<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" On the first anniversary of what became known as the Occupy movement, the occasion was marked by something of a hooley down in the Wall Street district. (Honestly, though, folks: &amp;quot;Chaos?&amp;quot; Really? And, come on with this: &amp;quot;There was plenty of raging against the man, but no reports of serious violence between police and protesters.&amp;quot; If you&amp;#039;re not going to hire desk guys who are under 60, at least capitalize The Man.) Once again, as it has from the beginning, the movement on its birthday had at least dedicated itself to yelling at the correct buildings. If that&amp;#039;s not enough, who&amp;#039;s fault is that? There was a lot of talk in the run-up to the anniversary about how the movement had &amp;quot;changed the national dialogue,&amp;quot; but that it had failed to affect the politics of the country the way that, say, the Tea Party had. (Joe Nocera in the Times seemed unusually sad about this.) But, let us be serious. What success the Tea Party had \u2014 which consisted in the main in electing enough cranks and nutballs to make the United States ungovernable for two years \u2014 it enjoyed because so much of that movement was in simply rebranding the right-wing politics toward which the Republicans were headed downhill on a scooter anyway. (Jim DeMint already had been in the Senate long enough to see a main chance when it drops in his lap.) Even if Occupy wanted a place in the Democratic Party, where on earth would it be? In an administration that&amp;#039;s staffed the Treasury with the Goldman Sachs All-Stars? In a Congress bought and paid for by the sharks and sharpers who haven&amp;#039;t yet found their place in the government? In an electoral politics that had been transformed into a morass of anonymous corporate money? From that report down there today: Stockbroker turned yoga instructor Justin Ritchie, 31, of Manhattan said he came out to spread the word on how the financial game &amp;quot;is rigged.&amp;quot; He was holding a sign that read, &amp;quot;We don&amp;#039;t mind the game, we mind when you cheat.&amp;quot; This is something with which no sensible person can possibly argue. But who in the Democratic Party, outside of Elizabeth Warren and almost nobody else, has given any indication that they have heard it clearly enough to act seriously upon it? Now I have only one opinion on economics \u2014 Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money \u2014 but even I sense that someone&amp;#039;s busy building themselves another bubble down there somewhere. I have no patience for the they&amp;#039;re-all-alike crowd, or for the fantasts dreamily thinking of the presidency of my old former fencing-parent buddy Dr. Jill Stein, but this is not an opinion that is in anyway irrevocable. Instead, after a year of people yelling quite sensibly, and with great insight, at the right buildings, what do we get? We get this latest from Willard Romney, which, if Occupy actually had &amp;quot;changed the national dialogue&amp;quot; would sink his campaign like a stone. There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that&amp;#039;s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.... These are people who pay no income tax. Romney went on: &amp;quot;[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I&amp;#039;ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.&amp;quot; This guy is still within a field goal of being president. And then, elsewhere, we have very serious people writing things like this: Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, co-chairs of the president&amp;#039;s fiscal commission and widely hailed as serious thought leaders on dealing with the country&amp;#039;s economic problem, had strong criticisms for both men vying to be President of the United States for the next four years. If you ask me, Alan Simpson is a superannuated old grump who hasn&amp;#039;t had an original idea since he tried to look up Anita Hill&amp;#039;s skirt, and Erskine Bowles is a career coat-holder who couldn&amp;#039;t beat Liddy Dole in a fair fight. &amp;quot;Serious thought leaders,&amp;quot; indeed. And we&amp;#039;re locking up yoga instructors for yelling at the correct buildings. There are too many powerful people in this country who don&amp;#039;t see the danger in treating most of the population like moochers and wage slaves. There are too many powerful people in this country who don&amp;#039;t see the simple fact that Occupy is by far the most polite response they&amp;#039;re likely to see to a general consensus that the system is being rigged to produce another Gilded Age plutocracy. There are far too many powerful people in this country who don&amp;#039;t hear the common sense in making sure that you&amp;#039;re yelling at the correct buildings. So happy birthday, I guess. Somewhere, a dialogue is being changed. Maybe that&amp;#039;s enough.  CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE OCCUPY COVERAGE ON THE POLITICS BLOG &amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt; "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a15836/occupy-anniversary-12795934/?src=rss>