Drudge is leading at the moment with a variety of articles detailing crimes and illness that are befalling the OWS movement -- a death in Salt Lake City, lung sickness in Zucotti Park...
These are unfortunate events. Some in the media have tried to tie even more to the movement, with claims in the NY Post that OWS is responsible for defacing the the 9-11 memorial. An article in Salon argues that the charge is baseless. (link) SFGate has a story that there was murder in Oakland, but many in the movement there claim it had nothing to do with any of their people. (link) Still, there have been some reports of rapes and lots of suggestion of drug usage, and the footage I posted earlier in the week that shows behavior that would be called bullying in schools. All very unfortunate.
I hope it doesn't continue.
It was widely reported several weeks ago that Occupy had instituted a no snitching policy in its camps so that the public wouldn't get the wrong idea. The Washington Times had one version of this story (link), and an officer in NYPD was reported as saying that there is little information getting out about such activities because the people in OWS are trying to handle things themselves.
Uhm. Here's a question: What is the difference in that -- the no-snitching rule -- and what JoePa and Penn State (or the Catholic Church) have done?
Showing posts with label OWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OWS. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
filed under: revolutions are messy
The little dust-up that occured between Occupy Wall Street protestors (DC branch) and Americans for Prosperity tea-partiers over the weekend has gotten a little more attention in the last couple of days. (link) Much of this stuff is underground, I think. Perhaps much ado about nothing, except that in an election year, the stakes are fairly high.
The right has its base in the grass roots tax protests that began several years ago and have already been through an election cycle or two, calcifying into the Republican Party in a way that the Moral Majority once did. Tax policy has now become the civic religion for them. They are still driven by their religious roots, though. Don't think for a moment that if the Republicans sweep the elections in 2012 those compulsions will not resurface. Fifteen minutes after the Congress takes the oath, we will be feted to a new round of abortion controls and flag-burning bans and all of the old social issues that have been so important to the right over the years. These issues have only been temporarily quieted by the economic storm. The moralists won't be able to help themselves. They will demand accountability of their representatives for having worked for their elections. Still, at the moment, the talk is about economics, and they stand for deregulating and lower taxes and less spending and all of the things that drive a free markets approach to prosperity.
On the other hand, the left protestors want social justice. They define their stance in a way that combines a class-based anger at the wealthy with their call for social programs. Theirs is not a new movement either, just a newer iteration of the net-roots, the Seattle protests against globalism, and the like. They, like their counterparts on the right, have added some new wrinkles with their calls for economic solutions to student loans and a host of other programs, all revoving around their language regarding a supposed stance in favor of "the 99%." But the fact that they stood at the door of the AFP protest and pointed their fingers and shouted their slogans and epithets in the faces of common people seems to put the lie to the idea that they truly intend to achieve social justice for "all." What they want is what they have always wanted, an approach to responsible government controls of corporate greed and a redistribution of the profits. Anyone who stands in their way, whether by fact or ideology, is to be opposed.
So starts the revolution. It is a time of anger, driven by the harsh economic times, managed by a President and a Speaker of the House playing a high stakes game of chicken with the economic fortunes of the country. The crowds have grown larger than they were in protests from the recent past, or at least more vocal. Feet are liable to grow entangled as the two groups march against each other. (link)
Revolutions are messy. People get stirred up and act on their passions. They feel angst and flail in frustration. Given the clash of the OWS and AFP that occured over the weekend, it is unlikely to end with a prefered outcome, one in which a real revolution comes about. Instead, the groups are simply sorting themselves out into their corners, calls for peace all around, the media shaming them into submission with cries about extremism and the need for organization. And so we can propbably expect that OWS and the Tea Party will, like so many protestors before them, get sucked back into the parties.
But here is a question: What would happen if the two groups found a way to march in the same direction? Maybe meet at the Washington convention center and walk the mile or so it would take to stand in front of the US Congress and ask the representatives of the people and the corporate lobbyists they are holding meetings with to interrupt their meetings and come out and explain themselves... maybe have a real revolution. Now that would be a real mess.
Or they could just tear at each other's throats for a while, shout their slogans, jostle around the margins, point fingers and incite and maintain the ongoing hatred between right and left... while both of those other two groups -- the politicians and the corporations -- laugh each other all the way to the bank.
The right has its base in the grass roots tax protests that began several years ago and have already been through an election cycle or two, calcifying into the Republican Party in a way that the Moral Majority once did. Tax policy has now become the civic religion for them. They are still driven by their religious roots, though. Don't think for a moment that if the Republicans sweep the elections in 2012 those compulsions will not resurface. Fifteen minutes after the Congress takes the oath, we will be feted to a new round of abortion controls and flag-burning bans and all of the old social issues that have been so important to the right over the years. These issues have only been temporarily quieted by the economic storm. The moralists won't be able to help themselves. They will demand accountability of their representatives for having worked for their elections. Still, at the moment, the talk is about economics, and they stand for deregulating and lower taxes and less spending and all of the things that drive a free markets approach to prosperity.
On the other hand, the left protestors want social justice. They define their stance in a way that combines a class-based anger at the wealthy with their call for social programs. Theirs is not a new movement either, just a newer iteration of the net-roots, the Seattle protests against globalism, and the like. They, like their counterparts on the right, have added some new wrinkles with their calls for economic solutions to student loans and a host of other programs, all revoving around their language regarding a supposed stance in favor of "the 99%." But the fact that they stood at the door of the AFP protest and pointed their fingers and shouted their slogans and epithets in the faces of common people seems to put the lie to the idea that they truly intend to achieve social justice for "all." What they want is what they have always wanted, an approach to responsible government controls of corporate greed and a redistribution of the profits. Anyone who stands in their way, whether by fact or ideology, is to be opposed.
So starts the revolution. It is a time of anger, driven by the harsh economic times, managed by a President and a Speaker of the House playing a high stakes game of chicken with the economic fortunes of the country. The crowds have grown larger than they were in protests from the recent past, or at least more vocal. Feet are liable to grow entangled as the two groups march against each other. (link)
Revolutions are messy. People get stirred up and act on their passions. They feel angst and flail in frustration. Given the clash of the OWS and AFP that occured over the weekend, it is unlikely to end with a prefered outcome, one in which a real revolution comes about. Instead, the groups are simply sorting themselves out into their corners, calls for peace all around, the media shaming them into submission with cries about extremism and the need for organization. And so we can propbably expect that OWS and the Tea Party will, like so many protestors before them, get sucked back into the parties.
But here is a question: What would happen if the two groups found a way to march in the same direction? Maybe meet at the Washington convention center and walk the mile or so it would take to stand in front of the US Congress and ask the representatives of the people and the corporate lobbyists they are holding meetings with to interrupt their meetings and come out and explain themselves... maybe have a real revolution. Now that would be a real mess.
Or they could just tear at each other's throats for a while, shout their slogans, jostle around the margins, point fingers and incite and maintain the ongoing hatred between right and left... while both of those other two groups -- the politicians and the corporations -- laugh each other all the way to the bank.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
filed under: optics
Can the Occupy movement afford much of this? (link)
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
Friday, November 4, 2011
filed under: don't go wobbly on me now, george
In the run up to the First Gulf War, Margaret Thatcher famously stiffened George Bush's spine by telling him not to go "wobbly" when he had a moment of indecision. In a recent column in Slate, Beverly Gage wonders whether the OWS movement will have the stick-to-it-iveness to ride out the protests now that cold weather has come on (link). She is heartened to find that, one cold storm in, the movement seems resolved to continue. She then goes on to review the labor movement and draw lessons for OWS.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
filed under: it depends on the situation
Really fine read about a really interesting group that may or may not serve as inspiration for OWS. link
I find myself fascinated by these guys... and I think fascination is something we are sorely missing in our political discourse. (Less so in the social discourse, but approaching, even there...)
It is important sometimes to take yourself completely out of your frame of reference and look at things from an entirely new perspective. Think outside the box, as we say in other places. That means, when you hear something about some event or other, you don't automatically classify it and categorize it and side either with or against it based on how such things have always been settled in the past. And don't just listen for how you can agree or disagree based on what the usual stereotypes dictate, either. Instead, listen (or view) to see if there is something inside the message that is strange and unusual, unsettling. More often than not, that's the part that means something. The rest of it is just filler, just space to fill the broadcast.
I'll give you an example... a friend of mine posted this picture ( link ) of an installation by the street artist Banksy at the Occupy London protest. Someone had commented in the thread that Banksy -- who is perhaps the most in-demand artist-activist alive at present -- seemed a bit hypocritical in siding with the protestors when he himself draws a pretty hefty coin. And the comment immediately below that said the first commenter shoud not think OWS is against earning money, but merely against the wild extremities that occur with the rigged game resulting from blah blah blah derivatives blah blah blah bailout blah blah blah 1% blah. He said the person should try to break out of the automatic switch on switch off, black/white, binary thinking that plagues society and political discourse. And both had pretty good points, I think. Is Michael Moore a hypocrite for asking Harvey Weinstein for just a little bit more than the 29 bajillion dollars (est.) he made on Fahrenheit 911, when he constantly criticizes corporate monsters for their greed? Yes, probably. But should we break out of this immediate finger-pointing and name-calling kill-the-messenger mode, and consider the real issues at hand in order to see whether there are areas of common ground on which we can stand? Absolutely.
But here's another way to look at the work... It's not about who makes what and who is protesting whom... Look at the actual art itself. How did you learn to handle money? From your parents? Maybe. But they were playing Monopoly with you when they were teaching you... We just swallow that competitive, must-crush-all nature of money wholly from the time we are first allowed to sit at the table. So the work is about the bankers holding out their hands, pretending poverty while they are dressed in tuxedos... yes. But can it also be about something more? The American Dream changing to accommodate something that is less about making money and scoring political points and more about, for example, living in the moment and laughing with your kids? That's how we live our lives in the real world anyway, right? But for some reason when we talk politics we all go back to that little kid sitting at the table, swallowing the quantity theory of money and being moved by the invisible hand. Happily, we all want to be little millionaires.
But can money buy you love? Then I don't care too much for it.
So now, maybe, hopefully, the work of Banksy and the OWS movement it is meant to support will not spark (only) an automatic response of "why do these damned robber barons still hold their hands out?!?!"... but, instead, they will make us ask ourselves: Why do we still pay credence to the idea that money is about proving our worth against others? That idea is so destructive.
After all, didn't we also learn on Sunday morning after we played Monopoly with the family on Saturday afternoon... that the love of it is the root of evil?
I find myself fascinated by these guys... and I think fascination is something we are sorely missing in our political discourse. (Less so in the social discourse, but approaching, even there...)
It is important sometimes to take yourself completely out of your frame of reference and look at things from an entirely new perspective. Think outside the box, as we say in other places. That means, when you hear something about some event or other, you don't automatically classify it and categorize it and side either with or against it based on how such things have always been settled in the past. And don't just listen for how you can agree or disagree based on what the usual stereotypes dictate, either. Instead, listen (or view) to see if there is something inside the message that is strange and unusual, unsettling. More often than not, that's the part that means something. The rest of it is just filler, just space to fill the broadcast.
I'll give you an example... a friend of mine posted this picture ( link ) of an installation by the street artist Banksy at the Occupy London protest. Someone had commented in the thread that Banksy -- who is perhaps the most in-demand artist-activist alive at present -- seemed a bit hypocritical in siding with the protestors when he himself draws a pretty hefty coin. And the comment immediately below that said the first commenter shoud not think OWS is against earning money, but merely against the wild extremities that occur with the rigged game resulting from blah blah blah derivatives blah blah blah bailout blah blah blah 1% blah. He said the person should try to break out of the automatic switch on switch off, black/white, binary thinking that plagues society and political discourse. And both had pretty good points, I think. Is Michael Moore a hypocrite for asking Harvey Weinstein for just a little bit more than the 29 bajillion dollars (est.) he made on Fahrenheit 911, when he constantly criticizes corporate monsters for their greed? Yes, probably. But should we break out of this immediate finger-pointing and name-calling kill-the-messenger mode, and consider the real issues at hand in order to see whether there are areas of common ground on which we can stand? Absolutely.
But here's another way to look at the work... It's not about who makes what and who is protesting whom... Look at the actual art itself. How did you learn to handle money? From your parents? Maybe. But they were playing Monopoly with you when they were teaching you... We just swallow that competitive, must-crush-all nature of money wholly from the time we are first allowed to sit at the table. So the work is about the bankers holding out their hands, pretending poverty while they are dressed in tuxedos... yes. But can it also be about something more? The American Dream changing to accommodate something that is less about making money and scoring political points and more about, for example, living in the moment and laughing with your kids? That's how we live our lives in the real world anyway, right? But for some reason when we talk politics we all go back to that little kid sitting at the table, swallowing the quantity theory of money and being moved by the invisible hand. Happily, we all want to be little millionaires.
But can money buy you love? Then I don't care too much for it.
So now, maybe, hopefully, the work of Banksy and the OWS movement it is meant to support will not spark (only) an automatic response of "why do these damned robber barons still hold their hands out?!?!"... but, instead, they will make us ask ourselves: Why do we still pay credence to the idea that money is about proving our worth against others? That idea is so destructive.
After all, didn't we also learn on Sunday morning after we played Monopoly with the family on Saturday afternoon... that the love of it is the root of evil?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)