The Perils of Occupy Wall Street, and The Perils of Dissing Them

I notice that there's been a lot of discussion in the press and the blogs about the sustainability of Occupy Wall Street (something that remains to be seen, but so far has proved remarkably durable), and its seriousness and credibility. Here is a splendid essay by Douglas Rushkoff that addresses those very issues. He suggests that the Establishment patronizes them at their own peril.

Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence.

He goes further and I think hits the nail on the head:

Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher. What upsets banking's defenders and politicians alike is the refusal of this movement to state its terms or set its goals in the traditional language of campaigns.