Occupy Detroit

[BShea]

Shea lost me with the ludicrous "Obamaville," describing Occupy as an "anti-capitalist movement" is nonsense and Shea should be intelligent enough to understand nuance.

This article's nothing more than another dismissive agenda-driven, right-wing rant, straight from the conservative template. It's littered with the usual clichés and Frank Luntz approved buzz phrases; "clad in a red Che Guevara baseball cap", "midnight drum circles" "urinating and defecating in the park", "clouds of marijuana smoke," blah de flippin' dah.

I thought Shea was a serious journalist with some semblance of integrity; apparently I was mistaken. Perhaps these kids can explain this movement in terms he might understand?



Addendum: Anyone bother to check the Daily Caller's About Us page?

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news site providing original reporting from an experienced team of professional reporters, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

Need I say more?

Ah, something has integrity only if you agree with it? If I'd written a piece of hagiography for HuffPo, you'd be all in favor of it, no?

Nuance? I was there.

I wrote exactly what I saw and heard. I've attended several of the general assemblies. OWS is a Leftist movement -- as noted [[and lovingly mocked in recent days by Colbert, Stewart and Triumph the Comic Insult Dog from Conan). I read the Occupy Detroit official Facebook page several times a day, and it's extremely evident that the local movement includes hardcore anarchists and Marxists, as much as left-leaning centrists. The World Workers Party had a table set up in Grand Circus Park to distribute literature -- and I have photos of the nice guy in the red Che hat. So please, don't intimate that I'm making things up out of whole cloth. It's a Leftist movement whose organizers sit on the Hard Left, and those insisting it's some populist/centrist groundswell representative over everyone is engaging in the most gross intellectual dishonesty. The anti-capitalism is proudly on display in both Zuccotti Park and Grand Circus Park. Trying to argue otherwise is the worst sort of lie.

One of the key minds and organizers of the Occupy Wall Street movement, from the Adbusters summer planning before it was mainstream, is an anarchist [[link). Unless you think Businessweek is lying, of course.

The complaint about the midnight drum circle came from a Kales Building resident who complained during the first emergency general assembly. She's also the one who complained about the public urination/defecation in the park while tearfully expressing support of the overall OWS aims. Maybe she was an agent provacatuer planted as a mole by DHS? Because people at the GA were warning of that very thing -- paranoia and a massively inflated sense of self importance despite the fact the city stopped sending cops over there.

The Tea Party was a politically effective movement, from an X's and O's mechanical perspective. But the same criticisms apply to it: Until that movement exiles the Birchers and their like, it'll rightly be dismissed as a collection of Roundhead Know-Nothing Falangist yahoos. Until OWS expels the Marxists and anarchists, it'll be toxic to Middle America. Embracing the fringe means you'll be forever on the sidelines.

Any journalist that doesn't pen a fawning assessment of OWS is instantly accused of being too craven, too ignorant and too co-opted by the oligarchs to possibly understand Occupy Wall Street. Which is utter nonsense, of course, but I get it. We're accused of focusing on the baroque fringe ... when the truth is that the occupiers ARE largely the fringe. That doesn't negate their valid concerns -- there is corruption and an unhealthy influence of corporate money in politics. But quoting Marx and discussion of nationalizing the banks is asinine -- which you can find on the OD general assembly Facebook page right now.

Again, let me say it again [[this time with feeling!): Criticism of OWS doesn't automatically mean one is supportive of Wall Street's scofflaws.

The Economist's "Democracy In America" blog summed it up nicely recently: "... one may well agree with the general stance of OWS—that Wall Street is rife with corruption, that inequality and the influence of the wealthy need to be reined in—while disapproving of tent cities reeking of trash and the supercilious entitlement of liberal arts majors aggrieved by the realisation that student loans aren't gifts."

Of course, The Economist is to be dismissed as a fascist mouthpiece of the 1 Percent, I'm sure. Right?

If a movement is going to demand attention from the populace and the media, then it should rightly expect to be feel the heat of the spotlight. Please don't speak of "usual cliches" when they're on full display in the park and during the endless direct-democracy soviets. Sitting in a public park and being angry at everything and demanding someone, somewhere, do something about everything isn't exactly following the proven templates for change -- despite the New Age-y rhetoric from academics and pundits trying to explain away the movement's purposeful aimlessness.

But you have every right to waggle all the "down sparkles" at me that you wish. I just call it as I see it, and I'm not trying to change minds. I enjoy arguing too much, and am repulsed by the idea of mandatory consensus and ideological purity [[I fit into neither the Republican or Democratic parties, and disagree with Tucker Carlson on many issues). The idea of one-party rule, or single ideology [[such as all Progressive, all the time), nauseates me with fear.

Oh, and Occupy Detroit physically chased out a small batch of Lyndon LaRouchites last month. I guess they're not part of the 99 percent, and didn't fit the Occupy movement's notion of who gets to pitch a tent in a public park.