"We're not a leaderless movement, we're a movement of leaders"

Oh look another "crazy extremist", this time it's Seattle's Mayor:

These are extraordinary times. We have seen the Occupy Wall Street
movement take off in cities across the country, and there’s a reason for
it. There is real anger about the unprecedented concentration of wealth
and power in this country and the inequality it has produced. I share
the values and the message of the Occupy Wall Street movement. We want
to provide the opportunity for the people of Seattle to express their
views. And we are.

http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov...

Los Angeles city and Mayor get behind protestors:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...

Your trolling is making you out to be as simple-minded and as extremist as a member of the Tea Party.

When I visited the OccupyWallStreet site on Wednesday, it was clear that the disgust with the political system went so deep that there is no single set of demands that can fix a system so fundamentally broken and dysfunctional. One can’t paste-up a regime that is impoverishing the economy, accelerating foreclosures, pushing state and city budgets further into deficit and forcing cuts in social spending.

So the great question is, where do we go from here? There’s no
solvable path within the way that the economy and the political system is structured these days. Any attempt to come up with a neat “fix-it” plan can only be suggesting bandages for what looks like a fatal political-economic wound.

http://www.counterpunch.or...opulist-fakery/

The only solution the writer of the linked article wants might most likely result in a second civil war for the USA and a third world war for the rest of the planet.

Maybe that's why "broke" Greece is buying a gang of tanks from us.....

Oops, Mr "Change" just sold human rights violating dictatorship Bahrain a shitload of weapons.  Hooray for hope!  Let's "hope" they don't use those weapons to kill more peaceful protestors just as they have been doing.

“When so many U.S. political figures have failed to respond to the calls for democracy in Bahrain, Senator Wyden and Congressman McGovern have taken a stand against the Bahraini dictatorship’s brutal crackdown against peaceful protestors,” said Human Rights First’s Brian Dooley. “When democracy activists across the Middle East look to the U.S. for support, they are often disappointed that the Obama Administration’s actions do not match its rhetoric. Senator Wyden and Congressman McGovern are challenging the United States to remain true to values of democracy and human rights.”
Bahrain is ruled by a monarchy in which the king’s uncle has been the unelected prime minister for the last 40 years. Since peaceful pro-democracy protests began in Bahrain in February, the Bahrain government has cracked down violently on those supporting political freedom, arresting over 1,500 people. There are widespread, credible reports of torture and former detainees have told Human Rights First that during their custody they were tortured by the Bahraini military. Military courts have also convicted civilians and sentenced them to long prison terms. The Bahraini Government’s violent attacks on peaceful protests continue almost daily.http://www.humanrightsfirst.or...

Why #OccupyWallStreet Doesn't Support Obama:  His "Nothing to See Here" Stance on Bank Looting

Chicago D, Slappy, you're both willfully ignorant and pathetic, clueless Obamacrats, and useful idiots.  D just deliberately plays dumb because he doesn't like lefties, Slappy actually *is* dumb and ill informed.  His funny screed about poor Obama is hilarious.  It's as if our poor President was completely helpless in overseeing the the bailouts and basically protecting bankers from being indicted for fraud.  Now this same helpless POTUS is trying to get all the state attorneys general to sign off on an immunity deal for people that crashed the economy.  What can you do, Slappy gets his news from his yacht club's monthly newsletter....

You're wrong again. It isn't that I don't like lefties. It's that patchouli gives me a headache. Sort of forces my politics, you know?

Actually, I just don't like stupid people. I realize how complex it would be to try to seat a jury to try a banker for some sort of criminal conspiracy to . . . well, I'm not sure what, which would be the second issue. That seems to me to be a lot of fire with no heat. It's the same issue I have with all of these Tea Party morons who can't see that very infrastructure of their personal "independence" is built on public investment.

Meanwhile, Navin screams in the darkness about what protesters want when the protesters themselves can't seem to express what they want. He fights against the term "anarchy" when it is exactly what seems to be happening on the street. I am starting to think that maybe they are passing you by Navin . . . 

Actually, I just don't like stupid people.

I can agree with you on the patchouli, vile stuff.

The admin is trying to arrange immunity for banks because they know they have committed fraud.  That's why Eric Schneiderman is currently being attacked on all fronts.  Obama's chief of staff is a former executive of JP Morgan Chase with millions in stock holdings, similar conflicts riddle the staff.  The corruption is comical.

The Tea Party is a ridiculous comparison, they were against "taxes" and "government", the current protests are about the way government has been taken over by financial interests.

The Federal Board of Trade office worker is likely expressing his frustration with the protesters for having to listen to them bang on plastic buckets non-stop for the last week. It is a justified frustratration. Those working within a block of the protest can't escape the incessant drumming which seems to be more about "pissing off the man" than actually creating an agenda and working to change that which they claim they want. Now they are told they must keep moving. They walk across the street every half hour.

I am not The Man. I don't make anywhere a 6 figure salary. I am the 99% and I HATE Occupy Chicago for undermining what could potentially be a legitmate agenda with their "look at me" obnoxiousness and in the process giving anyone with a job in the area a literal headache.

Add to which, this (to me as a black man) is just more Obama-bashing, but from the left instead of the right. These people elected Obama because they thought that he would implement their extreme ideas into practice, only to discover that just like any leader, he has to play by the rules and can't just run roughshod over the opposition party in the Senate/House as if this was Eastern Europe 30 years ago. These guys want Marxism and not democracy.

In particular, and as it refers to Obama, I think that the protesters (and everybody else here) somehow expected Obama to magically reverse everything wrong with America in one term-which, as he said, he can't/couldn't realistically do (if they wanted that, then they should have elected Ralph Nader and campaigned for him in the last two elections.)

BTW, here's something smart that somebody smarter and wiser than the people in these protests has written about what good Obama has done:

There is a rising chorus of impatient progressive bloggers, some on these pages, calling Obama a failure and a do-nothing president only nine months into his first of four years as president. SNL's "do-nothing skit" on Obama may well have empowered some on our side to start playing on the fringes of the Limbaugh sandbox. While the charges and name-calling are not as vicious as the Limbaugh Lemmings, it has started nonetheless.

So what has our newly-minted asshole president been doing for nine months?

Let's start with what he has not done. He has not found a cure for cancer, reversed climate change, ended poverty, brought peace to the Middle East, ended all wars, created enough new jobs, or created a single-payer health care system. These are big ticket items that no president will ever accomplish, so it is a little disingenuous to suggest a standard for Obama that does not apply to all past presidents or to future presidents. As Princeton economics professor Alan Blinder says in assessing what Obama has accomplished so far, "If he seems to have achieved little, it's partly because he set out to do too much." To which I would add, and we created an unrealistic agenda for what we wanted him to accomplish.

Let's continue with what he has done. First and foremost, none other than the Wall Street Journal, in an assessment titled, "Democrats Quiet Changes Pile Up", says he has accomplished more in nine months than George Bush did in his first nine months.

Let's be specific:

1. Significantly, he buried the Imperial Presidency of George Bush and restored the Constitutional balance of government by respecting the equal standing of the legislative branch of government. As a former constitutional law professor, this is a major matter of change of tone and style that he promised during the campaign, and he has delivered. (Not pretty or necessarily effective given the Reid-less leadership in the Senate, but we are a constitutional democracy.)

2. Passed and signed the stimulus package, the biggest piece of legislation--ever--in blinding speed, thus being able to start to stabilize the economy, with GDP now projected to grow at the rate of 3 percent by the end of the year. Check the comeback of your 401K since Obama has taken over.

3. Stabilized the top 20 banks without federalizing them.

4. Reduced the rate of foreclosures inherited from the Bush administration.

5. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that makes it easier to sue for wage discrimination, a dramatic reversal of the bill's fortunes under Bush.

6. Granted regulatory power to the FDA to control tobacco products, another dramatic reversal of the Bush years that industry has lobbied hard to prevent.

7. Signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Act that expanded federal hate crime protection to categories of sexual orientation and gender, to the major consternation of the Religious Right.

8. Killed the F-22 fighter jet program, a popular program with Congress, saving billions of dollars.

9. With a stroke of a pen, enacted, by executive order, (see correction below in comments, it was a bill signing) the largest conservation measure in 15 years, spanning the Bush and Clinton records.

10. Implement an electronic medical record system before any health care legislation was introduced. This new technology will be singularly responsible for saving lives and reducing the high administrative costs of health care, a key element of reform.

11. Extended a $2500 tax credit to 5 million families to help with college tuition.

12. Cooperated with Japan in bringing a $5 billion stabilization package for Pakistan.

13. Engaged the Muslim world in a dialogue, beginning with his unprecedented speech in Cairo, followed by an interview with Al-Arabiya, and face-to-face discussions with Iran, a total reversal of the Bush years of Muslim baiting and hate.

14. Dramatically reversed the reputation of the United States around the world, with now most nations looking favorably on the US, and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as one consequence.

15. Agreed to plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq, at a slower pace than what he promised, but based on knowledge that commanders-in-chief, not candidates, have.

16. Brought the White House online, doing for the White House what he had done for political campaigning. There are now online Q&A's with the administration, and a White House blog.

17. Released the names of all visitors to the White House, a total reversal of the secret Bush years.

18. Told Mexico that the US is responsible for some of their drug problems, a no small, but truthful admission.

19. Restored the rights of states to regulate the medical use of marijuana without fear of federal law enforcement intrusion.

20. Banned the use of torture, and he has begun a complete review of the torture policies under Bush.

21. Appointed the first Latina to the Supremes: Imagine what would have happened to the Supreme Court under four more years of radical Republicans. Obama has thus averted a long-term dramatic swing to the extreme right on the court, and appointed a progressive to keep matters in check.

In summary, and to those on these pages and elsewhere who see things differently, I say this feels a little like Waiting for Godot. Let's recall one thing that Samuel Beckett said in the mischievous play:

"The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh. Let us not then speak ill of our generation, it is not any unhappier than its predecessors. Let us not speak well of it either. Let us not speak of it at all. It is true the population has increased."

<li>http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/...</li>

Assassinated a U.S. citizen just the other day.
Bailed out and protected banker criminals
Escalated wars, and added a third war without congress' permission
Drone killing people and civilians in countries we aren't even at war with.
Expanded Bush's insane civil rights and privacy violations
Extended Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy
Without even being asked put Social Security and Medicare up on the chopping block, something that historically would be unthinkable to even the most right leaning, corporatist Democrat.

13. Engaged the Muslim world in a dialogue, beginning with his unprecedented speech in Cairo, followed by an interview with Al-Arabiya, and face-to-face discussions with Iran, a total reversal of the Bush years of Muslim baiting and hate.

Gave his speech in country governed by a ruthless dictator who has tortured and imprisoned Muslims, and then quietly stood by in nodding approval why he beat back protestors until it became shameful and obvious that his admin was going to be seen as being on the wrong side of history.

3. Stabilized the top 20 banks without federalizing them.

That is utter b.s. by the way. They all remain "too big to fail" still. BOA just got saved by Buffet, but the citizens will be on the hook once again if it should tank. It's a good system for banker oligarchs. The taxpayers will always save you if you fail. Any bank that couldn't stabilize itself with private help should have been taken over and winded down or restructured. We have the exact same problems now: Too big to fail.

People are there precisely because of our political system's complete failure. They know that change will not come from a Democrat or Republican in D.C. and that it will not come from the ballot box.

Once again (and this will serve as a dial tone for the rest of us) 'You should have elected Ralph Nader'. Also, here's another one: 'You need to try harder and better to get your message out.'

I did vote Green Party, so no, I don't feel the same need to justify buyer's remorse and personal shame.

Then you and everybody else in the movement should have worked harder to ensure that Nader was elected BOTH times he ran for president. Instead-and this is really what's sticking in your collective craw-you fell for the 'Nader cost Gore the election' shtick, so he lost instead of won and you all voted for Obama hoping that he'd be as much of a dictator as Bush was (just for the left). Guess what; as I said before, he can't do that . He also can't reverse two decades of neocon bullshit and nonsense in one term either- 
no leader can do that.

Bottom line, the problem(s) is/are a lot more complex that what you want for America and the world in general to be able to solve, and aren't going to be simply solved by days of action, trolling, and name-calling. And yes, you and everybody else in the movement are going to have to try harder to convince the rest of us, as Tafter, BlueFairlane, and myself have already said.

The first part of your post is so incoherent, I really can't understand what you're trying to say.  I'm not sure what it has to do with the financial elite corrupting and owning our political system though. 

You can't teach those that are unwilling to learn.  You guys are the kinds of people who see Obama pad his administration with Wall Streeters and go "what problem?"  Chief of Staff still holds millions in assets from when he was an executive at JP Morgan Chase?  "What problem?"

Hopeless..

My response to you was not unintelligible-it was clear and concise as to what was said before by the others, and to which I rejoined. You just don't want to listen.

Maybe you just can't teach people by hectoring and mocking with half-assed platitudes. Or they don't want to learn. One of the two.

All your posts here and on bb have begun with you mocking all participants as ignorant hippies.  Spare me the indignation. 

That'sjust not true.

Ha. Three posts is a row that I say TL; DNR to. I hope there was nothing important in them.

In particular, and as it refers to Obama, I think that the protesters (and everybody else here) somehow expected Obama to magically reverse everything wrong with America in one term

THIS.

And that's what pisses me off about the all-of-a-sudden anti-Obamaness coming from the left: Particularly when it comes to the economy, what did these people expect? Even if he were the ultra-liberal that the far left (and not coincidentally given the brutally low IQs they have in common, the far right) thought he was, he was still up against a not-insignificant Republican minority in Congress, and overwhelming anti-spending sentiment among both parties in Congress -- and the country as a whole. They say stupid shit like, "Well, if the president had made a stronger stand..." or "If he had been a more savvy negotiator... " or "If he had just stuck to his guns... " (or, most idiotically, "If he weren't in bed with Wall Street" and similarly moronic bullshit) and on and on and on as though those clear and pretty much insurmountable roadblocks didn't exist. In other words, it's pretty obvious that President Obama could have done all of the things that these idiots on the left wished he would have done -- all of them -- and the simple and unavoidable reality is that we'd probably have ended up exactly where we are anyway -- AND he'd be even weaker, politically, than he is. They just don't get it.

It's what the Tea Party, the OWS people, and loudmouthed idiots like Navin all have in common: they're politically hyper-active people who don't at all understand politics.

THIS, 100%!
Thanks for the support, Reverend Slappy.

"I am not The Man"

No, you're a troll, and you guys would be complaining about a silent vigil.

Disagreement is not trolling.  And I agree with him:  their execution of this movement turns me off.  BlueFairlane's comments above capture my feelings pretty well.

I'd add that I'm very sympathetic to many of the points that could be made from the movement: criticisms of corporate america, the bailouts of the financial institutions, the extreme inequity of personal wealth and the fundamental corruption of the federal government.  I could get on board with a lot of those messages.  But the movement seems to have little cohesion and no clear goals and instead delivers vague, far left messages that are often completely inactionable.To me, it sounds like they want some form of tear down of our financial system or government.  You'll never get folks like me in the movement with messages like that.  These protestors are simply too extreme at this point to play to the masses.  Lose the uninformed bleating against anything and everything associated with money in this country and you might get a few more people from ideological center on board.BF is right:  this movement needs a leader.  Someone who can filter out the noise, focus on the issues that matter and propose realistic reform.

To me, it sounds like they want some form of tear down of our financial
system or government.  You'll never get folks like me in the movement
with messages like that.

lmfao...

Wait, who's the troll here? 

All you can muster is a "lmfao" and you don't even respond to the points being made?  That's trolling at its finest.  What utter hypocrisy...

Uh, while there are certainly going to be anarchist elements, that is not the overarching goal of these protests imho. It is ridiculous to suggest so hence: lmfao.

I actually agree with Jon Stewarts comments on the right winger reactions on this: you can't call the tea partiers patriots and then turn around and trash the OWC folks for doing the same thing. But that cuts both ways: both movements sprang out of leaderless "mob like" actions and the intent of the whole is implied by the actions of all. Just as the tea party came to be symbolized by the racist and extreme statements of their members, the extreme elements of the OWC will drag the whole group down with their extreme positions. While you may not associate the movement with anarchy, I won't be the last to do so. That's the downside to a mob like lack of cohesion where each participant delivers their own message and set of goals.

This Interactions tells me that leaders, messages and goals are desperately needed. You can't just expect people to "get it".

And so, the overarching goal, IYHO, is . . .

To wrest money and by extension this elite class from our political system.  The class that it driving austerity rather than much needed aid and programs, the class that wants extract wealth rather than contribute to society at large.

So, they just want to take money? This is the dumbest-assed way I've ever seen to steal money from someone. I think that your opinion is probably further off than mine. Of course, I am not using anarchy in a negative sense, and you seem to be . . .

Troll.

"asshole"

Troll.

bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang 

I think the problem with this movement is the statement you used for your headline: "We're not a leaderless movement. We're a movement of leaders." And, that's all fine and good, but it doesn't really create a strong, electrifying message. I know we live in a crowd-sourced era of participant democracy where all voices have opportunity to be heard at equal volumes and all that, but the majority of people don't look at a mass without visible leadership and see democracy in action. They see mob. People don't rally behind mobs, at least not for any length of time. Those who fought for civil rights didn't rally around a movement of leaders. They rallied around King.

What this movement needs more than anything is a face, somebody charismatic who can put a single voice behind a clearly-stated set of goals. It needs a human dimension, somebody with whom the out-of-work union guy or the single mom working two jobs or the unemployed college grad with six-figure debt can connect. Who cares about getting the message to the two Wall Street douches or the guys with the signs in the window? There are a lot of people out there who want what this movement has to offer, but they need to see a face inviting them in.

Moreover, the civil rights movement didn't just put out a message and expect people to show. There weren't these vague Twitter messages saying, "hey, things might get bad, so, um, come on down, maybe, and bring cameras." No, they had a leadership that went out among people, that worked door-to-door and through civic groups and held meetings to drum up support. If this movement is to be successful, it needs to understand that simply holding a sign and banging a bongo won't get people engaged. They need to develop a strong message and work at taking it to people instead of waiting for people to walk by.

As for your pieces, Aaron, I think you have a real opportunity here. What you've done so far--especially in the piece above--isn't so much tell the story behind the movement as discuss the mechanics of the movement itself. This is a process piece, and most people don't really care about process. You've talked to the people there and asked them what they're doing with their time and where they're keeping their stuff while they're there, and that's fine. But now I think you have an opportunity to do the movement greater service by talking more about why they're there. And not just in vague economic terms and platitudes about corporate repression and concentrated wealth. Talk about individual lives. Talk to the kid with the six-figure college debt, and describe in precise, individualized detail how he got there and how he's tried to get out and what specifically has held him back. Sarah comes down there after working a 45-hour work week, which shows incredible commitment. Now tell us why she has to work 45-hour weeks, and how much (or how little) she makes and what that gets her and what she has to sacrifice to do it. Give us specific examples of limited opportunities, of the real obstacles people face, and then show us how these obstacles relate to the platitudes.

You can go deep with this. If this group is to become anything more than a bunch of people holding signs, it needs you and others like you to go deep.

Blue, I appreciate your comments and wish I had more time to add to them. But what I can say is that I am in fact, trying to do that sort of thing - but that kind of process piece takes a little more time than the few hours I had to spend transcribing the interviews I got yesterday for an update.

But, if you are interested I can tell you that I've collected a ton of interviews, about people's lives, about what brought them there, about how they feel about trying to create their own democratic process of decision making on the streets with a megaphone (you see this in the general assembly meetings). I do plan on putting that post together very soon.

So anyway, thanks. Much appreciated.

I know this is a blog and not a news page (I have defended Chicagoist on that basis in the past). Still, aaroncynic, if these posts chronicled your interactions with a single individual the audience would be yelling "just kiss already!" They are painful to read. Maybe if you start saying "we" when talking about the protesters it will be better. Now there is a vague intimation of neutrality that just isn't there.

Sorry to make you sad, sir. I'm taking this story from a different angle. The reports that Chuck and Chris have made were much less "kiss already," as you describe.

I said the following in my first piece on covering this: "In the interest of full disclosure, I should remind readers I've
written several posts in support of the Occupy movement. I marched in
the streets more than a decade ago in support of similar issues and
ideas, and I've seen political movements rise and disappear into
history's dustbin in a heartbeat.

What's always stuck with me participating and covering movements like
Occupy Chicago is that once the surface is scratched, one finds the
overwhelming desire of demonstrators to be inclusive, to make change not
through standoffs with police or politicians, but to change the world
through community building, one conversation at a time."

So these are first person accounts to which I have already disclosed my support of the movement, as it were.

Honestly, I would be more than happy to sit down with random passersby on the street and see how they feel. I'd love to have been able to interview the two well dressed 20somethings who passed by yesterday chanting "WALL STREET, WALL STREET!" So far, they haven't been that interested in talking.

Moreover, I feel that the opinions of Occupy Chicago's detractors are easily findable and well know. Business Insider ran a piece with a headline hinting that OWS demos were "crazy." Rank and file right wingers have called OWS demonstrators terrorists, and most mainstream media coverage has focused on a disorganized group of radical leftist hippies who just don't understand how the world works. 

Because of how nebulous and ever changing this movement is, I think the real story is in those of the people I've interviewed (at least a dozen) and others I've spoken and spent time with, and for the most part, they've all been nice, friendly, intelligent and kind people.

Yes. I don't really feel like you read what I wrote. I don't object to your sympathy or your posts. I think that you are not "covering" the protests so much as providing a narrative outlet. Just do it. Just be part of the protest and give a narrative. It would be easier to write and easier to read.

Moreover, I feel that the opinions of Occupy Chicago's detractors are easily findable and well know.

Exactly, the MSM has been dismissive from the get go.  You even have limousine liberals like John Stewart mocking them: "looks like Bonnaroo"...

How you can look at Stewart's coverage of Occupy Wall Street and think that he is mocking them is beyond me.  Sure, he gets an easy dig or two in, but he spends most of his piece eviscerating the right wing talking heads for trying to de-legitimize the protests.

I guess Jon Stewart must be center right along with the rest of us non-Marxists...

In the footage I saw, he was indeed mocking them as 'hippies' which may be comedy, but it is also the narrative that the MSM is pushing.  His whole "Rally to restore sanity" was indeed itself a mocking of anybody who has the audacity to have convictions, right or left.  That's his schtick:  "We're cool and ironic, we aren't dumb like people who actually care about issues". 

"marxists"  lol.  ok there McCarthy..

I'm not calling this movement marxist, nor am I calling the Occupy Wall Street folks that.  I quite honestly haven't come up with an adequate label for all of that.

I'm calling *you* a marxist.  For crissake, you've used "rentier class" several times in the last few discussions on the matter, what conclusions are we supposed to draw.  It doesn't help that you label everyone to the right of you "center right".

Would "extreme left" be a better label?  "really, really left"?

I'm not a backer of Marxist policy, unless you consider Scandinavian style social democracy "Marxism".  Do you?  Rentier Class is a great word to describe an elite business class that pretty much extracts wealth not so much by creating, but owning or moving around assets if you will.  It's a great way to describe them and yes it was coined by Marxists.

Coincidentally this tiny elite controls our politicians/political process and drives our policy making, and only with enriching themselves and extracting wealth in mind.

That IS the problem, and that's what this is all about.

I am starting to think that anarchism (in the political sense, not in the  sense of CHAOS!) is the most appropriate term. The sense that the state and its institutions are broken and the level of direct democracy make me think that. It would also explain the lack of coherent agenda because what it really comes down to is that the institutions we have don't leave room for people to participate in society in the context of their ethics and morality (which I suspect the protesters think are generally positive).

Of course, I haven't really heard anyone express that. It's more a gathering of all the expressions I hear and signs I read, so it may not be right.

And no, Navin, you did not say or imply anything like this, so I am not "getting it." You just snarked.

Oh I thought you "got it" all along.  That's what was so annoying.

I don't know if I get it yet. I'm certainly getting help neither from you nor the protesters.

u only have yourself to blame.

W

H

A

T

?

Yeah, he really shredded them.

http://www.dangerousminds.net/...

Can you believe a "whiny white kid" complained about the real problem of outrageous and almost uniquely American education debts while people are hungry in North Korea/Africa/Myanmar?

That's the fallacy amirite?
That and assigning a random interviewee as the poster boy (in your mind) for a huge movement of angry people.

You're losing your edge. If I try to understand the specific issues people are concerned about, I am unfairly assigning their issue to the whole group. If I don't and just see a mass of writhing hippies, I'm denigrating the group. THAT is a fallacy.

P.S. Your reading of Stewart is perhaps the best evidence that you are losing it.

It's funny how threatened and angry these kids make you feel.  Poor D.....

I'll be down there this weekend, come and say hi!

Anyone who unjustly claims to speak for a vast majority without bothering to gain their affirmation and support is going to cause anger.

I am, of course, saying that in my role as speaker for the 99% of Obama voters who now want him to be impeached. ;-)

I wouldn't actually say threatened or angry. In fact, they affirmatively do *not* make me angry. I do like your triumphalist tone though. Best to just assume they stand for what you stand for. That way you're already a winner. If it turns out they don't stand for what you stand for you can just say they were "instigators" or otherwise marginalize them. Sadly, my weekend is extremely busy, so I will not be there.

As for aaroncynic, if the construction " the Chicago demonstrations have remained peaceful, aside from a random act of vandalism by a single protester whose actions were quickly shunted by the movement at large" doesn't make you squirm for its awkwardness . . . nothing ever will.

It's funny watching you spend days mocking and pretending not to know what people are angry about. You could get a show on CNN or Fox.

Yes. Exactly. Navin knows it all. Again.

See, if I choose to focus on the people interviewed who say things like "my student loans for grad school are too high" I will dismiss the entire thing as first-world trustifarianism. I am resisting that urge because it is possible that there is something important happening. So, yeah. I have questions. Sorry about that.

College fees have gone up 439% since the '80s while median income rose 147%.  So there's more to what he's saying than you think, but it's just one of many things that people recognize as rotten.  To pretend to not understand why people are upset with the elite business class and what it's done to this country is to be deliberately dishonest.

"Why are people upset with the business elite?  I just can't  wrap my head around it......."

Part of the problem is that there are a jillion reasons to be fed up.  One thing they all have in common is the rentier class. People are understanding that all policy and politics seems to work in America to simply enrich that elite, even if they can't always articulate it well.

Good grief. You are mixing so much shit into a pot and then calling other people dishonest. It's astounding.

Do you know why I did not get a Masters in history, political science, or German? Because they were poor investments of my time and resources. Hmmm.

Just stop. You know I don't give a shit about your sophistry and you know I'm just going to ignore it.

I think you just embarrassed yourself by talking about a subject that is a real problem:  Ever skyrocketing education fees and debts.

Not only did you do that, but you talked about it as "first world probs".  Funny because in a lot of first world countries it is NOT a problem.  Just one of many reasons for people to be angry at a policy setting business elite.

No. You're right. Asshole, whiney white kid problems. There, I fixed it.

So your anger isn't rooted in reason.

W

H

A

T

?

"aside from a random act of vandalism by a single protester whose actions were quickly shunted by the movement at large"

You're clearly not counting all the stickers so lovingly glued to light poles and other public utility posts -- all of which will need to be removed by some members of the 99%, and probably at taxpayer expense.

Let us not forget the office workers working around LaSalle and Jackson that make up the 99% that are forced to listen to the non-stop banging on plastic buckets or wastes countless of hours of police officers' time fielding noise complaints.