Posts Tagged ‘OWS’
So the Occupy Wall Street folks have invaded the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and tried to disrupt one of the largest annual gatherings of Conservative activists.
As unearthed by Daily Caller, apparently, some protestors don’t know what CPAC is or why they are protesting. But they are making $60 per person to show up. Isn’t America great! Oh… wait… that wouldn’t fit the OWS narrative, would it?
While the OWS movement is still trying to be relevant, it is going to continue to lose influence and momentum because of the radical elements that keep it going. The Democrats who identified and associated with OWS early on will see their words come back to haunt them between now and November.
Obama’s supposed “accommodation” to try to quell the outcry of the HHS ruling that would force Catholic-run institutions to offer contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance coverage does not accommodate at all. To require health insurance companies to offer such services free of charge to those covered does not change the fundamental conscience issue raised by the Church. The only reason these services are available “for free” is because there is a health plan at all.
This is an underhanded political ploy. Obama is essentially maintaining the status quo, while at the same time appearing to be reasonable. He knows the Church will still oppose, but he is counting on Bishops looking unreasonable to parishioners.
The Republican nomination for President has to be the most interesting primary process in U.S. history. Wow.
Can you believe that it’s February already?
Last week, TIME Magazine proclaimed “the Protester” person of the year. The distinction itself makes sense. First, the Arab Spring captured worldwide attention as dramatic, historic events unfolded in realtime on cable news. It was riveting; “Millions protest. Armies stand down. Dictators leave. Impossible fantasies two months earlier — now they were coming true. The ‘days of rage’ meme and democratic dream had achieved breathtaking momentum, spreading not just to the softer monarchical dictatorships — Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco — but also to Yemen, Algeria and the hardcore police states Syria and Libya.”
Next, protests happened in Europe because, well, Europeans always protest. Then came the “Occupy Wall Street,” protests snarling traffic and stinking up public parks throughout the U.S. So, I agree, 2011 was a big year for protestors.
TIME’s Kurt Andersen lost me completely however, in his attempt to equate the whiny, inconsistent, and absurd arguments of the OWS protesters with the Arab Spring protesters’ demands for democracy and cries for freedom from oppression:
“This year, instead of plugging in the headphones, entering an Internet-induced fugue state and quietly giving in to hopelessness, they used the Internet to find one another and take to the streets to insist on fairness and (in the Arab world) freedom.”
This ridiculous statement, placing fairness on the same plain as freedom, with the parenthetical caveat “in the Arab world,” insults all those who have fought and died for freedom. Fairness? Really? If you take to the streets to protest “unfairness,” life has been good to you, yours is a free society.
Not only did Andersen miss the mark by equating the protests in the West with the movements in the Muslim world, but his glowing narrative of OWS laughably defied reason:
“The Occupy movement in the U.S. was set in motion by a couple of magazine editors — a 69-year-old Canadian, a 29-year-old African American — and a 50-year-old anthropologist, but airline pilots and grandmas and shop clerks and dishwashers have been part of the throngs.
It’s remarkable how much the protest vanguards share. Everywhere they are disproportionately young, middle class and educated.”
How many airline pilots would Andersen have us believe took part in OWS? Definitely not a sizable “part of the throngs,” probably not even enough to bear mention. And, who doesn’t know young, middle class, and educated grandmas and dishwashers? It’s clear that OWS is not a cross-section of America; Andersen’s feeble attempt to claim otherwise rings hollow.
The next statement is patently false:
“Almost all the protests this year began as independent affairs, without much encouragement from or endorsement by existing political parties or opposition bigwigs.”
OWS was started by AdBusters, a Canadian-based organization with the “aim to topple existing power structures and change the way we live in the 21st century.” According to Reuters and others, AdBusters is backed in part by the Tides Foundation, to which George Soros has given $3.5 million between 2007-2009. MoveOn.org, also funded by Soros, has publicly encouraged the OWS movement. I’d say Soros classifies as a “bigwig.” And, it isn’t just the Soros wing of the Democratic Party. Union and labor bosses, existing political powerbrokers, have also played a part.
In fact, the Working Families Party, which was running Craiglist ads to recruit people they could pay to occupy, shares an address in New York with SIEU and ACORN.
Full disclosure comes towards the end of the piece:
“A few days later, my 24-year-old nephew, Daniel Thorson, e-mailed from his small town in western New York: he was coming down to occupy Wall Street…
and later… “Daniel spent 38 hours in custody, charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstructing governmental administration.”
The protester played an historic role this year and it remains unclear whether the regime changes he achieved will be for the better. As the Taliban demonstrated not long ago, a theocracy can be just as brutal and tyrannical as a dictator and pose a serious threat to the rest of the world. It’s too bad that TIME chose to run an OWS propaganda story instead of tackling the nuanced accomplishments of the 2011 protesters.
The brilliant minds among the “Occupiers” have decided that given that the “99%” deserve to have their voice heard, they should either occupy or boycott major retailers on “Black Friday.”
So let me see if I understand this… they oppose the “1%” and they think the way to “stick it to the man” is to boycott retailers, who, by the way, employ millions of Americans who are part of the “99%” and if they cut into the sales of said retailers, well, that will make a statement!
Yeah, a statement of stupidity, the first thing that happens when retailers are less profitable is that they cut overhead, that is, lay people off.
Keep it up “occupiers,” eventually you’ll only have 1% of support among the American people.
The Occupy Wall Street “movement” provides more irony than you can shake a stick at.
From the few videos I have watched of OWS activists and the many stories I have read, it’s clear that the label of “unthinking masses” used to describe Tea Partiers or otherwise conservative folks is essentially projection. That is, the left is such a band of lemmings, that to make up for it they, and their enablers in the media, describe the right in the exact terms of who they (the Occupiers) really are: racist, unthinking thugs.
The Occupier’s claim to be “the 99%” and that Wall Street is the 1%, thereby pitting the masses against the elite. And President Obama (and most liberal Democrats in Congress) have embraced the Occupiers. The absurdity of Obama’s embrace of the Occupiers is that the 1% (Wall Street) have been bigger supporters of Obama than any presidential candidate in history. He was a main driver in passing TARP, and handcuffed himself to the Street when he appointed Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary. Remember, Geithner was one of the trifecta of elites (along with Paulson and Bernanke) that engineered the bailouts.
This has been said dozens of times before, but if the Occupiers stopped and thought about it for 30 seconds, they would be marching on the White House, not Stock Exchange.
The brilliantly funny Mark Steyn has penned this piece, a must read.
Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to “preserve disorder.” I believe that was one of Hizzoner’s famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland city council have made “preserving disorder” the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the “Occupy Oakland” occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation’s fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of “shopping,” destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation “F**k,” etc. And how did the Oakland city council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for “Occupy Oakland” and to call on the city administration to “collaborate with protesters.”
I don’t “stand with the 99%,” and certainly not downwind of them. But I’m all for their “occupation” continuing on its merry way. It usefully clarifies the stakes. At first glance, an alliance of anarchists and government might appear to be somewhat paradoxical. But the formal convergence in Oakland makes explicit the movement’s aims: They’re anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life — just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What’s happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: The government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class, and the criminal class in order to stick it to what’s left of the beleaguered productive class. It’s a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. Only the criminal class is reasonably upfront about this. The rest — the lifetime legislators, the unions defending lavish and unsustainable benefits, the “scholars” whiling away a somnolent half decade at Complacency U — are obliged to dress it up a little with some hooey about “social justice” and whatnot.
The bottom line is that Obama embraces the Occupiers at his own political peril..