Occupy Wall Street

I don’t know what to make of this Occupy Wall Street (OWS) thing.  I’ve been talking to supporters and opponents alike and still have a very muddled opinion.

I’m tempted to view OWS as a liberal answer to the Tea Party (TP).  The similarities are striking.  The involvement of the likes of Van Jones, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and the unions combined with the relative absence of libertarians and the TP from here (aside from a small band of Ron Paul supporters, who seem to pop up everywhere) makes for solid evidence towards that conclusion.  Also, both movements were leaderless grassroots movements in their beginnings that were formed over the interwebs and stemmed from anger over America’s current condition and trajectory, and both appear to have the same goal of getting America back firing on all cylinders, though they clearly disagree on how to do that.  The flaming I’ve received from both the TP and OWS at suggesting similarity between the two shows me I’m on the right track (one side claims the other is Astroturf instead of grassroots and that one side claims to be the true grassroots side, and suggesting that both started as grassroots and turned – or will turn, in OWS’s case - into Astroturf is simply blasphemy to both sides).

I also see this as part of Obama’s reelection campaign.  Remember, every action taken by both the left and right between now and then should be viewed through the lens of how it helps the left/right get their candidate elected president.  One of the right’s biggest attacks on Obama has been that he’s a radical leftist (the validity of the attack is irrelevant).  To counter these attacks, and subsequently appeal better to the coveted undecided, marginally attached, and independent voters (I’ll start calling them the UMAIs), Obama has to make himself look not like a radical leftist, but a more moderate centrist.  Perception is reality, but reality is not necessarily perception in this case.  Also, look for this to reenergize his previously lethargic liberal base. 

If that’s the case, then the liberal media should be all over it really trying to make OWS look good and the conservative media should be trying to undermine OWS (exactly the same dynamic we saw during the Wisconsin events earlier this year and exactly the opposite dynamic we’ve seen regarding TP coverage).  We’re starting to see that as OWS grows.  On the whole, I think the media’s doing a fair job of covering the events, but appears confused to a degree and could be doing better.  I’ve heard complaints that the mainstream media isn’t really covering OWS, but I see that as a flawed criticism.  Did the media immediately seize upon the TP or the protests in say Egypt right from the very beginning?  No, they didn’t really get onboard until the movements achieved a certain critical mass and had a newsworthy catalyst. 

Here, the catalyst, I think, was 700 people getting arrested for walking in the driveway of the Brooklyn Bridge.  I read how one of the protesters thought the driveway was open to foot traffic in addition to the usual pedestrian walkway and I’ve heard from another one whining about entrapment, but let’s use some common sense and logic for a minute.  When is the Brooklyn Bridge driveway ever open to pedestrian traffic?  Methinks hardly ever.  It’s possible OWS could have applied for permits, but that’s not likely, and it’s even less probable that the city would approve such permits were they even filed.  It’s also possible that OWS’s ‘leadership’ knew there would be mass arrests and set their people up to get arrested so that OWS could get more attention in the press, in essence viewing the people as pawns.  Admittedly, this thinking about OWS’s ‘leadership’ speculative on my part based on circumstantial evidence and my knowledge of how political operatives work, but it is plausible and I’m throwing it out there as food for thought.

Also, let’s be realistic here.  What other choice is Mayor Michael Bloomberg left with when the Brooklyn Bridge is shut down?  He can’t just sit by and allow it.  I think Bloomberg’s done a great job of balancing being accommodative with the protesters while ensuring that the city isn’t paralyzed and/or dragged into anarchy.  The reality is Bloomberg could have shut OWS down from day one or after the Brooklyn Bridge debacle, but he didn’t.  As for entrapment by law enforcement, what credible evidence is there to suggest that?  None that I’ve seen and the aforementioned guy whining about it declined to provide any, leading me to believe that he either has no argument or has a laughably flimsy one.

But, the situation could escalate.  The most troubling aspect to me thus far is the potential for a coordinated hack on the New York Stock Exchange by Anonymous through an operation called Invade Wall Street (IWS).  This would be absolute chaos if true and successful.  There are people online claiming to speak for Anonymous both confirming and denying it.  Some say IWS going to happen, other claim it’s a hoax to discredit OWS or a trap by law enforcement.  Maybe it’s a hoax, maybe it’s not.  I don’t know.  What I do know is it wouldn’t be entirely unwise to be prepared for the possibility that it’s authentic and make the necessary preparations and contingency plans.  Interestingly enough, Fox is the only news outlet carrying this story.  The details I’ve heard show the attack happening on Monday 10 October at 3:30, so you have time this weekend to assess the risk and formulate a portfolio plan, then take action on Monday if you’re so inclined.  I’m just putting the information out there.  What you do with it is up to you.

I don’t have any real understanding of OWS’s goals.  I don’t even know if they do, to be honest.  I know what they’re angry about and I’m sympathetic because America is a mess right now, but anger in itself is generally not very productive unless it can somehow be channeled to elicit positive action.  I’ve long held the belief that if one is going to criticize a current system, one must have a viable alternative.  It’s not enough to just say, “This system sucks.  It needs to be abolished.”  If you do that, you very likely will end up with a new system that, at its best, is worse than the old system was at its worst.  It’s the ‘cure being worse than the disease’ line of thinking.  There needs to be something viable on the drawing board to replace the existing system that will improve upon the condition.  You’ll note that I very seldom criticize without having some workable alternative way (and when I do, not only do I try to openly admit to not having said alternative, but I also make it clear that a plan is needed before we start dismantling the existing system).  What specific actions is OWS proposing? 

Anger alone isn’t enough.  America doesn’t need anger and vague rhetoric.  America needs viable ideas for improving the current situation.  OWS lacks this coherency right now.  I’ve already been called a liar, stupid, rude, argumentative, willfully blind, and all kinds of other names already for saying what I’m saying, but I’ll keep saying it until such time that I’m proven wrong.  I did see a great exchange between Neil Cavuto and Dennis Kucinich on Fox about this very matter, however. 

The bottom line is I’m left with two questions.  Riddle me this.  How is OWS any different than the TP?  Also, what is OWS’s plan?