While the event passed with little notice or fanfare from the media, a letter to the editor was received by USA Today in response to their Feb. 9 “Editorial: ‘Occupy’ movement fading out in a whimper.”
“When the “Occupy” movement was launched last year, it garnered considerable attention and enthusiasm,” the editorial began. But after noting the razing of their last existing encampments in Washington, D.C. it was assessed that the movement “that came in with a bang appears to be going out with a whimper.”
It was an opinion not much appreciated by Rich Latta of Austin.
“Anyone who claims the “Occupy” movement has no clear message is either trying to discredit it or simply isn’t paying attention,” begins Latta’s Feb. 15 response to the editor.
So why is it that when Adam Kokesh asked five different Occupiers in D.C. to define their “message” he got five quite different yet equally confusing answers?
Moreover, if your “message” has been made so abundantly clear, why is it that one of your own — Gina Ronning of Portland Occupier — felt compelled to address the question: “What is the Occupy Movement?”
“It’s not a political movement,” Ronning argues with herself in her rambling diatribe, “at least not yet.” It “could be considered a social movement.” No, wait — “a ‘radical reformist’ social movement.” Yes, that sounds better. Oh, how about this? “The Occupy movement speaks like a political movement, but behaves like a radical reformist social movement. Make sense?”
Perhaps a title other than “political Science 101 For Those Confused By Te Occupy Movement” would have been better.
“This protest always has been about economic injustice,” Latta’s letter continued.
What, like the $13 million of economic injustice you imposed upon the taxpayers of the cities you occupied?
“The fact that so many elites were alarmed and frightened by the initial outcry (including members of Congress, who are supposed to represent all the people — shame on them!) goes to show that they are in fact living in a house of cards.”
Yes, Mr. Latta, running through the streets with clubs, setting fire to things and hurling a few Molotov cocktails around while wearing masks to hide your identity will have that “initial” effect on people sometimes. But what irritates you now is that “all the people” you initially “alarmed and frightened” got over it, stood up, fought back and made you pack up your little tents of cards and go home.
We are tired of cleaning up after you. We are fed up with paying for the damages you cause to our cities. We have dismantled your filthy, rat and drug infested tent cities and have hosed your urine and feces from our parks. While we support your right to have a message and a goal – if you can ever get together and figure out they are – we will no longer allow you to force them at our expense.
“So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals,” Mr. Latta concludes in his letter. “If our country doesn’t change, it could very well come to that one day.”
Ah yes. If at first you don’t succeed, threaten to bring a gun.
Aside from the heavy artillery at the disposal of the National Guard and local police, do you honestly think that you will find average Americans unprepared for such a threat as yours?
According to an October survey by Gallup nearly 50 percent of Americans “self-reported” to have at least one firearm tucked away in their home. That’s the highest it’s been since 1993. In carry conceal states like Florida and Michigan the number of licenses issued is also on the rise.
So, Mr. Latta – despite your belief that you can make us fold by upping your threat ante — I strongly advise that you think again.
CrossPost — Yahoo! Voices