FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Holland begins: "It's disappointing that Naomi Wolf's response to my criticism of her November 25 Guardian column – and earlier blog-post - doesn't address the many misstatements of fact, logical leaps and baseless assertions which I highlighted. Wolf instead spends much time on a general discussion of heightened federal surveillance and the increased coordination between federal and local law enforcement agencies, which she says I am naive not to acknowledge ..."

On the streets of Oakland, California, a handful of rubber bullets, 10/26/11. (photo: dinab/flickr)
On the streets of Oakland, California, a handful of rubber bullets, 10/26/11. (photo: dinab/flickr)



Occupy Crackdowns: Naomi Wolf's Response to My Critique Largely Evades the Issue at Hand

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

04 December 11

 

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns

 

AlterNet columnist Joshua Holland submitted the following to Reader Supported News in response to Naomi Wolf. Wolf and Holland have been going back and forth for several days over Wolf's original column titled, "The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy." Holland then critiqued that with his piece titled, "Naomi Wolf's 'Shocking Truth' About the 'Occupy Crackdowns' Offers Anything but the Truth." Wolf upped the ante with her most recent, "The 'Crackdown on Occupy' Controversy." Holland now fires back again with what follows. -- MA/RSN

 

t's disappointing that Naomi Wolf's response to my criticism of her November 25 Guardian column - and earlier blog-post - doesn't address the many misstatements of fact, logical leaps and baseless assertions which I highlighted.

Wolf instead spends much time on a general discussion of heightened federal surveillance and the increased coordination between federal and local law enforcement agencies, which she says I am naïve not to acknowledge, and devotes an enormous amount of space to establishing that federal law enforcement agencies have had some sort of role in at least monitoring the Occupy Movement and offering some guidance to local law enforcement agencies.

She claims repeatedly and falsely that I wrote that DHS had "no involvement whatsoever," when I acknowledged that DHS had reportedly offered advice to local law enforcement agencies. All of the paragraphs she devotes to discussing the Freedom of Information request filed by the National Lawyers Guild - and the fact that DHS hasn't denied any role - are wasted space. DHS officials have stated that they had some minimal supporting role. That isn't in dispute.

So it appears that Wolf glosses over the debate at hand. The question is not whether federal law enforcement agencies had some role in assisting cities that chose to raid their occupations; the issue in dispute, as I made crystal clear in my critique, is whether any outside agency had "some unseen hand directing, incentivizing or coercing municipalities to [crack down] when they would not otherwise be so inclined."

The difference is not, as some of Wolf's defenders have suggested, a matter of semantics or a minor distinction. Aside from the fact that federal encroachment into what are strictly matters for local law enforcement is a serious assault on our federal system, whereas advising local officials is not, we have seen brutal instances of police brutality, and some blatant contempt for Americans' Constitutional rights. Contrary to Wolf's claims, there remains no evidence that the fault for these abuses lies anywhere but with city and police officials in New York, Oakland, Denver and elsewhere, but Wolf would deflect our attention from these officials who in fact bear ultimate responsibility for their decisions, onto a non-profit police research organization, the House Homeland Security Committee and DHS. This is an important story to get right.

My criticism rested on Wolf's reckless disregard for the available facts, a tendency towards inaccuracy that she displays in the very second paragraph of her response:

Holland's main premise is that I am part of a "flurry of speculation" that is without basis in fact, and that there was no federal involvement in the crackdown. I cited evidence that DHS was on the 18-member conference call of mayors, which Oakland Mayor Jean Quan alluded to in an interview with the BBC on 15 November, and my source was Wonkette on 15 November. Holland argues that his assertion to contrary has been qualified, and I am happy to adjust the citation accordingly.

Nobody has suggested that DHS took part in the two conference calls organized by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. It wasn't suggested in the Wonkette post Wolf references as her source (serious journalism that featured a Darth Vader Youtube video), or anywhere else.

Jean Quan alluded to - and others subsequently confirmed - the fact that 18 mayors participated in two calls organized by the U.S. Conference of Mayors to discuss a variety of issues surrounding the Occupy Movement. These were not calls devoted solely to talking about evictions - although we can assume that was among the topics covered - and there has been no indication that DHS participated in those calls by anyone other than Naomi Wolf.

She confuses that credibly reported fact with a second story, from the Examiner.com blog, which said that a series of crack-downs were "coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies." (That same post noted, "the ultimate decision on how each jurisdiction handles the Occupy protests ultimately rests with local law enforcement." In a follow-up post, the same author, Rick Ellis, wrote that his sources assured him that "DHS is not actively coordinating with local governments or police agencies on the 'Occupy' evictions.")

Wolf also devotes a lot of space to a general discussion of recent history - claiming, for example, that I am "unaware of the billions that DHS has pumped into domestic police forces," or that DHS has established a so-called "downtown security zone" in Manhattan. These are widely reported issues, which are all irrelevant to the narrow question of whether any outside force compelled any city to move against an occupation on which city officials did not themselves choose to crack down.

Similarly, Wolf says my criticism is "ahistorical," and then cites a long list of previous instances where federal officials also played no direct role in the local policing of protests -- they offered advice and monetary assistance but, as appears to be the case here, they didn't direct, coerce or otherwise compel the cities to do anything local officials didn't opt to do.

But historical determinism is also dangerous. In his own criticism of Wolf's column, political scientist Corey Robin, author of The Reactionary Mind, offers some history that Wolf would be wise to take to heart. "Like many critics of state coercion in America," writes Robin, "Wolf seems to assume that political repression requires or entails national coordination and centralized direction from the feds. But ...that notion gets it wrong."

From the battles over abolition to the labor wars at the turn of the last century to the Red Squads of the twentieth-century police departments to the struggles over Jim Crow, state repression in America has often been decentralized, displaying that very same can-do spirit of local initiative that has been celebrated by everyone from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam. Though Tocqueville and Putnam were talking of course about things like creating churches and buildings roads, the fact is: if the locals can build a church or a road on their own, they can also get rid of dissenters on their own, too, no?

Even where there has been coordination and direction from above, as in the epic cases of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, or now the War on Terror, what’s been most striking is how local police and officials have managed to manipulate that federal involvement to their own ends.

This gets off track, however, as my criticism of Wolf's piece was based on the many inaccuracies in her writing - it was not intended to be a "historical" analysis. Just consider the substantive points I raised which she left unaddressed.

In her November 22 blog post, Wolf claimed that "municipal police are being pushed around by a shadowy private policing consultancy affiliated with DHS," in reference to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). She added: "municipal police are being forced to comply with brutal orders from this corporate police consultancy, by economic pressure."

I noted that PERF - a non-profit whose most recent available tax filings reveal a modest $6 million annual budget for 2009 - is a research and membership organization that organizes meetings and conference calls and issues reports. It has no police powers whatsoever and certainly can't issue "brutal orders" to anyone. I als noted how tenuous the connection between the organization and DHS really is.

Wolf ignored this substantive cricism entirely in her response.

In her November 25 Guardian column, Wolf claims that Rep Peter King, R-New York, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, "told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces - pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS - to make war on peaceful citizens."

I noted that while the committee has oversight of the agency, the chain of command goes up to Janet Napolitano - Congress doesn't have any control over day-to-day operations and can't order DHS to do anything. I also noted that mayors require no "authorization" to order their police forces to do anything - the authority is theirs.

Wolf's only substantive response to this criticism is to note that members of Congress "also draft legislation." That's indisputably true, but wholly unresponsive to the point.

Wolf claimed that a proposal to smear the Occupy Movement prepared by CLGC, a lobbying firm, for the American Bankers' Association was evidence of her nationwide crackdown. I simply noted that a proposal prepared by a private company - which was reportedly rejected - is irrelevant to a discussion of what the government is or is not doing.

Wolf's response is two-fold. First, she notes that this proposal "was written by sophisticated and connected political insiders," including lobbyists who formerly worked for Speaker John Boehner. Then, she says that I was "journalistically careless" because she was also referring the "'message coordination' that I was witnessing as rightwing commentators on television shows were using similar soundbites." This again, is irrelevant to her theory that the federal government is mounting a nationwie crackdown (right-wing commentators are always on-message).

So, what we're left with, after thousands of words back and forth, is what we began with:

* There are reports that federal law enforcement agencies are offering advice to local law enforcement agencies.

* Some police officials participated in two conference calls set up by PERF, a police think-tank.

* The US Conference of Mayors set up two additional conference calls to discuss various issues surrounding the Occupations.

Maybe the FOIA requests Wolf makes so much of will reveal more. Maybe they won't. Until then, we should keep our focus on the city and police officials who appear to be wholly responsible for these often violent crack-downs.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+57 # Yakpsyche 2011-12-04 11:44
Would you two please stop fighting with each other and use your energies to advance the cause, not cripple it?
 
 
+18 # NanFan 2011-12-04 13:18
Indeed. Get a room.
 
 
+13 # pernsey 2011-12-04 12:48
It seems like this is much ado about nothing. Wording over DHS and its part... yes just let this guy have his opinion, as mind numbing as it is.

NEVER EVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!!
 
 
+31 # John Gill 2011-12-04 12:54
Yak, I certainly understand your request that the fighting come to an end, but at the same time it is heartening that unlike the folks at faux news, who simply repeat, ad nauseum, what they are told by the higher ups to say, we have here an example of what appears to me to be a sincere, (even if competitively motivated,) discussion of facts relevant to the story, and RSN's responsible and impartial publication of both sides.
 
 
+40 # lcarrier 2011-12-04 13:04
It seems as if Wolf is fighting "Big Brother," whereas Holland is blaming "Little Brothers." The common problem is that all of them are corporate brothers with the same mind-set.
 
 
+22 # gentle 2011-12-04 13:13
Respectfully, I have to disagree with you Yakpsychr. I happen to respect both points of view that are at issue here. A lively discussion on a reporter's ethics is well overdue and especially important to bolster our 1st amendment rights. Local political elements trampled them recently and the people who care enough are understandably vehemently defensive. I give a standing ovation to both writers Empirically it seams, Naomi has the upper hand. The question at issue, is it more effective to wait for more evidence or "go with your gut". Just remember when that when it's over, both came down on the 1st amendment's side.
 
 
+20 # reiverpacific 2011-12-04 13:42
One major and GLARING point emerges from all this.
Naomi Wolf put her body on the line with the occupiers down at ground level and was actually arrested and abused by the Goon Squad-masquerad ing-as-Police for the wealthy. Did Mr Holland even approach any of the occupy zones (this alone says a lot about any party in a resistance-rela ted debate)?
It's easy to try and make points from the sidelines.
Second, I'd take the credibility of The Guardian; a long-establishe d (and admittedly left-leaning) world class newspaper, over AlterNet any time!
So consider the sources and their degree of direct involvement before passing judgement in this war of words (and motives?).
 
 
-18 # nckoalagal 2011-12-04 13:43
Holland is right to call her on hyperbole. Naomi added 2 + 2 and got 18, and we watched the ensuing hysteria as her story was reposted all over many sites -- that police brutality at Occupy sites was a top-down collusion sanctioned by Obama himself. Hogwash!
 
 
+23 # Kootenay Coyote 2011-12-04 13:45
A pity to have two strong & positive people opposed when their positions are in fact complementary. & I do not think that applying a quotation which begins ‘“Wolf seems to assume...”’ is exactly a solid foundation for the critique that followed. But when the dust settles, I trust both Holland & Wolf will continue to work for the common goals. &,a s noted elsewhere: just because there’s a Conspiracy Theory doesn't mean there isn’t a Conspiracy....
 
 
-10 # nckoalagal 2011-12-04 13:52
Holland was right to call her on hyperbole, Naomi added 2 + 2 and got 18, and we saw the ensuing hysteria about top-down police brutality spread all over the net. I'm glad to see someone attempting to correct the impression that Obama himself was calling the shots. Humanitarian concerns aside, what would he have to gain by urging that protesters be brutalized?
 
 
0 # isafakir 2011-12-05 00:57
#OWS is a threat to the status quo in which banks and finance companies pretty much run things according to their own rules. obama benefits the way all despots and puppet heads of government do by obeying the owners who pay for his breakfast. his mouth is full of smiles but his heart wears the colors of goldman sachs.
 
 
-1 # paxuniversalis 2011-12-04 14:09
Joshua:

MMMEEEOOOWWWWW.....HIIISSSS, Scratcha Scratcha... please remove that fur from your claaws and PUUUURRRRRR!!!

I mean, really.... mountain...mole hill; don't you have better things to do with your time, kittykat?
 
 
-11 # Alcuin 2011-12-04 14:12
From this vantage point, it seems to me that Naomi Wolf is a conspiracy theorist - she believes that "municipal police are being pushed around by a shadowy private policing consultancy affiliated with DHS." And she further demonstrates conspiracy thinking by responding to Holland's points by bringing up more irrelevant points. Got a tip for you, Joshua: you ain't gonna win an argument with Ms. Wolf. Give it up and go do something useful, 'cause arguing with her ain't gonna get you anywhere.
 
 
+20 # geraldom 2011-12-04 14:19
Could somebody please answer one question for me. If the DHS didn't have a heavy hand in directing these crackdowns in an attempt to breakup the occupied movement, then how is it that virtually every Mayor who ordered these crackdowns all sound like a broken record? Everyone of them used the same identical talking points to justify these illegal and unconstitutiona l actions on their own citizens, primarily safety and health reasons, which were completely bogus.
 
 
+10 # isafakir 2011-12-04 15:05
i find it difficult to believe that the identity in tactics and strategy over such wide distances and among such politically different governments occurred as if by some accident of like mindedness. maybe it was evil mind control. more likely it was coordination. and that degree of coordination doesn't occur in this government by accident either. many scenarios are possible but few are likely and deniability is part of the plan. deniability at every level. no amateur phone video is gonna catch these guys.
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-04 15:45
Holland, you do not have the passion, courage or literary aplomb to align yourself with Naomi or to criticize her for speaking out where biased jornalists like you fear to tread. Commenters like NCKOALAGAL needs to read the news more carefully and to stop defending Obama who has done nothing to stop police brutality. She demonstrates her void and confusion on the issue when she states
"Humanitarian concerns aside" when it is humanitarian concerns that is what the Occupier Movement is all about and why it has captured the attention and support of so many.
 
 
-1 # sandyboy 2011-12-04 15:53
Reiverpacific, it is irrelevant whether Holland was on the front line in considering who's right in the argument. Wolf getting down with the protesters has zilch to do with her veracity or otherwise. Or his.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2011-12-04 18:04
Quoting sandyboy:
Reiverpacific, it is irrelevant whether Holland was on the front line in considering who's right in the argument. Wolf getting down with the protesters has zilch to do with her veracity or otherwise. Or his.

Bull-pucky! As somebody who put my body on the line many times in the 60' and 70's and in other countries, and will do it again for what I deem true and right (left, 'scuse me) if it really comes down to it- Wolf carries credibility by her actions and words.
Are YOU another "armchair" -or computer-stool- critic? That's easy; try takin' a beating or two (which tends to draw true battle lines), or even fighting back until you are clubbed into (temporary) submission!
Until then, keep pokin' away in the shadows -or belt up!
 
 
+3 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-04 19:57
Reiverpacific, SANDYBOY needs to "keep pokin' away in the shadows-or belt up!" And the same goes to Holland who is quoting "talking heads" and cannot compare with Naomi Wolf who has been there with the Protesters and has become a voice for the Occupiers and unlike SANDYBOY has an authentic concern for their safety and constitutional right to gather peacefully without enduring police brutality and it is no coincidence that it is going on all over the country, that Obama is not stopping it or that the courage and tenacity of these groups is becoming very threatening to the 1% which includes or $$$$$$ impacts most of the political candidates including Obama.
You are to be congratulated and thanked for putting your body on the line many times for what you deem right and wrong.
Reiverpacific, you are a real hero by your actions and words. Thank you!!!
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-04 20:04
SANDYBOY: What have you done for the country or the Occupiers who represent most or all of us on this post???

It is NOT "irrelevant" whether Holland was on the front line" and is totally "relevant" that Naomi wolf was there.
 
 
0 # Capn Canard 2011-12-05 07:32
sandyboy, Nicht! Quite the opposite. Here's the story: With Wolf's reporting we know that what we get will lean to the left, whereas with Holland's it is obvious he wants a career with the major players in the MSM big time. It looks like he is trying to position himself for a job with Fox news, CNN, NBC, WSJ, NYT et al He wants a REAL JOURNALISM JOB, so he needs to create his bona fides, to increase his credentials, to pad the resume, for the potential buyer of his services. His reporting seems very much in support of the status quo and if he can get a tear sheet where he takes down a bomb throwing anarchist, well it's another medal pinned to his chest. A clear case of professional jealousy... Joshua Holland wants to be the new Geraldo Rivera.
 
 
-1 # rmelcher 2011-12-04 20:28
I find this discussion quite illuminating as it goes to the root of the whole "OWS and THEM" mentality that governs much of both the left and the right in this country. The need to objectify the opposition as the nefarious 'other' is a reason that America has become quite unable to address its problems in any constructive way. I believe that Mr. Holland, in asking for evidence over speculation is following a more constructive and less divisive path. Of course, Ms. Wolf, like most pop-stars has made a reputation by inciting controversy, so I don't expect the true believers to allow facts and evidence to get in the way.
 
 
+11 # cordleycoit 2011-12-04 20:45
Mr. Holland is very reminiscent of the 'reporters from Ramparts that invaded England in the late sixties. Burley young men usining Bessler Topcons as professional equipment. Ha. What is real is that DHS is deeply involved in the day to day lives of critics of the regime. From airport molestations to crowd control they are as obtrusive as their web spiders.
The police do nothing without orders. Where does the Starship Storm Trooper body armor come from? How come ninty thousand police departments have access to the same gear? Why is the brutality done in same manner coast to coast? And the mayors all read the same script? Wolf has done a good job on the paper trail. Asked the right people the right questions. Holland appears like a sock puppet. Me thinks some one could take Holland "to the field where the Iron Cross grows..."
A footnote is the Defense Appropriations Bill and the craven cowards voting for it.This happens right in sync with coup's move against citizens at Occupy.
 
 
+3 # Felix Julian 2011-12-04 22:21
Quoting cordleycoit:
Mr. Holland is very reminiscent of the 'reporters from Ramparts that invaded England in the late sixties. Burley young men usining Bessler Topcons as professional equipment. Ha. What is real is that DHS is deeply involved in the day to day lives of critics of the regime. From airport molestations to crowd control they are as obtrusive as their web spiders.
The police do nothing without orders. Where does the Starship Storm Trooper body armor come from? How come ninty thousand police departments have access to the same gear? Why is the brutality done in same manner coast to coast? And the mayors all read the same script? Wolf has done a good job on the paper trail. Asked the right people the right questions. Holland appears like a sock puppet. Me thinks some one could take Holland "to the field where the Iron Cross grows..."
A footnote is the Defense Appropriations Bill and the craven cowards voting for it.This happens right in sync with coup's move against citizens at Occupy.

You got it all in a nutshell, brother. Nice wrap-up!
 
 
+1 # William Bjornson 2011-12-05 01:49
Any role for the JTTF here as that is the way that the feds will take over all local resources when they determine such a move is 'needed'? Is there no coordination included in this usurpatative program?
 
 
+3 # sandyboy 2011-12-05 03:48
Sorry, but you are letting your quite understandable outrage over brutality against Occupy get in the way of logic. Wolf being there on the frontline is admirable and relevant, but I repeat: it is IRRELEVANT as to who is correct about the facts in the debate between her and Holland. By your logic no-one who hasn't been in an Occupy camp would be allowed to have an opinion, which'd disallow a great many RSN regulars, I imagine. As a London, UK resident pushing 60 in ill health, on disabilty, I can't see me camping out at St Pauls - but that doesn't disallow me a voice, because if only those who've 'been there' are allowed to speak then that's another form of elitism/fascism . Can we stop abusing each other? Wolf and Holland disagree. Let em argue. It's a free country over there - at least, that's what it's meant to be and what you're fighting for. Love to you all.
 
 
0 # Capn Canard 2011-12-05 08:38
sandyboy, sorry but you are letting logic get in the way of good sense. For example you are relying on "logic" as a means to justify/rationa lize a position that negates real, actual, and tangible evidence of the misuse of power. As if "embedded" reporters covering a war have higher quality of news reports than those who are on the ground in the thick of battle. In essence it is "Trust us, we're from the Government" propaganda instead of getting first hand primary source material. We can argue about the quality of the information upon further analysis but even on that level Holland's piece is pure dreck, an excrable performance of standardized journalistic conformity. Presumably he takes great pride in kicking puppies. You would fit in well with Fox, Joshua Holland.
 
 
-2 # RLF 2011-12-05 06:03
Mr. Holland...did you get that job at FOX yet?

What are you going to 'debunk' next?
 
 
+3 # Bill Clements 2011-12-05 09:28
You have to seriously ask yourself what is Holland going on about? I just find it laughable that he honestly believes that there isn't substantive communication and coordination at the national level? Wolf and others will no doubt continue to work this story and I predict more evidence will come to the for.

I'll stand with Naomi Wolf on this one given her record, her journalistic skills, her intelligence and her integrity. Holland's motives are far less clear.
 
 
0 # Barkingcarpet 2011-12-05 10:55
What a bunch of mental masturbation, really. Sure, we do need to cross our eyes, and drink our tea's, fact check, etc, and, well,

Remember the story's many of us heard as children about Rome, etc, and how we knew how corrupt it all was, and what idiots they were?

Look around folks, they is us. You are splitting hairs here, and for what?

Our system IS corrupt, and busted.

What ARE we going to do about it? We sheeple are the power. Quit agreeing to be dominated.

Shame on all of us, really
 
 
+2 # sandyboy 2011-12-05 12:03
And another point: saying an opinion printed in a big newspaper should be given more credibility over one on a web forum?!? By that logic stories in the corporate press must be given more credibility than stuff on RSN, and I know none of us think THAT!
 
 
+1 # Ryguy913 2011-12-05 12:36
Wow. dorianb and reiverpacific: reading your comments impresses upon me yet again that just because someone shares my political views does not mean that they've employed any great intelligence to arrive at those views. In fact, your complaints about Mr. Holland's reasonable and intellectually rigorous replies to Ms. Wolf suggest to me that anti-intellectu alism is alive and well among "the left." I owe you both a sincere thanks for tempering my enthusiasm about political allegiances. They are, after all, merely allegiances, and not anything essentially beneficial to the human race.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2011-12-05 16:36
First, I admit that I've read only two of Naomi Wolf's articles, published by RSN. But what I saw in the content of both made me feel leery. In one, Reactionary Feminists, Wolf implies that the U.S. Left & the U.S. media are one in the same when it comes to understanding Sarah Palin & Micelle Bachman while grossly omitting the obvious ideological differences between the Left & the media, & thus differences of opinion between them re. Palin & Bachman. Then, referring to U.S. populism, Wolf lumps together racist Father Coughlin, anticommunist Joe McCarthy & radical Malcolm X. Given their respective historical differences, Malcolm X is not in the same category as Coughlin or McCarthy; again an omission of differences. But she makes the incredible statement that Palin & Bachman are "real feminists." Given the history of feminism, e.g, in the '60s & '70s, & the Right being traditionally antifeminist (I'm reminded of Limbaugh's warped term "feminazis."), the two Righties would be fond of a "feminism" for the few. In another article on RSN re. Occupy, Wolf proceeds to sternly lecture it like a mother lecturing an unruly child. Among her "suggestions": Don't chant. But this is an integral part of protest; a means to disrupt, which in her article she supports. Don't march militantly. The protesters have more to worry about than marching etiquette. Bake cookies for the neighbors.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2011-12-05 17:05
(Contnd) Bake cookies for the neighbors. W/ the protesters in the "trenches," I would think sympathetic neighbors would provide aid. W/ these "suggestions," Occupy would just as soon reduce itself to being in a political strait jacket & merely having a bake sale. Then there's this back-&-forth between Wolf & Holland, w/ Holland's latest response above. He says Wolf is wrong about DHS forcing state/local authorities to crack down on Occupy. He quotes political scientist Corey Robin, whose also critical of Wolf: "Wolf seems to assume that political repression requires national coordination and centralized direction from the feds. But that notion gets it wrong." Robin gives the Red Squads & Jim Crow as examples. I'll add slavery: If the national gov. didn't enforce its abolition, southern states would probably continue it in the name of "states rights." I will also say that I'm not a fan of DHS. And there's fed crackdowns, e.g., COINTELPRO & the "war on terror" which uses the military for imperialism. But given the two articles of Wolf I mention above & Holland's above, I'm discouraged at wanting to read anymore of Wolf's material. But if I do, I'll proceed w/ caution, remembering as well not to confuse Wolf w/ Naomi Klein ( which I initially did re. Wolf's Reactionary Feminists article).
 
 
0 # sandyboy 2011-12-05 17:33
Thanks,Ryguy913 ! I was beginning to think I was down the rabbit hole, with the white knight talking backwards and the red queen's "off with her head" etc. I'm glad someone sees this 'we admire Wolf for her activism so how dare her opinions be questioned' for the, er, 'bull pucky' anti-logic it is.
 
 
0 # sandyboy 2011-12-06 18:15
Has the debate run its course? Oh well, how bout an old adage to wrap it up, the one that goes something like "I may disagree with what you say, but I defend you're right to say it"? Because some fans of Ms Wolf seem to have forgotten that principle, which is surely crucial to RSN and what Wolf and Occupy are fighting for. I'm done!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN