(no subject)

[arethinn]

http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party.html

"Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government's constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minute—aren't those things connected? [...] Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together."

Comments

[all_adream]

I don't see any great argument against this simplification, especially since other things could be substituted if they pertained, and it would still apply: like if some church or other group were in the aforementioned position of 'too much power', it'd still be bad. Then again, different bunches might be for or against it then--

[laughinglotus]

Yes, I think this political cartoon is insightful and correct in many ways. There are also the bat shit tea partiers who think the U.S. is a Christian nation and the dumb ass occupiers who are just sort of protesting... you know... the system and stuff... and yeah of stick it to the man man and stuff. But the intelligent ones on both sides are actually on very similar pages.

[elf]

It's *mostly* correct. Except "large corporations" really needs to mention "banks." Which are large corporations... but the OWS crowd is not protesting Disney, Time-Warner & Mattel as much as Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and the Federal Reserve.

I do notice the media trying to shift the focus from "banks" to "corporations," which is understandable, if annoying. Corporate greed & corruption are easy to understand--and easy to suggest fixes for. Economic mismanagement is complicated and fuzzy--and potential fixes include "change the way money works in the US," which is scary.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced - what that overly optimistic diagram misses is two exceedingly important data points - the fact that the actual trigger for the "tea party" was a combination of racist outrage at having a black man as president and calls to action by Fox News (at the behest of the Koch brothers and similar people). As far as I can see, the Occupy Wallstreet movement is actually both self-generated and focused on the issues it actually claims to be about.

There may well have been some people in the Tea Party who were not racist corporate stooges, but they were always in the extreme minority. A look at the demographics of the tea-baggers, and they are mostly the hardcore white fundy-racist Republican base who enthusiastically supported Shrub while he ruined the economy.

[dionysusdevotee.livejournal.com]

By the time the tea parties were discovered by anyone resembling the left or mainstream, they were completely eviscerated between the mainstream right coopting the message for its own purposes, and the mainstream lefts typical smear merchant assault squad.

I like the graph. Theres a word for the system described in the center. Mussolini called it fascism.

I personally am thrilled that the OWS movement (so far) has succeeded in surviving the same evisceration attempt, the demonizing by the Right noise machine (Fox, etc) and the attempted cooption of the usual cast of Left cowboys. (Moveon.org, and Michale Moore types). They're actually focusing on the man behind the curtain instead of being corralled for once.

Thats why I'll be at the Fed building with OSF on Saturday.

The problem the author is having is that they consider people like Krugman, Coultier, Olberman and think progress as anything other than mouthpieces for the "good cop/bad cop" routine of the establishment. Of course they are confused as to who to believe .

I think the letter linked in the article really gets to it;
http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_a

Thanks for sharing this!