Occupy Los Angeles is set to be dismantled at some point this week. The mayor has been squishy about razing the camp for weeks now. Eyes on the Governor’s mansion will do that in a blue state.
OLA is now the largest remaining “Occupy” around. The city government has tread lightly around the camp which is, bizarrely, on the lawn surrounding city hall. I’ve been baffled from the gate as to why OLA chose city hall, or why the national Occupi chose any number of the locations it did. The City of Los Angeles is prone to all the corruption one can find in any large American metropolis in 2011. Yet this city government’s connection to the world-wide financial meltdown of 2008 doesn’t even rank as marginalia. I do not understand why so many Occupi (That is plural for the camps, FYI…I just made it up. I think. I like it. ) landed in places that had next to no connection to the alleged point.
In LA’s case I assume it had to do with there being an empty space in front of a minor landmark, though the landmark in this case was, I repeat, beside the point. A few tents in front of the Chinese Theater might have been more interesting. Were the La Brea tar pits to…tar-y? One does often get dirty shoes walking about that park, the tar not being confined exclusively to the pit. An Occupy did spring up on Venice Beach but it was redundant immediately. The Hollywood Sign is inaccessible. Disney Hall? Not enough sidewalk. Perhaps a tent on various sidewalk stars down Hollywood Blvd and Vine Street would have been fun. There could have been an ”Occupy Peggy Lee” tent on her star, an “Occupy Lou Costello” tent, and on down the line.
The choice here is doubly odd because LA has a large financial district downtown not one subway station from City Hall. So OLA annoyed a largely left leaning city government and went almost entirely unnoticed by the big bad suits not more than a few steps away. Weird.
I visited twice and that was enough. It was easier to have hope something substantial would emerge from afar. The place was a tidy, confused mess, if I may contradict myself in 4 words. At any rate, as predicted, OLA is now defending its “right” to squat illegally on land that has no meaning in the larger picture, which is emblematic of the confusion of the entire movement.
Many Occupiers are busy congratulating themselves for their “accomplishment” – another perfect demonstration of pathetic public education system they emerged from. Everybody gets a sticker for showing up. Everyone’s ‘self worth’ is feted with a bull horn and a cookie. The concept of real accomplishment is utterly foreign, in fact, it is dangerous. The true “others” in this nether world are those who get things done. They must be fought.
In terms of ‘getting things done’ Occupy is an abject failure. 3 months in and not a single major bank as been shut down…or is even in fear of failure. No enabler in Congress is remotely concerned about his/her job. The middle class, who took it up the south side and continues to with the bailouts, is completely disinterested, if not disgusted. The sympathetic press – such as it is – has moved on, alighting only for the occasional graphic clip of pepper spraying or baton beating. What Occupy wanted at the outset (still a muddled question) has not come to pass, nor is any tangible action moving in that direction.
Still what one might call a success – if one is generous – did occur. There is a slightly greater consciousness of how rigged our system is. This is not nothing, though to my thinking it’s close. The population understood the system was rigged before Occupy showed up. Occupy did show us that some people are willing to do some thing about the appalling racket we call an economy. I give the protesters credit for this. Unless the encampments were merely a prelude and Occupy morphs into a vital, muscular movement – and quickly – I must call it like I see it: Occupy is a failure.
OWS failed on at least 2 broad fronts. It failed to focus and therefore it failed capture the imagination of the people. I realize that many solid thinkers have claimed that Occupy lacking focus was a media meme and untrue. Individuals, when asked, were clear and usually consistent. Money out of politics. Banks paying for their deceit. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagal. Nevertheless, the failure for any of this to coagulate into simple demands that every encampment could seize upon rests solely on the weird, off-putting nature of Occupy itself.
An excuse is an excuse. I don’t care how overbearing and manipulative the American media is. A movement like OWS, with a simple message and straight up demands should have been – could have been – heard and caused real change. (I admit, it still might, but the current moment, at least, has passed.) What’s happening in Egypt again is a case study in why simple demands that capture the gestalt of the moment are effective and flailing camp outs are not.
The issues here are generational as much as political. Left wing millennials often energized the movement but never sank their teeth into an issue. They got no guidance from thoughtful, left-wing Gen Xers or Boomers. Or, if they did, they rejected it out right. So the kids turned out to be kids; angry, often unconscious, passionate, and without focus. Left leaning Gen Xers and Boomers did them no favors by encouraging this lack of focus or at least not moving to seize the mic on occasion.
The tragedy of my generation – Gen xers – is that we are relentlessly cynical. Our “hope” is always tinged with the national failures of the last 30 years. Liberal Gen Xers did not put cynicism to bed in late 2011…at least not in any broad sense. Jon Stewart found the comedy in OWS – which is his job – and he, more than any Gen Xers I know, represents our attitude. He is our Walter Cronkite, the one we go to in order to figure out what we think.
Liberal Boomers failed here as well. Perhaps it was nostalgia for an era when youthful protest seemed to matter that stuffed any Boomer leaders from emerging out of OWS. Too often they happily took on the role of side shows. Aging folk singers making an appearance, tired radicals voicing support from afar. If the clips of Pete Seeger’s appearance at OWS had all been rendered in sepia tones would anyone have commented? It felt like a civil war reenactment. Look at the funny old man singing.
The trouble with nostalgia is that it’s lethal to wisdom. And wisdom from Boomers is what was needed most. Wisdom would have exposed the flailing nature of OWS right away. Realistic Boomers would have sussed early that the millennials needed a focus because those not hindered with their own sepia toned nostalgia would have remembered that they had a focus. No, not the war, which they failed to end. THE DRAFT. Which they succeeded in ending. The raw meat of the anti-Vietnam protests was the draft. OWS millennials needed raw meat, a reason to man the barricades beyond the intellectual mush of the last 30 years and random, albeit justified, anger.
In practical terms protesting for “social justice” and “economic equality” is errant nonsense. Protesting to reinstate Glass-Steagal and nothing else would have been, on the other hand, very useful. The spokesperson positions Boomers and Gen Xers did elbow their way into all emerged from the cesspool of the last 40 years of lazy academia. There were idiotic treatises on “horizontal decision-making” and fanciful diatribes about “creating a new world” - which only muddled the kids further. It seems to me that if 40, 50, 60, and 70 somethings had seized the mic early and often, all the hand jive horse shit would have faded fast. Grown ups make decisions. It is that simple. It’s the defining characteristic of adulthood. It’s how things happen. Adults who were unpolluted by the archaic and authoritarian poison of the recent and useless Left (There must be a few!) refused to stand up or were shouted down if they did.
So now the ‘movement’ goes forth. Somehow. Chances are good it will fade like all progressive movements (except gay rights) of the last 40 years. It may reconstitute as more radical and even less effective. But the problem has not faded. This we know. The problem will force a response. I imagine a rather large one at that and in 2012. Sadly, the chances of it being peaceful and progressive are now greatly diminished. The frustrations of 2011 will be co-opted by those who are masters at co-opting. The Big Business Right will continue its forceful return in 2012 (Did it ever really fade?). This time under the banner of “competence”. The message – self-destructive as it is – will be appealing because it is simple and direct, a pointer in basic salesmanship the diversity addled, mush brained Left would do well to learn.
All Occupy had to do was focus on one goal.
It failed.
And wisdom from Boomers is what was needed most.
Would they have listened?
OWS has not failed for the simple reason that OWS is not finished. Hang around fro American Spring 2012.
Note from an elder: Change your screen name to something people will take seriously. You clearly have something to say – why not let it be heard?
…and now I’m embarrassed. In the tiny pic you looked like a twenty something. After clicking, I see that you’re a peer.
And then I find that your screen name is a play on your actual name, so I apologize for being an asshole and take back half of what I said. (I still think the name reads ‘christ of pierson’ which seems nutty unless one delves deeper, which most don’t.)
Christof, care to lay out for us the Occupii game plan for the next 12 months?
Say what? Game plans are “bourgeois”?!
What sort of plan would you advise, tamerlane?
You mentioned something about Spring 2012. Was it wrong of me to assume the Occupii had a plan?
I’m not privy to their specific plans. I do know that they are inspired by Tahrir and the Arab spring. That’s an indication of what’s in store. I expect it could be a lot more interesting than the Republican primaries.
But that’s been their plan (sic) all along, and they failed.
Only things that are over can be said to have failed. The literal occupations of the American Fall 2011 may be over. There may be no outdoor occupations in the winter. There will be direct actions. There will be general assemblies. I think there will even be literal occupations. So don’t say they failed until the last breath is out of them.
I spoke to several people at Occupy Philly [before Mayor Nutter's deadline to dismantle] and the subject of American Spring 2012 was raised. Beneath the surface, there are all kinds of actions, seminars and rallies in the works.
Occupy America is not going away. Interesting comment and info over at Naked Capitalism on a seminar/conference planned for April in Philly:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/tom-ferguson-democratic-governance-is-becoming-discredited.html
[The Ferguson point is an important one--neoliberal, vulture capitalism and a Democratic Republic do not mix. History proves the point in Latin America, Poland, Russia, etc, all nascent democratic movements have been crushed and swallowed by the 'so-called' free market, which isn't free at all, just criminal and inhumane.]
Comment on Phillyworks here, scheduled conference info at the link below:
http://publicbankinginstitute.org/events.htm
Public Banking in America
What a Democratic Economy Looks Like
Occupy Wall Street begets its first conference. The Public Banking Institute is hosting the Democratization of Money Conference in Philadelphia in April, 2012 as a result of the significant increase in desire for monetary and banking reform to involve solutions that further the public interest.
[hat tip to NC poster Paul Tioxon]
And . . . Eye of the Newt is a credible POTUS candidate??? Seriously, people. I go away for a 10-day family visit and the board has gone insane! Newt Gingrich is the same arrogant SOB he’s always been. He’s just fatter now. Think the Pillsbury Dough Boy’s evil twin.
“And . . . Eye of the Newt is a credible POTUS candidate??? Seriously, people. I go away for a 10-day family visit and the board has gone insane! Newt Gingrich is the same arrogant SOB he’s always been. He’s just fatter now.”
Peggy you forgot to mention that he’s also one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Maybe his conversion to “catholicism”, ROTFLMAO, will redeem him.
How people can suddenly forget his multi-year effort to destroy Bill & Hillary is beyond me. How can anyone forget his hypocrisy concerning Bill’s affair with an intern, while he was engaging in his own affair with an intern? Because he’s done a public repentance, attempted to rewrite history to say it wasn’t the affair, it was the lying about the affair, and enriched himself and extended his influence through business ventures on K Street? I don’t doubt that Gingrich can win the GOP Nomination, but he has the credibility of Bernie Madoff.
REMINDER:
‘http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N68/house.68w.html
Absolutely, Anon. Gingrich = hypocrite. As far as rewriting history? We’re talking about one of the masters. I personally loved the explanation regarding Newt’s marital woes being the result of ‘loving his country too much.’
Oh,Gag city!
Thought the Republicans wanted to win the WH. Obviously not. Poor Mitt. He just can’t get any love!
Doesn’t this make Facebook part of the 1%?
Occupi is good. Belushi and Ackroyd were Elvii. Maybe a nickname like the “Pies” would be better without the classical reference although the Greek fraternity/sorority nod may be more appropriate. Plurals are important to college students and their professors while the entire world goes to hell in a hand basket. One must keep the proper perspective.
Any one with a smidge of Latin would know that the plural of “Elvis” would be “Elves”.
Even better.
And grammatically correct.
Occupussy.
Related?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1129-citigroup-sec-20111129,0,4917449.story
http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_11152636
Great song for the times.
Scarborough takes it to his old boss: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69231.html
Wait till the TP faction hears some of these things about Newtie (I’m sure Romney has a list of these and more).
They have a goal. Their goal is to reinvigorate the base and get Obama re-elected. In order to do that, they must have no stand on the issues because if people start examining the issues, they’ll realize Obama is not on their side. Many of the people who have shown up are just like extras in this little astroturf movie, they have their own visions of making the world a better place, but the movement itself is simply using them as warm bodies for The Cause. The Cause is another four years of Obama.
Occupy is not an epic failure. It is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
.
What’s your evidence? Hard evidence, please, not speculation and rumor.
There will be no “hard evidence” forthcoming because none exists.
Yep, I’m not holding my breath.
Occupy Protesters being shouted down by Obama supporters at Obama campaign rally
If anyone has seen a sitting POTUS in person in the past 20 years, you know there’s no way you’d get away with much before you were wisked away by the SS. I’m surprised that OWS got as far as it did into it’s “mic check” routine. One thing this video clearly shows is that BHO is not politically off limits to the protests of OWS.
That “O-BAM-A” chant is some scary shit.
Gay protesters got the same treatment from bots, and Obama showed a lot more defensiveness and irritation over gays speaking out; oh and he still has the gay vote.
That “O-BAM-A” chant also brings back some bad memories. I do hope it’s not as loud in ’12…there’s only so much we should have to suffer.
Not all of it.
Mouse, I’m betting yttik is going to use that incident as ‘proof’ that OWS is an Obama/OFA front organization, and that their ‘mic check’ of him was just a sham to make it look like they’re independent of him.
That would be her modus operandi. If OWS hadn’t attempted to disrupt an Obama campaign event they would have chastised for that, since they did attempt to disrupt an Obama campaign event they will be criticized for their method. It reminds me that NOTHING OWS does is good enough, they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
The flyers advertising the protest I saw specifically stated that it was time to come out and support Obama’s jobs stimulus bill. I also heard of likewise flyers at other campuses in other areas of the country.
IMO, I don’t believe that the protests are specifically designed to be an astroturf movement for Obama fund raising, since I know people who are involved in Milwaukee. But I agree with John that they will ultimately be subsumed by the OAS when no other direct action has been done by the protest itself. Repeal Glass Steagall by such-a-date is a measurable, tangible action. I simply do not see Occupy concerned about taking a direct action; they are more concerned with making a statement via consciousness raising. Two different things entirely. And didn’t we learn that there is only so much consciousness raising that a movement can do when it becomes ineffective and seen by some as a waste of time??
And if they don’t “un”repeal Glass Steagall (I think you meant) by that date? Then what? What great compromise to their principles should OWS accept, like our brave models in the Democratic Party?
What principles? Their First Amendment right to take a dump in public?
OLA has a section next to PortaPotties nicknamed “Skid Row”; contrast north of City Hall section (w/library & first aid tents) nicknamed “Westwood” after the neighborhood of my alma mater, a local elite university, funded by the same taxes as OLA’s PortaPotties. (Said school lost 50-0 last week to a less-elite academically but athletically dominant crosstown rival who as JWS has mourned has been penalized for recruiting violations
How’s that for a pair of principles? How do “originalists” parse Andy Gumps for Occupy?
fio – you are smart and funny as always…however i need to state that in a recent US NEWs ranking of schools USC is ranked above UCLA. Just sayin…
And things are looking up for UCLA…that dreadful coach was finally fired.
I’m amazed at the philistinism of so-called “liberals” over the first great hope for liberation politics since the 1960s. Just amazing. Something for the psychiatrists to figure out maybe.
Yeah, me too, Christof
Tamerlane weighed in well, in non-philistine and ‘true liberal’ freethinking non-partisan fashion, about the possibilities and problems of ‘the first great liberation movement for politics since the 60s.’ He examined 12 demands from Occupy Chicago I sent him via Nation of Change’s coverage on Oct. 19. He analyzed them and shared his evaluation.
We via JWS have been debating OWS two months now, with all sorts of pro-con and nuanced results. Many of us have mixed opinions about its efficacy. Some berate it, some love it, some are watching and waiting, some are sick of waiting. I would not call us philistines; I may not agree with everyone all the time, as we’re an ornery lot already, refusing to go along with the “liberal” party’s lockstep & Messiah. I learn a lot about politics here, from some well-informed folks. As you have, many of us have also gone to Occupy sites and reported back here. Consider that this OWS issue is one many of us love discussing or getting involved with, as we’re not uninformed. We might need psychiatrists, but we seem to have our heads on straight, if leaning leftward.
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/why-the-occupy-movement-will-fail-part-2/
–To Christof @ 6:30 (this reply thread is unraveling)
Fio, I took Christoph’s “philistine” reference in it’s narrow and limited sense, ie, conventional. I do think the anti-OWSers here are thinking conventionally and viewing the movement through a conventional lens. But, you’re absolutely correct in debunking any notion that the debate here is ignorant or uninformed; it’s decidedly not.
And if you go by what Jon Stewart showed during one of his shows, there is a ghetto side of the Occupy NY protests. And the ghetto residents were well aware of their status in the newly-created Occupy tent city who had to as a matter of course due to the sheer numbers of participants, establish their own form of government. Not surprising that the “haves” were in charge of the “have-nots”.
This is an example of the philistinism I was talking about, since Fioncchu was bothered by that term. I’ll give you points for substance as far as your analysis of OWSChicago’s demands are concerned. I can work with that. But this obsession with the “marketing” of OWS as it diverges from “mainstream” forms of political expression is telling to me. You’ve headed into damned if they do, damned if they don’t territory. You’ve written it all off and are now sniping pettily about it because it isn’t meeting some marketing standard of yours. It seems like a corporate mindset of some kind to me. What is it your expecting from OWS? Are you expecting something along the lines of what your conservative friend yttik here suspects OWS wants? A tool to elect liberalish Dems and unelect nonliberal Repubs? Is that all you guys think Americans can hope for from their politics? All your eggs are in the vertical democracy that sank us into this hole? You think somehow we can expect it to lift us out? Really?
” All your eggs are in the vertical democracy that sank us into this hole?”
Now you reveal your inner self, pierson. You’re a lunatic “horizontalist” occupussy.
Take your horizontal, anarchist horseshit and stuff it in your weed pipe.
Easy — they won’t vote for X candidate. What happened to the idea that the greatest power we have as citizens is our vote???
It became exposed as a tool to keep ordinary people’s noses out of the real business of politics, which is to protect and serve the interests of the powerful. I’ve been voting in almost every election that has come my way since 1978–close to 95% of all elections I’ve been eligible to vote in. What has I really accomplished by that? I’ve given my apparent consent to a system that is fundamentally corrupt. That’s about all my vote has done for me and the democracy at large.
And so your solution is to stop voting?
myiq2xu: “And so your solution is to stop voting?”
“Solution” is too a big word for that, don’t you think? OWS, I think, may be more like a solution.
Can you please explain how OWS will solve anything?
What do you want it to solve?
Pierson’s responses remind me of that old computer program that pretended to be a shrink.
: tell me more about solving anything.
: hmm. I see.
: OWS?
: explain.
Priceless.
There was a reason for that, Tamer. He was drawing us out for his little poison-pen piece.
Oh, you get a mention all to yourself. Quite hilarious: he describes you (as someone who knocked Nader and called himself and Independent) and then, la piece de resistance, he posts a Wiki link to “Party Unity My Ass.”
You are absolutely off base, yttik. More true to say that the Tea Party is all about getting a Republican in the White House. OWS is not interested in Obama’s approval let alone his reelection. A huge chuck (70%, I think) of OWS members are not even Democrats but Independents.
Christof — I’m very interested in that stat re Indys vs Dems in OWS. What’s your source?
There’s this from Sean Captain of Fast Company:
It may be a party, but not that kind. The movement is often identified as a liberal, even Democrat-dominated cause. But just 27.3% of respondents call themselves Democrats (and 2.4% are Republican). And the rest, 70% call themselves independents.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1789018/occupy-wall-street-demographics-statistics
Of course, that’s just the Occupy Wall Street camp as it stood in October. This is a very fluid movement.
Thanks.
Christof, while some of the Occupiers themselves may not vote, many supporters will. About 3 out of 4 tea party supporters favor Romney over Obama, while 3 out of 4 Occupy Wall Street supporters favor Obama over Romney. (11/17 LA Times poll)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1117-poll-presidential-20111117,0,4873711.story
Also, great Pew data to crunch into those Fast Company predictions: Not since 1972 has generation played such a significant role in voter preferences as it has in recent elections. Younger people have voted substantially more Democratic in each election since 2004, while older voters have cast more ballots for Republican candidates in each election since 2006. A new Pew Research Center study suggests this pattern may well continue in 2012. Millennial voters are inclined to back President Barack Obama by a wide margin in a potential matchup against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, while Silent generation voters are solidly behind Romney. Baby Boomers and Generation X voters, who are the most anxious about the uncertain economic times, are on the fence about a second term for Obama.data to plug into the Fast Company piece to predict generational voting patterns for Occupiers & supporters:
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2011/11/03/obama-still-hold-big-advantage-with-young-voters/
That is interesting. Thanks.
Independents — a.k.a., drop-outs from the political system, most who refuse to “affirm” the “oppressive” system by voting, the rest who only vote for the SP, or maybe Nader.
TL, you with pollster experience might expand this comment–what about the fastest growing cohort in California (20% as of ’08; maybe more in blue states?), we “Decline-to-State” or non-partisan registered voters? I assume many of these who lean socially moderate but fiscally conservative might vote, and not for perennial Pat Paulsen, I mean Nader. The Socialists don’t even show up on our state’s ballot, unless the miniscule Peace & Freedom and the Greens count! I assume most Cal DTS go Dem, Election Day.
CA’s DTS encompasses a wide spectrum of voter, and varies in composition county-by-county. Most vote Dem or Gop in rough proportion to their district’s Dem/Gop break-out. What’s intriguing is the uniformity of %age of DTS despite that diversity. See SOS’ election reports, avail. online, for details.
He’s got pollster experience, eh? Now I’m getting it. Now I see where that marketing obsession comes from.
It’s called a “results-based” approach. Yours and the occupii is obviously a “wish-upon-a-star based” approach.
What results? Please boast about some for me.
She don’t need no stinkin’ results, christo. Which is a good thing, ‘cuz there damn sure ain’t no results.
Hey, Andy Lewis, is Prro-Semite your site? Are you now or have you ever been a member of Democratic Underground? I was BurtWorm there for what it’s worth.
I used to be the kind of Democrat you apparently are, tamerlane. Loyal to a fault. Manifesting my fear and lack of comprehension of non-Democratic leftists in rage over what I thought of as their shortsightedness but which was really their unwillingness to play the game as it’s “supposed” to be played. “Supposed” according to the technocrats of both parties who have, over the last 30 years, rendered politics in America into a big, fat inert eunuch of a system.
You’re new here, aren’t you?
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/
Thanks. That’s a very interesting post. On a quick scan it seems to confirm my suspicion that your problem with OWS is that it isn’t playing the game the way it’s “supposed” to be played. Got to get those key Senate Democrats on board if we stand even a ghost of a chance, right? So you’d advise they start OccupyPAC, I’m guessing, and pour millions into key market TV spots? Cause that route–playing the standard game–has been working out so well for progressives and working people hasn’t it?
No, read the whole blog, silly — it’s good stuff!
Seriously, read this:
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/about/
or skim the two dozen or so articles under the “Democratic Ineptitude” category, then decide whether I’m a “loyal to a fault” Democrat.
TL, tell us about Jill Stein; you mentioned her a few days ago and also to me off-site already, as a candidate. A Dem? On the Cal ballot? Nationally? I ask here as many of us will be searching for ballot choices other than “a big, fat inert eunuch.”
http://www.jillstein.org/
She’s the Green candidate, and as a DTS, “recovering ex-dem”, I plan on voting for her.
Thanks, TL. I was registered Green from when they qualified in ’94 ’til ’08 when Cynthia McKinney drove me to DTS (our state’s not nice to us non-partisans as to primary choices) so I voted (again) for Nader rather than a blank. IWhile GP’s too indulgent of all-but-open borders, Dr. Stein may indeed be the choice my conscience can live with.
Why do you assume that those of us who have reservations about the Occupi are either conservative republicans or loyal democrats?? I come from the great city of Milwaukee, where we had socialist mayors. Some of my friends are in the Occupy movement here.
How do you think that the Occupiers are going to change/revolutionize our system of governance? I’m really curious.
OWS is alreasy changing the system. The IQ of the discourse has already gone up 20 points since September.
I don’t see reservations here. I see petty sniping and misrepresentation. I see ignorance and confusion here. People here seem to think OWS is all about the tents and drums. You want to blame OWS for not cutting, chewing and pre-digesting its significance for you, the way we’ve been trained to receive our political ideas. You may not be Republicans and Democrats in name, but by playing their game, you’re conceding that it’s the only possible one in town.
You want to blame OWS for not cutting, chewing and pre-digesting its significance for you, the way we’ve been trained to receive our political ideas.
What a load of horsepuckey. That might work with the young ‘uns, but this ain’t our first rodeo.
If OWS has failed to connect with its target audience, don’t blame the audience.
“If OWS has failed to connect with its target audience, don’t blame the audience.”
OWS has connected with a fairly large audience. A global one. Not just the hippies and Seattle-style anarchists you disdain, but working people who are out of work, young college grads deep in debt with no hope of getting jobs to dig themselves out. You may not get it, but a surprising number of “mainstream” professionals like Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Krugman, and Nicholas Kristof–even Ron Paul–sort of get it and are fascinated enough to keep thinking about it. It’s connecting. Just not with you.
Hey, Tammer, I’m an independent and I refuse to vote in lockstep with a political party that takes my vote and sticks it where the sun don’t shine. I do vote. And, rather nicely at that.
Cynpathy, to quote Rudolf the Red-Nosed reindeer – I’m In Dee Pen Dent, too, and always vote conscientiously.
I meant that I guessed the 70% of declared independents at Occupy are mostly unregistered. They feel that, were they to participate in elections, they’d be “affirming” or “facilitating” an evil system. So they eschew direct participation in politics for “consciousness-raising” and “transformational, non-confrontational processes”. We see how far that’s gotten them.
I think you’re right, Christof.
Occupiers are interested in the same thing Obama is and the same thing bots are.
Their glorious entitled selves.
Nope Zal — Obama’s vision does not include others. The Occupy movement, at its core, does.
Occupiers are not interested in what Obama is interested in, which is his reelection. Not interested in that at all. I don’t pretend to speak for them, but from what I’ve learned from and about them, they don’t think the system as is is working. (Does anyone in the US seriously believe it is working anymore?) They don’t think it will work or can be made to work, given what it is and has become over the last 30 years. They don’t think elections are going to solve a deep-structural problem that allows 1% of the population to have 100% of the say in American policy across the board.
The more other people realize this (especially people who hold out hope for either of our political parties, especially for the Democratic Party which has consistently demonstrated its impotence or apathy about the need for meaningful change) the more they will have no choice but to give OWS the respect (for seeing clearly and laying groundwork for action) it’s due.
Yeah, but the “system” they think isn’t working is that one with leaders, representative democracy, differences of opinion, and the dreaded “consensus” method of reaching a decision.
Did they mention how things were going to change without recourse to elections? Vedic meditation, perhaps, or tantric drumming to alter our nation’s vibe? Maybe camping in public squares until the bad guys scream, “OK, already! We give in. But, please, not the … camping!”
The consensus method that is working for you, apparently, is coming around the idea that, in a nutshell, the 99% are going to have to make big sacrifices for the sins of the 1%. Congratulations on result-based representative democracy. This is what our democracy looks like. This is what happens when you reduce most democratic participation to occasional votes and financial contributions and leave the decisions in the hands of technocrats indebted to the biggest spenders. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to know that.
Do you honestly believe we can run the whole country with up and down twinkles?
“Do you honestly believe we can run the whole country with up and down twinkles?”
It’s the twinkles that are bothering you, then? If they just stopped twinkling you’d pay more attention to what they’re doing and saying?
My preferred method for getting shit done has nothing to do with enabling a ravenous oligarchy. If we decided tomorrow to burn down all the 1%’s mansions, sell their stuff on eBay, then BBQ the mofus, I could organize all that in my sleep, get it over & done, and have fed the 1%’s roasted bones to my dog while the occupussies would still be holding GA’s trying to decide whether to do something at all.
You’ve tipped your hand, pierson — you believe in direct democracy. Which makes you an abject fool. The last time anyone tried that, it was the Athenians, and they got their asses kicked by the oligarchic Spartans in the Peloponnesian War, then were assimilated by the hierarchically-organized Romans.
If you really want to understand my approach to leadership, read:
* Gordon, Leader Effectiveness Training
* Wood, How to Create the Perfect Riding Horse
I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to follow them.
Occupiers are not interested in what Obama is interested in, which is his reelection. Not interested in that at all.
In fact they seem strangely uninterested in Obama at all. He’s the President and the #1 recipient of Wall Street money, yet they don’t really care about him. OWS should have been the rallying point for left-wing anti-Obama sentiment, but it’s not.
Cue the music from the Twilight Zone. Or The X Files, if you prefer.
Where’s the evidence that OWS is an Obama/OFA front? Saying it 24/7 doesn’t make is so…it makes it propaganda.
But NES you have to admit the Occupiers have been strangely silent on Obama’s actions. Solyndra represents a great example of this. But, they just seem to believe it is business as usual so Obama is getting a pass.
You’re simply wrong about OWS’s lack of awareness of Obama’s complicity. In fact, I would say that the way Obama made clear who he answers to during health care reform and the debt-ceiling “debate” was one of the prime tipping points for the occupy movement. Notice that the very first general assembly occurred on August 2, the deadline for “agreement” on the debt-ceiling. I know that I was not the only person–far from it–who, in that moment, lost all faith, hope, trust and charity with/for/in/etc. our tragic farce (to coin a phrase) of a democracy.
Fembots, I do think that factors like the one you mention are grist for legitimate speculation. And, that’s just fine. But, speculation parading as ‘fact’ is not fine — not in my books, anyway. That’s why I’ve been asking the likes of myiq and yttik, who frequently trot out this bit of speculation as supposed ‘fact,’ to proffer some hard evidence. They don’t appear to have any, but seem unable to admit that.
Believe me, if there’s evidence that OWS is a front for Obama, I won’t be supporting it.
Kitty, there’s this place called “The Real World.” You really ought to visit it sometime.
You’re talking to me, tamerlane? I’ve seen the real world for 30 years and by voting Democratic consistently since I was 18 (in 1977), I’ve demonstrated to myself that I have ignored consistent evidence that the Democratic Party is a poor horse to back in a rigged race.
But then who are you going to support? Some of my liberal/progressive friends are going Green, some of my friends are staying home, but the majority feel that although they agree with what you said about their frustration with the 2 parties feel that they have no other choice but to support Obama.
I’ll be honest. I will probably vote as I usually do, for the Democrats. Unless Obama keeps pissing me off with his weak compromises and playing to the middle. But I certainly will not work or give money to Democrats I don’t believe in this cycle. (I will probably give $ to Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson, for example, though I don’t live in either’s district. Obama’s getting nothing but a vote at best from me. At best.
All bark, no bite.
Yes, that does describe Obama to a tee. Thanks.
I meant you, of course, pierson. You say you’ve come to realize that the “Democratic Party is a poor horse to back in a rigged race”, yet you’re still gonna dutifully pull the lever for the most corrupt, race-rigging, corporatist whore the Dems ever ran?
Yeah, that’ll show ‘em!
“you’re still gonna dutifully pull the lever for the most corrupt, race-rigging, corporatist whore the Dems ever ran?”
Ok, you talked me out of it. I won’t pull the lever for Obama. Thanks. I was leaning in that direction anyway.
Obama’s getting nothing but a vote at best from me.
NObama. No way.
If only Hillary or Dennis were running, eh? Then we’d show ‘em! Right?
Hillary would, not so sure about Kuchinich
You seriously think Hillary would be massively different from Obama?
“Obama’s getting nothing but a vote at best from me. At best.”
You are kidding me. The most important thing you can give the Democrats and especially obama is YOUR VOTE. Let’s try withholding that and then see what happens to some of the corruption. Didn’t we learn this in elementary Civics Class? Your vote is the most important asset you have as an citizen.
Politicians can get money from the 1% and they can use that money to hire supporters.
But the reason they need money is they can’t buy votes.
tamerlane convinced me not to vote at all, so I will not vote at all. He’s right. There is no point in voting in this sham democracy. So much for my most important asset as a citizen.
I’m fairly sure most OWS people will not be voting either.
Cool it, Travis — there’ll be no doubt about when I’m slamming you.
I was talking to Backwards Kitty, who occasionally drops by to urge us to all become republicans.
What’s your evidence? Hard evidence, please, not speculation and rumor.
What’s your hard evidence it isn’t OFA 2012? I keep waiting for that. But I’m told to “wait” and I’ll see. Well I do see. I don’t call OFA/OWS an failure…it’s a huge success . It completely washed Obie’s sins out of the mind’s of his much abused base as it was crafted to do. I live in Philly, was down there a number of times and I believe Nutter sanctioned OWS’s squat-in ….the city fined me 50.00 this fall for too much grass on my sidewalk…but OWS sat at city hall for weeks and weeks ? It’s a Dem/Obama party apparatus . The professional left and my family’s union bosses, both commited to Obama’s reinstall, are for it . It’s meant to help Barry with his creative class voters, while continuing to wreak the Dem party with the working class…. The leaders / backers of OWS and the 1% want the same thing…the system trashed…. By no means is OWS a failure.
JWS & Jay, as fellow visitors to OLA, do you think they should have taken the city’s offer of office space, farmland, and an alternative to the 780 tents in a 1.7 acre City Hall “park” turned dirt? My family’s split over the dinner table. My wife figures the Occupiers (my Latin declension favors Occupii, as in Elvii or Winkelvii) were predictable if principled in turning down City Hall’s offer. My 16-year-old grumbled after seeing it himself more than once that if they wound up inside a building, who would care, three years on, what Occupy had stood for. My 19-year-old rolled his eyes and dissed them for their pothead antics rather than their practical actions. As I’ve weighed in here, I sympathize and I donated, but I also lament their ultimate lack of pragmatism.
I think you should ask for your tent back, F.
Sure, the Occupii were principled, but their principles are retarded.
Tamerlane, the tent held three people, so that should narrow it down! One overlooked situation in the OLA response to the so-far stillborn/on-hold LAPD shutdown–the park can be used for peaceable assembly, but not overnight camping. The prospect of camping previously free of hassle is what led so many to walk a few blocks up from Skid Row to OLA to set up their tents–or to get one donated, I suppose.
The elephant in that park’s the homeless occupation, as in many of the sites. The MSM here often downplayed this; OLA appears to have morphed into a greater proportion of homeless overnighters compared to activists who visited daily. As JWS says, City Hall park is a symbolic but poorly chosen place if you, this being L.A., want to attract a mass movement. While across from the L.A. Times & the L.A.P.D. h.q., it’s not the heart of today’s downtown. The Financial District around Bunker Hill (where the BofA plaza attracted an attempted march-occupation on the “Day of Solidarity” Nov. 17th before arrests were made on what was owned by the same managers as Zuccotti Park) would have been a better target. Better yet, a larger space north of the civic center, the Cornfield. Near City Hall, parking is near non-existent although the subway station is adjacent; this discouraged donations and lots of people who might have come down.
While this homeless contingent in part’s proper “solidarity” with the ultimate casualties of downsizing, full of drifters and dreamers, it also shows how the idealism of OWS & its largely Millennial-gen offspring encountered, and failed to deal with, so many showing up to hang out, get high, and get grub, rather than join General Assemblies that tried at least early on to generate some hand-jive human-mic action, if not pragmatism. One telling anecdote is how OLA’ers woke to no breakfast as donations had run out, but the malt liquor was doing steady business in the “underground economy” along with the pot.
Not sure how much one can blame Wall Street for this; but I’m sure progressives would use this to prove how drugs pacify the underclass. Or, do I risk “blaming the victim”..?
If you give away food, hungry people will come. There sure are a lot of hungry homeless people in American cities, aren’t there? People in NYC thought Bloomberg/Giuliani had solved that problem. Surprise, surprise.
Christof, my remark above does not reveal surprise that Skid Row Adjacent became Skid Row OLA–I was there, as were Jay & JWS, who can vouch for this. My point is that OLA did not know how to handle the influx of so many homeless, and let’s face it, those also, domesticity however defined, who took advantage of tents, food, and smokes.
What happened was that a movement set on drawing attention to a variety of injustices became, at least in my city, one that de- or evolved from 30 tents on Oct. 1 to 350 mid-month to 500 a month later and now 780. That influx came from the homeless more than activists, and the fact that at OLA, unlike Skid Row, tents could stay up all night.
Handling the problem of the homeless is part of a complex situation, but this situation per se was not what the Occupy movement was formed to solve. I compared it early on more to a Bonus March, not a Hooverville, if you can see the overlap and distinction.
So, feeding the hungry was the purpose of Occupy?
I stated: Handling the problem of the homeless is part of a complex situation, but this situation per se was not what the Occupy movement was formed to solve. Some might say “feeding the hungry” is part of its larger purpose, but it was aimed initially at Wall Street, right? I wasn’t saying that Occupy started out aiming its discontent at solving The Homeless Problem, but that at least in L.A., it wound up dealing with them primarily.
Question not directed at you. Oakland Occupii also mentioned feeding the homeless as a raison d’etre. Scatter-brained.
I strongly believe they should have taken the office space. It would have changed the perception of their intent quickly (which I realize they don’t want as currently drawn), and attracted more effective people. How’s that for opinion-as-fact?
I think they should’ve taken what Carol had behind the curtain.
No, Tamer. That’s where they kept their stash.
My friends and I in Syracuse have been talking about just this. I think you said it well – my generation wants participation awards. In my undergraduate, a big percentage of your grade was ‘participation’ (aka showing up to class). This movement could’ve said something interesting and stood up to greedy corporations with intelligent points and reasoning, but instead it seems to me that my peers just wanted to protest for the sake of protesting. John Patrick Shanley wrote this brilliant essay about how lost people are right now — I’ll send it to you!
True, but I think they also wanted gift bags.
Do you honestly believe the people who stayed out in all weather for two months were in it just for “participation awards?” Honestly?
People are lost right now, but not the OWS people. They’re on to something. It’s not over. It’s just beginning. If we’re lucky.
What “all weather” do you speak? NYC had just a couple of days of cold temps. Our Occupiers in Milwaukee, WI, couldn’t even sleep over in high 30/low 40 degree temps (above freezing) to make their statement once the police chief stated that he wouldn’t be making mass arrests. Our Occupiers, who chose a strange location for their overnight protest — a bridge in the ghetto — couldn’t even stay out long enough to even make a general statement about homelessness. When I was with the Campus Democrats, we did make such a statement during our sleep out for the homeless, and it got down in the low 20 degree range.
NYC occupiers had to endure several overnight downpours–a couple of very nasty ones. That was before Jesse Jackson came to pressure Bloomberg/Brookfield into allowing tents.
I don’t know about Milwaukee, but the original OWS seemed to me prepared to hang in for the winter. I understand they were working on tech that would have enabled it. #OccupyAnchorage
They were working on building shanties and using generators as electricity for their heaters. As far as downpours, give me a break, freezing temps and sleet is a totally different story. Personally, I don’t believe that Occupy NY really was interested in waling the talk about hanging out during the winter. But I’d be interested in reading about OccupyAnchorage since those people are used to freezing temps.
Well, I can’t make you believe what you don’t want to believe, so, there we are. (#occcupyAchorage was experiencing nights in the sub zeros F.)
The occupations did their job in getting the point made loudly and clearly: The 99% aren’t going to roll over and yield power to the 1%. There’s a lot to be done, and more and more people eager to do it. And they’re going to stop waiting for the useless technocrats in Congress, the courts and the White House to do it for them.
Pierson — my point was yes, if Occupy Anchorage is living in tents in sub zero weather, they deserve our respect. Personally, now I hate anything below 20 degrees, but in my youth have slept out for the homeless in 20-degree weather (with wind chills much lower) on more than one occasion in Madison.
Just curious, what state are you from?
What state am I from? I live in NYC but grew up in Maine. I know from cold. Nor would I personally want to stay out in it. But one point about occupation is that it forces the powers to have to deal with the protest. They can’t just shovel people into First Amendment Zones and continue with business as usual.
How many people were actually camped in the park? I think 75 would be stretching the truth unless they were sleeping 5 deep. Their vaunted days of action produced little discernable effect, aside from the overtime windfall for the police. New York is a large enough city that it doesn’t get shut down. If the protestors want to play in traffic, those who are delayed by their stupidity are not thinking of support, but whether they can run the twits down.
“First Amendment Zones”? That has to be one of the dumbest phrases I’ve heard in a long time. Is ingesting ‘shrooms a requisite for being an occupi?
But one point about occupation is that it forces the powers to have to deal with the protest.
So they “have” to deal with you, and when they do you scream your rights are being violated and use it as evidence that “the powers” are afraid of you?
Because if OWS had just marched every day and gone home every night “the powers” would have ignored you.
Please Lauren, post a link. I’m curious to see what Shanley said.
I found this relevant to the struggles recurring with my generation.
http://www.theatreinthepark.com/assets/files/John_Patrick_Shanley_on_Doubt.pdf
Interesting website, Christof. Like the latest post: http://christofpierson.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/ows-and-teaparty-is-a-meeting-of-minds-possible/
If OWS got substantial TP support it’d terrify both FauxNews and MSNBO. In other words, it’d be a great development; the prospect is remote, though.
Thank you, NES. Yes, it seems remote now. We’ll have to see what the next year brings.
Agreed with John that most of the OWS protests took place in bizarre areas that had no relation to the underlying problem. For example – we have this story today in BusinessWeek (of all places) about our former Treasury Secretary, Paulson, actively providing inside information to his former Goldman Sachs colleagues who all ran hedge funds at the time about the imminent failure of Fannie and Freddie: http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDZC507SXKX01-53FDT6STR4PRVU9B7CRTDL62J0 (BusinessWeek was probably just pissed that their financial advisors didn’t get the information, but still).
We have German bond auctions wildly missing their mark, but Italian and Spanish bond auctions being fully subscribed. It’s not wild speculation to see the hands of firms, again, like GS and JP Morgan holding a gun to the head of German ministers (who want banks to take soveriegn debt haircuts as a condition of bailing out failing countries) telling them to get in line and backstop the banks moronic and ruinous lending to Greece, Italy and the rest of the PIIGS, or else see Germany have no more access to the bond markets.
And, there are NO consequences to this. No DOJ investigations of blatantly illegal conduct. Not one foreign finance or other minister shouting from the rooftops that they are being blackmailed and that this is a declaration of war by banks and should be treated as such. Christine LaGarde was on 60 minutes the other night saying that the banks bail out in 2007/08 was “offensive” and yet – as new head of IMF, she’s throwing more money at them!
How is OWS going to get Glass-Steagall repealed, for example, by camping out at LA city hall – or even in Zucotti Park for that matter? What people should be doing is hounding both Congresspeople, Eric Holder, Shapiro and other agency heads, as well as Dimon, Blankfein, etc. outside their homes, in the restaurants they go to (or outside them), on their way to work, lining the roads they travel, getting arrested outside their places of business, sending emails and phone calls, outside their kids schools until they start to act like goddamn civilized members of society (or are forced to by “authorities”) rather than lawless cattle stealers from the wild wild west.
Alert the press — I agree with DMC!
I also find it a fascinating, and entirely plausible, suggestion that Wall St. is trying to blackmail Germany via the bond market.
And – I meant Glass-Steagall reinstated!! Not repealed. I had worked myself up into a blind frenzy, clearly.
That’s what I thought you meant. The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is a tangible action that Occupy could have focused on. Indeed, a letter sent to congresspeople with mass signatures would be another. How about using some of that $ to take an ad out in the NYT or Washington Post?
Why would a letter sent to Congresspeople who ditched the act in the first place have any effect in making them change their mind? Why would wasting money on an ad in the Post or Times have any effect?
So what’s YOUR plan?
Ditch this system and make a new one.
And how do you plan to do that?
OWS is a start.
Be careful what you ask for-the remedy may be worse than the problem. The Shah of Iran was a despotic tyrant who was overthrown. There was grave political instability which ultimately led to the current theocracy. Are these wonders of the Arab Spring going to be worse than systems they replaced. Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood does not seem any improvement. Just destroying our government is a big risk. Unregulated democracy can lead to mob rule.
“Dear [Congressman],
“Either sign on as a co-sponsor to a bill reinstating Glass-Steagall by next election day, or I’m voting for the [Green/Libertarian/Peace & Freedom/etc.] candidate, you kitty-litter scarfing, blue dog son-of-a-bitch!”
Or we could do drumming until we alter the very cosmos itself.
“How is OWS going to get Glass-Steagall repealed, for example, by camping out at LA city hall – or even in Zucotti Park for that matter? What people should be doing is hounding both Congresspeople, Eric Holder, Shapiro and other agency heads, as well as Dimon, Blankfein, etc. outside their homes, in the restaurants they go to (or outside them), on their way to work, lining the roads they travel, getting arrested outside their places of business, sending emails and phone calls, outside their kids schools until they start to act like goddamn civilized members of society (or are forced to by “authorities”) rather than lawless cattle stealers from the wild wild west.”
You have been paying attention, haven’t you? Don’t you know that OWS has been doing PRECISELY what you say they should be doing? They and AFL-CIO staged a mass protest at the homes of Dimond and other banksters on Fifth Avenue in October. Naomi Wolf was arrested at Cipriani’s, where OWS was protesting Andy Cuomo’s millionaire tax break while being feted by HuffPo as a “Game Changer.” They’ve been disrupting foreclosure hearings in Brooklyn and Atlanta that I know of. Occupy Seattle, I heard, is occupying the statehouse in Olympia (don’t know if they succeeded).
Is every OWS basher here grumbling because they don’t know that the camps are bases from which direct actions, the real work of the movement, are staged? Or are you all armchair revolutionaries who think you’d have more guts away from your keyboards than the OWS people have shown in actuality?
“Or are you all armchair revolutionaries who think you’d have more guts away from your keyboards than the OWS people have shown in actuality?”
I think it’s a bit of this, Christof.
I like that you’re here debating the anti-OWSers here, but you should know (if you don’t already) that you’re not going to change any minds. What will change minds is IF politicians start behaving differently as a result of what OWS does. I’m not saying that’s fair, but it’s the truth. So, you may just be better off ignoring all the negativity here and just continuing the good fight.
To be fair, my mind isn’t going to change on this either. A good debate is invigorating, however.I’ve really been enjoying the conversation here!
And, there you have it! Courtesy of your host, JWS. Hope you become a regular here.
Run..reading your post, I thought I heard the pounding hooves of the Four Horsemen..Most striking, was your phrase about acting ‘ like goddamn members of civilized society’….Oh, if only..I don’t think those in power have a clue what that means.There is no honor among thieves is there ?
Interesting read: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
Hear, hear, run_dmc!
(Tho I’d leave the kids alone.)
Ok – I hear you about the kids. Although, do any of these financial people care about anyone else’s kids (like the millions on foodstamps), other than those who go to Spence and Andover, etc with theirs. I’m just saying. . . .
If the ows regroup, and still don’t have a mission statement, they will be dust. However, instead of camping, why not show up at a public place and make feeding the hungry the focus of the gathering The ows themselves could sleep in their homes, take showers, show up clean and feed hundreds of people, and invite the press.
This would draw attention to the real damage done to real people, by our corrupt system. On another day, they could do a winter jacket or sneakers give-a-way.Would this not make a strong point ? Can any of us ever forget the old black and white photos of the bread lines of the thirties? Ie: Show The Faces of those you purport to care about..This is What America Looks Like ! Get the tv cameras there and Make the audience get a grip..! They need a PR firm, first and foremost.. The minute they made it about Them, their student loans, their useless educations, they lost the debate.. They can still turn it around, by making it about the disposessed, and the Country… Damn, this isn’t brain surgery..Keep it Simple.
That would be a great plan! I’d even join them. The problem is that in order to spotlight the real damage being done to real people, they would have to eventually point fingers at the leaders who are doing the damage. That conflicts with The Cause which is to reinvigorate the base and deliver Obama a second term.
“That conflicts with The Cause which is to reinvigorate the base and deliver Obama a second term.”
Got evidence?
“Got evidence?”
AGAIN, None shall be forthcoming.
I know, Mouse, but we want to keep yttik honest now, don’t we?
Yttik. Let’s visit some logic.
OWS is about the corrupt bridge between Washington and Wall Street. Obama is a blatant and proud beneficiary of this corruption and it’s well documented.
How on Earth could OWS then be a front for Obama? It can’t. That the people who showed up for OWS probably voted for him and were probably on the kool aid doesn’t speak to the facts of the moment at all. Your insistence that it does is impossible to understand.
Sophie — great ideas! This was my point about the Occupy Milwaukee aborted mass sleepover. It could have been a statement about homelessness when they learned that there would be no mass arrests taking place that night. It was disappointing to see them not do that.
I would gather that these are points that AnonOMouse might agree with. We both grew up poor and have this issue close to our hearts. The whole issue at its crux for me is about more and more people being driven into poverty by the bailout of the bankers. While I’m having troubles with the actions (lack of action) by the Occupy movement, I’m with them in spirit.
Loving the comments today. I swear the oddness of Occupy’s tactics will baffle me for a good long while. “Actions” in the spring? Okay. Fine. Shit or get off the pot. How about actions in the winter? Late Fall even? Actions that do not include defending pup tent camps/eyesores.
In truth, I no longer think anything connected to Occupy will be worth anyone’s time. Happy to be proven wrong on this, of course. But what is this blather about spring? For god’s sake do something useful NOW. March on the D.C. Mall and demand reinstatement of Glass-Steagal. How hard can that be to organize?
It boggles the mind that 3 months in we are discussing pup tent cities as if they matter. today on my walk I saw a sign to for a rally to “shut down the port of LA” on December 12. Okay. Fine. One can make an argument that the port of LA is a target of sorts since so much global trade travels thru it. But. again…WHY THE PORT? Really? When Wells Fargo Plaza IS RIGHT THERE IN DOWNTOWN? Screwing up the port for a day screws up the EXACT lower middle class unionized workers Occupy needs to be defending. The same laws will be broken at the port that would be broken downtown. Yet, the impulse is to attack places the working class is employed. WTF? This is because the “leadership” of Occupy is basically the kids and cast offs of the upper middle class. They do not get that closing the Brooklyn Bridge annoys their “base” while not bothering the “enemy” one little bit. It’s brain dead on an epic scale. And, sadly, exactly why everything got off to such a pathetic start.
ROFL John, how do you REALLY feel?
But, seriously, it’s not a bad thing for OWS to be back in the spring (one suspects they will be) because we’ll get to read many more OWS-related posts from you. (It’s been among the hottest topics of discussion here.)
You really sound even more ignorant and fogeyish about OWS than the standard Tea Partier, which is not surprising given the limp and irrelevant state of liberalism today.
I never noticed how very, very fogeyish Mr. Smart is until you mentioned it just now. The inflection in his voice, that lisp, all those fogey Broadway references. And why is this Dorothy he says he’s friends with never on his show?
“Bitch.”
Hahahaha. Jay, you have perfect timing.
Eh, low hanging fruit. Funny, that could double as my personal ad.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Watch your step, “Emily Litella”…our resident detective (Mouse) will expose your true identity and agenda. She never fails. You’d best decamp now!
You have a LOT of energy for the hour, NES! It’s impressive.
I’m an owl, although trying to reform (forever and a day).
Emily Litella……Interesting nym…..is that Litella, as in, Lie-Teller? There are only 2 rules here and you’ve managed to obliterate one of them. And you did all that for what? OWS? I doubt it. Why don’t you take your sick, pathetic excuse to dispense your worn out old gay bashing and send them back to where the sun don’t shine, Uranus.
And who, other than an old sockpuppet, uses the name of an SNL character from the 70′s-80′s?
Bandita, have you cracked the case yet?
I’m guessing it’s the same jerk who once played “Andrea Dworkin.”
We know one thing for sure, the Emily Litella nym is lame and dates the user. Gilda Radner died 22 years ago and Emily Litella died with her. That pegs a commenter who would select that nym as at least 40 and likely a decade older, 50+ This also sounds like a man because most women don’t fixate/fret over things like “broadway references”. I also think he’s a regular reader and/or commenter at this blog, which is apparent in the comment “I never noticed how very, very fogeyish Mr. Smart is until you mentioned it just now”. I’m not sure whether the commenters intent was to maliciously insult John or to attempt to paint a picture of OWS defenders or supporters as malicious & nasty. Either way, he’s a vicious bastard and if John can nail his ISP, he should ban him or delete his comments. Ok. I’m putting up the crystal ball before I break it.
Whoot whoot … ANon is in the house!!
Hahahaha Mouse. That’s telling Emily!.
Christof, that’s NOT a fair charge to level against our John. He takes a backseat to no one in political knowledge, open-mindedness, and the willingness to debate. Also, you should know that he started out very positive and excited about OWS and its potential. It’s just that now he has run out of patience with the movement and its methods (or lack thereof). It’s not an indefensible position, by any means. I guarantee that if OWS starts scoring some political victories, he’ll be cheering the loudest.
I’ve noticed this kind of defense in recent years and have to say it’s a sign of the times that being wrong at the start is viewed as a strength.
You’re a hoot, Zal. Really.
OK, I confess: I am everything that is wrong with this country and the times! Crucify me.
Hey Zal, the reference to crucifixion put me in mind of the following: I think you have a John-the-Baptist complex. Think I’m on to something there?
I’m not Catholic, have never been much interested in that religion and not at all well versed in the stuff. What’s a John the Baptist complex?
I think you *are* on to something, NES!
It was a general comment about our times, not about you personally.
Everything isn’t about you, NES.
It wasn’t wrong to give OWS a chance at the start, Zal. It’s open-mindedness which is, actually, a strength.
I’m talking about the failure to recognize who they are. They’re the same today as they were at the start.
Being open minded means being receptive to new ideas, not that one can be fooled by familiar folks with a new name. There were no new ideas with Occupy; some credit them with changing the conversation but the conversation hasn’t changed one bit — Americans had been talking about Wall Street malfeasance and wealth inequity long before Occupy chanted its first human mic, and just like Occupy giving Obama et al a pass.
“I’m talking about the failure to recognize who they are. They’re the same today as they were at the start.”
Are you talking about Newt?
No, Newt is different, dontcha-know? Newt has changed since he was a hypocritcal, flip-flopping, washington-insider-tool-for-money. Unlike Romney, who Zal says, has “no core”, Newt has has a “core”, I think it’s marshmallow.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Exactly, Mouse.
It’s open-mindedness which is, actually, a strength.
Unless you let your brains fall out.
I see he’s a Hillary person, which explains a lot. I’m wondering if everyone else here is a Hillary person?
What was your first clue?
You mean everyone here IS a Hillary person?! That REALLY explains a lot! The knee-jerk Obama bashing, the utter faith in the electoral system to solve “our” problems, the struggle to comprehend what those damn kids at OWS are all about. I get it now!
“…the struggle to comprehend what those damn kids at OWS are all about….”
christof, you paint with too broad a brush. I have not had the “struggle” with OWS that you reference — nor have some other commenters here (all staunch Hillary people), e.g., ANonOMouse, Peggy Sue, and PJ.
And, incidentally, the notion of “knee-jerk Obama bashing” is an odd one. There’s nothing “knee-jerk” about it — he deserves it in full measure, and has earned more than he gets.
I am a VERY PROUD AND LOUD “Hillary Person”. Had the DNC been stopped from shoving Obama down our gullets in 2008 we’d be in a far better position today than we are now.
Hear, hear!
YES, tell it like it is, JWS!
Interesting that, however much we may quarrel and argue about everything under the sun, Hillary is the glue that binds us all together. The ties that bind, even after all this time.
I do understand that anger toward the system. I doubt we’d be in a far better position. The same people would be in the government.
christof, I’m a Hillary person. Does that explain a lot to you?
Were you an Obama person? If so, should we conclude that that explains a lot about you? (I hope not since I think anyone who voted for Obama over Hillary was temporarily in leave of his/her senses. They certainly showed no judgment, and that’s being charitable since we’re all suffering now.)
I explain my attitude in the last election in my newest post.
It’s accurate to say I was an Obama person, briefly, in 2008. I was enthusiastic from Feb 2008 to November 2008. My temperature for him dropped several degrees during the Rick Warren episode. It fell again in Feb 2009 when he flubbed the Recovery Act. It just kept falling and falling and falling to the point where by the mid 2009 I was officially a former Obama person.
You’re still a Hillary person? Just out of curiosity. It’s not that I have disdain for Hillary people. I became very close to a bunch in my days at Democratic Underground, which is Obamabot central. But it does explain something to me about a person’s attitudes toward Obama, the Democrats, the Clintons, etc. From my perspective, they’re all one and the same.
Took you long enough. No offense, most of us had Obama pegged right away.
Yes, cristof, very much a Hillary person still. Although, I’ll note that I’m not , and have never been, a Democrat. I registered Dem just to vote for her. I’ll confess that at least 70 percent of my support for her was/is based on her being the most competent woman of recent generations and my longing for a woman president. I also think that she was objectively superior to Obama in myriad ways — he was not ready to be president (he hadn’t put in the time or the work, and had never faced a headwind in his life). And, but for the fact that he was an AA candidate who’d gone to Harvard Law and could ride the wave of CDS and misogyny, his candidacy would’ve ended after the first one or two sets of primaries. Geraldine Ferraro was exactly correct in her assesssment of why his candidacy caught fire when it did — she was unfairly condemned for that bit of frankness.
Yes, they probably have much more in common than is acknowledged. But, having said that, I believe Hillary is really, really special, and we won’t see her like within striking distance of the White House for decades. That chance is now gone. It’s something I can’t bring myself to forgive Obama or the Obama people for.
“Took you long enough. No offense, most of us had Obama pegged right away.”
Imusthavepie, I had Obama pegged from my first view of him at the Dem convention of an empty suit (tip of my hat to NoEmptySuits) who talked big about nothing. But being a Democrat who was relieved to see the back of Bush, whom I considered illegitimate from day one, I wasn’t about going to sit out 2008. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for another Clinton, considering what a colossal disappointment the first one was. I’m sorry.
You fell for the obama hopey-changey magical stuff, pierson, and now you’ve fallen for the occupii hopey-changey magical stuff. Your a sucker for fantasy stories.
I couldn’t bring myself to vote for another Clinton, considering what a colossal disappointment the first one was.
What disappointed you, the peace or the prosperity?
NES, I can’t begrudge you your feelings for Hillary. I don’t share them, but not because I feel particularly bad about her. They’re all just technocrats to me now.
So you knew he was an empty suit….but you voted for him anyway….oookkkayyy…and you couldn’t bring yourself to vote “for another Clinton” because you were disappointed in Bill….another…..oookkkkaaayy…..
I’m not going to even bother with the 1st comment. As to the second comment….did you ever concern yourself with the idea that maybe Hillary was, oh I don’t know, a different person than Bill? Oh and I know you’re gonna say “Glass Seagall…Blah, blah” but what part of peace and prosperity didn’t you like?
imusthavepie, I’ve never voted for anyone I was 100% happy with, have you? Some elections present you with worse choices than others. From my perspective, Obama and Hillary are about on par in intelligence, not too far apart in positions. True, Obama’s smarts are almost all one had to go on, given his pathetically slim resume. I wasn’t impressed with his work as a Senator, that’s for sure. Hillary…. What can I say? I’m sick of the Clintons. Enough of them already. What, do we have a monarchy going here with nothing but Bushes and Clintons to choose from? Would I rather have Clinton than McCain? No question about it. Rather have her than Obama? Who the fuck cares? They’re both Democratic aristocrats. Would Hillary be better than Obama? Who knows? She’d also have Geithner and Summers and the usual cast of Third Way Reaganite Dems working on the economy. What would have been different? Just that we’d have a president with balls.
John, your remark about ‘defending pup tent camps’ speaks volumes. Humans are very territorial, at some point, defending their ‘home’ and community became more important than their cause. Perhaps that contributed to their loss of focus, we are all tribal, after all.
This wee comment sub thread is odd…I think Christ insulted me from the left and right – neat trick. Though I’m not sure what his comment even means. I don’t “get” OWS apparently. Except I “get” that not a damn thing was accomplished. That the vague 5% that insisted they were the 99% (ha!) got run over by a bunch of mediocre mayors. But please tell me how I’m wrong. I know, I know… “in the spring” something magical is going to happen. The pup tent campers will magically reappear and levitate above the White House while doing hand gestures and playing simon says. Meanwhile the under people, like me, who expect RESULTS (fogey that I am) will be stuck in our vertical decision making (you know, the kind that WORKS)…As for you, Emily, are you trying to be cute with the gay insult? Friends of dorothy references?? Really? Is it 1965 on this thread all the sudden? It’s far more concise to just say “fag”. Aside from the fact that my sexuality has exactly nothing to do with the topic, I do like the plug for my show. Call in – Wednesday at 6pm pacific – and call me names live on the internet air. This “fogey” invites you. In the mean time, I await Spring and the glorious return of the anarchist ass wipes who ruined OWS with delusional clap trap and human mic horse shit.
As rants go, this gets an A+. You’re very cute (and not at all fogey-ish) when you rant, JWS.
They’re children, John.
Sometimes when they’re all dressed up like adults it’s easy to forget, but if you remember what’s underneath it makes sense and it’s not surprising.
And I’m not talking about only a particular age range generation; as Obama’s election proved, this mess crosses all age lines.
I plead total ignorance about your sexual orientation, and I apologize for a poor choice of words if they suggested I knew something I didn’t, or worse, that I give a shit about anyone’s sexual orientation. Please forgive me for that. On the other hand I’m gratified to see I got under your skin with that “fogey” remark.
(Then again, I’m fighting my own fogeyhood.)
As for “results-oriented” vertical democracy… which results are you talking about? A decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Repeal of Glass-Steagall? Enforced purchasing of private health insurance pretending to be “health care reform”? Widening inequality? Socialism for corporations and bankers? Globalized profiteering? Stagnant unemployment?
Lordy, what a mess of an argument. Your list has nothing to do with my contempt for “horizontal decision making” – an inane fantasy that only an ex-Obi voter could possibly think is legit…or an anarchist – who proudly announce their lack of results at every turn. “Horizontal decision making” is an excuse to avoid decision making. It is a poison pill to HALT progress cooked up by drips from academia and beyond to quietly keep the status quo. OWS is the latest example of its counter productive, reactionary impulse. That, after all the camps have been razed and with nothing to show for it, one would insist this silliness is useful is painful and hilarious all at once. Why not just lick Gingrich’s feet and hand him the keys to the white house now cuz that is what “horizontal decision makers” want, however subconsciously.The perfect invitation to 4 years of raging victimhood. Imagine all the pup tent camps in the Gingrich years. It would be victim mardi gras.
The list above, christof, has nothing to do with HOW decisions are made. Rather it has to do with what OWS NEEDED to OCCUPY ITSELF WITH but refused to in order to make room for the imbeciles to “feel” good. I defy you to name ONE successful ANYTHING, much less movement, that did not have a vertical process of some sort. Even this wee blog is “vertical”. WordPress lives at the top, I “host”, making room for others to express thoughts etc.
OWS deluded itself with fantasias of utopia and therefore shot its feet off. A smart person can wonder honestly if on some level the desire to fail wasn’t embedded all along. Maybe not, but maybe so.
One left leaning movement after another has killed itself on the alter of “diversity” “feelings are facts” and idiotic in fighting midwifed by asinine, authoritarian, “organization”. Yes, Horizontal decision making is finally authoritarian and therefore repellant. Merit has no place in this “world”. Intelligence is shoved aside for “feelings”. Individuals are mowed down for the “collective” which is, if one really sees it, an Orwellian horror show.
Civil rights, Child labor, sufferage for women, abolition, in short EVERY BIT OF PROGRESS we’ve made came from some version of “vertical decision making”. Tubman did not wait around for every abolitionist on earth to do a hand jive. On the other hand – the free one that isn’t signaling some pre verbal impulse – let us note the results of “communitarianism” – Lenin, gave us Stalin, the Paris commune failed on an epic scale, the Spanish Republicans (used by many an Occupod as an example) were routed ushering in 50 years of Spanish dictatorship.
It is errant nonsense to think a “new world” is possible using OWS’s current tactics. All smart people know this. A new world is possible. Change is possible. But only with courage – REAL COURAGE – see Tahir Square. Lives were on the line. Direct demands were made. They didn’t “camp out” with no point and then whine when their camp site got razed. They made demands. They saw – are seeing – those demands through. It’s broad but also focused and “vertical”.
What John said.
It was from the start, sophie.
Humans are tribal by nature but Occupy personifies the markedly childlike turn it’s taken in adults the past decade or so. I still say it has Lord of the Flies written all over it, and I suspect that may be one reason law enforcement authority is being careful about how far they let it go.
So, so incredibly off-base, it’s not funny. The camps are places to stage a very sophisticated, multi-level political, economic, cultural protest. They are set up in public spaces and are partly designed to challenge the strength, depth, breadth and scope of the First Amendment right to publicly assemble. The reason the occupiers are digging in is to push the envelop for the FA as far as it can be pushed. We’ve seen that it has limits, which many here will no doubt argue are pretty liberal. But the Constitution doesn’t say anything at all about any limits to the First Amendment. OWS has enabled us to see where the state’s liberality runs out. It actually gave out much sooner than I thought it would. Tolerance for this form of protest is amazingly low. The NYPD was ready to flatten the joint within a week of its being set up. Only their stupidity and overreaction, by shining a bright light on the violence inherent in the system, as a Python prole might say, made it possible for OWS to last this long. But a truly liberal state would have tolerated it for much longer–forever, in fact, if the FA means anything. OWS has educated us a lot about what our democracy really looks like. (There’s another accomplishment for you, John.)
It’s a tragedy for the United States that when we need authentic rebellion from those whose time it is to be our rebels, we get pretense.
OWS has shown it’s complete irrelevance to our national experience. We have the right to assemble not to occupy. They built Obaamavilles, they certainly didn’t promote relevant discussion of problems. It has been common knowledge that the income gap between the rich and poor has been increasing for years. Our economic problems are closely related to the outsourcing of jobs, but there is no peep from the OWSers about that. They glory in all their high tech toys made in China. Let them drum and twinle up or twinkle down buy don’t think they will make political decisions for anyone.
So, the real purpose of Occupy Wall Street was to promote 1st Amendment rights? I thought it was to protest corruption in Wall Street.
John, Why don’t you go down to City Hall and try and take charge of OccupyLA and make them do all the cool things you and your imagination have decided they should do?
Well, COP, as of this morning they aren’t there anymore.
I predict they will be back there or somewhere else in LA. They aren’t going away. And by the way, if John is measuring the success of OWS based on just #occupyLA, he needs to get his focus out of town more often.
I went. I made more than a few points. Even got filmed by some local news doing it. It was clear right away that no one wanted movement in their movement. They wanted to camp out and throw a finger to “daddy”. They did. Now they are gone. The end.
And as for doing something I merely ask again – WHAT DID OWS GET DONE IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS? You made a list of failures above. Which of the items on that list can OWS point to and say “we made progress” ??? Name one. Just one.
1. They brought back to the public’s attention the crimes that created the economic crisis of 2008, the effects of which we’re still dealing with.
2. They highlighted the fact that it’s not one party or the other to blame for the present state of affairs, nor just the government, but the whole American system, which rewards the rich and starves the middle class
3. They highlighted the uselessness of the “process” to solve problems and its tendency to actually create them. (see my list)
4. They created spaces to experiment with alternative forms of process, if you wish.
5.. They reinvigorated the union movement nationally.
6. They pushed back against the Patriot Act and the political culture’s attack on the First Amendment.
7. They raised the standard of public discourse in the US by joining it to that in the rest of the world.
8. They’ve modeled “little guys” not taking shit even while not resorting to violence (no poop on the doorstep jokes, please)
9. They redefined the terms of the national debate: We are the 99%
Now what results (other than my list) has that other process been producing lately?
Can’t help but notice none of you “results-oriented” types has been able to identify one single one of those results to speak of. Oh, except for the invention of fire, was it?
Now you can excuse your evasion as owing to my impoliteness on my own blog, you lucky duckies.
ha, this thing about them protesting the wrong people, is so true.
my friend said they were protesting in front of their architecture firm’s building. the thing is, this is considered a small privately owned business based in america, american jobs, college educated jobs, and yet they were getting shit on by the protesters everytime they would come in and out of the building. so personally with this one action of stupidity, i cannot support ows because if they don’t even support small privately owned american businesses, then who do they support? are they actually supporting not working or creating ever? are they frickin lazy a-holes?
i mean why live life if you don’t want to do something or create something at least, just to sit there and annoy people who are creating buildings and jobs?
i mean, they can’t succeed if they are just going to piss off regular americans who have middle class jobs, who might love their jobs, and they are still in america living where they want to live.
if they are going to protest capitalism, then why are they even living in america. this is a capitalist country. the last thing i want is my country to turn into a communist government/military controlled country, with no privacy, no choice, no rights, no way to rise.
so for me they have failed if they don’t even know what they are really protesting. they have failed if they are going to protest regular people in america who are even lucky to have jobs in this economy, they have failed if they are going to protest small businesses who are owned by local people. they have failed if they are just against everything this country stands for and don’t want to work or create to earn any money themselves.
. I swear the oddness of Occupy’s tactics will baffle me for a good long while.
It’s meant to be baffling of course. That’s a feature ,not a bug .
OWS backers wants what Obama handlers want…the system trashed
“The literal occupations of the American Fall 2011 may be over. There may be no outdoor occupations in the winter. There will be direct actions. There will be general assemblies. I think there will even be literal occupations. So don’t say they failed until the last breath is out of them.”
They insisted they would stay in their little shanty camps until their demands were met, but they could never agree on what demands to demand, and now they’re all getting kicked out of their little shanty camps. That smells a lot like a failure to me.
That smells a lot like a failure to me.
Or a hippie.
Myiq, why are you so obsessed with OWS-related sanitation issues? I think your hatred of the movement is irrational and over-the-top.
I mean your crapping on them all over the blogosphere is getting a wee bit tiresome. Like watching FoxNoise commentary on OWS.
You watch FOX?
Why?
Generally because I like to hear Obama being slammed.
With respect to their coverage of OWS, I like to see how fearful they are.
Yeah, that’s nervous laughter you hear.
Actually, I think it is a little — albeit only a little — nervous.
Tamer, I’ll take it further. They never agreed whether or not they should HAVE demands. Getting around to what they would be never happened.
It’s horizontal, dontcha know. Like dead people. Or waffles.
I know! I mean, what’s up with that, Skippy?
The occupii’ one demand was, in effect: ‘hey, World, start acting & thinking like us!’ Their means of achieving that goal was to act like they always do, but in public this time so everyone could see the beauty & wisdom of their ‘Tao.’ And then the World would experience an epiphany and join them. Kinda like “Imagine”, except outfitted by REI.
Here’s one of my bafflements. The initial spark of OWS was actually quite clear. Everything after the initial spark? Pandemonium. I sat there, confused, on a lawn in LA with the ‘demands’ subcommittee as it discussed their reasons for being there as though the reason for being there wasn’t what brought them there in the first place. Baffling.
Jay, the question of demands is based more on the question of the powers’ legitimacy, setting aside capacity, to try to meet them than on the lack of the OWS’ general assemblies to agree on them. It’s not hard to figure out what OWS’s fundamental raisons d’etre, which could be called demands, are without having them spelled out in slogan form. The phrase “We are the 99%” is a clue for anyone who is confused. OWS has wisely, in my opinion, reserved engaging with DC and Wall Street as though they are the objects to negotiate with. Anyone who is at all familiar with DC or Wall Street ought to know by know to be skeptical of their ability to serve anyone’s interests but their own. Negotiating with them is itself a concession. Do we really want to concede that a system that fell so spectacularly into corruption is legitimately entitled to be negotiated with?
OWS is not short term. It is a long-term process of taking control of the discourse away from the corrupt powers in control. This is an important aspect of OWS that a lot of people here are missing. They think this is about boho tent cities. This is about the future of American (and even global) democracy.
COP, your first paragraph is complex and lurching toward issues I’m not talking about, so I want to skip them. Trying to talk about everything often leads to talking about nothing.
I agree with your second paragraph a bit — it is not over — but I suspect we strongly disagree about the assembled groups ability to accomplish any of the stated goals. These goals can be reached I think — but not in the hands of people who say the phrase ‘horizontal decision making’ without making fun of it.
The assembled groups are models and symbols, in a sense. And experimental arenas. The revolution is barely begun. It won’t go anywhere, however, if the mainstream, for lack of a better term, is permitted to take back full control of what is permitted to be discussed and how it is permitted to be discussed. The occupations stand for a potential alternative to what is. A few people I’ve spoken with here seem to think what is is just great, and would be all that was needed if only a few more people like Hillary (or Dennis or John Edwards post-Kerry and pre-love child–or even Ralph Nader) were elected.
Two other things: Why should people make fun of the phrase “horizontal decision making?” And please don’t call me COP. CP, maybe. Think Christof, not Christ of. I’m under no delusions.
CP, even the word ‘horizontal’ implies no forward movement. It’s just not how progress is made. You have a little of the ‘whole new world’ thinking that I find impotent.
christof and Jay: A google search for “horizontal decision making” yielded this article from a small-business periodical. Turns out, small businesses use the horizontal decision-making model, but are advised to move to a vertical model to grow the business.
P.S.: NOTE TO JWS — Amazingly, John, you turn up as the FIFTH entry on the google search referenced above. (The link is to one of your more recent pieces, mercilessly tearing the back off horizontal decision-making.) Our JWS is famous! Not surprising in the least.
Forgot to link the above-referenced article — here it is:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/vertical-structure-vs-horizontal-structure-organization-4904.html
The general assemblies are experiments. Their decisions are binding only among the assemblies themselves. And yet they are a model for an alternative democracy, reflecting similar experiments in Europe. They’re making progress and part of human evolution in a way that you and John are simply not giving them sufficient credit for. What John believes is history I believe is actually historic. Of course neither of us knows which one, if either, is right. But another point I want to make: the vertical system in place now, which is also a consensus-based system as John likes to say, is also going nowhere fast, but that is the one that has an impact on the rest of us.
Time? What time you you think we have?
“I’m amazed at the philistinism of so-called “liberals” over the first great hope for liberation politics since the 1960s. Just amazing. Something for the psychiatrists to figure out maybe.”
Not amazing; no need for psycho-analysis: liberation politics is a shitty way to get things done.
P.S. Hope is extremely over-rated.
Again, what things are getting done by this “results-oriented” system? Please be specific. What are you expecting it to get done, since you’re above hoping for anything.
If you want a whole new system, storm the palace. Don’t just sit passively in tents. What are you waiting for?
“…storm the palace.”
Zal, please define, if you will, what you mean by “the palace.” Is it the US Congress? Other government buildings? The Fed?
You can’t be serious, are you? You don’t really believe they should “storm the palace.” Do you?
No, YOU should storm the palace.
Lead by example. We’ll be right behind you.
Zal is always serious as a heart-attack, christof. That’ll become apparent in a few visits here.
You think huddling in tents will bring an end to the old system and usher in a whole new system? Think those in power are just going to hand it all over to you?
If you want a whole new system, how do you expect to get it if you don’t bring down the old one, displace those in power in the current system?
You think those in power ever hand it all over to anyone unless they’re forced to? Do you think OWS actually expects what you apparently think is the golden goose of social change movements? You think this is about gaining control of the apparatus of control? Then you really don’t understand OWS and maybe your notion of revolution is too small.
Malarkey.
Go serve it to the many others who like how it tastes. I’ve no appetite for it.
So you’re not serious. You’re just bombastic. Right?
Nope. As NES told you, I’m serious as a heart attack.
And bombastic as heart burn, apparently.
Only with fools.
Never did suffer fools gladly but I tried to be patient, then in recent years there’s just too much foolishness to tolerate patiently.
You say you want a completely new system and you defend a movement that can’t even handle pepper spray without hissy fits. Replacing the wealthiest, biggest and most powerful system in the history of the world is going to take a lot more gumption than you’re even capable of imagining much less organizing and seeing through. You’re playing a little game and pretending it’s the real thing.
Zal, my opinion of you is about on par with your opinion of me.
The list here is HUGE, CP. It goes back as far as cave men. Taming fire was within a “results oriented” system. That for 20 years the goons have taken control of everything doesn’t negate the entire process of human evolution. Horizontal decision making is an absurdity. NOTHING. No thing works that way. Consensus building is a legit tactic/process. And a democratic one. But consensus must be reached, followed by action. What baffles me is how so many allegedly smart people could do exactly what those who desire the status quo to stay put WANT them to do. That is impale themselves on immature fantasies. Simply put, OWS fed the machine. This “long revolution” you speak of can now ONLY either grow up and use strategy that works, or retreat and become violent. And violence, again, is what the machine wants. But OWS did not even lay the ground work for a violent revolution that might engage the people. It even failed on this count. If it comes to that I can assure you most working class and middle class people will side with the “machine”. OWS was THAT inept at reaching the people it needed to reach. So either OWS grows up or it is snuffed out.
Frankly, you’re being ridiculous here. You want to include a system that produces Barack Obama, not to mention Tom DeLay, George W. Bush, Michele Bachmann, Ben Nelson etc., etc., in human evolution but not OWS? That says a lot about where you’re coming from. It also, in my opinion, continues to evade the question of what this system produces in any given two months that holds a candle to the list I gave for OWS, which isn’t even *the system in power*! Essentially you’re being an apologist for corruption. I don’t know any way to put it more delicately.
christo……You’ve spent 24 hours here, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about. You need to read past articles written by John, comments in response to those articles, etc before you jump to any more silly ass conclusions. We, john included, know the current system of govt is corrupted. That’s generally a consensus opinion here. What isn’t consensus is how to resolve the problem. Some of us continue to support OWS, some tried it and felt they couldn’t support it, that’s their right, man.
Yes, Mouse, Christ could read in the archives. Frankly, he could just read what’s written here just today and find plenty to contradict his hysterical declamation. But, hysteria ‘sells copy,’ fairness and balance don’t, so why should he bother. He’s trying to set himself up as the Hero Of OWS, bravely combating John W. Smart (“if that’s his real name”) and his Hysterical-Hillary-People to defend the movement. Now when the two or so blog-trollers happen upon his blog piece, they’ll be able to click on his link to John’s piece of today and show how fares his battle with the “fearful liberals.”
I have to admit, I’m really disappointed in you. I thought I was dealing with a rational adult, not a giddy fanboy/girl.
Sorry CP, that disappointment/approve/disapprove schtick doesn’t work with me.
I can’t abide sharp practices, like yours. And, when I meet them, I give as good as I get.
If you wanted to continue a rational discussion on OWS, you should not have raised the point about “Hillary People” — not here and not on your blog. The fact that we’re Hillary People has NOTHING to do with our views on OWS. If you were unable to persuade others here on OWS, it wasn’t because they’re Hillary supporters. It was cheap — and lazy — connection you made. Don’t b*tch about the consequences of your own actions.
Hope probably is overrated, but cynicism is overindulged.
Well said!
No matter how cynical one becomes it’s not enough to keep up with the tsunami of narcissistic self-interest in Washington, on Wall Street, in the media, with Occupy, and countless other tribes throughout the US.
But wait, I’m assuming you might know what cynicism really is.
“But wait, I’m assuming you might know what cynicism really is.”
You gots problems, bud.
We all gots problems but this ain’t one of mine.
Bitching about Wall Street and the rest, then also bitching about cynicism if it happens to extend beyond what you happen to be cynical about, means either you don’t understand what cynicism is or you’re a hypocrite.
“either you don’t understand what cynicism is or you’re a hypocrite”
And yet neither of these things are true in this instance, about me at least. Hmm.
So how is cynicism not itself a form of narcissistic self-interest. This, of course, is assuming *you* know what cynicism really is.
Cynicism may be a sad kind of wisdom, but wisdom it is. Saying that cynicism is overindulged is a bit like saying that reality is overindulged.
Listening to people defend cynicism as a virtue is a little funny.
In philosophy, cynicism was a virtue. It involved rejecting the conventional desires of wealth, power, and fame.
In this context, however, it involves rejecting any chance for committing to real change. It becomes, in other words, an excuse for inaction masquerading as philosophical disdain.
Cynicism is actually, “disdain, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others,” such as refusing to believe that the current president was going to be a liberal messiah who redistributed the wealth and handed out ponies and rainbows.
Cynicism does not result in inaction, believing in vague solutions like “hope and change,” does. OWSie hope is the worst kind, it gives people a place to vent their anger so they aren’t motivated to actually do anything productive with it.
You’re simply revealing your ignorance about what OWS is doing. They don’t just sit in tents and drum. They hold assmeblies. They hold brainstorming sessions. They create art. They instigate direct actions. They are changing people’s minds and lives. Not just talking and dreaming about it.
Apparently, christof (if that’s your real name), OWS people also engage in debates on this blog and use commenters as lab rats to source material for derivative little poison-pen pieces on their own blogs. Not a very successful way to attract traffic to your blog — I was going to visit and comment from time to time, but will definitely not now that you’ve shown what you’re made of. Also, not a very wise way to garner any sympathy for OWS, frankly. Next time another OWSer crosses my path, I’ll be much less open to listening to him/her, thanks to you.
P.S.: Don’t forget to send us our fair share of any ad revenues you get for our involuntary star-turn in your poison-piece.
I’m sorry that you feel that way, NES. I didn’t consider my piece written with a poison pen. I was just being honest about this whole experience.
As I believe in the First Amendment (the principle of free speech), I would welcome you or anyone on this board to stop by my blog and lay into me if you please. I’d hope you’d be fair. You may not think I’ve been fair to this site, but I believe I have been. And I am genuinely sorry that you feel so strongly that I haven’t been.
Would it be unsporting of me to tell you this post is drawing a very nice flow of traffic? A whole lot of it is coming from here.
You were not straight with us, cristof. And, you know it, so don’t play naive with me. I assess people’s credibility for a living.
And, yes, I’m not surprised you’re getting clicks from here to your blog. Traffic was your whole point, after all. It’s unfortunate that you are, but it’ll be shortlived. You would’ve gotten many more over time had you not used us.
I was not straight with you? What did I say in that piece that I didn’t say here? Were you just not paying attention? In fact, I thought I was being a little more polite over there. Hard to believe, right?
You’re going to take it as you take it, but from my perspective, I was doing exactly over there what I have been trying to do over here, which is think this stuff through. This to me is exciting interesting stuff.
Sorry to keep picking, but:
“Cynicism does not result in inaction, believing in vague solutions like “hope and change,” does. ”
This is in no way a universal truth in either direction. Cynicism can most certainly and very often does lead to inaction, but it can also lead to action. Having hope, likewise, can go either way as well.
I believe it’s an attitude toward facts. There are always other attitudes to have.
“Listening to people defend cynicism as a virtue is a little funny.”
Agreed, Jay, it’s very funny indeed. (It’s doubly funny to me since, in almost every other venue, I’m painted as the cynic.)
It’s odd the intensity of reactions and emotions that OWS generates; dont you think? Do you figure it’s kind of a Rorschach test for people? I do. And, to the extent it is, I get the view (on OWS) of the skeptics (I was one), the agnostics, and the humorists; but, I don’t get the view of the OWS-bashers (and, thankfully, there aren’t too many of those here (not yet anyway)). What about this movement generates such anger? If OWS is not effective, then it’s merely pathetic or laughable…no cause for anger there, surely.
Curious to get your take, Jay.
Ooops, momentarily lost my gravatar. That’s me up above.
I think any movement in our country right now evokes strong argument because we don’t have a sense of togetherness or community anymore. The idea that we’re ‘all in this together’ has died for the moment.
But with OWS, so many of us SO wanted these issues of corruption addresses that there was a LOT on the table. So I think passions run high. Now, the format of anonymous internet conversations brings out the nastiest side of people anyway, so that figures in too. I’ve seen rabid arguments out here over virtually nothing.
Jay, it’s funny you should talk about internet anonymity, because I faithfully practiced it for years, first as xofpi on Usenet, then as Burt Worm on Democratic Underground. This year I decided to throw caution to the wind and speak under my real name. Unfortunately, you all have just demonstrated that you assume it’s a pseudonym so you’re calling me Christ (I appreciate the thought). But I’m sticking my neck out here. And now NES wants to reward that with a little threat.
Yes, passions do run high, especially when people can hide behind pseudonyms..
“But I’m sticking my neck out here. And now NES wants to reward that with a little threat. ”
Don’t be a childish idiot, COP. I had no idea that was your real name. And, really, the reference to a “visit” by Zal and Mouse was a joke — as in, they should take you on at your blog. Oh and don’t worry, they’re both practically ancient — sharp as tacks, of course, but old’ish in limb. I guarantee they won’t pose you any physical threat.
What a joke you are!
This is just like debating an Obot.
Oh, wait . . .
I was referring to CP
Requests for anyone who desires to dive in: 1. Please list what OWS actually accomplished since Adbusters said “Join us” 2. Specifically talk about the actions that OWS in its next incarnation “in the spring” will take.
I ask number one because I really want to know my blind spots if I have ‘em. At this point I find OWS laughable which is unfortunate. Please. Change my mind. I ask number 2 because I think 2012 will be one ugly mess already and would like a heads up on how bad things will get. Also, after the Chem Trails/Utopia/Pothead idiots ruined OWS part 1 I would like to know what they have planned for the next round. Will it actually be useful? Will it actually produce tangible results? Paint the picture. Will America be more equitable as a result? Or just more annoyed that a bunch of punks and fools flailed about in public parks repeating each others’ absurd remarks?
As for number one, I believe it has been consciousness raising. A little. But a little is still something. The middle may have tuned them out, but the people at the top (the one’s it’s aimed at) know that they’re being watched like a hawk. That ain’t much, but it is a result of the ‘movement’.
Not bad for 2.5 months. Before that all the political conversation was about deficits and budget cuts.
There are more people talking about Kim Kardashian.
I’ve heard the name, but I have no idea who he or she is.
She has just as many accomplishments as OWS
They introduced another idiotic vehicle for distraction and taking sides. Nothing more.
We love side shows and taking sides.
Nobody seems to be better informed about banking or Wall St, what’s good and what’s bad and what should be changed. I see people throw around “Glass Steagall” and I bet most have no idea what it was — if they did, and if they understood world finance today, they’d know there’s no way in hell it’ll be reinstated now.
I agree that it won’t be reinstated, but that has more to do with politics today than anything else – unless you’re saying that the financial class likes being able to deflect risk onto (insured) commercial banking deposits (as BofA just did with the garbage they inherited from Merril-Lynch). That self-evident observation doesn’t really seem to be much of a revelation. Congress is bought and paid for – quite literally at this point, given the pay-for-play system for committee assignments. The Executive Branch is for sale to the highest bidder (and the price tag in 2012 seems to be an even billion dollars). The courts have been a joke ever since SCOTUS elected Bush.
Personally, I think we’re toast. I do not have an iota of hope left for the future – nor do I see long-term outcomes that don’t involve civil unrest and violence, with a massive and lethal crushing of dissent to follow. I think the mob will probably manage to lynch a few bankers before the iron fist descends, but that’s hardly a productive outcome.
No, Glass Steagall won’t be reinacted because it would put every bank that has to conform to it behind those that don’t. Since we’re now a global economy, and a perilous one at that, no responsible US Congress or President would cripple our banks, our markets or potentially our economy that way.
That’s a feature, Zal. What exactly, has been the positive consequence of the rise of the FIRE sector in the US? Asset bubbles? Rampant speculation? The demise of a manufacturing economy?
From what I can see, buying the lot of them one-way tickets to Lichtenstein would be an investment in the country’s future.
Absolutely agree the rise of the FIRE sector has been ruinous.
And just to be clear, I didn’t mean that I think Glass Steagall shouldn’t be reenacted, I do think it’d be a big step on the road to a healthier economy. I’m just saying it won’t be.
I tend to agree.
Tell us, great Zal, oh sage of Wall Street, oh high priest of Anubis, why won’t Glass-Steagall ever be reinstated?
1. Please list what OWS actually accomplished since Adbusters said “Join us””
They’re like a high school reunion for leftist activism. Like I said, they have served to reinvigorate the base. You can go to OWS and try to relive the good old days when you dreamed of utopia and had a political ideology that wasn’t hindered by reality. It’s about re-creating tribal alliances, convincing people that they have power to change the system. Hope and change, remember? So after we’ve had our camping carnivale, where will we find our hope and change? In Obama’s re-election campaign where we can project all our hopes and dreams on to his empty slate.
People won’t be so much pro-Obama as they will be anti-Republican, “Republican” being transformed into meaning “wall street and the one percent.” So who is going to save us all from all the 1% wall street Republicans? The Dems of course, and the liberal messiah. People want evidence that OWS is a re-elect Obama campaign. How can I give evidence of what is right in front of you? This is a movement supported by the DNC, the DSCC, several prominent Dems. It is being catered to, accommodated by the powers that be, nurtured by the media. It is carefully organized to very smoothly avoid any criticism of Dems. Whisper that the Dems are in charge and they are the ones making the budget cuts, giving out the bailouts, and you will be politely informed that this is now a non political movement.
Seriously, those of you demanding “proof,” do tell, how many OWSies do you think will be out campaigning for Newt? Do you really believe these people are going to be protesting against Obama’s re-election? Of course not, they’ll be supporting everything he does, just like their current protests FOR his jobs bill.
Don’t forget that whenever OWS has a march or other event the Obama-supporting unions turn out in force to help them.
Kitty, have you noticed not a single person here ever agrees with your utterly stupid conspiracy theories. What, is Hillbuzzard’s server down today?
I do notice that many people are so wrapped up in their own belief systems that they now view reality as a conspiracy theory.
If only you convince us to listen to Alex Jones like you do, we’d all see the light!
Why should we change your mind, John? You’ve put a big block between yourself and understanding OWS, thinking it has to come to you before you go to it. You’re not interested in knowing what it’s accomplished. You’re really interested, transparently, in being confirmed in your prejudice against it. It didn’t do what you wanted it to do, which was what? Create an instant utopia? What do you think it should have accomplished by now.
You’re wrong on this point, christof. JWS is quite the most unprejudiced political thinker in the blogosphere. I think he’s made clear what he expected from the movement. If you’re still unclear on the point, you should dive into his archives and see all his OWS pieces (starting in Sept., I believe). He’s not the enemy, seriously — he’s a former-sympathizer, now utterly out of patience. It’s not all so black and white.
After two months, he’s out of patience? How long did he give the tea party?
I’m sorry to be impatient with John, especially as he’s nice enough to host my impatient questions and challenges to him. But if you were expecting OWS to produce a new political party or even a new flavor of any existing parties, you will be disappointed. If you were expecting OWS to goad Congress and the White House into repealing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, you’d be disappointed. In other words, if you were expecting OWS to be anything but the seeds of a revolution to a whole new culture of politics, one that takes work to understand, it’s so new, you’d be disappointed.
Of course, you’d also be disappointed if you thought OWS was the revolution itself. But if you think of it as a means, you wouldn’t give up on it after two months spent scuffling with police over just the right to protest in the way it wants to protest. You wouldn’t loudly protest FAILURE as though history can only be determined by edicts from city hall and court orders.
I agree, it’s impatient to call it a failure. I am expecting OWS to be something other than “the seeds of a revolution to a whole new culture of politics,” so I guess I am slated for disappointment ultimately. I do think, though, that OWS could focus on changing the conduct of politicians by imposing costs on their continuing with their corrupt ways. Generally speaking, pols only need money to compete in the vote-getting game; if a movement like OWS could throw its weight/votes behind pols who agree to break out of the pay-for-play system, that would change conduct in a meaningful way.
If OWS expects to change the conduct of politicians by changing human nature, then OWS will be disappointed. That’s not how human nature tends to work, and OWS can’t make it so.
P.S.: I also agree that OWS should be viewed “as a process,” and not as “the revolution itself.” If viewed that way, two months would be/is a drop in the bucket. I would, of course, make it a more POINTED process, but, heck, it’s not my show. Your show; I’ll support it from the sidelines.
There are a lot of people in the movement, from what I can tell, who, when asked what their one demand would be would answer, “Get money out of politics.” I’ve also heard a lot say, “Kill Citizens United.” This definitely addresses the key evil of the current system, the love of money, or at least, the necessity of money to keep the political wheels spinning.
I don’t think OWS is expecting to change anyone’s human nature. My hope for it is that it will bring people to the knowledge that they do not have to put up with this system that never fails to screw the 99% and serve the 1% no matter which party is in power. We don’t have to put up with this shit. If the government is not going to do what we elect our representatives to make it do, then the system just has to go. And there needs to be a national dialogue about what is to be done to dump this government and create one that is actually responsive to what the people want from it.
sorry, but if it takes too much work to understand it, then people can’t follow it.
any revolution or change event or protest for that matter must be kept simple so that the goals can actually be accomplished. if it is too ambiguous, complicated, then people can’t follow it, it is too much like that blank slate thing of hope and change and so people read so much into it, that it doesn’t mean anything anymore.
personally, i like concrete things that can be understood so that things can actually get accomplished. the anti-war protesters in the 60′s wanted vietnam to end, simple enough. the civil right’s protesters wanted equal rights and voting rights for all americans, simple enough (plus there were actual leaders). the women’s suffrage movement was about getting voting rights for women, simple enough. so all movements that actually lead to change have a goal to begin with and end with.
it may take years to accomplish, but they don’t lose sight of their original intent and keep at it because people intuitively understand it and so they are galvanized to make that specific change. they don’t fall off the protest because they know what that end goal is, unlike ows.
really, what is the end goal? if you think they can’t get glass steagal back, then there goes one possible goal.
basically, if you can’t keep it simple, how can people keep joining the cause and sympathize with the cause to keep it going for years.
in my opinion this is more like obama, where he was this ambiguous blank slate that people put their ideas into and so he could only end up disappointing them. ows seems exactly the same since they don’t have a coherent goal or message or mission statement. they are that same ambiguous blank slate without any identifiable leaders that can help to make them understand the goal or reason and so it is way too confusing for more people to become emotionally invested.
all the protests above had that emotional tie involved that kept people from adding in their voices to the end goal. this is way confusing to the point that it is mechanical. sorry that some of us aren’t emotionally touched by such a confusing mechanical ambiguous message that is ows.
they could have reeled me in, but they are flailing and failing. they have no leader that can make things clear. eventhough i am a creative, i am also a strong left brain, so i believe in specifics. i need hard facts, hard goals and time tables plus that emotional tie that would push me over to believe they can actually get stuff done here. but they aren’t actually getting anything done. the 1% can just ignore them because they aren’t being hurt by loss of money or the law…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203802204577066640654042360.html
The above headline is “Obama abandons Working Class”.. Who thinks this is news ? How can he abandon something he never was part of ? If you’re not part of a union that gave him big bucks, you never crossed his radar in the first place, he was too busy playing multi dimensional chess..
That the emperor was naked wasn’t really news, either, but it took a lone voice to bring everyone to their senses. A similar process is required to shake people from their obama-trance.
Not sure why you single out unions as obama’s big donors. We all know — OK, not Michele Malkin, but the rest of us know — it was Wall St., let by the beloved Goldman Sachs. His private “bundler” friends have all gotten kick-backs via Solyndra-style scams. Union support was never a big deal for obama, and they’ve largely been thrown under the bus like everyone else he uses, abuses & loses.
“Not sure why you single out unions as obama’s big donors.”
It probably has something to do with the 68.3 million dollars they invested in the 2008 election. Or it could be their endorsements last week. Or I guess we could just ignore reality and label Obama’s union support as a conspiracy theory.
Unions didn’t even make Obama’s Top 20 donor list in 2008. See:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
“You’ve put a big block between yourself and understanding OWS, thinking it has to come to you before you go to it.”
Did you not get the part where John physically went down to OLA? What the fuck does “thinking it has to come to you before you go to it” mean anyway?
John’s been ex-fucking-plicit — as have I at my blog — in what Occupy should/could have accomplished: reinstate Glass-Steagall; bring down a big bank. And not even completion of those goals, just some concrete, discernible, measurable milestones reached. We’d even have cut the Occupii some slack if they’d only come up with an actual goal or two.
Earlier this month, I organized a bank boycott outside several local branches. I invited the county Dems and the county Occupy to join us. The Dems responded with enthusiasm, and made a strong contribution. The Occupii refused to participate or even speak to me, because my methods of organization were “hierarchical.” They instead spent the day memorizing the occupy hand jive.
We had a kick-ass event, and convinced at least 15 people on the spot to move their accounts. National Bank Transfer Day was a huge success, making a measurable impact: in the past two months alone, credit union assets nationwide have doubled. Measurable milestone. Our two local credit unions have want ads out; the local BofA just laid off two dozen employees. Measurable milestone.
Pierson, all you can offer for Occupy is ‘they raised awareness’. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo! In my corporate marketing days, I raised awareness on a daily basis. Coupons in 30 million FSIs on any given Sunday? In-store displays in every Best Buy and Circuit City in North America? Now that’s raising awareness. How about a Nike sneaker “carnival” at 500 college campuses on one weekend? I’ve helped organize events, both locally and nationwide, that’d make the biggest occupy rally look like Steve Martin’s cocktail party in The Lonely Guy. Of course, to do so, I had to obey my boss’ orders, and my people had to obey my orders. Very hierarchical, very nasty, very effective.
Ok, Tamerlane, why don’t you and John go out and reinstate Glass-Seagall and bring down a big bank. I’ll give you two months from today.
GO!
chris..why don’t you go try to make sense for two months and get back to US?
Tata..mind the door, doesn’t hit your backside, which must be sore from sitting on the cold ground, thinking horizontally ….
I think I am making sense.
christof has written about JWS and us: http://christofpierson.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/liberals-fear-ows-part-deux/#more-988
Aww. He lost me for good at ‘if that’s his real name’.
Yep, didn’t like that at all.
Perhaps Mouse and/or Zal would agree to go ‘visit’ him.
Nice little threat there, NES. Cute.
No threat implied, CP. I can’t imagine why you’d say that. Don’t you like Mouse and Zal?
Cute.
“No threat implied, CP. I can’t imagine why you’d say that. Don’t you like Mouse and Zal?”
ROTFLMAO, CP is telling Jay in a comment upthread that You’re threatening him. I had no idea that the mere mention of me visiting his blog was that frightening. Am I the Sicilian geriatric terminator, The silver-headed ninja, who, if I can get my virtual leg high enough, will kick him in his virtual blog arse?. Now threatening to send Zal, on the other hand, that’s some scary shit there, because you don’t know which Zal he’s gonna get. You might send the medicated Zal who believes we must storm the palace and overthrow the gubmint to have change, or the non-medicated Zal, who believes that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is an anarchist who wants to overthrow the gubmint.
OH, this thread is just too much fun for an old silver-headed sicilian Ninja anarchist. Have shoulder brace, will travel.
.
Godde I wish I had a walker.
Oh well. Can’t please everybody. It was meant as a joke. Not at all serious. The point is more about what people call themselves on the Internet than about the meaning of the name. John doesn’t have an about page to confirm that that is his name and not a pseudonym.
But if that turned you off, what can I say but I’m sorry.
No, that’s not what turned us off, CP. (That was a joke.) What turned us off was your using us as lab rats. Pretty simple concept. Discuss it with your local OWS group and see if you can get consensus on that simple concept.
Oh yes, and for your information, “John W. Smart” is a pseudonym for Hillary Clinton. No really. Now go write a blog piece about that.
What do you think my site is, the Huffington Post? What do you think I write about on my own blog, fantasy stories? I write what I experience and think about. What would you write about. If John wants to write about me on this blog, what do I care? I’d be interested to hear what he has to say. I’ve got thick enough skin.
Anyone else feel like a research subject/rat lab?
Now, what was that that history taught us in ’08. Never debate with an O-Bot, even a former one (one can take the O-Bot out of ObotLand, but one can never take the ObotLand out of the O-Bot…the condition is, apparently, fatal).
Oh well, live and learn. (Now Zal’s probably going to tell me that he saw right through the Alinsky Jujitsu from the outset.)
If you read the piece you see that his disappointment is really with himself and his current predicament, not JWS. Even though he admantly disagrees with JWS, he’s a bit envious of John’s audience. It’s sad that he didn’t spend longer than 24 hours here because if he had, he would have realized that some of us believe OWS still has a chance of being a 3rd way. He would have found out that some of us believe that most politicians are owned and that the game is indeed rigged in favor of the 1%. He also would have found out that some of us. who were former Hillary supporters, don’t presume to know how a Hillary presidency would have changed the landscape, but we do know her approach to our nations problems would likely have been very different than Obama’s and that her hands on, policy wonk style might have brought us to a entirely different place than we are today. Mr. Pierson reached a premature conclusion, based primarily on his personal negative opinion of Hillary supporters, that’s his loss.
Better off to leave Mr.Pierson to work out his own issues, at his own blog. There’s no one there but him anyway.
Bandita, you’re so forgiving. But, wise. We shall let Mr. Pierson be. As long as he doesn’t have the nerve to come back here…. Ha, but he’s back! Wonder what his next poison-piece on us will be: “Hillary Hysterics Destroy OWS!” Or, “Hillary People Out To Bury 2008-Hatchet in OWS’s Back!” The possibilities are endless.
Yeah he’s back already. Someone needs to email the boy a valium, he’s a wreck.
I’m really surprised by the reception that piece got from you guys. Such thin skins! And all over Hillary? That’s just weird.
What’s “weird” christof is your feigned surprise. You used JWS (and his commenters) to illustrate your theorum that “liberals fear OWS.” Does that elucidate our reaction for you, or do you need a bong to give you total clarity on that point? Please don’t insult our intelligence.
So your entire reaction to the piece is based on the title and a little joke about John’s name. I guess that does elucidate it for me. Thanks.
NES @ 8:46pm,
NES is on top of her game, as usual! Love the part about the bong!
No, I have the misfortune of reading the entire piece. Written by a O-Bot for the consumption of O-Bots.
Errata:
“…by a former O-bot…”
“…had the misfortune….”
NES, you’re so funny!
Mouse, nice comment!
SoCal…..I was trying to be nice, for once, and look what it got me.
I appreciate your giving the piece a chance. I don’t like that term “Third Way” but I know that’s the Clintonist in you.
“I know that’s the Clintonist in you”
Wow, you have that judgment thing going on, don’t you? You really know nothing, I’m a bleeding heart, much further to the left than Hillary or Bill, but bleed heart liberals never win the Dem nomination and few even attempt anymore.. I admire Hillary greatly, she’s been a champion of women’s & childrens social and economic issues for decades. Those issues are important to me.. And the term 3rd way has been borrowed by many geo/political/relgious groups, but is not a “Clintonist” creation. The term spans centuries and simply means “a reconciliation of contrasting opinions or views”. That, imho, is one of the real accomplishments of OWS GA, it attempts to reconcile conflicting opinion and find actionable consensus among it’s members. Democracy, that’s what it look like christo. So, do you live it or just talk it?
She also voted for the Iraq war when given a chance to vote against it. She was Wall Street’s Democrat in 2008–even Lloyd Blankfein’s Democrat! She was a “good soldier” in the war to get NAFTA passed. She was a board member of Wal-Mart, one of the most virulently anti-union companies in the country. She killed Vince Foster. (Totally kidding about that last one. I just can’t help myself.) The point is, she’s got her good points and her bad points. There’s nothing in her past that guarantees she’d be any less conservative as President than she was as a Wal-Mart board member or NY’s junior Senator. It all boils down to her being cut from the same cloth as all the other leaders of the Democratic Party. A little smarter and maybe more compassionate than the rest. Maybe more experienced, for whatever experience in this corrupt system is worth. God’s gift to American democracy? You really think so? Ok. I don’t. (And let me hasten to repeat that I know full well that Obama is not God’s or anyone’s gift to American democracy.)
I totally agree with you about OWS GA and actionable consensus. Good phrase. Do I live democracy or just talk it? I’m living it right now. I think it as deeply and carefully as I can. How about you?
Erratum: “…research subject/lab rat?”
I read his piece. He thinks we feel Hillary was “entitled” and therefore we FEEL the election was stolen.
Very clearly this idiot paid no attention at all to the 2008 election, and certainly wasn’t watching, live on CPAN, part of the theft. IMO, there’s no point in engaging with him until he can speak based more on facts than on his emotions.
Hahahaha Mouse! “Silver-headed sicilian Ninja anarchist” in need of “a walker” has a certain ring to it. I’m sure now that COP is going to run off to his site and blog a piece entitled “Hillary-Hysterics Threaten OWSer With Ninja-Mouse Into Vertical Domination!!”
Sheesh, I just realized, he also knows that you’re the ‘resident detective” on the blog, and he saw how quickly you cracked the Emily sock-puppet mystery.
The Bandita legend rides on.
Re: the suggested “visit”
I welcome visits to my blog, of course. I don’t understand why, if that’s what you meant, NES, the needs for quotes around ‘visit.’ (nudge nudge) Reasonable to wonder, isn’t it? I’m sure you agree.
I honestly feel deeply, deeply sorry for you poor delicate traumatized Hillary people. I hope you’re getting the treatment you need for 2008 PTSD. Honestly. What didn’t kill you all may eventually make you stronger. Good luck.
call in or just kick back and listen now:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnwsmart/2011/12/01/the-john-smart-show
John dear, you should give a nice (old-fogey, you know) rant with star-billing to COD. Return the favor, and all.
I can never get on live to your shows, for some reason, but I promise to check out the recording.
John…if that’s his real name…you mean!!!
Hahahaha, imust. Exactly!
Hey imust, do you have a reverse-welcome-mat-type song video on hand? Might be nice to embed it here for our new ‘friend,’ Mr. Christ.
That is of course if “Jack” is his real name……
What a brilliant collection of vids, girls. Now, here’s hoping Mr. Christ isn’t deaf, on top of it all.
Hey, here’s another one you can include for the next non-Hillary worshipper who accidently drops in:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4&w=420&h=315%5D
Ciao
How about this one:
Ack! He says John “gloats about the impending failure…”, blah, blah. G l o a t s! Good gravy, gloats??? Piercetof, if you had been around here when OWS first started, you would know differently. John was hopeful that OWS would accomplish some worthy goals, but the sad fact is, time keeps marching on & they have yet to really come up with anything. I myself hope they can retool into a smarter unit, with definite goals and strategies. Hopefully other new groups will spring up as well. I unfortunately did not make it down to OWS, wanted to but was sick & had a sick kid; but my husband did & he said it seemed to be nothing more than a hippie encampment.
So why not give the piece a more honest title like “They Failed Me” or “They Didn’t Do What I Wanted Them To?”
You know, when someone proclaims a popular movement Failure, he’s provoking a response, whether he intends to or not. I plead guilty to being provoked. I came, I saw. Cpnsidering the bloody mess I accidentally left here, it looks like I conquered, but I really didn’t mean to do that. I came to respond to what seemed like a challenge.
It’s possible that OLA really WAS more of a hippie camp than OWS, or different and less impressive somehow. I didn’t see that when I was watching it on livestream. I saw the same sort of intense consciousness and conscientiousness that I saw at Zuccotti Park with my own eyes. I liked what I saw, but, hey, maybe that’s just me, I’m willing to admit it. Maybe it’s just me and everyone outside of the Tea Party and this farkakte Website.
Yep, the fellow is deaf.
He actually describes some of you in the post. I don’t think that’s cool. Although he does say we’re “lively”.
I know…it’s totally not cool. Upps would never approve.
Not cool to describe (but not give the pseudonyms) of anonymous people in a public forum? I don’t get that. You people will be bitching about me here by my name or the rest of this blog’s days, and I don’t care. Why should you care what I think and say about you–especially when it isn’t even all that BAD! Compared to what you’ve all been saying about me. I have thick skin, which is a blessing for me and maybe a bane to you all because I can’t resist challenges. I highly recommend everyone here develop some for yourselves. It makes these little comedies of misunderstanding much more entertaining.
Can’t nest anymore to “Christ”. Why bother anyway. He’s just a typical Obamabot. Anyone who says that Obama and Hillary are “on par” intelligence wise is still mainlining the kool-aid. Obama’s “intelligence” was grossly overrated. And to say that’s there would be no difference with a Hillary presidency, is more Obot baloney. They just can’t wrap their own kool-aid soaked brains around the fact that they made a HUGE mistake in ’08. Talk about no judgement and no sense. [sigh] But now we all have to pay for their idiocy.
Hear, hear!
Only an Obamabot could turn criticism of or questions about OWS into an Obama-Hillary war. Why he ever got on that trajectory is beyond me. “[K]ool-aid soaked brains” is probably the explanation.
I’m not an Obamabot. Not now, not then. Not ever.* It may be difficult for people with blinders on to see that, I know.
* I did choose Obama over Hillary in the primaries. Shocking, isn’t it?
i think i fixed the annoying comment “nesting”
“You drank the koolaid, didn’t you, boy? Didn’t you drink the koolaid? Yeah, I thought so. And you know what that did to you? You don’t? It killed your brain cells, son. It killed your brain cells.”
(edited Joe Clark from Lean On Me)
Nice, PJ!
Jeez having “Christ” here is like reliving the ’08 SElection. OFA talking point after talking point. “Christ” I get it! Your candidate thugged, cheated and gamed the caucuses and then had the “Super” delegates carry his sorry you-know-what over the finish line because he really didn’t win after all that cheating. Now your here shillin’ for your guy again, dropping those same, tired ’08 talking points that where just re-tread right wing whack job talking points from the 1990s. I’m afraid your CDS is showing….badly.
Ugh…we just had a ‘bot attack. Need a shower.
I’ll take your word for it. I don’t give a shit about Obama now. Really. I don’t give a shit about the Democratic Party either.
I probably will get tired of ramming my head against Hillary-bots, but not just yet, sorry to say.
“…I honestly feel deeply, deeply sorry for you poor delicate traumatized Hillary people. I hope you’re getting the treatment you need for 2008 PTSD.”
Oh, he’s getting nasty now! Where are our bulldogs? Tamer…Zal…we have an intruder…sic ‘em!
He’s revealing his true self socal. He’s just a Obot. Garden variety at that. They reek of their own hypocrisy and misogyny.
we might have to pull out the can of virtual whup-ass
Careful now, Mouse. You might scaaaaare him. What a wuss. I thought Obots were made of more resilient silicon and less emotion. Maybe this is a version: O2. Ugh, now I’m scaring myself.
*I’m* getting nasty. Amazing.
No, actually, christof, I don’t understand your (feigned) terror at the use of ‘visit.’ Must you have a grammar lesson now? It is not visit “in quotes,” as you say, but rather in inverted commas. It is perfectly appropriate to say ‘visit’ when referring to the act of accessing a blog site because it’s not a visit in the conventional or physical sense of the term. If you can’t get that then here’s what I suggest: lay off the bong for six hours and then re-read the comment; repeat until it makes sense.
NES, thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate it. Cheers.
PS: One last word on this subject, just so you’re not left too baffled over it, I hope. I mistook “visit”: in quotes (single quotes, if you will) to mean a visit to hack my site. Names like ANonOMouse have become associated with that kind of mischief, which I actually usually approve when they’re against the powerful.
And one final word about this evening. I regret it came to this. I was enjoying speaking with you all. Kind of saddened and surprised by the ugly turn it took. Well, things fall apart,. the center does not hold. Life in Late Empire America.
Farewell folks.
“The ugly turn it took” meaning, in pierson-speak, that we refused to agree with his gobbly-gook and woo-woo. Which, in pierson-logic, meant he had the right to call us racists.
Will NOT miss you, pierson.
At least he can’t say we didn’t serenade him out the door.
Chit! This idiot has done more to give me a negative impression of OWSers than anything I’ve seen or heard about the movement. (yttik and myiq have to be sniggering…and they have a point when it came to this one.)
Your understanding of it seemed wobbly to begin with, so maybe I did you and OWS a favor.
Pingback: Liberals Fear #OWS, Part Deux « Tragic Farce
Good one, myiq. Would you say those moves are a combo of up and down twinkles?
Wait! There are STILL Obots??? Hahahahahaha. Was there EVER a bigger bunch of fools (aside from the population of Germany in the late 1930s) than Obama Pod People? I think we all know – and the population at large knows now – that Obama was a generational mistake. It’s not even worth repeating at this late date how much better we’d all be if Clinton had been nominated after she won instead of the mentally ill jagweed who lost. It is SELF EVIDENT to all with brain matter that the qualified person was shoved aside by a corrupt process so an arrogant, lazy, imbecile could destroy the Democratic party. This has happened. Therefore: WE WERE RIGHT. Obama is, without question the worst “Democratic” President since the civil war. 3 years ago only a few knew this was coming. (We few, we happy few, we band of sisters and brothers.) Now a majority realize Obama is a 2 bit, piece of shit, lazy brat utterly beholden to the worst criminals on Wall Street and in Chicago. We were right all along. That an OWS defender comes out of the Obama Pod Person closet here is nothing more than a nauseating coda. Really they ought to be rounded up and penned in with Ron Paul Pods to mate so we can create a hybrid race of humanoid freaks to test drugs on before real humans take them.
Clinton was right about Obama in 2008. So were we. We lost the battle. We won the war and are winning the history. When the history of the USA is written the moment the Obama Pod People overran the system will be the moment historians point to as the point of final departure for this nation. Think I’m overstating things? You are incorrect. In 2008 Barack Obama was our exit ramp to insanity. We took it. And watch – in 2012 he’ll get worse. More mentally ill. And there will not be all the masses of loons adoring him which will make him crazier. Watch.
Ahhh, a most gratifying rant. JWS, since Christo has accused me of being a “giddy fan boy/girl” of yours, I think I’ll swoon a little. I feel less Obot-polluted already.
(Mind you, I do think you’re “overstating things” a bit, but you have my attention, for sure — I’m definitely “Watch[ing]“.)
“Was there EVER a bigger bunch of fools (aside from the population of Germany in the late 1930s) than Obama Pod People?”
That’s not a fair comparison, John. The nazis only got 38% of the vote in 1932. obama got 49% in the 2008 primary.
“That’s not a fair comparison, John. The nazis only got 38% of the vote in 1932. obama got 49% in the 2008 primary.”
Brilliant!
We are not traumatized. We were right. We are right. We shall remain right. No trauma here. Just the sublime relaxation of being proven correct about President Douche – and being proven correct over and over again. It’s still kinda fun. Even at this late date. Imagine Pluffe calling Romney a man without principles. The projection screen is not big enough to contain the pathology.
There is little in my life I am 100% sure of but i am 100% sure of this: Obama is a catastrophe. We saw it coming. This is no longer up for debate. The prove is everywhere, all the time. The list of Obama flip flops and failures is overwhelming. Trauma? HA! Try harder, dude.
Oh, sure, John, sure you were right. Sure, sure. This post of yours is fine evidence of your complete grip on that reality.
pierson, your debating points are getting a bit immature. Try something more erudite, like “I’m rubber; you’re glue”.
NES, I don’t think anyone around here is a “Fan boy/girl” The regulars are all pretty damn smart. Too smart for “fan boy/girl-dom”. I want no fans. Only smart readers willing to duke it out if need be.
And it is kinda fun to have an Obot spring up again. Feels like old times, only better. Now we are not making educated guesses about chicago slim. Now WE KNOW. Evidence abounds. Plus there are so few Obots now. It’s like spotting a rare bird. I see more Romney signs in my mega blue ‘hood than Obama stickers at this point.
“NES, I don’t think anyone around here is a “Fan boy/girl” The regulars are all pretty damn smart. Too smart for “fan boy/girl-dom”. I want no fans. Only smart readers willing to duke it out if need be.”
And, don’t I know it, JWS! Hey, I was just amused by the Obot’s charge — but, then again, he couldn’t have known better. Aren’t they programmed to think in terms of fan/non-fan, OfObama/OutsideObama, and the like?
The poor fella is still posting here. It gets lonely on his blog, I’m guessing. In any event, he seems most concerned that we’re using his real name. So, what if we offer to henceforth call him “Of-Obama” or “Obot” in exchange for his departure?
I’m willing to duke it out. I’d rather discuss things reasonably, but I’ll duke it out with a mob of offended Hillary-bots or Obama-bots (as I used to have to do on Democratic Underground) or Bushbots. You name it. I’ll take on any cult members.
I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself, seriously. I’m enjoying this as well. Although I did prefer this crowd when they were being smart and not just flailing around blindly with their dukes.
Oh dear, JWS, I think your cure of the “nestings” may’ve gone too far. Now, we have almost no nestings at all.
Also, I don’t know if anyone’s having the same problem, but I’m finding it very hard to load the page. Maybe it’s the large volume of comments on this thread; if so, you might want to set up a new, auxiliary thread (assuming anyone has not blown their wad on this topic).
I’m on the verge of sick of it, if I may put my two cents in.
I was hoping to be able to respond to Tamerlane who suggested:
“Dear [Congressman],
“Either sign on as a co-sponsor to a bill reinstating Glass-Steagall by next election day, or I’m voting for the [Green/Libertarian/Peace & Freedom/etc.] candidate, you kitty-litter scarfing, blue dog son-of-a-bitch!”
Those letters really put the fear of god in Congressmen, don’t they?
I was enjoying our dialogue, despite your snottiness toward me from the get-go. I thought you were more heavy-weight, though, than you turned out to be.
“Those letters really put the fear of god in Congressmen, don’t they?”
You’re probably right, pierson — I’m such a silly dreamer! But I bet if we pitched some tents outside the Capitol, banged on congos, and blew ganja smoke through the window of Boehner’s office, that’d do the trick.
“I have thick skin, which is a blessing for me and maybe a bane to you all because I can’t resist challenges. I highly recommend everyone here develop some for yourselves. It makes these little comedies of misunderstanding much more entertaining.”
For “Christs” sake! An obot telling Hillary supporters we need to toughen up!!! After the shitload of abuse they heaped on us back in 08! Remember on NQ? They’d barge into our conversation, call us all *unts, they’d get banned, change their name & ipl in 10 minutes and be right back to their same old crap.
Dude, no one on this site has thin skin. We’d never have survived three years of blogging with obot harpies screeching at us whenever they can get away wtih it if we had thin skin. btw, we disagree with each other frequently and enjoy it.
All kidding aside, Hillbot…
Ok, now all kidding aside. Will you people please stop acting like cult members and stop calling me an Obot? Please? It’s not the Obama association that bothers me, it’s the mass delusional reality-distortion. I don’t give a shit about Obama. Is there no one here who can demonstrate an intelligent, human understanding of that?
I didn’t participate in those wars of 2008. Not even on Democratic Underground, which is crammed full of Kool-Aid drunk Obama-bots who are proud to be called that. They kicked me out of there last December after seven years of loyal membership, because I couldn’t stop myself from making fun of Obama and the idiotic faith he inspired there that he really would say something like , “Everybody chill the fuck out. I got this.” Thanks for “getting” health care reform for us, Barry. Thanks for getting SS and Medicare. Thanks for turning out to be the supreme cold-blooded technocrat you pretended you absolutely were not.
I made a decision to vote for Obama. It was a relatively trivial personal decision to me, because even then, I had all but lost my faith in the meaning of my vote. I was sick of the immense damage Bush-Cheney wrought. I wanted a Democrat in the White House. I had to vote for someone. I made the shocking, shocking choice to back Barry. Really, really disturbing, as that may seem. On the other hand, I didn’t begrudge anyone their decision to vote for Hillary. I’m being sincere here. My wife voted for Hillary. I was sympathetic to her, believe it or not. I’m inclined to believe the stories about the super delegates and all that crap that put Obama in the nomination.
I don’t bear any ill will to Hillary. She’s fine as far as those worthless Democrats go. I don’t give a crap who the Democrats choose anymore. I’m through with them. May the gods slit my throat if I get fooled into voting or giving money to another one, unless they are real honest to gods progressives. But even those ones I doubt will have any effect on the hopelessly corrupt cesspool that is Washington.
You know, CP, you have no credibility here after you turned this into an Obama-Clinton war. You got your faker in the White House, so there’s nothing to fight about on that particular front, and your bringing it up, repeatedly, is more than a little braindead.
On OWSer, you’ve lost your credibility because it’s now apparent that you were engaging in a debate on OWS issues only to gather ammo. for your little blog piece.
I don’t really have anything else to say to you. (But, I do reserve the right to retaliate, in kind, should you revert to bashing Hillary.)
Fuck you, NES, you inconstant phony.
Nice, Cristo! Keep it coming. Knock yourself out. Don’t forget to write your report to your myobama yahoo website tonight, though.
PS: Talking about inconstant phonies, I like how you said above, in response to socalannie, that you wouldn’t vote for a Democrat ever again. A very sincere comment, I’m sure; it almost caused me to forget that earlier today you said you’d probably be voting for Obama next year, and then stated (pretended) that Tamer had talked you out of it (all within minutes). Nice attempted sleight-of-hand there, COP.
Now NES…you know hitting ‘em with the truth just causes confusion on their part.
I wrote it on my Website instead.
Inconstant toward Obama and Democrats: I plead guilty. But it’s mutual, so we’re even.
ChristOfPie – we are not Hillary bots.
Obamabots – knew very little about Obama besides his color and its “coolness”. They jumped on the bandwagon, to try to get some identification with that presumed “coolness”, much as armchair athletes get identification from their favorite teams on the TV. They either did not know or did not care that there was no “there” there when it came to Obama. They had some kind of void in their souls, and on some level were hoping that an Obama “connection” would fill that void, that emptiness. They were in it for themselves, to feel better about themselves – just as Obama is in it for himself. Narcissism functions to try to fill one big crater of emptiness inside! Anyone who did NOT have their own psychological hole to patch up and who actually looked into Obama’s past and consistent lack of achievement and lack of work for others wouldn’t have voted for him.
Hillary supporters – Hillary supporters researched the candidates and found her to be the one with the experience, temperament, stamina, competence, love for country, wonkiness, workhorse traits, and genuine belief in being a true public servant. Hillary spends a huge amount of time studying the issues and learning the players. Hillary supporters are aware of the issues, and do not always agree with her choices. But we do all agree that she has studied the issues, made a well-thought out decision, has already thought of how to implement whatever goals she has come up with, and that she does all these because of a life-long committment to bettering the lives of others.
Furthermore, we are not just ‘bad losers’ or some such chacterization. Hillary lost because of documented, widespread caucus fraud, bribing of superdelegates, and the theft of her delegates on national TV (which I and many others watched live). She won the primaries, but they pulled him an inch over the finish line through the cheating. So our disgruntlement is about far more than Hillary. For many (most?) of us, the democrats were “the good guys”. What you obamabots did was to awaken us from our stupor, you allowed us to see how corrupt the obamacrat party really is. So for many of us our whole political philosophies have changed. We no longer trust the dems more than we trust the republicans, and we know now that there are a HELL of a lot of stupid and mob-like people out there who don’t have a CLUE what real democracy means. To them, it’s win at any cost. So your obot tactics burned a LOT of bridges. It may have been just one more day of cheating for you guys, but it was a life changing tsunami for everyone else. Many have changed to independent, some are still registered as Democrat but no longer consider themselves as such. So any numbers you think you have – you DON’T.
As I’m sure you know, since 2007 we have all been called “racists” for not supporting the fad man of no substance who happened to have a bit darker skin. So, by that same logic, you are obviously a sexist for passing over Hillary. Must be scary to not like and to find inferior the people who are actually the 52% majority in this country. We women are the NORM. So sorry you are sexist by not voting for Hillary. (How would you like to hear that tens of times a day for years on end?)
Really, I don’t care that you’re fed up with the Oman now. If you had done due diligence before voting, you wouldn’t have voted for him. So I guess you just voted for a black face and against a woman’s face. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Well said, lorac. One from the heart and a score for the truth.
I wish I hadn’t seen this after I thought I was done here. I’ll just say you are really wrong, and you should be careful about this argument. And you should maybe spend some time asking yourself why you feel the urge to make it. This is all about your feelings toward Obama because of the color of his skin, not anyone else’s.
Good night.
“This is all about your feelings toward Obama because of the color of his skin, not anyone else’s.”
Who didn’t know that was coming? You need to go dig a hole and remain there until the radiation from the nuclear explosion subsides, idiot!
Wow, Christof. You were doing a good job of defense . . . until the charge of racism. I read through this thread this morning. Didn’t have chance to participate when the fur was flying. But I would say this: not to know that a majority of posters here were/are Hillary Clinton supporters means you haven’t been following the site very long. I’m one of those supporters but it doesn’t mean I agree with everything HRC does or supports. I do, however, believe our domestic situation–the employment and foreclosure fiasco–would look far different. But that’s water under the bridge, opportunity lost.
Lorac’s comment on the black face against a woman’s face is frightfully clear and on point: race was used to club all opposition to Obama in 2008 and sexism was used to demean Hillary and her supporters and later to pound Sarah Palin. It was beyond ugly. And as a life-long Dem I was stunned that Democrats/Obamacrats would stoop so low. The Repugs have no problem in this regard. But the Dems showed who they really were [and were not] with the racist charges and blatant sexism.
If you didn’t hear or see this? Then you were willfully deaf and blind. Or perhaps, you were gleefully throwing the charges and smears yourself in 2008.
But those accusations don’t play here; they merely brand you as a Botbrain.
“I’m one of those supporters but it doesn’t mean I agree with everything HRC does or supports. I do, however, believe our domestic situation–the employment and foreclosure fiasco–would look far different. But that’s water under the bridge, opportunity lost.”
Peggy…..Well said. I think it’s tough to assess exactly how a Hillary Presidency would have changed the landscape or even if it would have changed it significantly, but I think it’s safe to say that there would have been a difference. I think Hillary would have been hands-on, very involved in policy making, goal setting, intervention in situations that become a quagmire. Hillary definitely would not have been what Obama is, President Inertia.
What Peggy Sue said.
It’s ironic, even comical, that Christof would pull the ridiculous race card in departing — after repeatedly trying to convince us that he wasn’t and never had been an Obot.
What a revealing thread, read top to bottom.
John, this is a classic for anybody who’s interested in learning more about human nature.
Just several hours ago Christof and NES felt they were BFFs. They’re both hurting a little from the InstaBetrayal. Well he is; she has her buds to comfort and reassure her.
The only place Christof and Occupy supporters at this site part ways is at Hillary and John Smart, and of course Obama.
Revealing.
Occupy is the same as Obamanation. I said so from day one. Except Occupy picked up like minds whose support for Hillary had kept them immune to Obama Kool Aid.
It bears repeating. Obamanation and Occupy are the same show with different set, props and costumes.
These movements spring from narcissistic, shallow, incompetent, entitled people who are way too comfortable justifying immoral behavior for themselves and their comrades, and outraged –outraged I tell you!– at what they see as the same behavior in others. They’ve existed throughout human civilization, they claim to be saviors but they’re destructors. Call it the Cynic in me if you like, I can spot members of this tribe soon as they walk in the room. They’re going to keep grouping in new forms because that’s what our time invites. They’re always in our population, but times like this they coalesce and build power in numbers. It bears repeating: they claim they’re saviors, and are so deceitful they even fool themselves into believing it, but they are in truth destructors. Some people will resist each new form and, increasingly, others will fall in. Some Hillary supporters are just dying to be part of it, and will be when they find a version they can defend.
I’m anxious to see if John responds to your brilliant analysis. /s
PJ…..Note his use of the word “destructor” two times in that comment. Mr. Goldman-Sachs has spent far too much time reading comic books.. He never has anything new to say, It’s always I’m right and everyone else on the planet is wrong.. Just another day for Zal’s fingerpointing, yada, yada, yada, “I know you are, but what am I” bullshitting. All “christof” did was distract folks from the guy in the other corner who spends his days here kicking and screaming “listen to me, listen to me”. Nothing new here.
“Some Hillary supporters are just dying to be part of it, and will be when they find a version they can defend”
I’ll be glad when you can vote for Newt, maybe then you’ll get enough of a release to stfu!.
Good catch, Mouse on the word destructor (LOL on the comic book reference!). He couldn’t stand the moment of solidarity among the regulars here. Time to stir things up again.
Yep. Nothing new.
It just feels that way to you because in your mind you and your groupies are everyone on the planet.
In truth I’m by no means the only one to see what I’ve described in our American population. Further, this is a feature of human nature that’s been repeated many many times over the centuries; there are always some who indulge in it, and behave as you do, and some who see it for what it is.
“Some Hillary supporters are just dying to be part of it, and will be when they find a version they can defend.”
Ahhh, the usual dire and harsh judgment from Mt. Zeus on us wee mortals.
But, when all’s said and done, Zal’s preferable to Januses like Christof — one knows where he stands and he’s anything but smarmy.
I concur that obamania and occupi-in-the-sky-ism both derive from the same faulty, fantasy-based, view of the world. But it’s important to note that Occupy is in no ways a pro-obama movement per se.
Pingback: Is it December already? « The Crawdad Hole
Another scan through the thread is really amazing at how transparent it is.
Obamanation and Occupy are the same empty suit and it’s fascinating to see how some who saw the Obama brand for what it was are so eager to buy the same outfit when it shows up in a different fabric and label.
For a student of human nature these past few years have been one long aha moment.
Fair zinger, Zal. Touché, and good word play. Not that I’ve bought the outfit or fabric yet, or will in the future, but it occurred to me yesterday (independent of your dig) that I’ve been too unskeptical of the movement. Hope and faith are not my natural metier, cynicism is.
NES…..You’re as skeptical as you need to be. This movement has none of the signs of belonging to OFA. Too many arrests, too many pepper spray incidents, too many governors executing simultaneous evictions. This isn’t a TP event. The TP showed it’s hand when Palin, DeMint, Bachmann, Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, Anti-Choice, AFA and all the other less significant players jumped into the movement, became the GOP celebs were the drawing cards for the movement early on. The Tea Party for all it’s bluster and anger, was, by the time the elections of 2010 arrived, just a bunch of lawn chair activists with no message but “Reduce Government Spending. No new taxes”. Those are very old GOP meme’s and when translated means, privatize SS, end Medicare and Medicaid, stop food stamp program funding, end Unemployment Insurance, destroy public collective bargaining, shut down the Dept of Education (that’s zal’s personal favorite). It was all to easy. This, on the other hand, is much more difficult to label.
So far, even with the nonsense of christof, I see no reason to disqualify the movement as an arm of OFA or the DNC. I going to follow this, with the expectation that a true social/economic justice movement will emerge, until there’s a reason not to.
Appreciate and will heed your advice, Mouse.
I confess, though, to being struck, yesterday, by christof’s inability to provide a meaningful answer to 98% of the questions being posed to him by JWS, Tamer, Zal, Fembots, etc. One of the two, or so, concrete answers he gave (to a question by Fembots, I think) showed that he intended to give O and the Obamacrats his vote in ’12. That gave the lie to all his protestations about how he was done with O and the technocrats in both parties, blah, blah, blah. When Tamer pointed out the contradiction, he immediately reversed himself and said he was now convinced not to vote at all. You’re the astroturfing expert here, but, for me, that raised the first red flag that he may be playing us. I’m perfectly willing to accept that Christof is not at all representative of the OWSers — I have no basis to say, one way or the other — but, if he is representative, they seem a bit bot’ish-to-gormless. Maybe there are no answers OWS can provide to the range of fair questions posed to christof here, but doesn’t that mean they’re operating in the ‘hope ‘n change’ mode that we so decried in ’08? If they have a new-fangled process that they think will work, shouldn’t they be able to describe it a little better for fogeys like me?
In any event, I’m not joining the ranks of OWS detractors, so don’t worry. (Ironically, however, you’ll see that Christof invited me to become a non-supporter by assuring me that I didn’t have a proper understanding of the movement anyway. Hilarious! — way to grow a movement, dude!)
NES…I confess to not following the argument between christof and others as closely as I should have because I’ve heard and read it all here before.. After the homophobic attack on John that happened earlier in the thread, I sort of lost focus. I didn’t really get into the thick of it again until after his comments concerning Hillary. That re-lit the fire.
And I personally don’t agree with Tamer, John & others concerning the long range possibilities of OWS, it’s still an open issue for me, but I do accept their experience and understand their decisions to discard it as a waste of their time.
On a lighter note, we did have some great Kick Arse music posted in this thread, didn’t we? .
Occupy isn’t only a waste of our time, it’s counterproductive to a real citizen uprising because its vapid but loud existence demotivates any other movement from starting up and taking hold.
Just like Obama wasn’t just a waste of time, he stopped someone who actually would have been an effective President from going into and doing the job.
“On a lighter note, we did have some great Kick Arse music posted in this thread, didn’t we? .”
YES, we did! It was quite the thing.
It was totally Kick Arse, Mouse. Great fun.
“It was totally Kick Arse, Mouse. Great fun.”
I have to say PJ, that hardly a day goes by that you and/or NES don’t write something on this blog that makes me laugh out loud. I always appreciate laughter because life without laughter is no life at all. (which explains our love of Shelby Fluffy) You’re both great fun and feisty as hell. and ya’ll know I love feisty!
“You’re both great fun and feisty as hell. and ya’ll know I love feisty!”
You too, Bandita — we learn from the best!
True that on laughter — it’s the lifesaver, always.
“You too, Bandita — we learn from the best!”
Yes we do!
I had to join in just to ask this guy Christphpierson if he will apologize for supporting Obama in 2008? The true winner of the Democratic Primary never received a floor vote at the convention. Why was that? When I saw he was a Democratic Underground Grad. that told me all I needed to know. Too late now fella.
You can’t spell “dumb” without DU.
Pingback: Middle of the Road Rage « Tragic Farce
“This is all about your feelings toward Obama because of the color of his skin, not anyone else’s.”
I also hated Dusty Baker as a manager because of the color of his skin. It had absolutely nothing to do with his use of the bullpen.
This is an interesting piece featured at Memeorandum from instructions from Frank Luntz [Master of Political-Speak] at the GOP’s Governor’s Conference:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html
Vulture capitalism on the run.
Thanks for the link, Peggy Sue!
Wow, what a conversation you guys had going here! I need to come and read on a more regular basis. I do consider myself a veteran “John Smart” reader, only because I started reading in 2007.
I think christophp had some valid points about how there are those who seem to worship Hillary in a cult like way, just as there were those who worshipped Obama in a cult like way. (Doesn’t that seem like such a long time ago?) John, you said it best when writing about the Ron Paul cult: when it becomes about the person, and not the message or the movement, you can be sure you are dealing with a cult. (a political one, at least)
There seems to be an eagerness to label all Obama voters as Obots, just as there was a quickness to label all of us Hillary supporters as racists by the Obots, and it frustrates me. I, for one, am tired of the labels and name calling, as it is lazy and just an easy way to dismiss someone without taking them seriously. After spending more time than I should admit to reading this thread, I really don’t think christoph was an “Obot.” Not that it matters. At all. From the outside looking in, it seems like if you don’t tow a certain line/hold certain views, some people are going to run you out of town, or off the blog, so to speak. That is unfortunate.
“After spending more time than I should admit to reading this thread, I really don’t think christoph was an ‘Obot’.”
Kara, maybe you need to read the thread again. And, please, spare us the kumbaya sanctimony.
Also, everyone knows JWS doesn’t ban anyone from this blog. The ‘bot left because he was caught being sneaky. Simple as that. Also, having played the race card in departing (against lorac, of all people), he’s too shame-faced to come around here anymore (as well he should be).
Kara, thank you for reading all of this with an open mind.
NES, I left the thread because there was no point in my staying in it. No one was learning anything from it, except for me, I think.
Kara, you seem like a reasonable person. NES, you seem like someone who enjoys being part of a mob.
CP — Back to pull another race card? Or is it to continue your anthropological experiment on Clintonists-Gone-Wild?
Hilarious seeing you ejected through the troll-trapdoor at Crawdad’s. No one buys your ‘ex-Obot just wanting to dialogue’ shtik.
The crawdad people, like you it seems, have very thin skins, extremely low tolerance for viewpoints that differ from their own, and a very low standard for ejection from the community. They remind me of Conservative Underground, which had to trump up a charge against me based on willful misreading of one of my posts. They remind me of DU, now, come to think of it.
By the way, I didn’t inject race into this discussion. Someone else played that card first.
@CP: The “they did it first” argument….how fitting for an Obot.
Let me quote the TCH moderation policy:
Don’t take it personal. We just don’t like you.
imusthavepie, the sequence is out there for anyone with eyes to see. The “card” I allegedly “played” was in response to someone else playing it before me. I didn’t bring it out of nowhere.
myiq2xu, as I said, you’re a thin-skinned, intolerant little bunch. I was merely pointing out to our friend Helen that she was citing something that attacked Hillary. She might not have been aware of it. Evidently, however, she knew exactly what she was doing: attacking Ms. Clinton in a sneaky way.
Helen is a widow in her 70′s. She always posts lots of links.
Do you feel like a real man now, tough guy?
myiq: Helen is a widow in her 70s. So? Widows in their 70s can’t respond to questions or criticisms put to them? She actually did respond. She seems able to take care of herself just fine without patronizing whippersnappers trying to protect her.
NES: Did I ever say John banned anyone? Maybe you should re-read my comment.
I am not being kumbaya-ish, but I can tell you really aren’t interested in a view that is not one that supports your own. I also see that you enjoy comment wars, which I have zero interest in.
Obama sucks. Hillary rules. Is that better?
You’ve been away for a while. How do you like what they’ve done with the place?
The crawdad people, like you it seems, have … extremely low tolerance for viewpoints that differ from their own”
We actually indulged at great length your exposition of your positions, pierson, and responded point-by-point. We just weren’t persuaded by any of them.
” No one was learning anything from it”
Were you here to “educate” us, pierson? You arrogant, horizontally-organized proglydite.
“By the way, I didn’t inject race into this discussion. Someone else played that card first.”
Not sure who’s deal it was, but YOU played this card: “This is all about your feelings toward Obama because of the color of his skin.” So kindly go fuck yourself for that one.
Why is it that O-bots always bring up race first? As a person who genuinely does not give even a partial shit what color he is, it’s baffling. They’re uncannily unconscious about their extremely corrosive and condescending brand of racism.
Proglydite?
You’re a crawdad person? What’s your handle over there. i didn’t recognize you.
I guess if someone on your side accuses others of using race as a criterion for judgment that’s some other kind of card? Interesting.
Jay Floyd: “Obamabots – knew very little about Obama besides his color and its “coolness”. They jumped on the bandwagon, to try to get some identification with that presumed “coolness”, much as armchair athletes get identification from their favorite teams on the TV. ”
“His color and its coolness” was not a racial reference. Interesting.
Christof, the tactic of trying to disallow discussion of the racial obsession exhibited by the Obamamblind by insinuating that others cannot comment on it without being racist is juvenile, absurd and quite dumb. It’s spent. It’s over. Quit trying. Your vote for him and the motives it came from were personal failures that cannot and will not be erased from your record no matter how much camouflage you try to throw.
“juvenile, absurd and quite dumb” better describes the idea that people voted for Obama because black is cool.
The crawdad people have a low tolerance for asshats.
Be real, myiq: Low tolerance for ideas that challenge your beliefs. The sure sign of that is what happens when you are challenged. You begin hurling insults and banning people It’s really the internet equivalent of covering your ears and screaming to drown out other points of view.
What? You’re not going to call me a fascist and claim I’m denying you your free speech rights?
I’m not the automaton you think I am and you think you aren’t.
You ain’t the genius you think you are either.
I got some bad news for you – you haven’t said anything we haven’t already heard before.
1) I have no clue who or what a craw-dad is. The only blogs I waste my time at (& all blogging is ultimately a waste of time) are: this one; my own; liberal rapture; irregulartimes; overthemonster;
2) “proglydite” is my own term for a person who thinks they’re a progressive, but who lives in a deep, dark cave, surrounded only by other proglydites whose voices echo off the walls of that dank chamber. All the proglydites agree on the same ‘facts’ and have come to the same ‘conclusion.’ So, when a proglydite ventures from its cave, and encounters someone who disagrees, the proglydite assumes that person must be ignorant of the facts — or just plain stupid — but will admit their error once they are ‘educated.’ The proglydite never considers for a moment the possibility that the other person is fully versed in the facts, but simply came to a different conclusion.
1) Then why did you try to speak for the crawdad people?
2) Try a thought experiment: substitute throughout “Clintonite” for that word of yours. To really fit the circumsatnces here, change “progressive” to “reasonable” and “ventures from its cave” to “finds a stranger in its cave.”
You make no sense Christof.
An attempt to thread back to JWS’ remarks, 480-odd posts ago. As I waste my time here and at Tamerlane’s blog often, and as I linked way above to TL weighing in on Occupy Chicago’s demands, here’s today’s LA Times on its “manifesto” which “attempts to pair the ideals and impulses that have powered the Occupy movement with some practical changes in public policy worth fighting for.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-manifesto-20111204,0,463446.story
P.S. LAT editorial for those taking it to the streets, I mean pup tents, again, now or next spring:
“Although the city’s restraint in dealing with the Occupy L.A. protesters is laudable, no one should be allowed to sleep in the park. Enforcing that rule will save the city future grief.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-lapd-20111203,0,7833335.story
Fionnchú, Just curious, why should no be allowed to sleep, of all things, in the park?
Christof, the city of L.A. enforces a 10:30 p.m, curfew standard in all parks, for public safety, for crime prevention, and to prevent them from becoming campgrounds.
This is a bullshit article from a confused person. And please delete that picture of me, I did not give you permission to use it.
What’s up, for all time i used to check website posts here early in the daylight, because i like to find out more and more.
The sad part is they do not see it themselves. Through technology and research it has become quite obvious that boxing for health and fitness is
not only for people who want to get fit and reduce weight but is now a common way of training for
professional athletes and groups seeking to improve their performance
on the sports area. An automatic response during crunch time improves sports
performance.
Pretty component of content. I simply stumbled upon your website and in accession capital to claim
that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts.
Any way I will be subscribing for your feeds or even I success you get right of entry to persistently quickly.
Yet hot fall novelty are bags containing top handles.
Utilizing the same are so recognizable these days which individuals
are using them as gifts even. Another hot fall pattern
are bags with top handles. The mother and daughter were seen sporting identical grey Valentino bags.
http://skipperpool.com/gallery/displayimage.
php?pid=398