home

You're Doing It Wrong

E.J. Dionne:

Everyone on the left side of American politics, from the near end to the far end, has advice for Occupy Wall Street. Iím no exception. But itís useful to acknowledge first that this movement has accomplished things that the more established left didnít.

< Sunday Night Open Thread: Comparing Terror Plots | Why Is There Disappointment With President Obama? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good article (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 07:57:58 AM EST
    Now if only Occupy could be corralled into coloring only within the lines of party/electoral politics then all the terrified democrats and republicans would be able to sleep comfortably once more.

    But the genie is too big for that bottle.

    Ain't life a bi*ch?

    Exactly, I see you gleaned some of the same (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:28:23 AM EST
    observations.  OWS isn't about party politics, it is about human beings being allowed to continue to live decent lives.  We have many independent friends very supportive of OWS.

    My husband is an independent and he is fully supportive, but won't occupy because he is still active duty.  We told him that we could put a mullet wig on his head and we could all start Occupy Dothan AL but one of our friends wasn't sure we should go through with it. Because  the media might show up and film him thinking he was Billy Ray Cyrus.

    Parent

    The U.S. "Moral Highground?" (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    Oh, wait.

    How Egypt Justifies Its Brutal Crackdown: Occupy Wall Street

    Two people were killed in Cairo and Alexandria this weekend as Egyptian activists took the streets to protest the military's attempts to maintain its grip on power. And guess how the state is justifying its deadly crackdown.

    We saw the firm stance the US took against OWS people & the German govt against green protesters to secure the state," an Egyptian state television anchor said yesterday...

    Yeah--it gets harder and harder to maintain a moral high ground when videos like this and pictures like this are unavoidable.



    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    The question is (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    what do we have in common with the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Parent
    Hypothetically speaking (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    Would he Occupy if he was ordered to shoot Occupiers?

    Parent
    Something would break inside of him (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    if that happened.  Everything that he was taught that was important, that he stood for, that he protected....he would be shattered inside.  I think if that ever happened he would have a nervous breakdown.  He might be with us occupying but we'd have to go back to the tents so that we could have a place for him stay safe and sedated.

    Parent
    yeah.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:48:24 AM EST
    ...

    Parent
    Quite "hypothetically speaking" (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    since no US military have been involved with any response to any Occupy situation. And, certainly, no one has been ordered to shoot anyone in any related situation.

    Parent
    Considering that I saw some of the initial (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    plans that the military had for you if the bird flu turned into a dangerous epidemic, I find your confidence in such things a little over the top.  Oh yeah, and least we forget, the Pentagon War Games this year created a frame work to deal with riots in the United States if our financial system crashed and people took to the streets with pitchforks.

    Not wanting to offend, just finding you a little too trusting at this stage of this game.

    Parent

    Some self important bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    Are having a difficult time giving OWS much credit for anything at all.  And what it has already accomplished in a short period of time...well, that belongs to "left" in their mind which is very foolish in my mind because many many many independent types around me are fully supportive of the OWS movement. Who knows if they are down there marching?  I haven't marched with OWS, so I don't know and only topless girls seem to get the great media coverage.

    Anyhow, some self important bloggers don't really support OWS, wouldn't be caught dead marching, but claim that what OWS accomplishes is part of the same bloggers "winning" their arguments.  Priceless!  As if writing pretty prose insuring a pittance of access deserves any sort of credit for anything other than preserving the status quo of people suffering, and suffering, and suffering :)

    OWS > Supercommittee (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:27:06 AM EST


    Luv It (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:29:15 AM EST
    And based on public demand, it's true

    Parent
    Super committee stalemate? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    Who could have predicted, eh?

    Parent
    Somehow I don't believe that the (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    Occupiers have any concept about what being poor really means. Cell phones and IPads, and the monthly bills that come with them, aren't cheap and then there is the fact that there must be homes away from the latest site seized and food and clothing and heat and medical services....

    People spending their free time camping out in protest of the wealthiest one percent share more in common with that top one percent than with the bottom one percent with whom they wish more to be shared in common. One needn't rely on visuals of the protestors' Cabela tents or iPhones. The Daily Caller has examined the arrest records of hundreds of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and found that they live in homes with a median value of $305,000 versus the national median of $185,000. The median rent for apartments listed by OWS arrestees was $1,850.

    The revelation is supposed to be counterintuitive--except that it isn't. Movements speaking for the poor have always been led by the very rich. Whether it's the guilt trip, free time, or self-importance fostered by opulence, the affluent have historically been behind attempts to tell other wealthy people how to use their money. Occupy Wall Street isn't an outlier in this regard. It is in line with past cash-movements passing themselves off as mass-movements.

    Link

    I ask you, those who support them, do we have a case here of reliving your youth through these kids? Don't be shocked at the question. Give it some serious consideration. And I see it all the time when I coach Little League baseball so it isn't just limited to politics.

    But I bet most of them know what (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    being middle class is really like, and don't want to see it slip away. You don't have to be poor to resent the country being looted by the ultra rich and the corporations.

    Being poor has little to do with many of the issues being protested.

    Parent

    In every social movement in our history (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    there have been supporters who have not been subjected to the conditions being protested but have been able to step out of their cucoons to work for the sake of others.

    For example, jim, if we had required that the abolition movement only include slaves, well, that would not have become a sizeable and successful movement.  

    For another example, the leaders of the suffragist movement were powerful women who hardly needed the vote to accomplish their personal aims, but they knew that they -- the middle-class and upper-class women with good lives -- needed to work for the vote for other women who had no power to change their lives and our society.  And especially worth noting were the men who hardly needed woman suffrage but supported the movement for the women who did -- or just supported it on principle.

    I always have been heartened by our history of people who don't personally need the outcome of the social movements they support, who support the movements for the sake of others who do need the causes of the movements, or who do so just on principle -- because the causes are the principles of this country, or just because they are principled women and men.

    Isn't it interesting, therefore, that some people are not heartened by such examples of selflessness in our society, and in our history?  Why, jim, do you think there are people who would not have wanted whites to want to free the slaves, or who would not have wanted many powerful women and a few good men to support universal suffrage.

    Or in our own times, why are there people who would not have wanted powerful women and men of personal wealth to support the War on Poverty --  or who would not have wanted older people to support suffrage for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds?  That is, this is not a history of selflessness far in the past but a living history of this land.

    You would seem, from your comment, to be the perfect person to explain that to us.  So:  Why?

    Parent

    Thank you, towanda (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    Your expression about the value of empathy in our land evidences your own exceptional awareness & empathy with those who suffer in unfair circumstances. Much appreciated.

    Parent
    I will try. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    My Mother and Father were sharecroppers. In case you don't understand, that was the lowest rung on the economic ladder in the US. They worked on a shares basis and the owner could throw you off the land when they wanted and for whatever reason, or non-reason.

    Cash almost didn't exist so goods were charged at stores usually owned by the landowners. Quality was low and prices were high and yet complaints were few. If the customer didn't like it they could take their business someplace else.

    Of course someplace else, if it existed at all, was miles away and with horse drawn wagons as the majority transportation it was very difficult to get there. And then you needed cash.

    I grew up in that world.

    It had improved by the time I was a teenager and my parents made it out by working two jobs and buying their own farm. I joined the Navy and it finished my education and then I finished my working career in corporations advancing from sweeping the lab floor to having a business card saying, "Senior Vice President."

    I note these things not to brag, but to establish who I was and what I became. And the further point is what motivated us?

    In all of this my parents generation and my generation had goals. They knew where they where and where they wanted to go. I was much the same.

    As a country we fought WWII and then the Cold War while, at the same time, enjoying economic growth and living conditions improvements unparalleled in the history of the world.

    It wasn't easy and much can be credited to what FDR started and the unions and later the civil rights struggle. And even the Vietnam demonstrators seemed to be mostly good intentions although the presence of "fellow travelers," "useful idiots" and people such as Bill Ayers and wife hurt much more than they helped.

    But through all of this we had "goals." We knew what we wanted and we stated them and we worked towards them.

    We also learned that when people couldn't tell you what they wanted it meant that they didn't know or they knew but wanted to conceal it from you. The former meant they would likely cause more harm than good. The latter meant they wanted to change society to their vision and they knew that their vision would be rejected by the majority.

    I think the Occupiers are made up of both types. And I think the latter is controlling and directing the former.

    I see them as people who, instead of wanting to expand, want to control. They are of a group that thinks government can fix all things and that someone in DC will know how much electrical power will be needed at some point. In other words, they are basically socialists, Marxists and communists.

    They represent people who take a good thing and then destroy it by demanding that we "do more."

    They typify "Best is the enemy of Good."

    And instead of attacking the cause, a government that has been co opted at all levels by speculators... Wall Street gave more money to Obama than McCain....They attack the effect.

    I hope this helps.

    Parent

    It somewhat helps but does not address (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    why the haves ought not help the have-nots, such as those from whom you came.

    Consider the help that came to your family from FDR, who was from the 1%.  Consider that he realized that his role was to push for amorphous goals, such as those of your family, to be made into specific legislation to help them.  Consider that he did not demonize the Occupiers of his era, as did Hoover before him, nor was FDR dissuaded by the presence of some extremists in movements then.

    So your comment helps, yes, but it stops helping when you rather oddly veer away from the personal, from the lessons to be learned from your personal past.  Your family had goals; good.  Did they draft the New Deal legislation that realized those goals?  

    That is the parallel for those demanding demands from the Occupiers today who call, say, to "Tax the Rich."  The response that some rich are taxed somewhat, or that this does not demand how much the rich are to be taxed and which rich and when and where, or that some of the Occupiers are not poor -- these are just refusals to admit that they have a point, even if it is for the sake of others who don't have roofs over their heads because of the behaviors of the 1%.  

    In sum, your family was helped immensely by good policies.  Those policies largely have been or are in the process of being abandoned.  You ought to be the first to fight to restore those policies, then, it would seem -- that is, to go join the Occupiers who want to see that country come back that helped your family, correct?

    Parent

    I haven't said that we shouldn't have safety nets (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    Remember, I have posted by support for a single payer health care system based on Medicare.

    Did my family draft the "New Deal?" No, but they fought in WWII to save the country. More than 99% of the Occupiers, and I would guess you, can say.

    And comparing the people in the Great Depression with the Occupiers is well, just laughable. There is no comparison whatsoever.

    Are those policies being abandoned? Not that I can tell. Perhaps you can point some out.

    Parent

    As I consider you intelligent (none / 0) (#126)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 06:10:48 PM EST
    I can only imagine that you are playing games in pretending to not know that the aim of the Reagan revolution was to dismantle the New Deal, and that we have seen its undoing for more than three decades now -- including by the current "Dem" president.  Perhaps that sad irony is a reason why some would not recognize that the Reagan revolution continues, but the intelligent would know it.

    Therefore, I am not going to continue a discussion that you would so degenerate into game-playing.  I had hoped that it would be a good discussion, and it was for a while -- at least, for those of my questions that you did opt to adress -- but so it goes.  Sad.

    Parent

    Whatever the aim of the Reagn (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    "revolution" was, the facts is that was then and now is now. Without being abrasive, please show me the safety net programs that are being dismantled.

    And I will be glad to answer any questions you think I didn't answer.

    Parent

    differing arguments aside, (none / 0) (#136)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    thank you for this very vulnerable comment

    Parent
    And 99% of Repubblicans... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:49:58 AM EST
     ...that are poor still love the rich, support every piece of flim/flam legislation for the rich, even when it's against their own self interest.  Are they living vicariously through rich people ?

    That one I actually don't get.  Because I can tell you this, no rich man ever gave me a job and no rich man gives a damn about the plight of the poor man.

    But on the other end you do not have to be poor to be a champion for them, just like I don't have to be a black woman in order to support racial or gender equality.  I know, this is one that has baffled the conservative mindset since the Civil War, but there are people who actually care about other human beings beyond using them for personal gain.

    But again Jim, you changed the topic at hand to your view of the movement, or rather what some ditto head told you the movement is about.  Which is poor vs. rich people or some other non-sense.

    From what I have seen there is a fairly large segment of people making good money who are protesting. So don't worry Jim, no one is pretending to be poor for Fox News, even though I am positive by your response that is the current mem.

    Parent

    We all have our views, Scott (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    The problem is you don't seem to recognize that.

    And you know far too little about me to make such sweeping statements.

    But lack of knowledge won't stop you.

    Parent

    True, But... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:28:15 PM EST
     ...I know what you wrote/write and that is what I commented on.

    Parent
    My comment was to answer Towand's (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    request.

    Exactly where did I say anything against civil rights or for support of Repubs???

    Parent

    Hey now... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    I'm not that old pal...no rush!

    I'm lucky enough not to have known "Africa Poor" poor, but poor enough at my most hard-up to be diggin' ditches for 40 bucks a day.

    And I'm trying to keep that way, which is why I am down with OWS and what they trying to accomplish for all of us...namely avoiding the transformation of the USA into a third world country consisting of a few obscenely rich and many dirt f*ckin' poor.

    I am not envious or living vicariously through their youth...sh*t they're not all young.  I only envy their courage to face pepper-spray, beatings, and arrest...the police state broke me.  I thought any such efforts were doomed to fail, so I pre-emptively surrendered.  These people refuse to pre-emptively surrender...they are more courageous and unselfish than I my friend.

    Parent

    kdog, OWS (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    only wants to change the country by redistributing wealth.

    If they wanted to change things they would be concentrating on government.

    Parent

    Some are wealth redistribution types... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    some just want a Teddy Roosevelt-esque "Fair Deal"...saving capitalism from itself.

    The OWS movement and the varied viewpoints held within it have made me think we lefties were wrong to lump all the Tea Partiers together into Koch Bros. stooges...do you realize you're doing the same to OWS that you accused others of doing to the Tea Party movement, and rightly so to a certain extent?

    Parent

    kdog, you have it. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    The Tea Party is not "Republican."

    Although, in the end, many will vote Repub just as the Occupiers will vote Demo.

    Parent

    Ron Paul... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    has more support at a OWS rally than Barack Obama.

    I think we'd be amazed at the common ground the two groups could find, and the compromises that could be made...yelling at each other, otoh, is exactly how the 1% like it.

    Parent

    Do you really think (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    OWS is Liberation?

    Actually I can't figure out why the Repubs tolerate Paul in the debates. He isn't a Repub by any stretch of the imagination.

    The way the 1% like it is for you folks to be yelling at them, which accomplishes nothing, instead of doing what the Tea Party did and yell at the government.

    See 11/2010 and the election.

    Parent

    uh......Libertarian (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    I hear a lot of... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    "End the Fed" down there...a lot of "end the drug war".  And of course anti-corporate bailout...all positions shared by Paul.  The movement also wants business regulated, parting with libertarian dogma...but there is a slice in there.

    They're yelling at who the government is working for, who is buying the government, as well as the government itself...doesn't that make sense?

    Parent

    kdog, hate to disagree (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:46:54 PM EST
    but the Occupiers don't want businesses to be regulated. They want the government to declare the winners and losers.

    That's crony capitalism.

    Again. If they want to target the government, fine. But yelling at and about the rich won't change anything.

    Parent

    They want the exact opposite... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    picking winners and losers is the crony capitalist status quo hombre...ya haven't forgotten the financial crisis already have you?

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:25:18 PM EST
    What they want is for the government to redistribute wealth. That is exactly what crony capitalism does!

    Parent
    I know... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    it's being redistributed to the wealthy institutionally...the best democracy money can buy!

    Hence the protesting...

    Parent

    And protesting about the rich (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:26:11 PM EST
    will change nothing.

    Congress is the place to start! The Tea Party knew this.

    Parent

    Maybe the place to start (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    is to zero in on the cushy, crony-capitalist arrangement between the rich in Congress and their cohorts on the other side of revolving door. A more all-embracing, systemic, analysis in other words..

    Rather than doing what the Teabaggers are doing: which is attempting to fob off on the public more throughly discredited Reagan/Bush/Norquist "Big Government is the only problem" swill in new bottles.      

    Parent

    You really don't know what (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    the Tea Baggers want.

    Why don't you come back when you have attended a few meetings??

    And if the Occupiers want to change something, why don't the focus on Congress? The rich merely shrugs them off.

    Parent

    Dirty hippies (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    and those who wished to be dirty hippies again?

    This is the meme churned out by the right wing.  

    The truth is that Occupuy movement represents a supermajority in this country if one takes a look at the polling on specific economic issues.  

    Parent

    nope (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    can't say I'm reliving my youth.

    As a point of reference, the average rent in New York is $2356.  If you are a young person, chances are you have roommates.

    Parent

    I am listening to "A Single Man," (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    set in LA in the 1960.  The first person narrator is talking about expensive rent at $450/month.  

    Parent
    Average rents around the Bay Area (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    are high also. Which includes the Occupy SF, Oakland and Berkeley (to name the big 3  :) )

    Young people are also moving back in with their parents after graduating since they can't find a decent job and have huge debt.

    Parent

    Boston (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    isn't exactly cheap either.

    The places where people are being arrested pretty much reads "expensive places to live".

    Contrary to what some people would have you believe, living in an expensive city does not make you rich.  It just means you are paying more of your income towards housing.

    Not only that, but Boston.com has a section highlighting "homes under $300k" in the area.  They are all $299,900 or something, and they are all in "rough" neighborhoods or way out in the burbs.  Houses cheaper than that just don't exist.

    Here is a picture of what $300k buys you in MA.  It's not exactly a McMansion.

    Parent

    Single people sharing (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    expenses is not new.

    We did it in the 50's. That is 60 years ago.

    Parent

    who said it was? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    what's your point?

    My point was that just because that's the cost of the apartment they rent - doesn't mean they are paying the full cost of that themselves.  Chances are they are not.

    The fact that that was also true 50 years ago has nothing to do with my comment.

    Parent

    Hello? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    ?hose $350,000K homes are owned by 3 or 4 "friends." (sarcasm alert)

    And I would say the apartments are rented by parents, not the 18-21 year old people in OWS.

    These are not "poor" young people.

    They are complaining with their mouths full.

    That's my point.

    Parent

    yes i would assume those (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    living in houses are living at home and that those living in apartments are living with other people, and that they are not each paying that full price individually.

    Also, OWS is not exclusively 18-21 year olds, I don't know why you'd assume it is, it's quite clearly a much broader range than that although I grant you they are young.

    Look at the photo I posted of a $300,000 house in MA, and tell me that person is rich.

    You don't have to be poor to know that the system is rigged.  Maybe some of them are looking forward to moving out of mom and dad's house someday, only they can't afford it.  You don't need to be starving to see injustice.

    And they certainly don't need you to tell them who to blame for it.

    Parent

    All I want is a place to lay my head. (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    Hell no, we won't go -- unless we get goose down pillows.

    A key Occupy Wall Street leader and another protester who leads a double life as a businessman ditched fetid tents and church basements for rooms at a luxurious hotel that promises guests can "unleash [their] inner Gordon Gekko," The Post has learned.

    The $700-per-night W Hotel Downtown last week hosted both Peter Dutro, one of a select few OWS members on the powerful finance committee, and Brad Spitzer, a California-based analyst who not only secretly took part in protests during a week-long business trip but offered shelter to protesters in his swanky platinum-card room.

    Link

    lol

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:50:25 PM EST
    You found two whole rich people, who weren't even living in the parks.  My world view is completely shattered.  I saw Anne Hathaway in some photo protesting too, surprised you didn't bring her up.

    I didn't know that being rich meant you couldn't express your opinion.  Or that the presence of a few rich people meant that everyone there eats out of golden spoons.

    Thank you so much for enlightening me.  I realize now I've been living in a cave and that in the real world rent in New York/Oakland/Boston/etc... is actually cheap and you can buy a house at a reasonable price.  Not to mention, how wonderful it is to be living at home in your 20s since you can't get a job.  And that people making hundreds of millions of dollars while simultaneously destroying their company/the economy are the smartest, most worthy people in the world who shouldn't have to pay a dime in higher taxes.

    Parent

    Thanks for (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    making my point. Poor people don't buy $350K homes or pay $1850 rent.

    And they don't stay in $700/night hotels.

    Too bad he couldn't have stayed in a nice $200 Holiday Inn room and contributed the savings to a Salvation Army kettle.

    Parent

    That was so (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:35:23 PM EST
    far from any point you were trying to make.  All you were trying to "make" was CST (and everybody else) "wrong" so you can be "right".  No matter how many rhetorical loopbacks you have to make.  Just like you'll probably try to do now by miscasting my words yet again.

    And yet, even though you'll likely succeed at irritating me, I'm going to see how long I can ignore the jabs and not respond.  Today I don't know how long that is.

    Parent

    Respond as you wish (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:21:41 PM EST
    I don't write to please or to offend. Merely to make what I thin is a truthful point.

    Parent
    Respond as you wish (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:21:41 PM EST
    I don't write to please or to offend. Merely to make what I thin is a truthful point.

    Parent
    They are many agendas. (none / 0) (#19)
    by JeriKoll on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    The movement is a mixture of discontented people, and doesn't represent directly any of the groups that are trying to claim their affiliation by cheering them on.

    The Tea Party was much more straightforward.

    Parent

    you're right (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    "keep your government hands off my medicare" is very straightforward.

    Too bad OWS is so bad at messaging.

    Parent

    Jimaka, Your premise as stated above is wrong. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:43:57 PM EST
    "The revelation is supposed to be counterintuitive--except that it isn't. Movements speaking for the poor have always been led by the very rich."
    Again, this statement is wrong.

    Parent
    Palli, I didn't make that statement (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    You repeated it without correction (none / 0) (#87)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    and it is wrong

    Parent
    I have no idea as to what you're (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    talking about.

    Parent
    Does anyone recall any (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    Tea Party protester pepper sprayed or clubbed by para-military costumed police?   The armed three-corner hat guy?   I don't but then those protesters are the good ones, older, totally law-abiding, government-hating, keep your hands off my Medicare patriots.    In my view, a country that hates its youth, has no  future.

    Ha. Police in riot gear pepper (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    spray AARP convention.  

    Parent
    If the OWS people were (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    conducting a pro-life demonstration, then they would be in much different stead with the police.

    Parent
    Or Brandishing Weapons... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    ...or hanging an effigy of the president.

    I will give them this, dressing up as 'patriots' was genius.  Imagine the police clubbing Franklin or tear gassing Washington.  

    Viral Nightmare.

    Parent

    Scott? You really want to bring that up? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    And No One Gort Beat or Peppered (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    Seems like the hypothesis holds true, but again you changed the topic to your own.

    Parent
    If you don't want to (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    have comparisons made of the nut cases on both sides, don't the subject up.

    Parent
    Another Topic Change (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    Jim, can't figure out if you are getting good or bad at it, but it's becoming the norm.  And the way you put your thoughts in my posts...  

    This was about how the police treat protestors and it was a joke.

    Parent

    No Scott (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    is called a comment on your comment. I merely noted that both sides have nuts. A rather fair and balanced comment when compared to your one sided one.

    Parent
    Occupy is conducting (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    pro-life demonstrations all over the country.

    Every one of their Occupies is a pro-life demonstration.

    The difference between them and what is generally referred to as pro-life is that they really are pro-life.

    I know that's beyond the comprehension of a lot of people too, though....

    Parent

    That's because (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    the Tea Party demonstrations were neat, orderly and they left when they was over.

    They didn't seize anyplace.

    Compare that to OWS.

    BTW - Look at the 2010 elections to see what effective demonstrations can actually do.

    Parent

    Jimaka, actually that isn't true either. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:04:59 PM EST

    Many tea partiers made a habit of interrupt other people in public places- groups of private citizens as well as government representatives.

    "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." MLK Letter from a Birminham Jail, April 16, 1963

    Parent

    Yet they (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    contained themselves and didn't anger the non-participation folks.

    See the 2010 election.

    Results count.

    Parent

    Jimaka: see the 2010 election recalled (none / 0) (#142)
    by Palli on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:49:28 AM EST
    What do you mean did bot anger the "non-participation folks"?
    That Tea party movement is close-mindedly myopic they will not see, hear or read anyone else.
    Results don't count if you ignore everything you want to  ignore.

    Parent
    The Tea Party (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    is about 10% of the voters. Yet they pretty well got what they wanted in the 2010 elections.

    You don't get what you want by making people angry.

    Parent

    Who are these people? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    The problems of growing economic inequality and abuses by the masters of the financial world have been in the background for years. Many progressives longed to make them central political questions.

    Individual progressives may have wanted that, but I wouldn't say that Ezra Klein, Yglesias, Drum, etc., the progressive pundits, care about that.  They just want to be part of the conversation, whether it is about the deficit or whatever.  This applies to 99% of Democratic politicians as well.

    The last time there was a big progressive push IIRC was for the public option, which was led by FDL among others.  I know the left blogosphere generally cares about income inequality (only one of many things they care about, though).  Part of the issue with blogs perhaps is just structural, that they lack focus, unless a politician (who represents a number of issues) brings them into focus.

    I guess my point is that aside from unions and other political groups involved in rallies and such, I question the characterization of progressives as trying to make the issue "central."  Esp. when the myth has been built up (and slowly broken down) in the progressive blogosphere that making an issue "central" is practically impossible.

    Lots of hilariously insecure comments (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    in here this morning.

    Heh. Mostly analogous to something along the lines of "dammit - stand in one spot and fight fair (by MY rules) so I can hit you!"

    The obvious fact is that the Occupy movement is way over the heads of most people who aren't participating in it.

    llustration: What OccupyCal did did when ordered to not have tents on the grounds:  http://twitpic.com/7fmbla

    Great pic... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    great statement.

    But now they've opened themselves up to operation of unlicensed aircraft charges!  Prime the pepper-spray pump....

    Parent

    Time to call in the airforce (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    or the drones, I guess. ;-)

    Parent
    We can't win... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    dem law books are stacked against us...protection racket for the 1%.

    And the few we have for our protection from the 1% are not enforced.

    As Yakov Smirnoff would say..."what a country!"

    Parent

    Lol ;-) (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    Edger (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    Oh yeah.  This is all way to complex for us mere mortals.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Apparently it IS too complex (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    for concern trolls who pretend to support OWS, if only it would pivot to using insider Democratic Party Politics to achieve its goals! Whatever they are!

    Parent
    Complex or very obvious? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    The appeal of Occupy is much broader than might have been predicted at the outset. The reason, I think, is that the basis for the movement is the opposite of complex. It is down-to-earth real, direct, and has spoken to what most people have either felt, known, or expressed themselves in this past decade or so.

    Saying that the 1% are unjustly profiting/getting absurdly wealthy at the expense of the 99% of the people in the US...that says it all. A brilliant message because it is real, to-the-point. Undeniable.

    Lets not talk down to the many people who usually don't get involved with politics (or protests), but--like some relatives of mine who don't even like to talk about politics--are following the progress of OWS in silent support. It is not complex at all, shoephone, when genuine concern is spoken simply for all of us. People get it.

    Parent

    Forgive me, Christine (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    Because I was being facetious with ABG. Of course the message of OWS is quite obvious, if one would only look and listen, something ABG seems uniquely unwilling to do.

    But now I am off to my temporary, part-time, holiday retail job where I will make $9 an hour. It's so exciting to be hob-nobbing with the 1% again.

    Parent

    Peace to you, shoephone. (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    It's cool (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    I understand that when you can't make an argument, name calling and cries of "but if you only understood" are an easy way to avoid direct intellectual conflict.

    Whatever way let's you out with your pride intact.

    Parent

    There's no argument to be made with you (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 07:58:35 PM EST
    Because you are the most dishonest commenter on this site. Waste of time.

    Parent
    Yup, they shoulda listened to you, ABG (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    But tell me...

    Since the crash of 2008,

    What movement, what organization. what pundit, what politician has captured the attention of governments, the media, the public, and the 1% worldwide?

    I, too, am disappointed that  Dimon, Blankfein, Paulsen, and a few thousand other criminals of humanity haven't tendered their resignations, dropped to their knees, and begged for mercy. .......yet.

    But, this "leaderless" organization has been too busy gathering 400 colleges and universities which have agreed to give OWS permanent, or semi-permanent residence.........so far, only 400.

    But, keep looking, ABG. I'm sure they'll continue making mistakes, just as I'm sure you'll be there to point them out to us all.


    Parent

    My read of the last ABG comment, NYShooter (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    is that he questions whether it is too complex. My read is that the comment (as I also feel) chides elitist-like observations that the public doesn't or can't understand Occupy.

    My goodness, if we felt that the public could not understand a statement about the 99%/1% then wouldn't that influence an attempt to try at all! I would hope that we don't think of ourselves as superior beings who know better than the rest of the 99%...because it is not complex at all.

    Parent

    NYShooter (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:14:47 PM EST
    Where did I imply that OWS hasn't been successful thus far?

    Answer: nowhere.

    Reason: Any suggestion that OWS' tactics will not work long term are interpreted as an attack on OWS or an indication that they haven't been successful to this point.

    Shorter: I am not saying anything you are implying I am saying.  People see any criticism of anything even remotely related to OWS and assume that it means a bunch of stuff it doesn't.

    Parent

    Now, you see (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:23:03 PM EST
    If you had just stopped right after, " Answer: nowhere," that would've been fine, you would've responded appropriately, given your point of view, and we could've continued discussing/debating the issues.....just like you've said several million times you wanted.

    But, noooo. Not content with giving a simple answer, off you go, succumbing to that irresistible urge to morph into Rod Steiger doing his hushed voiceovers, explaining what the characters in the "twilight zone" really meant. This anthropological insight you have into others' deeply held, and hidden, views and motives, and their misappropriation of vernacular syntax while typically the realm of an heuristic, your Circadian rhythm approach utilizing left lobe interneurons, and confusing agoraphobia with altruism can only lead neurotransmitters to be released into a synapse, and...

    We all know what that means:

    You talk too much.

    :)

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    Well said. ;-)

    Parent
    Professor Corey (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    is making more, and more, sense

    Parent
    I don't know if anyone else has read (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    yesterday's op-ed in the Washington Post, authored by Kalle Lasn and Micah White, editor-in-chief and senior editor of Adbusters magazine, but it is well worth a read (Adbusters, in case people don't know, is the magazine where the Occupy movement was born.

    An excerpt or two:

    Occupy was born because we the people feel that our country and our economy are moving precipitously in the wrong direction; that America has evolved into a kind of corporate oligarchic state, a "corporatocracy"; and yes, that what is needed is a regime change -- a Tahrir moment of truth in America.

    For several weeks Occupy Wall Street had a rare magic going for it. We held the high ground, stuck doggedly to our Gandhian, nonviolent ways and blindsided the cynical world with our optimism, our camaraderie and our determination to forge a way forward. It was a passionate, hopeful, democratic upsurge. Anyone who walked into Zuccotti Park was immediately captivated by the idealism of youth. Spectators of our direct-democracy process were drawn in and became politically engaged participants in our general assemblies. With nothing more than a commitment to consensus-based transparency, twinkling fingers that signal assent, "mike checks" that amplify our voices, an ethos of mutual respect and hope for the future, Occupy sparked a global democracy moment.

    By mid-October, there were occupations happening in 1,000 cities around the world. Hundreds of thousands of us, mostly young people, were suddenly vibrantly alive, politically engaged and living without dead time in a way that the world had not seen since 1968. That was the year that an insurrection in Paris's Latin Quarter suddenly exploded in cities and campuses around the world. The viral speed of that movement was uncannily similar to the way that general assemblies ricocheted around the Earth from Zuccotti Park. But whereas in 1968 we lost the thread and the movement fizzled out, this time the horizontal, open-source, peer-to-peer ways of the Internet-savvy generation, living in a much more dangerous era of multiple synergetic crises, just might be able to succeed.

    Why didn't Bloomberg come down to talk to us? Or Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein? Why didn't President Obama acknowledge the protesters -- largely the people who elected him -- and mingle in the open-air town halls? What a grand gesture that would have been. How come our political leaders are so isolated, our discourse so rigid? Why can't the American power elite engage with the nation's young?

    Instead, they stayed aloof, ignored us and wished us away. We wanted a Tahrir moment, an American Spring, a new vision of the future, and they attacked us in Zuccotti Park in the dead of the night.

    The efforts to destroy Occupy are the pivot point, but for those who think the movement will pivot to a more conventional approach, you probably need to think again.  The movement isn't built on convention, it's not interested in being part of an establishment it believes has failed far too many people, it is not invested in rearranging the deck chairs and trying to pass it off as "change," but in addressing the fundamentals that have brought our society, our politics and our economy to the brink.


    this bears repeating, with (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    added emphasis:

    The efforts to destroy Occupy are the pivot point


    Parent
    "We (none / 0) (#49)
    by me only on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:13:33 PM EST
    wanted a Tahrir moment"

    Right. Yeah buddy.

    Mubarak was overthrown by the military, 875 dead.  On the Democracy index 3.07

    Tunisia 223 dead.  On the Democracy index 2.79.

    Gahdafi is dead along with 25,000 others.  On the Democracy index 1.94

    US on the Democracy index 8.18.

    So the organizers are willing to admit they wanted people dead instead of working through the democratic institutions.  Maybe Obama can send a seal team for a meet and greet.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    clearly the organizers are trying to kill people.

    Give me a f*cking break.

    Parent

    This is what is in the comment. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    We wanted a Tahrir moment, an American Spring, a new vision of the future, and they attacked us in Zuccotti Park in the dead of the night.

    Thankfully the writers have not been successful in getting what they wished for.

    Parent

    that is so obviously not what they're talking (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    about.

    But I think you knew that already.

    Parent

    This is what they wrote: (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    and yes, that what is needed is a regime change -- a Tahrir moment of truth in America.

    Are you claiming that the writers had no idea that calling for massive demonstrations and "regime change" is  calling for revolution?

    And how many revolutions do you know haven't resulted in death and destruction?

    Parent

    Adams to Jefferson (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    How many people (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:03:54 PM EST
    was it the protesters in Egypt killed, again?

    Sorry, "died", I mean...

    Parent

    Don't think you can wash your collective (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:28:07 PM EST
    hands.

    Are you claiming that the writers had no idea that calling for massive demonstrations and "regime change" is  calling for revolution?

    And how many revolutions do you know haven't resulted in death and destruction?



    Parent
    How many (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    was it the protesters in Egypt killed, again?

    Parent
    You're smarter than what you are claiming (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:20:10 PM EST
    The point is that those who controlled/motivated the protectors knew that many would be killed.

    That's the way it always works. Hasn't changed in thousands of years.

    And there are people trying to do the same with the Occupiers.

    Parent

    I think you need (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    a new battery for your propeller hat.

    I'll answer the question for you: 'zero'.

    Now the falling Egyptian regime killed many protesters.

    That blue thing is called a link - you can click it and knowledge will go into your brain. ;-)

    But the protesters killed how many? 'zero'.

    Now wasn't that easy? Try it with a pencil and paper.

    You can do this. I have faith in you.

    Goodnight, sparky.

    Parent

    You can always tell (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    when Edger knows he has lost the debate by the personal attacks he launches.

    Parent
    pathetic (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Edger (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:59:39 AM EST
    What is sad is your refusal to admit that demonstrations and regime change always result in people being injured and killed.

    That is just a fact that everyone understands.

    And it has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the situation.

    And yes, movements have long been led by people that understand this yet urge the cannon fodder forward knowing that some will be injured or killed.

    As to Egypt, we do not if the outcome will result in a democracy willing to live with the West and Israel in specific or if it will be an Islamic theocracy ran by the Muslim Brotherhood and dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the west.

    So when a writer starts wishing for an "Arab spring" or a "Tafir moment" then they are horribly uninformed or else don't care.

    Your pick.

    Parent

    so now it's the protesters fault (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    for getting shot?

    who knew.

    Parent

    I didn't say that it was (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    the protesters fault.

    The point was that demonstrations and revolutions injure and hurt people.

    That's a fact as true as saying "The sun comes up in the morning."

    So when the writer use an example in which hundreds were killed and thousands wounded and which may result in an Islamic theocracy that hates the west....

    that what is needed is a regime change -- a Tahrir moment of truth in America.

    What did the writer mean??

    Are we to assume the writer was ignorant of the facts or that the writer wouldn't care if people were killed?

    Parent

    yea it's really too bad (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    we had an american revolution.

    I guess if you support the existence of america you must not care if people get killed.

    Parent

    Huh???? (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    Look, you gotta do better than that.

    The American Revolution has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    Parent

    even more pathetic (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    There people trying to do the same (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    with the occupiers..

    Lets have some names.

    Put up or shut up, Hannity.

    Parent

    So ABG what GA do you attend? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:15:14 PM EST


    What do you mean (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    What GA do I attend?  I do not understand.

    Parent
    If you're going to criticize (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    the movement, as you do, you would be more credible if you showed that you had read up on it.

    Anyone who has done so knows what a "GA" is.

    Parent

    Yep, it's a no-brainer for those in the know (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 07:57:08 PM EST
    After we get beyond the Assembly, (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 08:35:18 PM EST
    maybe for cutesy sake, we could ask a broader political quiz. Lets start with: Who is the President of Kazakhstan? (Quick. No looking it up. BTW, observed is exempted.)

    So, what do we learn from all that....


    Parent

    Sorry, I don't know if that is snark or not but (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Palli on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:37:15 PM EST
    I asked the question of ABG because he seemed to want to advise the OCCUPYs and was ready to believe that his advice would be valuable.
    As it turns out he is just another gregarious critic, unwilling to participate in discussion on occupied ground or trust to consensus building.  I fear with elbows bent his fingers would be wagging incessantly. But I suspect he might not be listening to his fellows.

    Parent
    I also hope it is only snark (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    or else, it is . . . well, cutesy.

    Parent
    Err the question about the GA (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    was relevant to a thread where the subject matter was OWS. OTOH, a discussion of who is the President of Kazakhstan is definitely off topic.

    What did we learn from your comment? Nothing at all about the topic under discussion.  

    Parent

    It was snark....I must confess (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    Why? Oh, because I chuckled at the "gotcha" question posed to ABG. TV interviewer technique, but "gotcha" question nonetheless (sorta like Kazakhstan.) :)

    Parent
    If you still see it (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    as a "gotcha" question, you really need to take some time and think about it.

    Parent
    You may have posted without thinking (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    Palli's comment is extremely on point.  ABG has been concern trolling OWS for weeks now.  They must do this or must do that.  They are losing support.  They're not relevant.  etc.  

    As a Wall Street guy, he has been rather uniquely positioned to take his arguments directly to OWS.  That he hasn't bothered should say something, I would think.  

    It's a point that I hadn't considered, and one that I think is well taken.  It doesn't deserve your cutesy response.

    Parent

    Understand your point...but (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    And, there really is a "but."  This inner definition of "conern trolling" may have a lot to do with interpretation, IMO. There may the difficult "fine line"; yet, from what I see, it is not clear that ABG has crossed that line from exercising his free speech rights to be concerned. On a blog such as this one, we should encourage each other to speak openly without reprisal for having spoken...even, and especially, when one speaks against prevailing notions.

    As for me: I have genuine "concerns". as it were, that any movement can long stand apart from the communication needs that spokespeople--of some version, as defined by the group--can provide. That doesn't mean that I disagree with the purpose & direction & reality of OWS. And, as I've said elsewhere, that is only a concern (which, BTW, may have been disproven by the group's continuing ability to adapt to individualized locational threats & not lose its central message.)  The important thing is that we be able to express ourselves without being shut down.  After all, we are not the 1%, and we can help each other.

    As for ABG's comments on Occupy: While they might reveal more skepticism about chances for success than I might have, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Unless I've missed his dissing the movement, I'm not sure why he earns the sobriquet of "concern troll." Really.  Maybe the way to find out if someone supports a particular position on this blog is to ask directly "Do you support the Occupy/OWS Movement?"  If the answer is "yes," who are we to impugn such a reply? Direct question, direct answer...short, to the point...asked & answered?

    Parent

    Nice job of redirection (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    Focussing on the definiton of "concern troll" allows you to ignore the validity of the Palli's original comment and your response to it.  It actually takes you three paragraphs to avoid it.

    Parent
    And to set your mind at ease (none / 0) (#166)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    I'll gladly drop the term "concern trolling" and substitute with "hand wringing" and get past that to the real issue.

    Parent
    okay (we're making some progress) (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    Are we? (none / 0) (#172)
    by sj on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    OWS (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 09:53:36 AM EST
    Random thoughts:

    1. It is possible to give credit for, and to celebrate, what OWS has accomplished while believing that the movement as currently operating will have to change and adapt to continue to be relevant.  Dionne makes that point directly as well:

    "Thus the question going forward: Will the Occupy movement play into the hands of its enemies by living up to the stereotypes they are trying to create? Or will it instead move to a phase that builds on its success?"

    1. My position has been that.  From almost the very start, it was obvious that the movement would have a pivot point and the ability of OWS to recognize and move at that pivot point was always going to be the key to its long term power. At some point cities and mayors and non-participating citizens (even sympathetic ones) were going to have to start doing things to enforce laws, keep the nuisance in check, etc. Also, the lack of focus will start muddling their power. Here in Atlanta, OWS is planning a march against police brutality due to the shooting by police as a suspect last month and another that happened 5 years ago.  Those might be great causes, but at the end of the day, it pulls OWS away from its focus and weakens the 99/1% argument. 99% may be in the same situation on issues like the financial institutions or exec pay, but the numbers for and against the use of force by police officers on drug busts may be way different.  The stretch to make that part of OWS weakens what I thought their core concerns were.   Plus winter is coming and the numbers were going to start dwindling just by nature of the cold. There has to be a plan for the next stage for the movement to be successful and maintain support from the nation.

    2. Unfortunately, without leaders, I do not think the movement will be able to make the pivot.  I think the news will increasingly be full of protestors who look less like the average person and more like the extremes of the movement. I think the numbers will dwindle, and I think that outside of the lefty blogosphere, that the movement will be marginalized.  I hope I am wrong.

    3. Repeat: I support OWS and its core points.  Unfortunately, you have to continually repeat that if you suggest that OWS may need to change.  But there it is. Again.


    Shorter ABG (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    They're doing it wrong!

    Parent
    Or, slightly longer ABG, ca. 1834 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    1834, the year after supporters of a movement first took public steps of meeting, of taking a name for themselves . . . but 20 years before the movement's "pivot point" finally occurred. . . .

    1. It is possible to give credit for, and to celebrate, what abolitionists have accomplished in publicly convening, while believing that the movement as currently operating will have to change and adapt to continue to be relevant.  Someone makes that point directly as well:
    "Thus the question going forward: Will the anti-slavery movement play into the hands of its enemies by living up to the stereotypes they are trying to create? Or will it instead move to a phase that builds on its success?"

    1.  My position has been that, from almost the very start, it was obvious that the movement would have a pivot point - say, Congress deciding to let slavery expand even more west of the Mississippi by letting new states there, coming into the Union from above the Mason-Dixon line were it extended west, to be slave states -- and the ability of abolitionists to recognize and move at that pivot point was always going to be the key to its long term power. At some point slavery states and non-participating, non-slaveowning citizens (even sympathetic ones) were going to have to start doing things to enforce laws, keep the nuisance of runaway slaves in check, etc. Also, the lack of focus will start muddling their power -- I mean, are they about aiding runaway slaves or about passing laws to help them?  They ought to do the latter, really, as there certainly would not be sympathy in this great land for making the situation of 99% of slaves worse with something like a Fugitive Slave Law!  Here in the South, abolitionists are planning a march against police brutality due to the shooting by police, as slavecatchers for wealthy plantation owners, of a suspected runaway slave last month and others that happened almost every day for years, decades, a century now.  Those might be great causes, but at the end of the day, the lack of drafting specific legislation -- and don't tell me that's the job of legislators -- pulls abolitionism away from its focus and weakens the 99/1% argument. 99% may be in the same situation on issues, not owning slaves themselves and suffering from the impact of slavery on free labor, but the numbers for and against the use of force by police officers in capture of runaways  may be way different.  The stretch to breaking of the law by abolitionists weakens what I thought their core concerns were.   Plus winter is coming and the numbers were going to start dwindling just by nature of the cold, although there are those dreamers who note that the occasional freezing of the Ohio River may be just what some Eliza needs to get to a free state.  Nevertheless, there has to be a plan for the next stage for the movement to be successful and maintain support from the nation, lest the movement simply wait for the 1% to continue passing stupid laws that, with each law, will awaken more supporters - each law a `pivot point' for some supporters, until the most egregious laws cause an influx of massive support.

    2.  Unfortunately, without leaders, I do not think the movement will be able to make the pivot.   Don't point out to me this William Lloyd Garrison guy who organized the American Anti-Slavery Association last year and others who have disseminated their goals.  I demand specific demands - such as just which year we are supposed to end slavery, such as exactly in which states first and then which states next, such as exactly the language of the legislation that would prevent slavery's expansion, and when, and where - and don't bring up this pie-in-the-sky possibility of a war with Mexico in which we would claim a third of that country's land, including some place called Texas, to turn that into slave states, too.  Be realistic; that couldn't happen, not even a decade and a half from now.  The Missouri Compromise is working fine.  I think the news - well, the news except for Garrison's silly newspaper, the so-called Liberator -- will increasingly be full of protestors who look less like the average slaveowner and more like the extremes of the movement, like those whites who betray their race and class and even consort with freed slaves who worked their way to freedom for decades, as we all do -- and most of us have to pay for the roofs over our heads and the food on our tables, unlike these slaves who get all that given to them.  So I think the abolitionist numbers will dwindle, and I think that outside of the radical sphere, the movement will be marginalized.  And the very fact that the wealthy and powerful will marginalize the movement proves that the movement must be wrong.  I hope I am wrong, but not really, as you can tell.

    3.  Repeat: I support abolitionism and its core points.  Unfortunately, you have to continually repeat that if you suggest that abolitionists may need to change, and especially these immediatists like Garrison and his society, who want - but where are their specific demands, again? - slavery to end all at once, rather than help the poor, misunderstood 1% pick their time to free slaves sometime or other, say, after a few more generations of their families have had time to invest in something else to preserve their fortunes and political power.  In that thinking, I am joined by many a man on the frontier, like this young Lincoln guy I know in Illinois, who never will change from being a gradualist about ending slavery to being an immediatist and even joining this odd new movement that Garrison began.   There it is. Again.  The abolitionists just are doing it wrong.   Therefore, they will get nowhere with this.  Trust me on that.


    Parent
    The analogy (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    does not work.  I know that you are trying to fit slavery into the OWS struggle (which, if I really thought about it would probably be fairly offensive) but they are not equivalent.  The times are not the same. The media is not the same. The power dynamics are not the same.  The only thing similar is the fact that a group is trying to create change.

    I respectfully reject the analogy.

    Parent

    The exact equivalents never occur (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    in history.

    The imaginative, though see parallels in our past and learn from them toward a better future.

    The rest?  Well, they just reject the possibility that the past is prologue, from which we can learn.  They say that the times are not the same; they say that the media are not the same (of course, they are not, but those who understand the differences would realize that the speed of media today well may speed up movements rather than see that as reasons why parallels do not exist).

    But bully for you! for seeing that both groups were and are trying to create change.  Duh.

    Parent

    Doing the same thing, the same way, (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    over and over, and expecting things to change, is more or less the definition of insanity, isn't it?

    Or, maybe it's what Obama likes to call it: a communication problem.  You know, if only he could hit the rhetorical sweet spot, make over the message, he could bamboozle people into buying in and believing that he isn't really working his ass off for the wealthy and powerful.

    So, this movement, the one that's arising because of the gross social and economic inequality and concentration of wealth and power in a smaller and smaller group, shares nothing with other big movements that focused on huge change.

    Right.

    And God forbid we put slavery and women's suffrage in the same sentence with Occupy Wall Street, right?

    I mean, if those who fought to free the slaves, and give women the vote had availed themselves of the ABG Handbook, it's quite possible that the two of us - you as a black man and me as a woman - would be living quite different lives, don't you think?

    Parent

    It shares some things with other movements (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    it also differs in many, many ways, and those differences prevent the analogy to slavery being made.

    I think the better analogy is to the apartheid protests of the 80s.  I think pulling from those tactics is a better method of implementing change.  it did not require forcing politicians on board or anything like that.  

    It required drawing sharp distinctions and lots of shaming of the companies and politicians preventing change.  It involved targeted boycotts and media savvy.

    And it worked. It took years but it worked.

    That's an analogy I believe works. Analogizing this situation to abolition is (a) highly, highly insulting to many I think, (b) not reflective of the differences in the core issue and fundamental rights arguments and (c) just doesn't work.

    Parent

    Replace race with class (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    and the analogy is apt.

    It requires, of course, realization that, at last, we are in class warfare.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    No.  

    I do not think that you are correct.  You use different tactics in different situations.

    I those situations, the rights at issue and the solutions were very clear.  Let everyone vote.  Force the government to treat everyone equally.  

    The goals were clear and definite and the protestors  were unified behind specific core goals.

    OWS can even list their core, real world, "this is what we want to have happen tomorrow" level goals.

    How can we even begin to compare OWS to the suffrage or civil rights movements when you can't even give me 3 points that every OWS protestor wants changed by the government tomorrow.

    Parent

    ABG, from the link I posted, above, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    to the WaPo op-ed:

    And we will see clearly articulated demands emerging, among them a "Robin Hood tax" on all financial transactions and currency trades; a ban on high-frequency "flash" trading; the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act to again separate investment banking from commercial banking; a constitutional amendment to revoke corporate personhood and overrule Citizens United ; a move toward a "true cost" market regime in which the price of every product reflects the ecological cost of its production, distribution and use; and with a bit of luck, perhaps even the birth of a new, left-right hybrid political party that moves America beyond the Coke vs. Pepsi choices of the past.

    I think that's more than three.

    The thing is, ABG, you know - as does the corporate oligarchy - what needs to change, and it shouldn't be required to be presented in just the right form and format in order to have legitimacy.

    The establishment oligarchs don't want these changes, hence their disingenuous inability to admit they know what they are.

    What's your excuse?

    Parent

    Anne (3.50 / 2) (#90)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    Here is how easy it is for your point to be refuted:

    Do the people in the piece you quote speak for OWS?

    If yes, then cool.  We have some defined goals and points.

    If no, then your quote is irrelevant.  The voices of those two is no more relevant than the guy in Atlanta he claiming that a core point of OWS is the legalization of all drugs and prostitution.

    Parent

    Are you just being willfully ignorant? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    The op-ed, as I pointed out in my original comment, was written by the editor-in-chief and senior editor of Adbusters, the magazine that gave birth to the Occupy movement.

    Against my better judgment, because I get sick of having to do your homework for you, I am posting the relevant quote:

    The Occupy Wall Street meme was launched by a poster in the 97th issue of our international ad-free magazine, Adbusters, the hash tag #OCCUPYWALLSTREET and a "tactical briefing" that we sent to our 90,000-strong "culture jammer" global network of activists, artists and rabble-rousers in mid-July.

    And you wonder why I feel that you do not debate with any honesty.

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:47:29 PM EST
    I can't believe you don't see where I am going with this but let's play it out until the end.

    Are the Adbusters folks the leaders of the OWS movement.  Should we look to them to define the movements goals from now on?

    Parent

    Thanks for answering my question. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    Commenting rules prohibit me from saying more than that.

    Parent
    Please Anne (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    Here is your question:

    "The establishment oligarchs don't want these changes, hence their disingenuous inability to admit they know what they are. What's your excuse?"

    Geezus. Let me ask you a question like that and see if you answer.

    Anne, it appears from all of your comments that you are completely unable to take a step outside of your narrow worldview and understand that there are many progressives and liberals with different views on how to solve the problems plaguing the 99%. How do you explain your complete narrow mindedness, inability to have any perspective whatsoever and lack of ability to concoct an argument that doesn't involve assuming that the world is ignorant and you, alone Anne, are a paradigm of truth and knowledge?

    Right.  Like you are going to give me a well reasoned and thought out answer to that.

    [And believe me, I believe it is a darn good question.]

    Parent

    I have already wasted hours, probably, (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    explaining my views - hours I will never get back - in clear, coherent and honest language; what makes you think I have a burning desire to put it out there again, for you to play with?

    The truth is that you absolutely know what people want, and I'm frankly sick of this game you keep playing where you pretend you have no idea what those things are because they aren't being presented in full-color PowerPoint or with the imprimatur of the Democratic Party; that's the oligarch's game, ABG - why are you playing it?

    If only I had a dollar for every question you were asked, and failed to answer, or answered by diverting the argument to one you wanted to have...

    Parent

    I'm very curious. Why do you bother? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    I have an aversion to propaganda, (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    I guess; an intolerance for the okey-doke.

    Sometimes I entertain the idea that he comes here with the intent to focus-group us for his local OFA - in which case, he should be reporting back that the talking points and messaging aren't getting much traction, but knowing ABG, he probably reports back that we're eating it up with a spoon.

    Parent

    He does make an obvious point, Anne (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    Upsides & downsides of some goals/consensus direction--not demands, but goals: If a movement ties itself to a narrow goal without ability to adapt, then one downside is the constriction inherent in that kind of dilemma. OTOH, if a movement foregoes any directional goals or they become lost/amorphous over time, then (as ABG) suggests: There is really noone who can be said to speak for the organization or movement...whether the birth-giver or not.

    At least, that would seem to be the case....

    Parent

    Comparing the Occupiers (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    to Civil Rights is totally wrong.

    Parent
    Both are social movements (none / 0) (#140)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    and the discussion was about the development of social movements.

    You may be having a different discussion in your head about the development of something else.  That is not wrong, either -- but it is wrong here, as a reply to (to repeat) a discussion about the development of social movements.

    (Of course, any social movement is useful for comparison in a discussion of social movements -- but I picked the one least likely to cause others to raise, as usual, everything from Communists to Carry Nation to Hillary Rodham Clinton.)

    Parent

    Some people (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    think carrots and tomatoes are veggies but one is a fruit.

    The civil rights movement was driven by an indisputable fact. Segregation was wrong. The denial of rights was wrong. Everyone recognized that, even its supporters who tried to claim "separate but equal" when any Southerner could go to the school for blacks and then to the school for whites and see for themselves the hypocrisy of this.

    Thus the movement was supported by the vast majority of Americans.

    The Occupiers claim what, that Wall Street is out of control?? Heck, everyone knows that. But the question remains in everyone's mind, "What will you replace it with?" There is no answer and the suspicion is that the Occupiers want to replace it with some form of socialism, Marxism or communism depending on the depth of their rejection of democracy and capitalism.

    The problem may be Wall Street. The cause is in DC.


    Parent

    The modern civil rights movement (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    for African Americans (there were many civil rights movements in the '60s, btw) was supported by the vast majority of Americans?

    Nope.  We're the ones who are indisputably fact-based here.  Now, perhaps you read only the revisionist, feel-good stuff.  I recommend contemporaneous sources.  (Those also will inform you that segregation, segregated schools, etc., hardly were only in the South.  For but one example:  You do know, I hope, that the Brown and the Board of Education in Brown v. Board of Education was not a Southern case?)

    So, actually, this is yet another similarity between these social movements.  Of course, that's a similarity among many social movements, almost by definition, as if the majority was for the cause of such a movement, such movements would not be needed.

    I do pity you for your inability to think more largely to see similarities, as those often are the most instructive of lessons from the past for the future.

    Parent

    The cause is D.C (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    so this means the Tea Party is calling for tighter regulatory controls on Wall St, emanating from Washington? and an end to the cronyism that goes both ways?

    Or Grover, is what you're driving at that Big Government should just get out of the way and let the magic of the free market work?

    Parent

    It is called a simple (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    statement of fact.

    You know, like "The sun comes up in the morning."

    There was no mention of what the Tea Party wanted.

    Try to quit making things up.

    Parent

    It is called a simple (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    statement of fact.

    You know, like "The sun comes up in the morning."

    There was no mention of what the Tea Party wanted.

    Try to quit making things up.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    This post quoted Dionne so I will again go to his post to make my point:

    "Thus the question going forward: Will the Occupy movement play into the hands of its enemies by living up to the stereotypes they are trying to create? Or will it instead move to a phase that builds on its success?

    Ongoing violent demonstrations will simply not help the cause, and the Martin Luther King Jr.'s lessons on nonviolence are useful here. Thismovement is about something much bigger than "occupying" a particular space. Occupations proved to be a shrewd tactic. They are not a cause or an end in themselves. Focusing on holding a piece of public land simply makes the movement a hostage to the decisions of local officials, some of whom will inevitably be hostile to its purposes."

    That's my point exactly.  Are you disagreeing with that point?

    Probably more importantly, it's also the point of many of OWS's most prominent members as well:

    Link

    Opinion is turning against the movement. Blast those of us who want it to succeed if you'd like.  The only thing hurt by that is the cause.


    Parent

    The Correct Phrase... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:40:48 AM EST
     ...is Armchair Quarterbacking.

    Parent
    I think some of this is too general (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    what I mean by that is that OWS is, on the one hand, a national movement.  But on the other hand it's a very local movement.  There doesn't seem to be much coordination between the various occupy movements, and they are all operating somewhat independantly.  You see that as a weakness (lack of leadership) but I actually see it as a strength, because they can multitask.

    For example, at the same time that people are being arrested/sprayed in Davis, other demonstrations are able to march against police brutality, or the economic issues, etc... Likewise, the different responses by the different cities allows Occupy to use different tactics and methods to get their voice heard.  They get cleared out of the park in NY and they starting to organize a more long term solution with continued rallies and marches.  They are allowed to stay in Boston and they go to court to work it out with the city.  Now in California there will be a general assembly with the students and the staff to work through issues.

    The lack of "focus" as you call it doesn't bother me because there are so many different groups they are able to tackle all of these issues simultaneously.

    There doesn't have to be one big national plan.  Winter in Atlanta is very different from winter in Boston for example.  Each group is going to have to figure out how to make it work.  And I for one have faith that they will/are.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    I think the ability to operate independently has positives in some respects, but if the main focus is solidifying national support around the cause of income inequalty, the power of Wall Street and corruption, the lack of coordination is a huge flaw.

    No matter how peaceful and positive the movement is, one bad act in one city can destroy good will across the nation.  We only need one OWS affiliated person to commit a bad act for the whole thing to be placed in danger.

    The margin of error is very slim.  I am very concerned that the work of thousands of good people could be destroyed by the random acts of a few.  I am in the business of risk management, and  if I was consulting OWS on the best way to maximize potential while minimizing the chance that the movement is derailed, real coordination would be the order of the day.

    It's no different than a company that has no internal controls.  It may be profitable. It may be wildly successful.  But at some point the lack of structure will bring the company down.  It's not that it might happen.  It ALWAYS happens.

    The only variable factor is how long it takes.

    Parent

    There you go again (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    in ignoring the lessons of history.

    No, the picture that you paint does not always happen.

    Parent

    I have ignored nothing (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    I simply think your analogy is not appropriate because the facts are different.  

    We are evaluating identical facts and coming to different conclusions.

    Parent

    The lessons of history (none / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    are always analogous.  (See: definition of analogy.)

    Parent
    There's a lot here (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    but I'll just say I do not find the corporation analogy relevant.

    Parent
    CST: You may be on to a key aspect (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:03:29 PM EST
    of how the OWS movement has developed so well so far. The 99%/1% overarching theme is the central uniter; and, the individual OWS groups respond to varying local situations with appropriate regional tactics. That makes sense.

    Our ability to describe & discuss may be affected by whether we emphasize the unifying national theme--the original theme--or whether we look to individualized city developments. IMO, the national focus is important in terms of messaging & general populace interest/support...without that clear theme, observers would drive wedges & the groups, like other historically short-lived spontaneous movements, might flounder. OTOH, encouraging the individual components to develop in accord with the needs of their communities would seem to strengthen the national focus by allowing the successful tactics from various operations to be included in the nationally visible effort.

    Almost like a populist federalism!

    Parent

    A very good point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    as, as they say, all history is local.

    Parent
    Kind of like... (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    ... a murmuration of "darlings" (our Occupy sons and daughters).

    Parent