Hey, there! Log in / Register
Occupy Marlborough
By adamg on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 6:23pm
Paul Keleher reports a pro-Occupy Wall Street demonstration sprung up in downtown Marlborough today - with demonstrators who seemed, on average, a bit older than their counterparts in Dewey Square.
Copyright Paul Keleher. Posted in the Universal Hub pool on Flickr.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So we already knew that the
So we already knew that the OWS movement was more popular than the Tea Party. Now we know that it's more diverse as well since the Tea Party is virtually all white, virtually all upper middle class, and disproportionately old.
OWS appeals to all, including
OWS appeals to all, including the Tea Party. Also, the Tea Party is much broader than people think, it's a shame all the assholes take the light for the Tea Party. I blame Palin.
Not really. Various
Not really. Various demographic studies have shown that people who identify as Tea Partiers are disproportionately white, disproportionately old, and disproportionately upper middle class. Which isn't to say that there aren't people who don't tick those boxes who support the Tea Party but the basic demographic profile of a Tea Partier is a white person over 55 who is upper middle class. Which shouldn't be surprising considering their platform. They're a reactionary movement bent on protecting the privileges of an elite which is slipping into demographic irrelevance.
Tea Party justly gets a bad rap
from the professionals at FreedomWorks, and Americans For Prosperity who introduced the race-baiting rhetoric, and calling liberals socialists and communists. The rhetoric is common among more extreme rank-and-file and naturally, it gets all the attention.
Tea Party has suffered a great deal in public relations because of the things they say but also becuase of the policies they advocate, more on that later.
You should know that Tea Party candidate Herman Cain is a Koch Brothers stalking horse. Cain speaks for them, their policies. When you hear Koch Brothers, think Americans For Prosperity, Cato, etc.
Cain is the candidate that talks about black people being brainwashed by democrats and living on their plantation. See what I mean about race-baiting?
Koch Brothers' AFP Tea Party candidates really do want to end social Security, Medicare and the EPA.
They argue that you're not free if you participate in these social safety net programs that have diminished elderly poverty in the US, and kept our land, air and water from making us sick.
Medicare is a solution to an unaffordable private health insurance for the elderly. It needs work on long term cost control but so does all health insurance.
Social Security is an earned benefit that provides poverty-level income but with it, you can afford a place to live, and food. You've been paying into it your whole working life.
The EPA protects water, air and land from pollution by those who would profit from it. Nixon signed the bill because a river in Ohio was catching fire from all the toxic sludge dumped in it.
Blame the Teaparty
When you stack up their polled beliefs and ideas; they very interesting look exactly like another 30% polled somewhere.
It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
OWS more popular than the Tea Party? Ha!
Get back to me when OWS identifies an objective then picks up 63 seats in the U.S. House, six seats in the U.S. Senate, and 680 seats in state legislative races all in one day, a la the Tea Party backed GOP in 2010. Until then, OWS is little more than a communal campsite. As for the "diversity" of OWS, other than the infamous anti-semitic African American who went viral and millionaires Kanye West, "Reverend" Al Sharpton and Deval Patrick, the Occupy movement looks lilly white, quite frankly.
Your hallucinations
Will never be reality.
Your counter argument is
Your counter argument is rather silly. OWS has been going for only about a month now and there have been no significant elections of any sort, let alone a congressional election. Frankly at this point in its history the same comment could be made with equal validity of the Tea Party.
What couldn't be said about the Tea Party is the blazing popularity that the OWS movement has shown, within less than a month going from one protest in Manhattan to dozens of protests across the country and even ones abroad. The Tea Party in contrast took quite some time to move from being a rhetorical slogan and a call to action to an actual political movement. Furthermore, polling shows that the Occupy Wall Street movement is significantly more popular than the Tea Party. While about 54% of Americans viewing OWS favorably only a measly 27% view the Tea Party favorably.
37% of 218,054,301 eligible
Or simply a LOT of people didn't bother to show up to vote in the midterms.
It's why the criticisms of Obama and the congress fall on death ears for me. The people who wanted change in 2008 didn't bother to put people into office that would see through on that promise in 2010.
It also shows you how a minority party, like the GOP, can control much more than it should. They made up 53% of a dismal turnout, and the ones that back the teaparty tend to vote upwards of 90% of their registration.
The only thing remarkable about 2010 was the general apathy of most voters; or the sheer stupidity that one man elected to one position in 2010 was going to change everything after the huge frak up that was GWB.
Right and wrong
Fishy is probably right that the OWS movement will never get 63 seats in the House, 6 in the Senate, and 680 seats in state legislative races. However, he will probably prove wrong about both the popularity and the diversity of OWS.
The Tea Party is a hybrid popular / corporate movement. It was conceived and launched by a financial trader / executive who was a business news commentator on a major news network (Rick Santelli), it is bankrolled largely by politically motivated billionaires (the Koch Brothers), and it is supported by major long-term figures in the Republican establishment (Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, etc.) Rather than something entirely new, it's a new front or face for the same Republican fringe that's been taking over the conservative center for decades.
The electoral success of the Tea Party probably owes less to the "grassroots" element of the movement that it does to the combination of millions of dollars and political connections. The organization has successfully rolled the old Bircher wing of the Republican Party in with ex-Ron Paul supporters, and bused in senior citizens to support the numbers and the appearance of a grass-roots movement. But the electoral seats were bought and paid for like most are.
Scott Brown is raking in contributions from the financial industry in exchange for working hard to reduce regulations on them. Wall Street is going to pay a lot of money in the next cycle to repel Elizabeth Warren. Fake astro-turf organizations and their patsies are going to scream and yell about how she is a Harvard snob and Scotty's designer barn jacket proves he's a man of the people, and propaganda networks tied into the party are going to give that great airtime. Suckers like Fishy are going to swallow it hook, line, and sinker while Goldman Sachs and the Koch Brothers laugh all the way to the bank with their bailouts and subsidies.
so...what about George Soros?
so...what about George Soros?
Soros
Soros is a very rich man, who is a major donor to many causes, primarily the Open Society Institute, which fights to extend democracy, science, and education at home and abroad. He played a major role in the transition of Hungary from communism to capitalism, and continues to be a principal force in opening former Soviet republics to democracy and capitalism.
Soros is also a favorite bogeyman of far right wing freaks like Limbaugh for his contributions to democratization of American society. Limbaugh recently invented the idea that Soros must be behind the OWS protests. Reuters has an article about the falsehood up now.
so based on the link you
so based on the link you provided, Soros's outfit gives a grant to a group that then helps to fund the occupiers and this keeps Soros out of it, how convenient!
Uh, do you know how to read?
Soros gave money to Tides for specific purposes (could have been for a cure for malaria for all you know) but according to the article none of those purposes were the publication of Adbusters.
Tides gives out money to liberal non-profits, like Adbusters. They've given out an average of about $18,000 a year to Adbusters over the past 10 years (that's not even enough to pay for an unpaid intern). None of that Tides money was donated from Soros and 95% of Adbusters' budget comes from their subscribers directly (careful, Soros might be a subscriber...which means they'd get like $47/yr from him!!).
Finally, all Adbusters did was create a rallying call for September 17th. They made a sign and an article about how Tahrir Square could happen on Wall Street too. That was it. They didn't paint the Constitution on a bus, they didn't hire a news network or media company to tell its fans to go to one of their sponsored rallies, and they didn't even propose to be its spokesperson. So if that's "funding Occupy Wall Street", then every person who made a protest sign, posted a tweet, or talked to their neighbor about it is "funding" OWS.
Soros surely has a lot of work to do if he wants to be its major contributor at this point. Someone buy that man a Sharpie.
TL;DR version: George Soros doesn't even own a permanent marker.
pretty touchy about Soros?
pretty touchy about Soros?
Nope
I personally couldn't give two shits about Soros. I'm touchy about reading comprehension, though.
so...what about Richard Mellon Scaife?
or the Koch Brothers for that matter?
Get back to me
Can you let me know why you're counting any and every Republican elected in 2010 as a "Tea Party" victory? Seems to me the whole point of the Tea Party was to stand out and apart from the Republicans who were as guilty as a Democrat at wild unfunded spending. It was a third party system which is why Bachmann started her own caucus in the House, right? In that way, I don't see a single Tea Party victory. They are all Republican victories. The Tea Party was an absolute failure that wasn't strong enough to avoid being swallowed by one of the majority parties that already existed. It also only ran a candidate on 3 states' ballots and none of them won if a Republican was also on the ballot (in fact, they never garnered more than 11% of the vote if both major parties had candidates). Finally, even when the Tea Party endorsed/financially supported a Republican, only 32% of those elections were won by their selected candidate. The Tea Party was a media darling...but highly ineffectual compared to the Republican effort on its own...unless you want to continue to carry water for the "Republican win = Tea Party win" meme like a good GOP toadie.
Also, let me know when the Tea Party has concurrent nationwide continual protests...that aren't sponsored by Fox News.
As far as a "lilly(sic) white" OWS, tell that to Dr. Cornell West who was just arrested in DC as part of the movement.
You use the arrest of one
You use the arrest of one wealthy black professor to show that the protest is diverse LOL!