I am *not* dismissing the need for the movement to sharpen its goals. That issue, especially (though not exclusively) raised *within* the movement for the sake of making the movement more effective, is absolutely legit, valid, and necessary. It's just that, IMO, we need to broaden our criteria in judging a movement like this and be mindful of process. Greenwald is, correctly, responding to those who are using the character of the movement to undermine it, under the pretense that it is okay to oppose Wall Street as long as it is not done this way, etc. Thus, just to be explicit: Greenwald's point does not touch Doug's or Seth's concerns -- e.g.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> wrote:
> An excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's latest devoted to the reactions to
> Occupy Wall Street:
>
> "But much of this progressive criticism consists of relatively
> (ostensibly) well-intentioned tactical and organizational critiques of
> the protests: there wasn't a clear unified message; it lacked a
> coherent media strategy; the neo-hippie participants were too
> off-putting to Middle America; the resulting police brutality
> overwhelmed the message, etc. etc. That's the high-minded form which
> most progressive scorn for the protests took: it's just not
> professionally organized or effective.
>
> "Some of these critiques are ludicrous. Does anyone really not know
> what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing
> corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power -- in
> the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions
> -- is destroying financial security for everyone else? Beyond that,
> criticizing protesters for the prominence of police brutality stories
> is pure victim-blaming (and, independently, having police brutality
> highlighted is its own benefit)."
>
> Full article: http://bit.ly/oAN54S
>