The McMedia always seems to refer to the occupiers as not knowing what they are doing or what they want. To me, this movement in a nutshell is an awareness campaign to highlight global economic corruption, and I think it's at least getting a dialogue going on the matter.
Observers of the movement, for the most part, don't involve themselves in that dialogue, they choose to let their conclusions fall into two simple categories. They conclude either that:
A: "look at all these bums camping in the street, don't they know the economy made them those cool Ipads? They should get off the street and go pay homage at Steve Jobs tomb and beg forgiveness"
B: "Why are the police arresting them and beating them up? Are we actually living in a police state? This sucks."
These are the two most popular opinions and with good reason. These are the two groupings of images you see most concerning the Occupy Movement...and it has literally become a war of images.
Concerning conclusion "A", I do feel despite Apple's horrid sweat shop labor practices that they are indeed a ligitamate business that researches technology and creates employment. Personally, I have never owned an Apple product (except for a free download of Quicktime to watch .mov files) but I don't think it makes the Occupiers hypocrites for having these products.
I think conclusion "B" is a little more damning than "A", holding down men and women and beating them is a much more shocking image than some pictures of I-shit. The police make themselves look like the worst possible sort of thug when they act like that. They look like government ordained street gangs out there. (Edit: These images were mostly spread by foreign news networks to make America look bad it seems).
on Ronnie-boy Paul
 |
| Ronnie-boy |
The most odd development in the Occupy Movement (in the US anyway) has been the cult following which has sprung around Bible Belt politician Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is very fringy, and a beloved member of the John Birch Society. On abortion for example, he believes the moment the sperm hits the egg it is considered a human (http://en.wikipedia.org/
In 1964 he wrote congress to convince them not to pass the Civil Rights Act which gave equal rights and opurtunities to black Americans. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X died trying to make these human right gains and help blacks to not be treated like second class citizens. It's very odd to be against equal rights. In fact, in 2004 on the anniversary of the Civil Right Act...Ron Paul addressed congress with this:
"...contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Passing a bill which prohibited businesses from refusing to serve black customers apparently was bad according to Ron Paul because it limited those businesses' freedom. Give me a break.
Take another example of the John Birch Society's interpretation of "freedom." In the 1970's women caught the equal rights fever that was going around and various women's groups wanted a 1923 law proposed by Alice Paul (one of the chicks who spear headed the women suffrage movement in 1920 which won female Americans the right to vote) to be ratified. This law was the Equal Rights Amendment which simply stated that, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." (http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml). The main opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment was the John Birch Society who felt that this amendment would "limit freedom."
 |
| pronounced: Shlaff-Lee |
The John Birch Society assigned the loveable Phyllis Schlafly to be the leader of the anti-ERA squad, and the main rhetorical claim used was the same old "it will limit your freedom" which is basically the JBS mantra. Elizebeth Kolbert gives a good summary of Schlafly's opposition to the ERA in a 2005 New Yorker article,
"American women, she wrote in the Phyllis Schlafly Report, were blessed to live in a country where Christian traditions of chivalry still held—'a man’s first significant purchase (after a car) is a diamond for his bride'—and where free enterprise was continually improving life for the weaker sex. 'The great heroes of women’s liberation are not the straggly haired women on television talk shows and picket lines,' she asserted, but 'geniuses' like 'Clarence Birdseye, who invented the process for freezing foods.' Why, Schlafly demanded, should women 'lower' themselves to equal rights 'when we already have the status of special privilege?' Leaders of the pro-E.R.A. campaign found it hard to take such arguments seriously: according to one contemporary account, copies of the Report became collectors’ items among feminists, acquired for their comic value."
The John Birch Society sees change of any sort as the collapse of its image of America. The U.S.A. of yore is a story book in their minds, a picturesque beautiful place with eagles and all kinds of nice shit. Their vision of U.S. history in their cute little brains doesn't include images of the slavery, or civil war, or public hangings, or the KKK....just eagles and frozen food. They have nostalgia for an age which never existed.
Ron Paul wants the gold standard back for that reason alone, because that's the way it used to be when America was "normal." He wants everything back to the old ways when negroes and women couldn't vote and everyone prayed to Jesus...to Ron that's "normal." Returning to the "old ways" isn't going to stop corruption, I'm sorry but returning to gold is not the answer.
Having Ron Paul as president of a country would be really fucked up.
