Subject: Re: op-ed
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 10/16/11, 15:28
To: Daily Texan Editor <editor@dailytexanonline.com>

Shabab:

Here's the op-ed, let me know if this works.

As the Occupy Wall Street movement expands to Austin and other cities across the globe even as the original protest in NYC gains further momentum, certain parties have moved to discredit participants either on the basis of their collective message or on the grounds that no message has been articulated; some critics have weirdly managed to express both positions without noting the contradiction. Apparent GOP frontrunner Herman Cain - whose qualifications as a serious thinker were recently on display when he proclaimed his "Cain Doctrine" to involve Israel despite failing to recognize the term "right of return" when asked about it - last week echoed many Republicans in referring to the Occupy movement as both "anti-American" and "anti-capitalist."

Having monitored and occasionally assisted with the drive to launch the Occupy movement since shortly after the movement was planned months ago, having spoken at Occupy Wall Street in NYC and attended Occupy Austin last Saturday, and meanwhile having been on record as in favor of free markets since I first wrote for this newspaper ten years ago, I can attest to Cain's incorrectness on this matter, which will be good practice for when the candidate is asked further questions about issues on which he thinks he holds positions.

The eclectic individuals who have turned out in support of this movement hold differing opinions on a range of issues including economics, but the one position that seems held in common by organizers and participants alike is opposition to the massive bailouts of failing financial institutions with taxpayer funds. Such a practice is not only outside of capitalism as an economic system, but is in fact inimical to it, entailing as it does a forced transfer of wealth from one party to another - in this case, from millions of taxpayers to a few banks that have failed to perform within the free market. That some see such opposition as an assault on capitalism is bizarre, though not surprising in a nation in which the Tea Party protesters began denouncing government spending upon the rise of Obama while having ignored the issue during a previous period when Republicans controlled all three branches of government and presided over the largest spending increase in years.

But our nation's make-believe conservatives will also point to the marked anti-corporate rhetoric employed by protesters and their supporters. But the bulk of this rhetoric is in opposition to state involvement with the economy; one sign displayed at Occupy Austin summed up this collective position with the phrase, "Get your corporations out of my government," itself a reasonable request within the free market system of which our republic allegedly consists. One need not reach further than the bailouts to cite the extent to which private parties, having deployed the proper campaign contributions, may expect to receive large sums seized from millions of individuals. Reach further, and one is confronted with an endless array of no-bid contracts, corporate subsidies, and laws written by lobbyists.

This ubiquitous conservative defense of all monied interests, with the exception of George Soros, also helps to explain what I must fairly admit, which is that a minority of those involved in this movement are indeed "anti-capitalist" and in some cases even "anti-American." The intentions of the minority ought not be ascribed to the majority, much less the whole, and I ought not have to explain that. Moreover, those who oppose capitalism may be excused by virtue of having never seen it, our system being corrupted as described above, and its chief defenders being unwilling to account for it; those who oppose America are increasingly justified by the America they have seen, one that has degenerated to such a point as to entertain Cain, Perry, and Bachman as potential leaders, and in which the dishonest Obama remains the better choice despite everything. If conservatives wish to defend the free market, they should start by ascribing to it. In the meantime, the citizenry will take to the streets, as is now their duty.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Shabab-

Great, I'll send you an op-ed soon. Hope you're enjoying your stint as editor at the best college newspaper in the U.S.


On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Daily Texan Editor <editor@dailytexanonline.com> wrote:
Hi Barrett,

As you may know, we don't publish over the weekend. We would love to have you submit a guest column.

Thanks,

Shabab


On Oct 13, 2011, at 5:04 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Howdy-

This is Barrett Brown; I attended UT in 2000-2001 before quitting, during which time I wrote two op-eds for The Texan. Since then I've been a regular contributor to Vanity Fair, The Guardian, New York Press, Skeptical Inquirer, and other outlets, and just signed a deal to co-author a book on Anonymous that will be released next year. I'm coming down to Austin tomorrow for Occupy Austin, which I know you've been covering, and was wondering if you'd be interested in a 600-word op-ed on the OWS movement, Anonymous, and UT's potential role as the central node of online activism. Let me know what you think.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

---

Viviana Aldous
Editor-in-Chief, The Daily Texan
(512) 232-2212
editor@dailytexanonline.com
www.dailytexanonline.com








--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302