 |
| Photo used under Creative Commons license. Taken by tarsandsaction. |
It's times like these that I drop out of the blogosphere and try to avoid reading all the little "news hits". So this week's article is from the New Yorker. It's about the Keystone XL protest (which Tim attended). It's also about the contrast between the Keystone XL protest and the OWS protests. I don't much like critiquing the OWS protests, because its such a cliche response: "Yes I support the idea behind OWS but I don't like the way they're protesting." Still I think this article makes some valuable points (along with being a little uplifting).
For me the article is even more interesting because I marched with Jeremy and OWS the night before the protest. I felt kind of like someone named Garofalo in this other New Yorker piece. The article probably wouldn't be too instructive for you (as someone's who has directly observed the movement in New York). But this excerpt struck me:
Garofalo still found the drummers annoying, and the activists who dreamed of an alternate world of pure democracy, without rules, were not for him. Still, he now felt responsible for keeping Occupy Wall Street going.
Read the Keystone article (not the one with Garofalo) and see what you take from it about protest. Hopefully I'll shake this news sickness soon, and posting can return to normal.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/11/28/111128taco_talk_mayer
I guess I never really expected too much of the occupy movement. Since it's creation I have always believed its purpose has been more for a social airing of grievances and bringing to the surface an opinion that is becoming more and more prevalent among people. I never really saw the protest as directly changing something. I mean, really, a leaderless movement striking out against a system as ingrained as the financial institution of the United States? But again, I never really saw that as the point. I just thought it was good for people to speak their word and especially for outsiders to see that not everyone was happy with the way things are.
ReplyDeleteCertainly I think the measures taken by the anti-pipeline people were effective (to some extent) but I don't think the same measures would work with the Occupy Wall Street issue. From what I gather, the main goal of the Occupy movement is for more accountability and equality in America's financial system. Achieving that just isn't the same as passing the legislation to stymie the development of the pipeline. Of course by no means am I saying that the Occupy movement is effective and I agree the pipeline movement is definitely a step up,but I think an entirely different approach needs to be taken if people really want to see change come from the Occupy's goals. What this action is I have no clue.
On a side note I don't think i am satisfied with the ending of the Pipeline issue as it is right now. I know what McKibben said about no final victories is true but honestly, between Obama's prolonging of the issue and TransCanada estimating a new route through Nebraska (which I don't see how that would be any less detrimental to the environment) it seems pretty clear that there are going to be further (larger) battles down the road.
And on the news weariness: how could I blame you? Times are tough across the board. Keeping oneself informed is important but there is only so much you can take reading about problems you can't possibly get a chance to fix before you just get sick of it. This is especially true when the problems are so obviously propagated by greed/stupidity which seems to be the case more often than not. Anyways, don't beat yourself up about this weariness. I am impressed you read as much news as you do normally.
EBWard speaks my mind in several respects, including OWS being effective primarily in raising awareness and putting the powers that be on notice that the wool has not been pulled over as many eyes as they think.
ReplyDeleteI just read a brief review that Gogo did of an article by Jeffery Sachs in Time (10/10/2011). In that article, Sach's makes reference to Regan's misdiagnosis of conditions in the late 70's as "too much government" when, in fact, globalized competition was taking the manufacturing sector to the cleaners, leading, in the long run, to a decimation of the middle class. The deregulation which Regan and his ilk inspired has only led to less accountability (this is me talking now) and (again as Sachs asserts) conditions at present being similar to those in the 1920's leading to the Crash, Great Depression, etc. Sachs makes the point that the Stimulus$ were only a quick infusion, and what is needed is a sustained (public) investment in "education, infrastructure and human capital". I would add that this sustained investment must have increased sustainability, as in mass transportation and railroads and other efficient means of moving people and goods, as a guiding principle.
How OWS, or any other movement, can exert influence in that direction I am not sure.
As Galen is aware, news weariness struck me down decades ago, and I am only just now trying to recover. For me, there are a number of factors:
1. Mistrust of most sources. On matters about which I have had personal knowledge, even sources considered reliable have never gotten the story straight in my opinion.
2. The complexity of the issues. All I have to do is page through the Economist to realize how much time and effort is required to keep up with even a small part of what is going on in the world.
3. Abundance of information. So much is available, and it is impossible for me to sort through it all with any confidence, so I am obliged to rely on the various media "processors" to prioritize and evaluate based on values that I may or may not share.
I appreciate and admire your "news ethic" and hope that your blog might assist in my own prioritization and and evaluation.