You Really Showed Them... That You're an Idiot

Last Friday (October 14th) the El Paso Times' letters to the editor featured two "occupiers" unhappy with their coverage in the paper.  I thought their letters were hilarious.  I also thought they were worth writing about here because they are examples of my "answering machine" theory - an important factor when organizing your political unit.

You can read the two letters from Susana Contreras and J. Anthony Jastrzembski HERE.

The "answering machine" theory is pretty simple.  A vast majority of people are quite perplexed by the sound of their own voice played back to them after they record a greeting on their answering machine.  It's odd that the voice you hear in your head when you are speaking is quite different once it is played back from a different source.  There are scientific reasons for you not recognizing your own voice and they all point to where your voice comes from and where it's heard and how close those two mechanisms are to each other in your body.  However, the concept works really well when you apply it to a group of people trying to make a statement, whether it be political or otherwise.

If you read the two letters, it's quite obvious that Mr. Jastrzembski (I'll never complain about my last name again!)  and Ms. Contreras didn't like how their meeting looked when it was played back to them via a newspaper article.  It seems they felt pretty silly after reading the observations of someone not involved with the group. 

The reporter who penned (typed) that report was Daniel Borunda - a very good reporter who I have never had a problem with and God knows I have had a lot of problems with a lot of different reporters.  They didn't refute a single a fact stated by Borunda, but instead used the "out of context" appeal among other ramblings we'll get to before this is over. 

The El Paso Times likely received complaints from the "occupiers" about the coverage and told them they could defend themselves with a letter to the editor.  Our two "occupiers" played right into the EP Times' hands when they did exactly what they (the EP Times) thought they (occupiers) would do - validate everything that was written in the original article and further prove they are morons who deserve no audience.

Bottom line - they feel stupid after seeing their actions played back to them and now they want to change history via a letter to the editor.  Let's breakdown their letters.

Ms. Contreras Wrote:

"As an avid member of the Occupy El Paso Movement, I feel Daniel Borunda's article misrepresented our movement and intentions.

First, we chose Oct. 15 not to interfere with Chalk the Block -- it is an international day to begin protests within our movement."

We'll excuse the awkward, but technically correct use of "avid" here...

If you read Borunda's original article HERE, it's clear that he's the one who alerted the "occupiers" to the fact that the space they were seeking to occupy on the 15th was already slated to be occupied - by "Chalk the Block."  Borunda does not imply there was a purposeful overlap as the Ms. Contreras implies.  He simply pointed out the scheduling conflict.

Any implied intereference with the "Chalk the Block" event scheduled for the 15th was generated from the "occupiers" and quoted by Borrunda - ""If the people at Chalk the Block are truly artists; they will not have a problem with us being here," shouted one man in the crowd."  It seems that Ms. Contreras wants to say that "everyone" has a say, but wants to back away from comments made by "everyone." 

Ms. Contreras' next quote covers why she has to be saddled with the musings of "everyone."

"Second, while it is true that we do not have a hierarchical structure, nor elected leaders, this is purposeful. We do not want to write a constitution in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. We are not speaking against our democracy. Indeed, we want to become involved in it.

In addition, not all ideas expressed are representative of the group as a whole. But as a group, we respect the right to voice them.

An activist did suggest we occupy a news station. But what the El Paso Times did not say is that the group consensus quickly dismissed the notion."

In these paragraphs above, Ms. Contreras fingers the problem - the problem that caused her to write a letter to the editor - she states that nobody is in control, therefore "everyone" is in control and the reporter standing around taking notes had to give equal weight to "everyone's" comments and opinions since "everyone" was in control.  Had the group had a single leader - a single person from which the group's thoughts would be passed through to the reporter, they wouldn't have the wild ass statements from random people appearing in the news paper article.  Had they had some kind of hierarchy, the random guy talking about "occupying" a news station wouldn't have made it into the article - he would have been quoted individually and separately from the recognized group - instead his equal voice was attributed to their entire group because you have nobody in charge! 

This anarchy concept they are so in love with turns out to be a little much to handle when thety are actually trying to get stuff done. 

And let's not even get into how extremely moronic the talk of writing a constitution in conflict of the U.S. Constitution was.  Ms. Contreras is either a bad writer, or very short on knowledge when it comes to even the hinted goals of the "occupy" movement.  They have not declared independence and entered a phase on constructing a new constitution while raising the money and the man power to take on the U.S. Armed Forces in what would be a revolution against the sitting U.S. government.

Now let's look at Mr. Jastrzembski's letter.  He wrote:

"I'm writing this letter today because I feel Daniel Borunda's article misrepresented my reasons for involvement with Occupy El Paso, and took my words out of context.

In regards to my comment, "Hospitals are so expensive that it's cheaper to die," I said so because corporate greed first affects the most disadvantaged amongst us.

The group Adapt sent representatives to our meeting because kleptocracy will directly change their lives. For example, if the for-profit insurance industry's behest repeals federal Medicaid block grants, disabled individuals with no other means to support themselves will no longer have medical attention, a home, food, and, most importantly, dignity."

Mr. Jastrzembski has a great opening sentence here.  It states the purpose of his letter and prepares the reader for his clarification.

In sentence two the whole thing falls off a cliff - killing sentence one and everything else written by Mr. Jastrzembski.  May his letter to the editor rest in peace.

He claims his words were taken "out of context" and then doesn't do anything show them in any different context than they were displayed by Borunda in the first place.  If anything, the sentence still stands on it's own because it's a complete statement of fact not needing modification on either side of it. It lives without the fear of being modified, quantified or qualified.  The statement "Hospitals are so expensive that it's cheaper to die," stands by itself as an absolute irrefutable fact.  It is cheaper to lay their die of your ailment, whatever it may be, than it is to engage the health care system which will always guarantee that costs to you will be incurred.  I can't argue against that premise and neither can anyone else in the world.  There is no context in which that  statement can be taken other than the single one within it exists - which is the one Mr. Jastrzembski meant it.

What I think Mr. Jastrzembski actual wants is quite simple - he wants the "corporate greed" quote in there.  He wanted the quote to say something like, "Hospitals are so expensive that it's cheaper to die, because corporations are greedy."  So the quote was in context - the meaning does not change.  What does change with Mr. Jastrzembski's original quote, once you add the "corporate greed" part is his assertion of blame for that fact.  Again, this isn't context, this is simply wanting more of the stuff he said to be printed. 

Remember, Borunda was writing specifically about WHY these people were protesting when he quoted Mr. Jastrzembski in the article.  The quote from Borunda's article is below:

"People unable to find work, students unable to pay back loans and "hospitals so expensive that it is cheaper to die" were among concerns that a demonstrator named Anthony said were his motivation."

Borunda was not examining, nor exploring, the WHO or WHAT behind the WHY when he quoted Mr. Jastrzembski.  The idea of "corporate greed" was pretty much implied by its mention earlier in the article above Mr. Jastrzembski's quote.

Mr. Jastrzembski's rambling Medicaid and Adapt paragraph pretty much starts the downward spiral into the abyss of non-associated themes thrown out for no apparent reason.  However, it only gets better... or worse depending on how you look at it.

"This is just one way of many that corporate manipulation of our political system can ruin peoples' lives.

I have lived in East Africa where such programs do not exist.

These conditions forever doom a man who cannot walk to crawl down dirt roads, with strips of tire rubber strapped to his hands, as he begs for table scraps. A mentally challenged girl can be raped with impunity without the protection of a group home or a social worker."

Now we have a pretty good idea of how Mr. Jastrzembski's interview with Borunda probably went. If you use the evidence of what is written above, you can figure that Borunda was pounded with a barrage of metaphorical stories that were hard to follow, off topic and simply idiotic - just like the paragraph above.  Gleaning a good quote out of Mr. Jastrzembski meant sitting through a lot of bullshit cooked up by Mr. Jastrzembski's little tiny (and possibly chemically abused) brain.  If you have ever had a pot head for a friend, then you know exactly how a converation with Mr. Jastrzembski and other "occupiers" would go.  It usually goes like this - they talk a lot, you tune them out and they get pissed because you later don't remember the brilliant cranial diarrhea they exposed you to against your will. 

Mr. Jastrzembski's little hissy fit letter is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  He's pissed because he probably spent 30 minutes bombarding Borunda with what he thought was his incredibly intelligent metaphor-packed allegories and Borunda didn't quote him verbatim on all of BS theories in the paper.  Boo-hoo. 

Mr. Jastrzembski looks back at himself through the lense of a different camera and dislikes what he sees - thus proving my "answering machine" theory... again.

-----------------------

The two people were upset with the coverage of their event.  That had no real reason to be upset. They reached out to the paper and they happily obliged and let them not only prove the original article to be perfectly factual, but embarrass themselves and the whole movement along with them. 

I feel bad for them because these two people figured out how they looked to the real world and were shocked by it.  What I don't get is why they felt the need to make themselves representative of the movement when they clearly state that no single person can represent the thoughts of the movement.  By speaking out via the newspaper for the entire movement, they negate the entire spirit of the movement! 

Comments

[Carl Starr]

I think a Collective is leaderless but certain members may have certain skills that the Collective is happy to have. The problems with nonCollectives is leaders tend to be more about power and influence than the common struggle.

What is interesting is how so called 'rebels''anarchists'etc always sentry change and then status quo 'community leaders' follow.

In other words for example Davids Dems friend, the Pundit Lionstar who always has something to say about everything...especially politcal...has yet to post about the Movement because he has basiclly sold himself out to the status quo local political system as a insider.

[Manuel Alvarez]

It seems to me the El Paso Times is censoring Facebook posts that run counter to their political views. For the last two days I've tried posting the following to no avail. These two are EXACTLY as I tried posting:

Ideologue much Christopher Bailey?? I think your bandana is on a little tight. Had you ACTUALLY clicked on the websites you would have learned everything is true. And had you read each parties support of the Occupy Wall Street, it would have prevented you from sounding so asinine.

Let me help out Chrisy B, I'll do the footwork for you let's start with the CPUSA:

"This movement, also known as the “99% movement,” is being hailed across the country. Movements and organizations are reaching out in solidarity. The AFL-CIO is opening union halls and offering other material assistance."

"A big challenge for the CPUSA and left, progressive movements is to link these demonstrations with the labor led all-people’s coalition and help deepen understanding that the path to progress must be through electoral and political action."

"We can also play a role in offering more advanced programmatic ideas like nationalizing the banks and socialism."

"To have a positive impact, the CPUSA and YCL must be a part of the “Occupy” movement, participating at every level and building greater local support for the actions among labor and progressive forces."

Yeah sounds like fun! Oh and at the bottom of CPUSA webpage they provide links to the occupywallst official website.

http://www.cpusa.org/solidarity-with-occupy-wall-street-teleconference-oct-11/

Chrisy B., now let's deal with those racist white boys, shall we:

"Many racialists are unsure about, and even against, these Occupy Wall Street protests all around the country. It has been pointed out to me that many protesters are non-white and/or “communists.” Well my answer to that is: “WHO CARES?!” They are against the same evil, corrupted, degenerate capitalist elitists that WE are against! Instead of screaming, “6 million more!” The pro-white movementites should be JOINING this Occupy movement and supporting it!"

"Seriously people, just WHO is our enemy? The unemployed left-wing 25-year-old holding up a sign, OR the judeo-capitalist banksters who swindled the American taxpayers out of A TRILLION dollars in the “bailout” scam AND continue to oppress the White Working Class?!? Even Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP had to vote with open communists on some issues to achieve their goals. WE need to utilize and support every movement of dissent against this evil American empire, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it originates from."

That is some magical kumbaya you guys got going there Chrisy B. So I say again to you Chrisy B, ideologue much?

http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement/

http://anp14.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2011-10-16

My question is why censor? Was the move to Facebook posting a way to control and the opposition views?

[Carl Starr]

Borunda today mentions Pogo sticks and Tattoos. I think the point is no a single popious stuffed suit was seen at the Plaza...eg change is dearer to the non status quo than the stuffed suits. No doubt the group may seem encrentic as Borunda observed and this is exactly what is to be expected.

[dot]

I hope they enjoyed the temp drops over night.

[Curious]

I second what Dot said...

[Seriously OWS?]

In NYC they are praying for colder temps and snow so they will go away!

[Carl Starr]

I doubt Winter cold will force the Collective away, when I tented at my ranch for survival not protest, a -40 Military Sleeping Bag was all i needed.