Monday, August 13, 2012

The New York Times has finally recognized Occupy Frankfurt. Occupy Frankfurt deserves recognition because it has been outdoors, tenting, continuously since October, 2011. It occupies a site across from the central bank of the European Euro. In its first and probably its last article ever about Occupy Frankfurt, the NYT failed to mention why those valiant occupiers are camping out in cold, rain, or blistering hot sun. But it doesn't take a donkey with a load of bricks to figure it out. No, the reason the NYT has finally had an article about our brothers and sisters in Frankfurt is the police supporters of the Euro's Central Bank have finally used their weaponry and armor to oust the Frankfurt Occupiers, after not quite 12 months.
     Nor is this the first August black ink print on the very Occupy Movement the NYT has declared dead time after time. Earlier this month, the grandly advertiseable Sunday Times Magazine, the flagship, the veritable mothership of this once-great newspaper (yes, it was a great newspaper in the 19th Century), this mother of all newspapers, had its cover title article on . . . Occupy Oakland. Yep, our Occupy Oakland. But, here, too, the reporters had difficulty mentioning why there is an Occupy Oakland, what they're occupying, or why. The only news in that article was that Occupy Oakland exists, aside from writing about it so as to elicit advertising, to trash the city of Oakland, to cause extra expense to its police department, to give grief to its mayor, to be a nuisance to its merchants, and to otherwise cause trouble. Imagine all these people, at great risk from beatings, tear gas, arrest, imprisonment and pepper spray wounds, taking time off from work (those who haven't yet been fired or laid off) and spending all their time and strength only to break windows and tear up street signs. Strange, isn't it? You'd think the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters of the world's leading newspapers would dig a little deeper into such a bizarre way to conduct yourself. You would certainly look in vain, in page after colorful page, for a single mention of, say, "99%." Or a single word against "Bank of America." There isn't a single word about "foreclosure" for example, Nor a single word about utility rate increases or political corruption or sleezy politicians or stupid reporters. No sir. The only reason these hard-hitting dirt-digging reporters could find for the existence of Occupy Oakland, aside from giving reporters reason to write about them, was to break window glass on poor shopkeeper's windows. Shame on you occupiers, Oakland! Can't you find something better to do? Cheat some widow or orphan? Do . . . something!