Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
It took an official study to prove something most Conservatives assumed already—Occupy Wall Street was a sham.
Sociologists at the City University of New York have found—surprise, surprise—that the protesters had more in common with the 1 percent than the downtrodden 99. More than a third of the demonstrators in New York lived in households with annual incomes greater than $100,000. More than two-thirds were employed professionals, and 76 percent were college educated—of those, 28 percent had attended elite universities.
The study also found that many protesters had been involved in political demonstrations before, and far from being grass-roots and spontaneous, Occupy Wall Street had been carefully planned by committed activists. Can anyone say, rent-a-mob bought and paid for by Moveon.org?
There also seemed to be a "disproportionate number of men," 55 percent, and most of those were white.
“It’s a pretty affluent demographic and highly educated,” said Professor Ruth Milkman, one of the study’s authors. “Many were the children of the elite, if you will.”
These precious “elites” weren’t homeless either, and despite their defecating on the sidewalks and watering the bushes, they actually had bathrooms at their disposal. Most of those under 30 had homes just around the corner even though they had been laid off or were underemployed (despite those highfalutin degrees). Nearly a quarter worked fewer than 35 hours a week.
Thanks to the CUNY sociologists we know now that all those tents were just part of a big kumbay-lib camp-out—but Conservatives knew that already.
So the truth is out, but, in the words of Hillary Clinton, what does it matter? The protests worked, and if Republicans continue to kowtow to such faux force and manipulated madness, they’ll probably work again.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '11
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Denise, in what sense did the protests "work?" As I remember, there were no real demands or objectives sought beyond the rapt attention of the mainstream media. If that's the only measure, then they CERTAINLY will "work" again.
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Paul--Romney was identified with the 1 percent, reinforced through the protests, and the young people with this mindset were galvanized to vote for Obama. It worked electorally to defeat Romney. It will continue to work as a method of propaganda and intimidation.
Edited on January 29, 2013 at 7:40pmMay '11
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Denise McAllister: Paul--Romney was identified with the 1 percent, reinforced through the protests, and the young people with this mindset were galvanized to vote for Obama. It worked electorally to defeat Romney. It will continue to work as a method of propaganda and intimidation. · 12 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
You're willing to give them much more credit than I. Seems to me that their influence, such as it was, was spent long before the primaries ended.
I'm unwilling to give the faux-ragtag populist unwashed the credit, while the pros working to re-elect Obama spent a billion dollars pushing exactly the same message.
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Paul--you might be right
Oct '10
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Isn't part of the point of the study—or at least one of its implications—that there's a lot more overlap between the OWS participant population and those pros than might seem to be the case? Note that I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, because one isn't required. All it takes is these wealthy kids working out their collective rich white guilt—and that's basically what Leftism looks like to me—to be targeted, cynically or otherwise, by the pros, and that's probably good for the million or so popular votes that, because they predominantly came from urban centers that lean left, also meant getting the electoral votes.
What I do find transparently cynical—what I wouldn't have credited prior to Obama's election—is the sheer brazenness of those who gleefully admit they voted for the color of his skin. Far from a lapse into naked tribalism, it's been a jump with both feet and a scream of "Yahoo!"
Edited on January 29, 2013 at 9:37pmRe: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Paul Snively
Isn't part of the point of the study—or at least one of its implications—that there's a lot more overlap between the OWS participant population and those pros than might seem to be the case? Note that I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, because one isn't required. All it takes is these wealthy kids working out their collective rich white guilt—
What I dofind transparently cynical—what I wouldn't have credited prior to Obama's election—is the sheer brazenness of those who gleefully admit they voted for the color of his skin. Far from a lapseinto naked tribalism, it's been a jump with both feet and a scream of "Yahoo!" · 3 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
Like you said, it assuages their white guilt. They'll declare their redemption from the rooftops!
Aug '10
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
kumbay-lib campout - very cute
But I have deeper suspicions and I think that one former community organizer may have been involved in an attempt to grow a national protest. And with his new friends, like Van Jones and others, they took their shot. They couldn't control it. As much free reefer and bad sex as they could throw into it, it still had no center and the liberals with the hand gestures ,mimickry vs. technology , and general lack of coordination all showed him a valuable lesson.
Better to buy a couple billion rounds of 40 cal hollowpoints if you really want to get something done. Susan Sarandon needs to be turned over to check her " cook or freeze by date ". Same for Michael Moore, but you'll need a forklift.
Aug '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Occupy Wall Street consumed a lot of media attention. It took a lot of air out of the public discourse that might otherwise have been paying attention to what Obama was up to, what was going on in the Middle East, what was coming out of HHS regarding Obamacare, what was going on in China. I can think of a lot of stuff that went unreported while lots of media attention was focused on how awful the one percent is and how Obama should make them pay their fair share.
A lot of mischief happened while our attention was diverted.
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
MJBubba-- great point.
Oct '10
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
No kidding. The media cone of silence on the OWS violence and vandalism in Oakland—and the fact that the Oakland protests were aimed at the docks, hardly a bastion of the "1%"—tells you everything you need to know about both institutions.
Aug '11
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Link to the paper? I'm lazy and don't want to find it myself.
Jul '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
We keep finding out that we were right all along, but only after the public has lost interest and shambled on to the next dumb thing. So we never get credit. It saddens me.
Jun '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Owl: Here ya go--
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/562862/changing-the-subject-2.pdf
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
THIS frustrates me too! What can we do about it? The media is lost. Good journalists are secreted away in basements blogging while hacks are "reporting" on nothing. Columnists are kiss ups. Pundits are pinheads. Really.
Aug '11
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Maggie Leber: Owl: Here ya go--
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/562862/changing-the-subject-2.pdf · 29 minutes ago
Awesome. Thanks, friend.
May '11
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Agree!
Dec '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Denise McAllister
Paul Snively
Isn't part of the point of the study—or at least one of its implications—that there's a lot more overlap between the OWS participant population and those pros than might seem to be the case? Note that I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, because one isn't required. All it takes is these wealthy kids working out their collective rich white guilt—
What I dofind transparently cynical—what I wouldn't have credited prior to Obama's election—is the sheer brazenness of those who gleefully admit they voted for the color of his skin. Far from a lapseinto naked tribalism, it's...
Like you said, it assuages their white guilt. They'll declare their redemption from the rooftops! ·
What is this white guilt of which you speak? I am whiter than milk, yet have never detected this white guilt in my friends or me. Seems like pyscho-babble made up to get ignorant white lefties to vote against their self-interest. Do I have it (unaware) and need to embrace it or treat it with antibiotics? Help me to understand, please.
Oct '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Denise, you seem to be in the know, or researching social science literature. Was any survey or study done of the Tea Party?
Mar '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Any full understanding of OWS needs to start with Brietbart's documentary Occupy Unmasked. It's his last work but it connects the dots for you on the OWS movement.
Dec '12
Re: Rich Kids Occupy Wall Street—No Kidding!
Simon Templar, white guilt is a tactic used by the liberal left to make whites feel guilty of their success. All their achievements happened because they are white and most came about on the backs of someone else who was denied the same opportunity. It's mostly a subconscious effect, carried out by the news and entertainment media. Oprah Winfrey is probably the best at getting white people to feel good about sharing with the undeserving. (I'm for the legitimate needy). You're right, many are ignorant white lefties who vote against their self-interest, most of these at one time belonged to or supported some racist radical organization and now want to repent, they really feel guilty. But many are just brainwashed and don't feel guilty, just a do-good feeling. People who fall in this category show no sign of guilt.
Edited on January 30, 2013 at 6:50am