Slate: Protests Are "Anti-Democracy"

Too funny:

[The Occupy protests] are similar in their lack of focus, in their inchoate nature, and above all in their refusal to engage with existing democratic institutions. In New York, marchers chanted, "This is what democracy looks like," but, actually, this isn't what democracy looks like. This is what freedom of speech looks like. Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary, and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities, none of which are nearly as much fun as camping out in front of St. Paul's cathedral or chanting slogans on the Rue St. Martin in Paris.

Much more democratic to chant slogans at a campaign rally. There is a reason people don't read Slate anymore (I got this from Greenwald.) The stupidity is breathtaking. Dumber than Scarborough.

Speaking for me only

< Occupy Together: The Kids are Alright | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Democracy should have a little more (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:23:27 AM EST
    tarring and feathering, no?

    Maybe the disconnect is that we are witnessing a restart on the birth of democracy, since the first try did not take.

    I can't believe that any of the yammering (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    heads out there can't grasp that there is such a thing as having gone too far and will not be tolerated, or such a thing as a system completely rigged and now also unaccountable.

    Everyone gets it except the people who are paid to summarize and distill what we all are getting :)  It is kind of funny though.  Can it be official now, we are two Americas?  It can't be just a political campaign concept anymore.

    Thing is, I'm not the 99% nor am I the 1%.  I am keenly aware of the fact though that if this crap isn't straightened out I will be the 99% and I have no chance of ever being the 1%...not ever.  I'm on the precarious cusp of falling into the 99% black hole.  And the 53% doesn't even exist, where did they pull that figure out of anyhow.  I haven't investigated them to know where it came from.


    Why, did you see my morning paper, too? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:57:39 AM EST
    Talking 'bout everyone gets it except the talking heads or, in this case, the writing and opining heads:  This morn, my paper's top editorial finally acknowledged -- after thousands marched here last weekend -- the existence of OWS, only to tsk-tsk that the editorial board has no idea whatsoever what these darn people want.

    Read:  OWS did not deliver a nicely packaged news release to the newsroom, thus to be spared the work of actually committing an act of journalism.

    What cracked me up was that, across from the whiny editorial on the op-ed page, there was a huge piece of art, a montage of the signs from the march here -- signs which, literally, spelled out exactly what these darn people want:  Create Jobs.  Tax the Rich.  Etc. . . .


    53% = % of people that they say (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    pay Federal Income Tax. I have not checked their math.  You know, eliminating those freeloading 47% (again, their numbers) that are too poor to pay federal income tax.

    Can't expect the press to get it - they are part of the rigging of the system, and the ones who have abdicated their role in holding the authorities accountable.


    Well if that is who the 53% are (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:12:16 PM EST
    Those who are calling themselves that are full of $hit suggesting that everyone who pays federal income taxes isn't marching or protesting in an OWS protest someplace.  I figured someone was being pretty high minded and signing a bunch of us up for something without our consent.  I'm part of the 53% and my facebook has been dedicated to OWS for weeks now.  I'm certain that has been much to the chagrin of many of my 53% friends who like to think they have done something "more special" than everyone else, and that their hard work has caused them to be more deserving of their current place outside the gutter right now.  It has been nothing greater than luck at this point!

    Part of the 47% who don't pay taxes (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:24:40 AM EST
    are corporations and the mega rich. While trying to denigrate the poor as "free loaders", the corporate owned media fails to break out their brethren from the equation. Some people pay no federal income taxes because they are too poor while others pay no taxes because they are so rich that they can buy legislation that provides them with the necessary loopholes to avoid paying taxes.  

    shorter Slate (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    what is absolutely indespenisble to a Democracy is an epidemic of smart aleck yuppies who went straight from grad school to the beltway (in order to better tell the citizenry what Democracy really is.)

    That, and keeping the revolving between K St and both houses open, and the money=speech equation codified into law.



    Shorter Slate (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:50:28 AM EST
    Please please play with us and only do pretend protests that don't question the status quo.

    Please? You're making us nervous over here.

    Well, Cenk was told that the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    is part of the establishment.  It would appear to be a fact at this time because they can't "get it", they refuse to "get it", they are intent on protecting the status quo for some reason.  Change is scary I suppose.  Instead of worrying about kissing leaderships a$$ in order to have access, the people are now insisting the media has to serve them too.  The heads had their bases covered until these brats started stomping on the bases.

    They refuse to get it because (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    if they got it they'd get it, and the mirror would bee too awful. That they get.

    All they have ever needed to do was (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:07:28 AM EST
    report, like Walter Cronkite. They were the ones that became intent upon creating the news, ramping stories and ratings.  It's just mud on your face.  It washes.  Heal thyself

    The Ride (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    They're on The Ride

    If they did that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:35:02 AM EST
    they couldn't get invited to the Beltway cocktail parties or be part of the NY scene.

    Well, it is Anne Applebaum (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:17:43 PM EST
    in a column in the business section.  Don't know why anybody takes her seriously.

    Democracy.... (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    Noun, A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

    When elected representatives refuse to represent 99%, when a system of government does not govern in the interests of the whole population, when the institutions/elections/political parties/rules/laws/judiciary are rigged, corrupt, & cronyfied rotten....civil disobedience is all thats left to try and save and reform the democracy.

    When elected representatives (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    stop representing, in a democracy we are free to then do things that aren't "typical" until further notice.

    The ruling class... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    and their comfortable lackeys should consider themselves lucky we are going the Gandhi MLK Jr. route, and not taking the route of the founders.

    If this nimrod was writing for the Colonial Times back in the 1770's, they'd be telling us to respect the "institution" of the crown.  Or back in the early 60's, to respect the "institution" of Sheriff Bull Connor.  


    Yes....exactly (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:25:37 AM EST
    Just a different man defining who I get to be and I'm not allowed to say NO or define myself and what I'm allowed to be.

    My ultimate "institution" (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    is my conscience, my free mind and free will, and my inalienable rights as a living breathing human being, especially the inalienable right to resist tyranny.  

    Everything else is negotiable as an "institution".


    Something tells me that if the (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    OWS were instead marching in support of the "job creators" their movement would be depicted as the most wonderful example of direct democracy evah.  

    Something tells me that (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    the pathetic scared little trolls down below in this thread won't come anywhere near your comment.

    Oh, they'll circle it from out of range and keep coming back to look in fascinated horror, but they'll stay out of range because they're afraid it'll bite them if they get too close.

    Same reason they'll keep pretending to not "get" what the Occupy movement wants - the end of them and everything they represent.


    Greenwald responses to Applebaum (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:18:42 AM EST
    In other words, it's undemocratic to protest oligarchic rule; if these protesters truly believed in democracy, they would raise a few million dollars, hire lobbying firms filled with ex-political officials, purchase access to and influence over political leaders, and then use their financial clout to extract the outcomes they want. Instead, they're attempting to persuade their fellow citizens that we live under oligarchy, that our democratic institutions are corrupted and broken, and that fundamental change is urgent -- an activity which, according to Applebaum, will "simply weaken the [political system] further."

    Could someone please explain to her that this is precisely the point? Protesting a political system and attempting to achieve change outside of it is "anti-democratic" only when the political system is a healthy and functioning democracy. Oligarchies and plutocracies don't qualify.

    Applebaum covered this same ground last June (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    when she moaned about the protests of the Arab Spring. "An Imperfect Election is Better Than No Election."

    For all those reasons, Egypt and Tunisia should try to hold elections as quickly as possible, although many of the democratic forces in both countries would like to delay. They want the nascent parties to have more time to establish themselves; they want the electoral laws to be written carefully; they want everyone to have more time to argue. But an imperfect legislature is better than none: Poland's first post-Communist parliament in 1989 was only partially freely elected; it even contained members of the old regime. The government it produced was also a compromise, and it also contained members of the old regime. Nevertheless it looked, acted, and ultimately felt radically different, and that quickly earned it legitimacy. Talk, debate, argument, conversation: Now that they have those things, Egyptians and Tunisians won't easily give them away. But they must lead somewhere, soon, or many will begin to question where they are leading.

    I don't know who Anne Applebaum is, but she reminds me of the student government people in high school -- people who never really acted like teenagers and never seemed to have much fun outside of their little clubs. The same ones who would narc to the prinicipal about those of us who WERE having fun.

    The mainstream media (and Slate has always been that) are so terrified of covering real change in progress. None of these people seem to know anything about social movements and how great movements take a lot of time to form, coalesce around ideas and consensus actions, and finally cause change in the larger culture. It's sad, really, to have to suffer "journalists" with such small attention spans, and such little knowledge of history.

    By the way, it appears I have been banned from posting comments on David Brooks's op-ed columns. Talk about a thin-skinned little know-nothing.

    Betsy Ross rolls and rises from the grave (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    with a new flag design incorporating the death of the old and the birth of the new....

    I click and get a pic of butterflies (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    which are pretty, but did you mean to paste in a url to the new 99-star flag?

    No (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    take another look...

    Did so. Don't get it. Moving on. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    But thanks for your reply.  I'm just not capable of deducing cryptic visuals and comments today, I guess, so will get back to work. . . .

    The pupa has to die (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    and the chrysalis has to be shattered, so the butterfly can be born to soar.

    It's a metaphor for the times, you know... :-)


    Sorry (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    I don't get it either.

    Slate is right (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    If not to leverage the populist angst the protests represent to change the system, e.g. true campaign finance reform, easier inclusion of candidates on ballots, etc., then what else should one conclude these protests are about? An end to capitalism?  A change to the constitution and the way our gov't is structured?

    Folks want to adopt a wait and see approach

    It's unclear what these protests will accomplish -- that still depends on how many people join them and what they cause it to be -- but, already, they prove that the possibility always exists for subverting even the most seemingly invulnerable power factions. That hasn't happened yet, but the possibility that these protests are only in their incipient stages is one of the more exciting and positive political developments in some time.

    OWS best be prepared to be out there for years, maybe decades. The root causes of the issues the protesters are raising do not affect enough Americans yet. The fact that wall street types took advantage of the system while our country adjusts to a new, world economy shouldn't be surprising - it's human nature to try to get a hookup, they call it networking now. America is becoming a service industry nation, and we'll continue on that path as long as we need those 401K's to retire on, cheap merchandise at Christmas, and workers in other countries accept low wages. Protests that don't focus on wages worldwide will not accomplish the change that OWS truly desires.

    You're not agreeing with Slate (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:56:15 PM EST
    to your credit.

    Why you want to try to is not clear to me.

    Do you want me to think you are stupid too?


    Facilitate change thru the political process (none / 0) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    If the political process isn't working, change the process via those within of like mind. Isn't that the gist of the Slate article? Hate to break it to ya, but what you think of me really doesn't faze me. We are all expressing opinions here.

    No, the opposite in fact (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    You amaze me.

    Main Idea (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    Usually, the main idea can be found at the beginning and end of the thing being read:

    Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary, and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities.

    "Global" activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout that "we need to have a process!" Well, they already have a process: It's called the British political system. And if they don't figure out how to use it, they'll simply weaken it further.

    Pray tell, how does this differ from what I've been posting?


    You need to make up your mind (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    "If the political process isn't working, change the process via those within of like mind."

    Unless you see no connection to "changing the political process" and protests, then you disagree with Slate.

    I also noticed you say you "support" OWS. Slate doesn't.

    When you decide what you actually think, let me know.


    Point taken (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    I do however think there are two points the article is making.  While your post; correctly IMO, highlights one that I do indeed disagree with:

    A "global community" cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world

    maybe not a democracy, but at the very least united around common ideals to the betterment of all.....

    It gives short shrift to the other idea that is present:

    they already have a process: It's called the British political system. And if they don't figure out how to use it, they'll simply weaken it further.

    your post, your perogative of course.


    are you really that historically (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:10:48 PM EST

    Since Pericles, part of "the political process" (not in the anal retentive pundit sense of the term), has been that when citizens perceive that their elected representatives no longer embody their interests and ideals and are showing little interest in doing so, citizens feel free to exercise their right to assemble and speak out.

    Regardless of how icky and uncomfortable it makes the Goldman-Sachs-on-the-Potomac types feel.



    Hilarious comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    Let a republican explain it for you

    And yet...also so sad, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    For me, so much of this is just classic co-dependent behavior, where people have gotten so used to what has become "normal," that they resist anything that threatens change.

    And yes, it could take years; that's the insidiousness of dysfunction.  That I want change, and make changes in my own behavior, doesn't mean that there will be a corresponding change on the other side.  But that's no reason to give up - one either believes in doing what one can to live a better life, or one doesn't - no one ever said it would be easy or quick or painless.

    Honestly, it's a wonder we've made as much progress as we have, on civil rights, gender equality, gay rights - all things that didn't change overnight, met - and still meet with - resistance, and for which many have sacrificed a lot.

    I guess that's lost on some people.


    There are people who are (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:37:59 PM EST
    reaping the benefits of this dysfunctional system. They are doing just fine "Thank you very much." A system where everyone benefits might threaten their little world and that cannot be allowed to happen.  

    I'm not so sure, Anne (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    Really I think it's not lost on anyone. I think we're just seeing a lot now of what we used to refer to as "willful ignorance", which of course wasn't ignorance at all in the sense of not knowing what was happening - it was just ignorance in another other sense.


    Occupying Laughter
    We Are Laughter. Expect Us. To Make You Laugh.
    This is What "THEY" Don't Want You to Figure Out


    Leave your condecension at the door (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    What's sad is you can misread my comment and fly off on a rant. I support OWS. That I differ with their approach is my right as an American. You talk about civil rights, GLBT equality - you know what they all had - clearly defined goals people could agree with. Some time back you talked about Obama supporters who didn't know how to engage those that had a different opinion....pot meet kettle.

    Non-responsive (none / 0) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    and assumes facts not in evidence.

    Very good! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    That's even funnier than your first comment.

    There is a slow rumble of discontent (none / 0) (#21)
    by loveed on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    in this country.
     The media mocks the tea party,and label them as racist. Not paying attention to their dissatisfaction with the way the country is being ran.
     No matter how you feel about the tea party, they've obtain a lot of power in a short period of time.
     The people are now taking to the streets. This is not your hippie uprising. These are young people,who see no future. These are parents that see no future for there children. These are people whom work load has tripled and there wages dropping. This is the despair that is devouring this country.
     The media has been in control of the country for awhile.Picking the presidents since 2000. Bullying the people. When you cannot say a presidential candidates legal middle name, without being label a racist they've gone to far.
     The last presidential election, really destroyed the democratic party. The unfairness by the leadership towards the Clintons,and labeling Bill a racist, lost the party about 30% of there members. The failure of the Obama presidency lost them another 10%. For the life of me I don't know how any women can call herself a democrat.
     The media like to say get over the last election. Obama won. A lot of people have not gotten over it. Mainly because things have turned out just like we thought it would. Now you want the country to fall in line,and elect Obama again. I don't think so.
     The media is playing the same game with the repub. primaries. The repub keeps saying they don't want Romney. The media keeps pushing him.
     There will be surprises for the 2012 election. Probably a 3rd party candidate. If you remember anything about the Perot race, he could have won
    (if he wasn't crazy). The country is in deep despair. With a deep sense of hopelessness. And they have no faith in either party.


    A moment, please (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    First, we are a constitutional republic with democratic institutions. We do not, and never have, lived in a "democracy."

    Secondly, the people in the parks have demonstrated only that they have demands. They remind me of employees who are always first with complaints, but always last with solutions.

    Mostly because solutions require a lot of thought and the understanding that true solutions almost always come in trade offs. And often the trade offs make the person with the problem as unhappy as the problem.

    Thirdly, they need to understand that if you tear down a house without one to replace it you are likely to wind up worse than before. Time and again revolutions have proven that.

    I agree with Slate.

    The problems are systemic... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    solutions will take time, a whole lotta precious time.  I heard potential solutions being discussed and debated at my local chapter...but understand the problems are massive Jim.  Sh*t where do you start?

    I heard no objection to making compromises with the 1% and their subservient government.  

    And the only people I see tearing things down are police tearing down tents.


    Well, you can start by (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    asking hard questions of the politicians and voting for the ones with real answers.

    You can start with the understanding that there aint no such thing as a free lunch and acting accordingly.

    You can start by not allowing politicians to blame each other. I give you a perfect example. Bush and McCain both tried to reform Freddie and Fannie. Barney Frank opposed them. Now Barney blames Bush. I blame Barney for what he did and the game he is now playing. I blame Bush and McCain for not expending the necessary effort.

    You can start by recognizing that the base problem with the economy is the high cost of gasoline. Yet neither Obama or the Repubs have tried to reform the commodity trading rules that allow unlimited trades and a buyer to buy a contract that he can't accept delivery of.

    You can continue by recognizing that solar and wind power is a dream and start pushing nuclear and just drilling for more.. and running off politicians that are too dumb to recognize that.


    I think you have to start (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    by letting the politicians know that you know who they really work for. You start by waking people up, which is the stage OWS is in right now.

    Wake me up when (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    the organizers of OWS get to the "here are the solutions" stage.

    I don't want to miss that.


    You must have really flipped out (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    over the civil rights and anti-war protests of the 1960's.

    Shorter Jim: Four weeks is too long for a revolution! Get to the last act! My dinner's getting cold!!!


    And that d*mn Rosa Parks (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    did not have her list of demands, all nicely typed and multiply mimeo'd, in her hand when arrested to hand it out to the Jims of the world.

    Even when, while Ms. Parks was in jail, Prof. JoAnn Robinson took to the mimeo machine and issued the call of the Women's Council and had dozens of her students distribute the fliers the next day, I am sure that some people with those in hand complained about those darn people not making clear what they wanted.

    Racial equality?  But, but what does that mean?  Be specific!  (Ahem; as Ms. Parks was an officer of the NAACP, allow us to note that its demands were made clear from its founding . . . in 1909.)

    And the pols then, like the pols today, also said to write the bill and then get back to them.  (Ahem, writing bills is what pols are elected to do.)

    Jeesh, these days with social media, it's comparatively so incredibly easy to google, click, and read what OWSers are saying.  And they're saying it on 24/7 tv, too.  Back in the day, we had 15 minutes of national news, on only three networks, only once a day.  Yet, somehow we muddled through and got the movement's message.


    As an aside (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    You could read about how Rosa Parks was not just a little old seamstress who had tired feet and just wanted to sit down on a bus, but rather the move was one of many deliberate actions designed to bring attention to the struggle for civil rights.

    At the Dark End of the Street

    From Booklist:

    Long before Rosa Parks became famous for resisting Jim Crow laws, she was engaged in advocating for social justice for black women who were the victims of sexual violence at the hands of white men. Historian McGuire aims to rewrite the history of the civil rights movement by highlighting sexual violence in the broader context of racial injustice and the fight for freedom. Parks worked as an investigator for the NAACP branch office in Montgomery, Alabama, specializing in cases involving black women who had been sexually assaulted by white men--cases that often went untried and were the political opposite of the allegations of black men raping white women ending in summary lynching with or without trials. McGuire traces the history of several rape cases that triggered vehement resistance by the NAACP and other groups, including the 1975 trial of Joan Little, who killed a white jailer who sexually assaulted her. Despite the long tradition of dismissing charges brought by blacks against whites, several of the cases ended in convictions, as black women asserted their right to be treated justly. --Vanessa Bush

    Uh, Jim, do read what I wrote (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    including that Ms. Parks was an NAACP officer, about the work of the Women's Council, etc.  

    Heck, as an aside, I contributed to research one of the early works on her that to set the record straight, the record that for so long has claimed that little ol' seamstresses just spontaneously combusted one day on a bus.  And that the women of the movement just waited, waited for the men like MLK to appear and show them how it's done.  Ha.  MLK and the other ministers were too timid to express support until the women were succeeding.  Then the men scrambled to catch up.

    Glad that you're catching up, too.


    I'm agreeing with you (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:33:42 PM EST
    And I'm not Jim.  :)

    I never said what Parks did or did not (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:09:32 PM EST
    I merely noted that the Civil Rights struggle was about things that were self evident and recognizable by all.

    The OWS is not about civil rights by any stretch of the imagination and everyone knows that.

    You, of course, are free to try and claim it is.


    Well, I think that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    the Reverend Martin Luther King's daughter, the Reverend Bernice King, may know a bit more about the Civil Rights struggle than you do, jim.  MLK eventually expanded the Civil Rights struggle far beyond race to economic justice for all.  
    Speaking at the dedication ceremony for a new monument to her father, the Rev. Bernice King said Martin Luther King Jr. would have been heartened by the Occupy Wall Street protests and larger 99 Percent Movement. "I hear my father saying what we are seeing now all across the streets of America and the world is a freedom explosion," she said, adding that we should move beyond or conception of King's work as just about "racial justice" to include "economic justice":
    Perhaps, God wanted to remind us that when our father was taken from us, he was in the midst of starting a poor people's campaign where he was galvanizing poor people from all walks of life to converge on this nation's capital and stay here and occupy this place until there was change in the economic system and a better distribution of wealth...


    Good grief (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    All I have said was that the issues raised by the civil rights struggle were self evident to everyone and anyone with an IQ above room temp.

    Yet I get all these lectures.

    I think it is not because of what I have said about civil rights but because I said OWS has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights and based on what I have seen OWS just wants to destroy capitalism.

    When they actually come up with some specific reform proposals beyond blaming Bush, let me know,


    Jim, if you're getting (none / 0) (#95)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:21:32 PM EST
    "all these lectures," you might consider that it's because you're insulting people who hold a different opinion than you do.  And I really don't think that OWS is only about blaming Bush.  But YMMV.  Namaste, my brother.   ;-)

    Nope and outside of just wanting to be (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    argumentative I have no idea as to why you think I was against the civil rights demonstrations.

    And Rosa Parks didn't need to write anything down. The civil rights struggle was self explanatory. Everyone understood that separate but equal was not equal and that equal rights for all was just basic.

    But OWS is not about civil rights. It is about a bunch of people who hate capitalism and who want to destroy it. They have no plans to reform anything.

    And, as is usual in these cases, a bunch of people, for various reasons of their own, want to be involved. Actually they are being used. But they haven't figured that out, yet. Eventually most will. A few will remain clueless.


    As for the civil rights goals (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    being self-explanatory, do go back and look up the mainstream media reactions early on in the movement (and even late in the movement for some media).  

    This is deja vu all over again -- not only re the 1960s but the 1950s and thre 1940s and, heck, the 1840s.  And for a lot of social movements.

    My favorite is the centuries of "What Do Women Want?" querulousness from the media, down to our time but tracing back to at least the 1840s and the responses to the first women's rights convention.

    The one at which women -- and men -- approved the very detailed work of Cady Stanton, the Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, which listed the demands explicitly, very explicitly.  And the women sent out that declaration, had it published, etc., to the very same papers that whined, far from the last time, "What Do Women Want?"  (I use the quotes and caps because that is straight from a Newsweek cover a century and a half later. . . .)

    Willful ignorance, as it correctly was called here.  That's all it is.

    And it has not protected the willfully ignorant in the end.  Along the way, we just get to laugh at the willfully ignorant for being such transparent fools.  


    OWS has conservative's panties (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    in a bunch, and the civil rights movement had states-rights-promoting, racist-constituency-assuaging conservative's panties in a bunch in the fifties and sixties.

    The enemy in both cases? Radical change (or any meaningful change at all), and the threat of "Big Government" intervening correctively in the segregationist status quo, and the holy-of-holies, "the free market".  


    This really is sad: (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    "But OWS is not about civil rights. It is about a bunch of people who hate capitalism and who want to destroy it."

    I guess fear and denial is all that remains for the reactionaries.


    I call'em like I see'em (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    and all I see is people wanting to tear down.

    I see no plan to reform or build.


    saying "they hate capitalism" (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    is so Hannity-dumb.

    It's like saying people protesting the antics of Fred Phelps hate religion.


    Well, if I am wrong (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    show me the reforms they have demanded...

    I mean the ones besides destroy Wall Street and forgive all student loans...


    you heard someone (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    advocating "destroying Wall St", when exactly?

    C'mon, Breibart must have a link to that one..


    Jim... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    I'm hurt, you didn't see my sign?

    Oh yeah, no commie red-scare dirty hippie divisiveness to stir up more kick the dog by putting mine and those like it on Fox & Friends.  Not your fault:)


    Well, stealing from each other may (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    raise a few hackles.

    The anti war protests gave aid and comfort to (2.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    the enemy and resulted in American servicemen being killed.

    So no, I was very much against the anti-war demonstrations because of that.

    And history proves me right.


    Jim, you know you're quoting (none / 0) (#51)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    a Communist?!

    My gosh, that makes you . . . a fellow traveler!

    Not that history needed to prove that you are, yes, very much to the right.


    "History" (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    = the one person who agrees with me.

    Lets see, the ideal is, ostensibly, to save lives;
    but the anti-war people were the ones who got people killed.

    Next up: Jim's rape-to-promote-chastity program (endorsed by General Giap and Heinrich Himmler.)


    Uh, if you know anything of history you know that (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    the morale of the home front is always of intense importance to both sides.

    To claim that the demonstrations, police killings, Pentagon bombings didn't send a message to the North Vietnamese that they could win if they just hung on is an obvious denial of reality.


    if you understood (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    anything from history, you'd know that they'd already learned all they needed to know about perseverance from their dealings with the French.

    Of course, you Rush, Newt, and Sean could've made a little extra effort to get over there and do your part, if you really believed so strongly in the cause.


    They learned that (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    they could win an asymmetrical war with a colonial power that had just been devastated by a world war.

    We taught then that anti-war people, some with good intentions, many others with fellow traveler credentials could cause us to self destruct.

    We reinforced the lesson in Iran in '79. Reagan did it again Lebanon and GHWB did it in Desert Storm.

    We are capping it off with Obama's actions in Iraq.


    if you call "winning" (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    living in country in which a million people lost their lives, and in which infants, forty-years-after-the-fact are still being born with severe birth defects courtesy of Dow and Monsanto, well, all I can say is that there are some instances in life in which adolescent, John-Wayne-movie concepts of winning and losing have no meaning whatsoever.

    also it's good for (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:39:56 PM EST
    people with a severe case of jingoistic tribal narcissism to "lose" a war once in a while.

    What good is gaining a whole world when you lose your soul (as the fella said)?


    Yep - but I guess if it's ... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    ... a former communist who converted then it's okay.

    Bui Tin also claimed no American servicemen were tortured, and wrote in his books that he was with the first tank unit to smash through the gates of the Presidential Palace (signalling the end of the war) and that he accepted the surrender from the last South Vietnamese leader.  Alas, there wasn't a single witness to back his claims.

    But Jim likes this guy's opinion on this issue, so he cites it as some sort of "evidence".



    Make that a heh and a tut tut (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:01:04 PM EST
    The writer is not stating his opinion, he is stating facts as he saw and heard them.

    If you chose to not believe him that is your business, but don't call his comments "opinions."


    Why would anyone believe someone ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    ... with a history of making such preposterous, self-aggrandizing claims?

    But if you choose to believe his opinions on this issue, it's not surprising.


    What history?? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    Could we see some source information from recognizable sources???

    Google is your friend, Jim (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:41:46 PM EST
    Well, not your friend, but ...

    Claiming Americans were not tortured by the North Vietnamese. - Link

    The other claims - being the first into the palace and accepting the surrender of the South Vietnamese were from his books - although they're referenced in his wikipedia entry.

    In his books and talks, Bui Tin claims that during the 1975 fall of Saigon, he was with the first tank unit to smash through the gates of the Presidential Palace, signalling the end of the war, and that he accepted the surrender from the last South Vietnamese leader, Dương Văn Minh. However, no other eyewitness of the event confirmed his claim.


    BTW - I do appreciate the humor in a guy who gets his climate change science from "climatedepot.com" demanding "source information" from "recognizable sources".



    Make that a "reformed" (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    communist in an article from the Wall Street Journal.

    Would that make him a neo-com-con??



    Will do. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    Does that mean you will sleep till then?

    These back and forths are endless and (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    endlessly boring.  

    Yes, I've been meaning to mention that to you (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    Unlike your favorite "Tea Party" (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:36:04 AM EST
    that had wonderfully cohesive agendas like:

    We don't want no government run health care and don't you dare touch my Medicare.

    Nobody wants a free lunch... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    except the free lunch at Liberty Plaza that is, paid for by those of charity and goodwill sympathetic to the cause.

    We are refusing to struggle to pay for lunch while the 1% eats our breakfast, lunch & dinner with the help of the politicians on their payrolls.

    Politicians blaming each other?  A bigger problem is letting politicians con we the 99% into blaming each other...the kick the dog syndrome they all trot out to keep our eyes off the prize.

    Right there with you on prevention of market manipulation and detrimental speculation...aka gambling on the quality of life of millions, if not billions.  We went from speculation being a crime to being some kind of warped virtue.


    I'm so shocked Jim :) (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    Shocked?? Well, I'm shocked. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    Yes, shocked that you are shocked.



    'Slate' (Applebaum) is absolutely right (none / 0) (#54)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    And BTD is ... confused.

    If he understood anything about democracy, he wouldn't imagine he knows so much about politics.

    I'm optimistic that good things will evolve from the primordial ooze of the Occupy movements, but neither the occupations nor their processes are exercises in democracy, nor are they threats as such to the failing political system we have today.

    It's about what I expect you to say (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    sounds like a (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    Democracy-is-what-I-say-it-is contest..

    Are we talking about some platonic 'pure' democracy now, or democratic and quasi-democratic processes?


    SITE VIOLATION - SPAM (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 07:37:24 AM EST