Occupying Autumn


Well the old calendar on the wall says its time for my quarterly blog post.

I miss writing in this space on a regular basis but, for various reasons, a couple of short Twitter outbursts per day is about all I can manage these days.

As I write, the ridiculous “Occupy _________ ” (fill in the blank with the smelly, disease-ridden location of your choice) hippie nostalgia flea circus is still underway and rapidly devolving into little Lord of the Flies reenactments scattered across the country. And they’re finally getting the over-reactions from local police they’ve been craving.

“Come See the Violence Inherent in the System!”

Early on, the “Occupy Wall Street” participants were merely the usual enviro-Marxist rabble who can be counted on to show up and protest any major capitalist event–G12 summits , WTO meetings, NATO conferences, etc.. But once it became clear to the broader Left-wing sphere that TV cameras were going to remain pointed at the Wall Street protests for an extended period of time, the unions and other core constituencies of the Democrat’s base quickly rushed in to “help.”

The robust news attention can be attributed the desperation felt by the liberal media industrial complex to find a grassroots liberal corollary to the Tea Party movement. The fact that many in the media and on the Left actually view the anarchist, know-nothing OWS-ers as reciprocal to the silver-haired Tea Party conventioneers from flyover country speaks volumes about how out of touch they are.

Let’s take a closer look at the “Occupy” movement’s simultaneously hilarious and offensive core narrative–the 99% vs 1%.


No. No you’re not. If you’re spending day after day camping¬†in Zuccotti park wearing a Guy Fawkes mask advocating the abolition of private property, an end to the free enterprise system, and government control of virtually all aspects of economic life,¬† you don’t speak for the 99% of Americans who earn less than $1.2 million per year (which is the economic border between the so-called 1% and the rest of us.)

This contrived and arbitrary distinction is nonsense at many levels. First of all the narrative is built around the antiquated, FDR-era notion that Republicans and conservatives are the rich and the ranks of liberal Democrats are filled by the poor. It’s the article of blind faith encapsulated by this popular OWS sign/T-shirt:

99I say “blind” faith because one has to be willfully ignorant of a mountain of facts to still cling to this narrative. The Obama administration is filled with former principals at Goldman Sachs and advised by the very people that who turned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the primary trigger of the debt/liquidity crisis of 2008.

The donor lists of the DNC are a who’s who of the mega-rich and famous. And for every one wealthy conservative trust like that of the Koch Brothers, one can point to 30 left-leaning ones funded by liberal billionaires.

Here’s actress Anne Hathaway marching with the OWS the other day.


One of her co-marchers was asked about her views. The reply was, “We’re demanding free higher education.”

And there you have it. The ingredients of this noxious stew are as follows:

  • A gigantic sense of entitlement.
  • Resentment of the successful
  • A double standard that embraces those who make millions singing, writing, or pretending to be other people in front of a camera.
  • Disdain for entrepreneurs, a.k.a., the money-grubbing bourgeois merchants seeking their filthy “profits.”
  • Utter cluelessness about economic realities or the science of energy production.
  • A cheery determination to adopt all of the policies that have the economic wheels coming off in Europe.

Obama, many congressional Democrats, and the media are eating it up.

Update: OWS has lost Jon Stewart! Check out this brilliant piece of reporting from Zuccotti Park. Watch for the delicious statement from one of the occupiers when asked why he won’t share his iPad: “I’m against private property, but not personal property.”