman be allowed to own a home in each of the four locations? Allowing him to own multiple homes doesn’t hurt you in any way and does benefit the economy since it requires each home be built, maintained, and provided with utilities.

Speed limits are another arbitrarily selected number with piss poor justification. While the government claims speed limits serve as a mechanism of increasing road safety this is easily proven false by the fact that the German Autobahn has not speed limits in many locations and has a low fatality rate. Likewise if the speed limit was really a limit people should be getting into more accidents when they exceed the speed. Everyday my trip to work involves traveling on two highways where the posted speed limit is 55 mph but everybody drives around 70 mph. The number of accidents isn’t obscenely high meaning 55 mph must not be the threshold of safety where exceeding it will cause an increase in accidents. Speed limits are just another arbitrarily selected number with weak justifications.

Any desired policy must be completely justifiable. Selecting an arbitrary number and claiming it is a threshold of some sort is not justifiable. I can say my Magpul SR-25 magazines have a maximum capacity of 20 rounds of 7.62x51mm because 21 rounds will not fit. That’s a hard fact and thus using the number 20 makes sense. Saying somebody who makes $1 million should pay 90% income tax makes little sense because there are no solid facts for defining the thresholds of $1 million and 90% other than saying they “feel” right. Feelings have nothing to do with policies and should be completely ignored in that regard.

The next time somebody tells you a policy should be enacted that involves any number whatsoever demand they explain how that number was chosen. You’ll be amazed at how quickly demanding justification for the selection of a number can shutdown a debate.

Stop Me if You’ve Heard This Before

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard somebody start a statement with, “I’m a gun owner but…” I’d probably be very wealthy. I’ve never actually heard anything intelligent comes after that well-known opener either and this is no exception:

I am about as pro-firearms as they come; I am an NRA member, target shooter and hunter, and speaking as a student with a concealed firearm permit, I still believe this campus is not the place to be carrying. There is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed firearm

on-campus.

His argument? Well… it’s downright idiotic:

The one thing no one should ever sacrifice is safety. Events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Penn State are very rare. But they arose, because people did not follow university rules and precautions.

That’s right, Virginia Tech and Penn State were results of people not following university rules and precautions. If only the murdering sons of bitches would have obeyed the rules and not brought guns onto campus everything would have been swell those days. Maybe the murderers didn’t know they weren’t supposed to bring guns on campus; I’m sure they would have returned home upon seeing a sign informing them that the campuses were gun-free zones.

Idiot, dumb ass, retard, moron, and fucking dip ship all seem inadequate to explain the level of stupidity this person’s statement emanates. Were that the only statement he made it wouldn’t be so bad but he keeps piling on the stupid:

One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, permits were to be issued specific to University Park grounds and a situation occurred in which there was a shooting on campus the campus would turn into the Wild West. Practice is one thing that many amateur shooters lack and a crowded campus where all hell breaks loose would be a time when every inch of accuracy matters.

The problem with the “Wild” West is that it wasn’t very wild. I would also submit the fact that no shootout would likely occur for two reasons: dead people don’t shoot and most of the bastards who’ve shot up schools ended up offing themselves the second resistance arrived. Were a person with a carry permit able to shoot the murderous gunman the situation would be concluded in short order and if the permit holder was unable to get a clean shot the situation would likely be concluded shortly anyways as the murderous gunman took his own life in an act of sheer cowardice. Obviously logic wasn’t the strong suit of the person who wrote this article though.

But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test. The shooting test should include both moving and stationary targets. Through these added precautions, we could be assured that we are placing firearms in skilled hands.

What the author is really saying is that those with poor vision should be prohibited from defending themselves. It seems the author believes people with poor vision should be removed from the gene pool less they breed and are able to pass their genetics of poor vision onto their offspring. Maybe the author was a fan of eugenics. Furthermore he believes everybody should be required to receive training for unlikely scenarios before they are granted the privilege of exercising one of their supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Why do I say training for situations involved stationary and moving targets is an unlikely scenario? Because a large majority (83.5%) of self-defense situations involving a firearm require only the presentation of the weapon [PDF]. It’s good to be training in handling a vast number of potential scenarios but such training should not be mandatory.

If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare. But the people to bring calm to a situation like this shouldn’t be students or staff members — the people to calm the situation would be the emergency responders.

Yes the emergency responders should be the ones to bring calm to the situation, you know when they get there anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes after somebody makes the initial call to 911. The reason body counts get so high at many of these shootings is due to the amount of time it takes emergency responders to actually respond. What the author doesn’t realize is that instant teleportation technology is not something we have access to yet so anybody wanting to get from one point to another (let’s say from a police station to a college campus) have to physically make the trip. Usually this involves hopping into a car and driving there but one could also walk if they so chose.

We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them. At any point a responder could lose their life. Each one knows the risk, but they accept it because they have taken an oath to protect the citizens.

Emphasis mine. It seems that while the author realizes emergency responders may lose their life at any point college students and faculty members will remain entirely unharmed.

No matter what form of emergency the first step is to size up the problem; the better the size up of the problem faster the emergency will get solved. If the responders can not figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of Penn Stater might be lost.

If the responder can figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of a student or faculty member might be lost. Emergency responders usually don’t respond until there has been an emergency meaning it’s likely somebody has already been shot before 911 is even called. The sooner the situation is dealt with the smaller the window of opportunity for the murder. Allowing faculty members and students to legally carry firearms can drop the response time of mass shootings dramatically as there are personell on campus capable of ending the situation.

Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.

What that footnote should have said is, “Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in a career track that doesn’t study self-defense situations in any sense. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer in two types of emergency response that don’t directly deal with ending mass shooting scenarios. Basically he may be very intelligent in agriculture systems management, firefighting, and emergency medical fields but he knows little, if anything, about self-defense scenarios. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.”

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject but there is much wrong with being ignorant on a subject and having a strong opinion regarding it.

Because the Track Record for Disarmament is So Good

It’s obvious that some people do not research history. While it’s not bad in any way to remain ignorant on a topic it is bad to have an opinion on topics you’re ignorant of. Take for instance Alex Wagner who has an opinion on the Second Amendment that demonstrates an utter lack of history:

Bill Maher, HBO: “Let’s ask Alex. What would you change in the Constitution?”

Alex Wagner, Huffington Post: “Well, I’m going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that.”

It seems Alex is unaware of the history of gun control and how disarmed people are at the total mercy of their government. When you’re are the complete mercy of your government few options exist when that government decides you are no longer fix to live.

Alex’s quote also demonstrates the fact that many do not view the Bill of Rights as a list of rights but government granted privileges. If this is the case then what grounds exist for any supposed right? Does the government get to decide if we have the freedom of speech and assembly? Can the government just decide to get rid of protections against illegal search and seizure? While the answer to both questions is technically yes it should be no as the spirit of the Bill of Rights was to grant protection from government of certain activities.

Also where the fuck does the Second Amendment grant somebody the right to kill? Alex said, “And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm…” yet I don’t see anywhere in the wording of the amendment that grants such a right. It appears as though Alex is either illiterate or hasn’t actually read the wording of the Second Amendment. If the first case is true than I can understand where many of her beliefs probably stem from and if it’s the second case she shouldn’t be talking about the Second Amendment in any regard whatsoever.

A Personal Pet Peeve Regarding Legislative Activism Sites

During the couple of years I’ve been blogging one thing I’ve tried to avoid is writing posts advocating legislative action without linking to the actual bill under consideration. Honestly it irritates me when somebody demands people vote for or against a piece of legislation without linking to, or at the very least explaining, the legislation in question. As you can imagine this pisses me right the fuck off:

For months we’ve been talking about tomorrow: Election Day. We’ve been telling you how much is at stake for Ohio workers and their families. We’ve show you how unfair, unsafe and dangerous Senate Bill 5 is to our communities. And now, the time to act and repeal Senate Bill 5 by VOTING NO ON ISSUE 2 is upon us.

Tomorrow is your last chance to vote against Senate Bill 5 with a NO vote on Issue 2. Polls across the state will be open from 6:30am to 7:30pm. Click here to find more information on your polling location.

We expect long lines as voter turnout is expected to be high. Make sure to schedule time in your busy day to get to the polls and VOTE NO ON ISSUE 2. Tell out-of-touch politicians and their Wall Street cronies that you stand with Ohio’s public workers.

Click here to get more information on your polling location.

Tomorrow’s vote will come down to people like you. Without your support, we could wake up on Wednesday knowing that our communities will be less safe now that firefighters, police officers, and nurses are no longer able to bargain for the safety equipment they need to protect themselves as they protect us.

Get ready to vote tomorrow by clicking here.

After reading that do you have any clue what the fuck “Issue 2” says or purports to do? Why should I vote against it? What would “Issue 2” do if passed? Why isn’t there a single link explaining this piece of legislation on the post demanding people go out and vote against it?

Obviously I don’t life in Ohio and thus don’t care much what legislative issues are under consideration there. With that said I really wanted to point out this complete lack of information because somebody linked to this in a chat room I frequent asking that we do as the linked material advocates. Even if I lived in Ohio I wouldn’t be motivated to vote against “Issue 2” from the material presented in this link because the link doesn’t present any material.

Honestly I don’t care enough about Ohio’s politics to even bother digging up what “Issue 2” is. Judging by the lack of information presented on that site I’d be tempted to vote yes on it just because those urging people to vote no aren’t presenting any information, which makes it appear as though they’re hiding something. Here’s a pro tip for those advocating legislative action: ensure a link to the legislation under question or a very detailed summary are readily visible on the site so those who know nothing about it can seek information quickly.

I’m Hear to Save American Money Again

Sometimes I wonder how the Supreme Court selects the cases they’re going to hear. Usually I can see some kind of Constitutional question that will lie within the rulings and thus understand why the case was taken but other times it appears as though the cases are nothing more than frivolous wastes of taxpayer money. Can you guess which category this case falls in:

The case of an American-Israeli couple who want the US to recognise their Jerusalem-born son’s place of birth as Israel has reached the Supreme Court.

Menachem Zivotofsky’s US passport lists Jerusalem as his birthplace, but his country of birth has been left blank.

It seems the whole argument about who owns Jerusalem is so contentious that our own government advices people simply don’t bring it up:

They cite a provision in a 2002 law, the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act, allowing Israel to be listed as the birthplace for Americans born in Jerusalem.

But former President George W Bush overrode that provision, saying it interfered with his authority over foreign affairs.

The Obama administration says it does not want to appear to take sides on the status of Jerusalem.

State department guidelines say: “For a person born in Jerusalem, write Jerusalem as the place of birth in the passport.”

This case is now going to the Supreme Court and my only questions is… why? Seriously why the fuck is the supposed highest court in the land wasting taxpayer money on this case? Once again I have a simple solution to resolve this issue and save taxpayers money. If the family wants to birth certificate to say Jerusalem, Israel then put that on the birth certificates. On the other hand if the family wants the birth certificate to say Jerusalem, Palestine then put that on the birth certificate. Hell if the family wants the birth certificate to say Jerusalem, Valhalla then put that on the birth certificate. After all does it really matter? Is anybody unaware of where in the world Jerusalem is? Does anybody care? OK, obviously somebody cares so let me rephrase, does anybody who matters care?

Conversations with Madmen at Occupy Minneapolis

Although I’ve stated several times that a majority of the people at the occupation in Minneapolis are very nice there are also some absolute crazies hanging out amongst the crowds. Since I found myself in the area again I decided to stop by the Hennepin County Government Plaza and see if anything was happening. Needless to say there wasn’t anything happening so I decided to talk to a couple of the occupiers. I did have a couple interesting conversations but two people really struck me as being bat shit crazy.

The first crazy was a violent revolutionary. OK, that title is misleading because this guy was all talk and no walk meaning he wasn’t really violent, but he was advocating violent revolution. I will attempt to paraphrase my conversation with him. A group of occupiers were discussing tactics and this bozo, whom I’ll call Moe for lack of a real name, said we should be taking to the streets with molotov cocktails. According to Moe if they could get 1,000 people to start rioting the government would have no option other than collapsing… or something like that. What really struck me as moronic was when he brought up guillotines. I’m not sure what the recent obsession with guillotines is but it seems some people think lobbing off enough heads will eventually lead to positive change. At that point I raised the obvious question, how did he plan on overthrowing the government and murdering people when a large portion of the populace is armed and the state would simply call in the National Guard. He had no actual answer other than saying if there were 1,000 people rioting the state would have no choice but to list to the rioters. Obviously this bright bulb has spent a lot of time constructing his cunning plan. Either way I just want to make it clear that anybody setting up a guillotine in Minnesota with the intent of lobbig of peoples’ heads is going to be dealing with one really upset Minnesotan with a .308 rifle. This very upset Minnesotan will be shooting every asshole who attempts to operate the guillotine to kill another. Now that I think about it I’m sure there will be more than one Minnesotan involved in this dissuasion strategy.

The other crazy, whom we’ll call Curly, wasn’t malicious but simply stupid. I won’t waste your time paraphrasing the entire conversation which involved some kind of government conspiracy to engineer a stupid germ that will wipe out all people who haven’t received the immunization and other theories on the same level. Instead I’m going to concentrate on Curly’s idiocy in the field of economics and science. Curly is an advocate in ceasing all mineral extraction effective immediately. When he said this I pointed out the bloody obvious and asked him what we’re supposed to do without minerals as our entire society and technology base is dependent on extracted resources. After a brief stare of dumbfoundedness Curly asked what do we need minerals for. I pointed at the building around us, the watch on my write, the cell phone in my pocket, and the very tables the Occupy Minnesota food was sitting on. Then I brought up the fact that without minerals we could no longer build medical technology that saves untold numbers of lives every year. This is where Curly’s lack of basic knowledge came out as he said we have stem cells which can cure any and all ailments. I asked him how we were supposed to access and harness stem cells without advanced medical technology made possible by the minerals we extract and he was unable to answer. At that point I simply walked away less I receive brain damage from the statements he was making.

Somebody is boud to ask why I focused on the negative conversations instead of the positive ones. The answer is simple, the positive conversations don’t make for interesting reading so I’m not motivated to write them down on this blog. This post also serves as a reminder that there are some absolutely insane individuals out there who would love to see those they disagree with disarmed so they could start lobbing off heads with a guillotine.

Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was a Work of Fiction

There are several sacred cows when it comes to government regulatory bodies and one of those fat grass eating bastards is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Whenever you mention a desire to eliminate various government regulatory bodies people get very upset when you bring up one of the sacred cows because they feel that agency is absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of the nation. In the case of the FDA supporters will often cite a novel by Upton Sinclair called The Jungle as definitive proof that we need the FDA in order to have safe food to eat. The Jungle is a novel about the supposedly inhuman conditions found in the Chicago slaughterhouses of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Unfortunately for those who cite the work it was a completely fictitious, sensationalized, and outrageous piece of literature:

The Jungle was, first and foremost, a novel. It was intended to be a polemic—a diatribe, if you will—and not a well-researched and dispassionate documentary. Sinclair relied heavily on both his own imagination and on the hearsay of others. He did not even pretend to have actually witnessed the horrendous conditions he ascribed to Chicago packinghouses, nor to have verified them, nor to have derived them from any official records.

When you argument contains no verifiable evidence you’re not off to a good start. The biggest flaw with using The Jungle as a citation for the support of government food regulation is the fact nothing state in the book is verifiable. In fact evidence to the contrary exists:

Though his novelized and sensational accusations prompted later congressional investigations of the industry, the investigators themselves expressed skepticism of Sinclair’s integrity and credibility as a source of information.

[…]

Most Americans would be surprised to know that government meat inspection did not begin in 1906. The inspectors Holbrook refers to as being mentioned in Sinclair’s book were among hundreds employed by federal, state, and local governments for more than a decade. Indeed, Congressman E. D. Crumpacker of Indiana noted in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee in June 1906 that not even one of those officials “ever registered any complaint or (gave) any public information with respect to the manner of the slaughtering or preparation of meat or food products.”⁵

To Crumpacker and other contemporary skeptics, “Either the Government officials in Chicago (were) woefully derelict in their duty, or the situation over there (had been) outrageously over-stated to the country.”⁶ If the packing plants were as bad as alleged in The Jungle, surely the government inspectors who never said so must be judged as guilty of neglect as the packers were of abuse.

Some two million visitors came to tour the stockyards and packinghouses of Chicago every year. Thousands of people worked in both. Why is it that it took a novel written by an anti-capitalist ideologue who spent but a few weeks there to unveil the real conditions to the American public?

The entire novel was hyperbole. If conditions in the Chicago packing plats was even remotely as bad as The Jungle described there would have been outrage by visitors and at least one complaint filed by the hundreds of government meat inspectors already overseeing the situation. You can’t cover up such barbarism when millions of visitors come to the scene of the crimes. Likewise the legislation passed in the wake of The Jungle wasn’t passed due to the novel but so everybody citing the novel would shut the hell up:

When the sensational accusations of The Jungle became worldwide news, foreign purchases of American meat were cut in half and the meatpackers looked for new regulations to give their markets a calming sense of security. The only congressional hearings on what ultimately became the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 were held by Congressman James Wadsworth’s Agriculture Committee between June 6 and 11. A careful reading of the deliberations of the Wadsworth committee and the subsequent floor debate leads inexorably to one conclusion: Knowing that a new law would allay public fears fanned by The Jungle, bring smaller competitors under regulation, and put a newly-laundered government stamp of approval on their products, the major meat packers strongly endorsed the proposed act and only quibbled over who should pay for it.

[…]

To his credit, Upton Sinclair actually opposed the law because he saw it for what it really was—a boon for the big meat packers.¹⁰ Far from a crusading and objective truth-seeker, Sinclair was a fool and a sucker who ended up being used by the very industry he hated.

At least the bastard didn’t get what he wanted (which happens to everybody who appeals to the government to enact some piece of legislation by the way). Still the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed on fraudulent grounds which is the important thing to take away from this post. Anytime you hear somebody cite The Jungle as a reason for government regulation duly inform that idiot about the truth nature of that novel; it was purely fiction and therefore not a valid source for augmentative purposes.

Just What the Police Need, Weaponizable Drones

What do you get the authoritarian who has everything? A weaponizable drone of course! What could possible go wrong with giving the police drones that can mount Tasers:

A Houston area law enforcement agency is prepared to launch an unmanned drone that could someday carry weapons, Local 2 Investigates reported Friday.

The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Conroe paid $300,000 in federal homeland security grant money and Friday it received the ShadowHawk unmanned helicopter made by Vanguard Defense Industries of Spring.

[…]

He said they are designed to carry weapons for local law enforcement.

“The aircraft has the capability to have a number of different systems on board. Mostly, for law enforcement, we focus on what we call less lethal systems,” he said, including Tazers that can send a jolt to a criminal on the ground or a gun that fires bean bags known as a “stun baton.”

“You have a stun baton where you can actually engage somebody at altitude with the aircraft. A stun baton would essentially disable a suspect,” he said.

This is such a great idea! It’s not like there is a record of people who have been killed by Tasers or anything. Who could possibly imagine this type of technology being abused?

Who in the fuck thought it was a good idea to build a drone that can mount weapons and sell it to law enforcement agencies? No, seriously I want to know who the fucker is that thought this was a good idea. Big Brother watching my every move is one thing but it becomes an entirely different game when Big Brother is not only following and watching me but also deploying weapons from remote controlled aircraft.

Militarizing the police has proven to be a very bad idea yet we continue down this road of idiocy. Why not just give police department some nuclear weapons while we’re at it? Perhaps they could use a few flamethrowers in case a perp locks himself in a house and the only option is to burn the building to the ground. Where does this insanity stop?

Government Efficiency in Action

A couple spent a night in jail while their child was abducted by Child Protective Services (CPS). Obviously these two parents must have done something fairly heinous for end up in jail while their child was taken by the state right? Wrong:

“We walked a long way to the grocery store and I was feeling faint, dizzy, like I needed to eat something so we decided to pick up some sandwiches and eat them while we were shopping,” Leszczynski told the news station.

Leszczynski, who is 30-weeks pregnant, her husband, Marcin, and daughter Zophia bought $50 worth of groceries — but forgot about their two chicken salad sandwiches.

“It was a complete distraction, distracted parent moment,” Leszczynski told KHON.

As the family left, they were stopped by store security, who asked for their receipt.

“I offered to pay, we had the cash. We just bought the groceries,” Leszczynski told the station.

Instead, the expectant mother told KHON that the Safeway manager called police. They were taken to the main Honolulu police station where they were booked for fourth degree theft. Then Zophia was taken into custody by Child Protective Services.

All of this over two $5.00 sandwiches. While I’m not one to ever defend theft I think it’s pretty believable that the parents simply forgot to pay for the sandwiches considering they paid for the other $50.00 of groceries. They also offered to pay for the sandwiches before the police were called, if I were the store owner I’d have simply taken the money for the sandwiches and called it a day. Really, how wants to get the police involved over $10.00? It’s going to cost far more than $10.00 in taxpayer money by the time the police drive to the store and investigate the matter.

Hell if I were the police officer who arrived at the “scene” I would have simply told the couple to pay for the sandwiches and get the fuck out of my sight. The overreaction of our society is getting out of hand and it’s costing use a fortune in money and unnecessary stress. A little common sense, ladies and gentlemen, is what we desperately need.

More Delusions of Grandeur

The occupiers in Oakland, California were evicted a couple of days ago by the police. Say what you will about the eviction, I’m not here to talk about that. What I want to discuss is the plan put forth by some of the Oakland occupiers to take back the park:

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

Ah yes, the call for general strike has begun. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of a general strike consider yourself lucky. A general strike is a method, usually associated with collectivists, where change is obtained by everybody simply refusing to show up for work.

People participating in general strikes obviously lose money for the day and may lose their job. Needless to say the risk of participating in a general strike is high and the potential reward is oftentimes low in comparison. Those who were evicted from the park are now asking everybody to potentially risk being fired in an attempt to reclaim the park. With the way the post is written I almost think the author believes a great number of people will join his cry to join the general strike. The author actually believes this strike has a chance of shutting down the city and frankly this belief is assine.

These occupations do not have the support of a majority of the population. Because of this believing a call for a general strike by the occupiers can grind the city to a halt is delusional at best.