It must be tough for this season’s new TV shows to compete with the soap opera of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Tents! Drums! Anarchists with iPhones! Convoluted speeches and loony signs! Celebrities and the homeless! Liberal mayors unleashing the cops! You can’t make this stuff up.
What’s nearly as entertaining as the Monty Python antics of the protesters is the strained attempts of the news media and politicians to take them seriously. The consensus seems to be that the occupiers are similar to the Tea Party as an expression of economic discontent, which is like comparing Spring Break to a Realtors’ convention.
Tea Party envy may be driving union bosses and liberal politicians to gingerly embrace the occupiers. There also may be some nostalgia for the anti-war protests of my generation that changed the world and elected Richard Nixon. (I missed out on those because I was in Vietnam.)
Albuquerque’s protest, with a distinctive New Mexico spin, is called (Un)Occupy Albuquerque in recognition of New Mexico’s historic occupation by the Spanish and Anglos. This implies that the place actually belongs to the Indians, but no Native Americans appear to be participating in the protests. Perhaps they’re busy running their casinos.
To better understand the protesters’ demands, I checked the movement’s web site — http://www.occupytogether.org/ — and learned that the occupiers blame corporations for all the ills of the world. They do not advocate any specific solution, such as electing a president who will unleash the power of government to defeat the corporations. Didn’t we already do that?
There are some legitimate issues in there somewhere that many of us might support, but at this point the protesters are not saying much about the economy. Instead, the protest itself has become the cause as occupiers fight for their constitutional right to sleep in the park. This strategy has been a spectacular success in mobilizing the homeless. Why stay in a boring shelter when you can hit on college students, get free food and maybe get on television?
In Albuquerque, the protesters wore Day of the Dead costumes (big holiday here) to mourn the death of their civil rights. One protester claimed they were standing up for their First and Second-Amendment rights (which is a little odd because New Mexico does not require gun registration). Another got on every newscast by announcing a hunger strike until the university president meets with him. The whole issue may wind up in court because the protesters have lawyers. Is this a great country, or what?
All of this is great theater, but whether it can change the course of the nation remains to be seen. The Tea Party had the right idea: They came, they protested and then they went home. Now they occupy the House of Representatives.
Occupying attention
It must be tough for this season’s new TV shows to compete with the soap opera of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Tents! Drums! Anarchists with iPhones! Convoluted speeches and loony signs! Celebrities and the homeless! Liberal mayors unleashing the cops! You can’t make this stuff up.
What’s nearly as entertaining as the Monty Python antics of the protesters is the strained attempts of the news media and politicians to take them seriously. The consensus seems to be that the occupiers are similar to the Tea Party as an expression of economic discontent, which is like comparing Spring Break to a Realtors’ convention.
Tea Party envy may be driving union bosses and liberal politicians to gingerly embrace the occupiers. There also may be some nostalgia for the anti-war protests of my generation that changed the world and elected Richard Nixon. (I missed out on those because I was in Vietnam.)
Albuquerque’s protest, with a distinctive New Mexico spin, is called (Un)Occupy Albuquerque in recognition of New Mexico’s historic occupation by the Spanish and Anglos. This implies that the place actually belongs to the Indians, but no Native Americans appear to be participating in the protests. Perhaps they’re busy running their casinos.
To better understand the protesters’ demands, I checked the movement’s web site — http://www.occupytogether.org/ — and learned that the occupiers blame corporations for all the ills of the world. They do not advocate any specific solution, such as electing a president who will unleash the power of government to defeat the corporations. Didn’t we already do that?
There are some legitimate issues in there somewhere that many of us might support, but at this point the protesters are not saying much about the economy. Instead, the protest itself has become the cause as occupiers fight for their constitutional right to sleep in the park. This strategy has been a spectacular success in mobilizing the homeless. Why stay in a boring shelter when you can hit on college students, get free food and maybe get on television?
In Albuquerque, the protesters wore Day of the Dead costumes (big holiday here) to mourn the death of their civil rights. One protester claimed they were standing up for their First and Second-Amendment rights (which is a little odd because New Mexico does not require gun registration). Another got on every newscast by announcing a hunger strike until the university president meets with him. The whole issue may wind up in court because the protesters have lawyers. Is this a great country, or what?
All of this is great theater, but whether it can change the course of the nation remains to be seen. The Tea Party had the right idea: They came, they protested and then they went home. Now they occupy the House of Representatives.
Share this: