Not yet a month old, and already the Occupy movement in Delaware is in mortal danger. I don’t know if it is indicative of how the movement is progressing in other cities and states, but I hope not.  Allow me to explain…

Occupy is a youth movement. As such it is learning a lot of lessons that other protest movements have learned in the past (leadership, legal advice, logistics, public relations, etc.).  There is no shortcut to learning these lessons. In fact, I envy them for the fun that will have learning the lessons.

But there are a number of people from past movements that are looking to “help” these kids. These are people from Woodstock Nation, the civil rights marches and countless ill-fated progressive Presidential campaigns. These people mean well, but they must know their place. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I mean that their time has passed from the perspective of their movements.

The Yippies of the 60’s had a rule of thumb to never trust anyone over 30. This should be gospel. In all fairness, I am 41, so take it with a grain of salt. But here are reasons why this is true. We are never going to spend weeks voluntarily sleeping in a park. We are comfortable living our lives of quiet desperation, driving our new-ish cars, sleeping in our comfortable beds and taking our vacations at the beach. We are easily intimidated.

The young people that are leading this movement are more capable of speaking truth to power than those of us that have celebrated a 30th birthday. We oldsters have reached the point that we have a lot invested in the status quo, whether we want to admit it or not.

Delaware has a number of these helpful oldsters that want to grind the same old axes that they have been grinding for decades. One of them has even been on several radio stations in the past week presenting their “demands”. I haven’t heard the demands, but I’ll gander a few guesses about what they are, Implementing Floyd McDowell’s single payer plan, satellite news access for everyone and the freeing of all Palestinian prisoners. I’m sure she has others, but I really can’t stand to listen to her spout off any more, and neither can anyone else.

So to the young people of Occupy Delaware, please don’t listen to us. We are happy to help in any way we can (supplies, cash, and covering the park after work so you can find a bathroom). But thank us for our support and send us on our way. This is YOUR movement. Own it and ride it as far as it will take you. It will be one of the greatest times of your life.

And to the old people that want to get back to the glory days of your youth: respect these young protesters and their ideas. Let them go on the radio and explain their positions. Let them organize in THEIR way. Let them write their own demands. Marvel at their energy, youthful idealism and freedom. Give them what they need. Then shut the hell up.

Otherwise, we will end up with the same old people, saying the same old things, to the same disinterested public. And Delaware will end up with another statistic in our infant mortality rate when we kill our own children just as they are starting to thrive.

At risk of starting up this conversation again, I do have address two issues from Le Affair de Liz Allen. So, I made the rounds and read Mike Matthews’ opinion and Dana Pico’s opinion at their respective sites. As you see in Dana’s post, he accurately lays out the issue here. We are not talking about opposition to Israel’s policies, or even opposition to the very existence of the State of Israel. As I have said in the comments, debate over Zionism and Anti-Zionism can and must continue, for that debate is a rare one where both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

No, we are talking about Anti-Semitism. Dana lays out the difference.

Zionism is a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel. Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism, or discrimination against Jews.

Intellectually, we can see room for a difference: one could be anti-Zionist, meaning to oppose the existence or expansion of the modern state of Israel, without being anti-Semitic, hating the Jews.

Dana goes on to discuss how and why Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semiticism have become conflated and confused, and it is worth a read. To be sure, when Donviti called fellow Delaware blogger and activist Liz Allen out over her anti-semitic comments here and elsewhere concerning “Jewish Bankers,” he, and we, are talking Anti-Semiticism and not Anti-Zionism or any opposition to Israel. Yet, discussions yesterday and on Sunday at DWA and here centered on Israel and Zionism. I suspect there is both a genuine confusion over the two issues, and an intentional confusing of the them since there really is no defense to anti-semiticism, while there is a defense to anti-zionism. Indeed, in her defense, Liz and others kept discussing Israel and Zionism, as if her opposition to both justified prejudicial statements concerning “Jewish Banksters.”

Look at two of her more egregious comments again and please find the reference to Israel or Zionism:

If you look at each one of the Banksters that have caused the banking demise, majority are Jewish…check that fact.

When will this country wake up. Bernanke is an orthodox Jew, and refused to answer Bernie Sanders questions on “where the money went”. They are freaking robbing the US, and we still stand behind them 100%! Wake up and smell the robbery without a gun people.

Not a mention of Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East, Zionism, or Anti-Zionism, is there? No. She just believes that there is a conspiracy or a cabal of bad Jewish bankers who are robbing us blind, because they are Jewish. That is Anti-Semiticism. It is bigotry. It is prejudice. It is discrimination.

Now, Mike Matthews of Down with Absolutes, of course, is criticizing us. Contain your shock, please.

People are more concerned with labeling those whose commentary they loathe. They’d rather label them “racist!” or “anti-Semitic!” than advance the argument with respectful debate.

I am sorry, but how can there be a respectful and meaningful discussion with a bigot concerning their bigoted views? How does that conversation go? I suppose I ask Liz why she has a low opinion of Jewish bankers, and I suppose she responds by saying they are evil money grubbing robber barons intent of stealing all our money. Wasn’t that enlightening? I suppose I can ask her why she feels that way, and her answer will be “google Jewish bankers” or some reference to Israel. And around the circle of prejudice we go.

Prejudice is not based on reason or rational thought. How can it be, for you are labeling an entire group, indeed, millions of people, based on an outdated and false stereotype. This is really one of the more asinine things Mike has said in his long line of asinine things. Does he think we should have a respectful and meaningful discussion about the merits of racism? Sexism?

I know it goes against the title of his blog, but there are moral absolutes. And one of them is: PREJUDICE IS ALWAYS WRONG. It is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. There is no defense of it. There is no rationale for it. It is simply wrong. And giving those with prejudiced views the sanction of discussing their prejudice in a calm and respectful manner validates the prejudice. For it gives the prejudice the merit of being “one side of the debate.”

One aspect of being a liberal, Mike, means you are intolerant of those who are intolerant. We seek equal opportunity for all. We fight against discrimination and prejudice where we find it. We don’t discuss the merits of prejudice. We fight against it. We don’t respect prejudice. We shame it. I don’t want to understand Liz Allen’s prejudice. As I said in the comments yesterday here, if you are a liberal and you are prejudiced, then you are a hypocrite.

See the Original Post Here