![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I wrote this a few weeks ago, in an attempt to get my thoughts about, doubts on, and suggestions for the Occupy movement down in some sort of concrete form rather than buzzing around in my head. I sent it to a friend of mine who's involved with the movement for feedback and/or clarification, but she hasn't gotten back to me – understandable as it is bloody long and she has a world to save. History continues rumbling along apace, though, and I figured if I was going to share it at all, sooner was better than later. It's a little bit out of date but I hope the theory parts still stand...
I'm leaving comments open for now, because I want feedback, but the minute it starts getting hot in here I will not hesitate to lock them. I am really amazingly busy at work these days and do not have time to respond in a thoughtful way to anything, but I still read everything, so please don't let that stop you from having a say.
Before I get into the meat of the issue, I feel that I should explain myself. I have been watching the Occupy movement with a certain amount of interest since it first came on my radar. Usually I sit back and piece together information on such things as it comes my way from a number of sources, but until very recently this particular movement has been less than forthcoming in such regards. I get most of my news from international sources (the BBC and CBC, mainly) as I find American media distinctly uninformative even when it's not actively annoying me or throwing up red herrings. There are worldwide Occupations, but the movement's core is in, and will have the most effect on, the United States – foreign media doesn't have as much incentive to cover it in depth, so for the most part I've missed out on that end of things.
Growing up in a house that had Rush Limbaugh and his ilk spewing from every media orifice, I have a deeply ingrained suspicion of impassioned or emotionally manipulative oratory no matter where it's coming from,* and prefer to have the views of the people distributing ideas filtered through either an objective (or trying-to-be objective) third party, or challenged by an intelligent and skeptical interviewer. There has been shockingly little of that in this area – I heard the first really serious discussion of this nature just this past Saturday on the CBC. I may work in the arts but I am a scientist at heart, and I will not accept a theory – scientific, artistic, or political – until it's been peer reviewed and thoroughly tested by the best challenges that can be thrown at it. The Day 6 interview was a good start, but there needs to be a lot more of that.
*This is also why I try to avoid anything remotely political on this blog, because I've had enough of that thank you, and I am only posting this very hesitantly because I can think of no better way to relieve my ignorance.
A benefit of watching from the sidelines is that I've been able to see the core message of the movement coalesce from a hundred songs to the tune of 'we're pissed off' to a much more focused 'get big business out of politics and return democracy to the people,' with a sub-motif of 'share the wealth'. Part of the reason I'm especially wary of the stirring rabble-rousing coming from 'the horse's mouth' as it were, is that, as far as I can tell, I am inclined to agree with their points. As far as I can tell, it's hard for any sane and informed person not to. But that is as far as I can tell, which at present feels like not very far at all.
On a personal level, knowing that my sentiments put me at risk of getting swept up causes me to put on the brakes and try to take a closer look. Due to the lack of third-party information and the huge amount of unfiltered noise that will greet any internet search on the topic, I decided the most effective way of sorting anything out was to put down my thoughts on the movement as I see it and invite clarification from any informed person willing to read them.
( My Doubts Re: Getting Money out of Politics )
( My Doubts Re: the Modus Operandi and Potential Progression of Causality )
( Lofty Pronouncements from an Armchair Revolutionary )
And finally, because I can only remain earnest for so long:
Seriously, people, THEME SONG. Do I have to spell it out for you?
I'm leaving comments open for now, because I want feedback, but the minute it starts getting hot in here I will not hesitate to lock them. I am really amazingly busy at work these days and do not have time to respond in a thoughtful way to anything, but I still read everything, so please don't let that stop you from having a say.
Before I get into the meat of the issue, I feel that I should explain myself. I have been watching the Occupy movement with a certain amount of interest since it first came on my radar. Usually I sit back and piece together information on such things as it comes my way from a number of sources, but until very recently this particular movement has been less than forthcoming in such regards. I get most of my news from international sources (the BBC and CBC, mainly) as I find American media distinctly uninformative even when it's not actively annoying me or throwing up red herrings. There are worldwide Occupations, but the movement's core is in, and will have the most effect on, the United States – foreign media doesn't have as much incentive to cover it in depth, so for the most part I've missed out on that end of things.
Growing up in a house that had Rush Limbaugh and his ilk spewing from every media orifice, I have a deeply ingrained suspicion of impassioned or emotionally manipulative oratory no matter where it's coming from,* and prefer to have the views of the people distributing ideas filtered through either an objective (or trying-to-be objective) third party, or challenged by an intelligent and skeptical interviewer. There has been shockingly little of that in this area – I heard the first really serious discussion of this nature just this past Saturday on the CBC. I may work in the arts but I am a scientist at heart, and I will not accept a theory – scientific, artistic, or political – until it's been peer reviewed and thoroughly tested by the best challenges that can be thrown at it. The Day 6 interview was a good start, but there needs to be a lot more of that.
*This is also why I try to avoid anything remotely political on this blog, because I've had enough of that thank you, and I am only posting this very hesitantly because I can think of no better way to relieve my ignorance.
A benefit of watching from the sidelines is that I've been able to see the core message of the movement coalesce from a hundred songs to the tune of 'we're pissed off' to a much more focused 'get big business out of politics and return democracy to the people,' with a sub-motif of 'share the wealth'. Part of the reason I'm especially wary of the stirring rabble-rousing coming from 'the horse's mouth' as it were, is that, as far as I can tell, I am inclined to agree with their points. As far as I can tell, it's hard for any sane and informed person not to. But that is as far as I can tell, which at present feels like not very far at all.
On a personal level, knowing that my sentiments put me at risk of getting swept up causes me to put on the brakes and try to take a closer look. Due to the lack of third-party information and the huge amount of unfiltered noise that will greet any internet search on the topic, I decided the most effective way of sorting anything out was to put down my thoughts on the movement as I see it and invite clarification from any informed person willing to read them.
( My Doubts Re: Getting Money out of Politics )
( My Doubts Re: the Modus Operandi and Potential Progression of Causality )
( Lofty Pronouncements from an Armchair Revolutionary )
And finally, because I can only remain earnest for so long:
Seriously, people, THEME SONG. Do I have to spell it out for you?
