Pre-Occupation With Wall Street

I have watched and read quite a bit about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which began in New York and has since spread to a number of other locales. 

While some demonstrations number in the thousands, other groups would be challenged to occupy an elevator. 

As much as I try, it's hard for me to grasp the message of the Occupy movement.  Rich people bad, everyone else good?  Wealth should be re-distributed?  Corporate "fat cats" need to be held accountable?  Basic cable and 4G for all?

I understand the frustration, even anger, which is real, and palpable. 

For the most part, Occupy protesters are upset that so much is in the hands of so few.  The so-called "1%" control most of our nation's wealth while the other 99% feel like they're looking in with lips pressed against a real life snow globe.

A CBS/New York Times poll shows that 42% of Americans majority agree with the views of the occupy movement.  But what are the views?

As much as I love a good poll, this one reminds me of when Congress sends out "constituent surveys" with loaded questions like, "Should your tax dollars be used to build nuclear bombs instead of providing food and shelter to innocent, defenseless puppies?"
 
The Occupy movement is real, but the agenda, and sustainability, are unclear.

Some have tried to equate Occupy with the Tea Party.  But the Tea Party, from the beginning, was a movement with a political agenda. 
 
Say what you like about Tea Partiers, but they came, they saw, they conquered.  They altered the  landscape in 2010 by setting an agenda and running candidates for Congress.  Loud ones. 

So far the Occupiers operate outside the political realm.  In fact, I saw Democratic Congressman Barney Frank pleading with protesters the other night to not cast aside the political process, even though most politicians have avoided Occupy like Donald Trump avoids the subway.

Perhaps the real "threat" or lasting impact of the Occupy movement is that the ranks of disenfranchised voters will grow, affecting future election turnout and leadership.  

I hope not.  Free speech is a precious right, and a responsibility. 

What's your take on the Occupy movement?  I would enjoy hearing from you.

The Unknown Blogger

A friend of mine was recently lamenting the fact that a member of his family, an elected official, is often attacked on Internet message boards. 

He's not bothered by criticism per say but that the fact that most of it comes via anonymous "comments" on political and newsie websites.


In the old days a dissenter had a few choices. Either show up at a meeting or hearing, call or write letters.  And if your letter made it into the local rag, it was signed.  By you.  Name and city. 

I'm not a fan of message boards, which are kind of like shouting out the window at passing cars. 

But they're here to stay, along with our increasingly "anonymous" society. 
Ironically, we become more anonymous by embracing Facebook and Twitter,  "sharing" technologies that allow us to secretly view each others lives.

Does anonymity have limits?

The other day I came across this item in the Chicago Tribune in a story about President Obama's jobs plan. 

"In his remarks, the president will make clear he's not going to support any plan that asks something of some Americans and nothing of others."  This was according to a White House aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in a conference call with reporters. 

Something is amiss here, beyond my "well duh" reaction to Deep Throat's earth shattering revelation.

A conference call? 

First I've heard of that one.  When I hear "anonymous source" I think of trench coats, chapeaus and parking garages, not a conference line and bank of microphones.  I suppose the source used one of those voice altering machines you see on shows like 60 Minutes, or maybe as an extra precaution sat behind one of those kiddie "puppet stages" with the shade drawn. 

And how did this source get the word out for the conference call?  Maybe via email: "Please join me as I leak very special information about the Obama jobs plan."  Or perhaps, borrowing from Gordon Gekko, "Blue Horseshoe loves Obama's jobs plan."

The conference call had to be set up en masse, no phone calls, because any reporter worth a darn would beg for an exclusive. 

This is cheating, plain and simple.  The annonymous source meets message boards. 

If you are going to hurl tomatoes, or leak information, follow the rules. 

Signed,

The Unknown Blogger