XPost: talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.politics.radical-left   
   From: clore@columbia-center.org   
      
   On 12/1/2012 4:37 PM, Anarcissie wrote:   
   > On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:39:53 +0000, Dänk 42Ø wrote:   
   >> On 12/01/2012 03:52 AM, Anarcissie wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:20:36 +0000, Dänk 42Ø wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/28/2012 03:10 PM, Xox wrote:   
   >>>>> How Sandy Saved Occupy   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> [35]Sharon Lerner   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> November 27, 2012 ... Occupy Sandy's story began in the hours   
   >>>>> just after the superstorm hit, when "a few of us occupiers   
   >>>>> were just texting each other at like 2 a.m. ... Four   
   >>>>> adrenaline- and caffeine-fueled weeks later...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Most Occupytards have no jobs, given that they seem to have   
   >>>> infinite amounts of free time to protest, so who is paying for   
   >>>> their iPhones and lattes?  And since they are supposedly   
   >>>> protesting against corporate greed, aren't Apple and Starbucks   
   >>>> corporations, and didn't Steve Jobs die a billionaire?   
   >>>   
   >>> I think you're behind the times there.  The reality is more   
   >>> interesting that these old cliche's.  Indeed, reality may be the   
   >>> NBT.   
   >>   
   >> What I'm saying is that they appear to be professional protesters.   
   >> Someone is feeding them and paying their iPhone bills, so who?  Not   
   >> that there is anything illegal about being paid to "protest" -- it   
   >> is a paying job just like any other -- but then we must assume that   
   >> their opinions are those of their employer, and we have a right to   
   >> know who that is.   
   >   
   > Actually, if I'm up on my Supreme Court decisions, I don't think you   
   > do have such a right.  However, I'm going to tell you all about it   
   > anyway.   
   >   
   > I don't know about 'professional' in the usual sense. The kind of   
   > activists I know are pretty cheap to support. Often, they support   
   > themselves with part-time crap jobs. Others live what might be called   
   > the student life.  If you don't have children, a mortgage, and so on,   
   > you can live rather cheaply if not very luxuriously, couchsurfing,   
   > house- sitting, staying in squats or in a van.     Yet others are   
   > retired from regular jobs or are living on disability payments.   
   > Also, a lot of people are willing to contribute to activism even   
   > though they don't want to or are unable to participate directly.   
   > These may be relatives or friends of the activists rather than an   
   > organization.  Occupy Wall Street collected buckets of money,   
   > literally, from passers-by during their brief career in Zucotti   
   > Park.   
   >   
   > Of course there are also formal organizations with offices and   
   > employees and enrolled members, too, but as far as I know they are   
   > out in the open, at least the leftish ones seem to be.  I am less   
   > familiar with right-wing activism.   
      
   There have actually been news stories on Occupy Wall Street (and other   
   Occupy groups around the country) that mentioned polls of the protestors   
   that found that most of them had jobs, though the unemployment rate   
   among them was higher than average. So the claim isn't even true to   
   begin with.   
      
   --   
   Dan Clore   
      
   New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:   
   http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw   
   My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:   
   http://tinyurl.com/8puuzuc   
   Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:   
   http://tinyurl.com/292yz9   
   News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:   
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo   
      
   Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the   
   immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.   
   -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)