Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[Piggy]

I've had about enough of the Occupy Whatever street theater.

I really have.

And I agree with most of the mainstream ideas these folks are pushing. We've legislated our way into an unhealthy wealth disparity, the pay gap between execs and workers is too large, a very small number of people have undue influence on the nation's government and finances, we need to prosecute at least some of the fraudsters who fueled the economic collapse, and the financial sector -- especially consumer banking and the unregulated shadow markets -- has become largely a predatory industry.

That needs fixing, because it impedes democracy and brings on boom-and-bust cycles.

So what do these folks do? They move into public parks, intended to be oases for people who live in cities, and pave them over with tents so nobody else can use the place, or would want to.

In other words, they decide to become their own 1%.

Nice move, guys.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad they got out there and injected these topics into the dialog, because nobody was really talking much about it except in left-wing echo chambers, and it shouldn't be a left-wing issue.

But these folks learned the wrong lessons from the Sixties.

Look, you see someone arrested just for trying to register to vote, or get a sandwich, or cross a bridge, and unless you're a bigot, you think "That's not right".

You see someone get arrested for attention, and you're thinking, "How much is it costing me for my government to process your ass? Couldn't you have done this another way?"

Now the Tea Party -- who for the most part believes a lot of nonsense and many of whom are unabashed theocrats -- had rallies all over the country and didn't have to break any laws. And you know what? They have people in Congress right now.

Meanwhile, an occupier calling himself "Sweet Potato" is selected, perhaps by himself, to give an extended interview to the News Hour at the ragged edge of a day-glo Hooverville.

And for two months they've been camped out there, drumming their drums, smoking their weed, and keeping kids and lunch-breakers and retirees and everyone else from using the park.

Folks, you peacefully protest by doing those things you think should be done... not by doing the things you're protesting against. Which is why taking over property is precisely the wrong strategy for you.

And it ticks me off, because now these ideas are going to be associated with Sweet Potato and his fellow squatters, which won't help them get a fair hearing.

Which means that the folks in those tent cities who don't have jobs, or who don't have homes, have even less of a chance to see the things get done that they were asking for.

And so does everybody else.

So I'm glad they're getting evicted.

I can't recall which mayor said this, but she's right... it's not a question of free speech, it's a question of lodging.

I hope they learn their lesson, do some reading up on the Tea Party, and get their act together.

They could do this country some good. If they just fast-forward their mental and strategic clocks about 45 years.

 

[Puppycow]

Amen.

 

[portlandatheist]

Well said!

 

[tyr_13]

Good points.

 

[BenBurch]

I wanted to like them because I want to like ALL popular protests. The people NEED to bitch when things are not good. But their utter lack of focus or anything tangible that can be done to settle their grievances has lost me.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sweet Potato was probably just some random street crazy that the corporate media selected to further their clown show coverage. Does ABC, NBC or Fox Boobs have any interest in destroying the political power of the corporations? Or is it in their financial best interest to preserve that power?

 

[applecorped]

This ain't over.

 

[Alt+F4]

So I'm glad they're getting evicted.

Me too. Great post Piggy.

No one was opposed to their right to free speech or assembly and yes, it's good to get folks talking about issues. What was so wrong was their total disregard for the rights of others to live and work in peace.

 

[stokes234]

I partially agree, in that the actual practice of it has been implemented poorly and there is a risk as you say of any opposition to wealth inequality becoming associated with whackos who really aren't the best spokespeople. However, the occupying parks thing strikes me as just a twist on a long-standing method of protest - doing something that actually matters in order to get attention for your cause. Similar to how strikes are more effective than workers just protesting after hours, occupying parks and being a bit of a nuisance ensures that they won't be ignored by the press because the protest is causing problems. If only it was being handled better by the OWS supporters, it would guarantee them more airtime for laying out their genuine greivances than would waving a few signs once a week.

 

[WildCat]

Sweet Potato was probably just some random street crazy that the corporate media selected to further their clown show coverage.

True, everyone knows that Ketchup is the REAL spokesperson for OWS.

 

[Piggy]

Sweet Potato was probably just some random street crazy that the corporate media selected to further their clown show coverage. Does ABC, NBC or Fox Boobs have any interest in destroying the political power of the corporations? Or is it in their financial best interest to preserve that power?

The News Hour is PBS, and Sweet Potato wasn't a street crazy. But he also wasn't anyone who was going to get a fair hearing from anyone who didn't already agree with him... and not even from some of those.

 

[Piggy]

I partially agree, in that the actual practice of it has been implemented poorly and there is a risk as you say of any opposition to wealth inequality becoming associated with whackos who really aren't the best spokespeople. However, the occupying parks thing strikes me as just a twist on a long-standing method of protest - doing something that actually matters in order to get attention for your cause. Similar to how strikes are more effective than workers just protesting after hours, occupying parks and being a bit of a nuisance ensures that they won't be ignored by the press because the protest is causing problems. If only it was being handled better by the OWS supporters, it would guarantee them more airtime for laying out their genuine greivances than would waving a few signs once a week.

Well, it seems to me if you're talking about strikes, you're talking about organized action. You have leaders, position statements, and so forth.

Ditto for the Tea Party. They were unorganized at first, but these are Baptists and mission-trippers and PTA moms and Rotary members, along with some useful bullies, and it didn't take long til they had voting muscle organized.

They did pretty darn good for "waving a few signs once a week" instead of camping out and smoking dope.

The Occupiers are lost in the delusion that "raising awareness" is all you have to do, when it's only step 1.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I liked the concept they had at the beginning, to try something outside the mainstream to get things changed. The Tea Party had certain media and political backers, not just lawfulness. They had an interesting concept, but the problem is that most of the OWS people want political reforms, and the established way of doing it is very entrenched. Also, their alternative to normal political organisations did not succeed.

I think they did succeed in changing the narrative. Now at political debates they ask about them more than the Tea Party. Let's face it, crazy drummers get more attention than statistics.

 

[Piggy]

I liked the concept they had at the beginning, to try something outside the mainstream to get things changed. The Tea Party had certain media and political backers, not just lawfulness. They had an interesting concept, but the problem is that most of the OWS people want political reforms, and the established way of doing it is very entrenched. Also, their alternative to normal political organisations did not succeed.

I think they did succeed in changing the narrative. Now at political debates they ask about them more than the Tea Party. Let's face it, crazy drummers get more attention than statistics.

I have to disagree with that analysis.

Yes, people pay more attention to drummers than they do to statistics, but like I said, getting attention is step 1. Once you have the attention, you have to, first, not come off as a bunch of naive lawbreakers, and then figure out how to get past the "I'm talking here" stage.

And honestly, can you hear tape of the "human megaphone" and not laugh? I can't. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

The Tea Party is likely to fall apart because their ideology is so contrary to reality.

But Occupy is shooting itself in the thigh, which is a shame because the mainstream portion of their message isn't crazy.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This ain't over.

Actually, it is. They're being tossed out left and right and losing every court case along the way. Their 15 minutes are up.

Next.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, it seems to me if you're talking about strikes, you're talking about organized action. You have leaders, position statements, and so forth.

Ditto for the Tea Party. They were unorganized at first, but these are Baptists and mission-trippers and PTA moms and Rotary members, along with some useful bullies, and it didn't take long til they had voting muscle organized.

They did pretty darn good for "waving a few signs once a week" instead of camping out and smoking dope.

The Occupiers are lost in the delusion that "raising awareness" is all you have to do, when it's only step 1.

The difference between the Teabaggers and the Occutards is that the Teabaggers had the good sense to go home at night.

Other than that, they're opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[Tony]

But Occupy is shooting itself in the thigh, which is a shame because the mainstream portion of their message isn't crazy.

Is there NO effort in the OWS movement to focus their energy on getting people elected?

 

[Virus]

Is there NO effort in the OWS movement to focus their energy on getting people elected?

Name the OWS candidate.

 

[WildCat]

Is there NO effort in the OWS movement to focus their energy on getting people elected?

Unfortunately all their election efforts are aimed at the politicians who are evicting them from the parks, and not at the ones in control of the economy.

They're easily distracted by the first shiny thing they see.

 

[rustypouch]

Name the OWS candidate.

Indeed. Considering the current choices in the US are between a right wing party and an extreme right wing party, neither of which represent the ideology of OWS. Then we get into the barriers to entry to run a candidate in state or federal elections, which is next to impossible without corporate backing.