dagblog - Comments for "No Surprise: Erin Burnett doesn't get the Wall Street Protesters."

Time to rename protest... "WE

SolarManJD — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:15:51 +0000

In reply to No Surprise: Erin Burnett doesn't get the Wall Street Protesters.

Time to rename protest...

"WE THE PEOPLE"

SolarManJD

SJ, thank you for your

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:31:31 +0000

In reply to With apologies, Dreamer, you

SJ, thank you for your gracious remarks.

Effective social movements, later if not sooner, need allies on the inside to get things done. Whether its introducing constitutional amendments in Congress to rewrite key rules as on corporate personhood or campaign financing, or holding hearings (not to be under-estimated as a potentially impactful thing to do--consider the impact of the Army/McCarthy hearings), or passing strong legislation, or lobbying successfully for strong and needed (and legal) executive action.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: organizing on the outside and working the inside does not represent an either/or choice. Rather, it is a both/and imperative for those effective change efforts which can only, or best, be addressed through our political system. Disfunctional as it is, elected officials who sense the winds shifting rapidly sometimes do respond.

For once progressives are on offense, reflected in both OWS and the push for the jobs bill, including, yes, Obama getting up off the mat at long last. I say hooray for that. Can progressives walk and chew gum at the same time? I want to rock our opponents back on their heels and hold their lousy, pinched, total loser of a social vision up to the light of day for the load of undiluted crap that it is, for most of the electorate to see. If we can do that on more than one front I'm all for it.

One can take some action on behalf of the American Jobs Act without any commitment to vote for Obama or even vote at all, for that matter. If it helps to think of it as not being about Obama or next year's elections or inside baseball or any of that other incredibly offputting stuff, great. 300,000 or 400,000 public education employees, and the kids who stand to lose out if they lose their jobs, would sure appreciate it if folks fed up with the status quo will help our economy and our country's present and future by rising up on their behalf, too.

With apologies, Dreamer, you

SleepinJeezus — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:42:07 +0000

In reply to What's up with the broadside,

With apologies, Dreamer, you were unfairly targeted by me out of an over-arching frustration over what I witness here with the "inside baseball" crowd. There is such an effort to analyze the OWS movement within the context of the political game and its rules as written. The people in Liberty Park will, I'm quite certain, overwhelmingly respond that they are not interested in playing such a game for so long as the fix is in. Dems are supported generally, but there is no quarter given to ANYONE who insists that campaign financiers and lobbyists trump the will of the plebiscite. Lots more to be written on that theme and I'm short on time. But realize that Ghengis' comments about what is required for this group to gain "political legitimacy" (ie money and influence in Washington; high-profile and well-backed leaders; etc.) or your comments about Dems in Congress holding hearings as an effective remedy are examples of same-old same-old bs that is not well received by those of us who have had enough of it. We are the 99%, and we EAT lobbyists, bagmen, and the politicians they own, REGARDLESS of their political affiliation. It really is a new dynamic, a long time coming. And Obama and the Dems and the inside baseball analysts/apologists ignore it at their peril.

I was thinking more of

Verified Atheist — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:38:57 +0000

In reply to I don't know. Why?

I was thinking more of acanuck and Q.

I don't know. Why?

Ramona — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:36:03 +0000

In reply to Canadian agitators? Why does

I don't know. Why? "Canadian Bacon"?

Canadian agitators? Why does

Verified Atheist — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:28:09 +0000

In reply to I'm happy to see the unions

Canadian agitators? Why does that seem familiar?

I'm happy to see the unions

Ramona — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:21:17 +0000

In reply to Ramona, Excellent blog,

I'm happy to see the unions involved. They may be weakened but their presence is needed in places where the working class is trying to make change. They can't and won't take it over, but they can add numbers and heft and most of all, funding.

I found this interesting. The good thing about it taking place in NYC is that there are plenty of people already there. A good many of them are just curious, I'm sure, but they are adding to the numbers:

The Occupy Wall Street gathering, now midway through its third week in a Lower Manhattan park, was hatched by a Canadian magazine, Adbusters, and is heavily populated by youthful out-of-towners. But it has also become a magnet for scores of New Yorkers who said they had rarely if ever attended a protest before.

Mr. Aiken, the D.J., said he joined up because he was frustrated over what he described as a lack of accountability from the big banks, and because he wanted to add to the protest’s breadth.

Thanks, AA. Really

Ramona — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:50:19 +0000

In reply to [....] I spoke with a veteran

Thanks, AA. Really interesting reading. These movements are so fluid it's hard to make any rules that will actually stick, but the parallels are intriguing.

The "I am a thug" tees remind me of "Black is Beautiful" and Dick Gregory's "Nigger". They took the slurs and made them their own, and effectively transferred the power of the words.

There are many movements the Occupiers could take lessons from. I can only hope they're taking the time to learn from them.

What's up with the broadside,

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:38:47 +0000

In reply to I nominate Max Baucus to lead

What's up with the broadside, SJ? I'd thought our sympathies are largely similar.

I'm scratching my head wondering when you think I've advocated surrender to the Republicans on their terms. I recall making a similar comment as yours on this subject during or around the debt hostage fiasco. I do recall making a suggestion, which I'd thought hardly oh-so-important and much closer to tilting at a windmill, that if it takes bumping the definition of "rich" in the American Jobs Act from $250,000 to $500,000 a year to get enough Senate votes to save 300,000 to 400,000 public education jobs, and make up the revenue among those higher up the scale, I thought that would be well worthwhile. Do you disagree?

I wasn't disparaging the Seattle or any of the other protesters, or wasn't meaning to. I thought I was making a basically descriptive observation about the former.

It's okay. It needed

Ramona — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:30:40 +0000

In reply to I know, I botched the

It's okay. It needed repeating. :>)