
Andrew Ross Sorkin | (Creative Commons) photo by Larry D. Moore
I found it noteworthy that Mr. Sorkin, currently a New York Times financial ‘journalist,’ quickly responded to a lament made by a member of his key audience (h/t to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism):
“I think a good deal of the bankers should be in jail.”
That is what Andrew Cole, an unemployed 24-year-old graduate of Bucknell University, told me Monday morning in Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Mr. Cole, an articulate young man dressed in jeans, a sweatshirt and with a blue wool beanie on his head, had just arrived by bus from Madison, Wis., where he recently lost his job.
There was nothing particularly menacing or dangerous about Mr. Cole. He said he had come to participate in Occupy Wall Street because he believed in its “anticapitalist” message. “I see Wall Street as responsible for the mess we’re in.”
I had gone down to Zuccotti Park to see the activist movement firsthand after getting a call from the chief executive of a major bank last week, before nearly 700 people were arrested over the weekend during a demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge.
“Is this Occupy Wall Street thing a big deal?” the C.E.O. asked me. I didn’t have an answer. “We’re trying to figure out how much we should be worried about all of this,” he continued, clearly concerned. “Is this going to turn into a personal safety problem?”
As I wandered around the park, it was clear to me that most bankers probably don’t have to worry about being in imminent personal danger. This didn’t seem like a brutal group — at least not yet.
Well, I do wish the protest will not turn into a personal safety problem for this Bankster or for any other Bankster. After all, illegal killing is wrong when a mob commits the act or when a President authorizes the act.
That said, my strongest wish has the #OccupyWallStreet protest creating the conditions under which the Banksters will eventually confront a serious legal-political problem, one specific to their situation. This problem would include prison-time for those Banksters found guilty of crimes by legally rational courts. Although it should not need to be said but I shall say it anyway that wanting jail time for those Banksters guilty of crimes is a much different wish than wanting them guillotined or sent to reeducation camps, as suggested by Roseanne Barr, a celebrity given to hyperbole whom Sorkin quoted in order to focus attention on and thus to enhance the physically menacing features present in any protest movement seeking justice for institutional crimes. Thus does a ‘responsible journalist’ (“lapdog to bankers,” Yves Smith) recklessly impute criminal motives and a capacity for violence to a protest action that has been peaceful till now and remains committed to seeing justice done. Sorkin furtively sought to achieve this transformation by a sleight-of-hand trick: It’s the uppity unemployed, not the Banksters, who are dangerous. Well…. No!
“Lapdog to the Bankers” — it’s good work if you can get it.
Cross posted to All Tied Up and Nowhere to Go
Update
Thanks to the Administrator who added Sorkin’s photo!
Update II
Masaccio posted a similar article on the front page.
Update III
Glenn Greenwald also discussed Sorkin’s article.



11 Comments

Thx for the report.
Sorkin is a tool: the banksters’ butler.
He and The NYTimes should be ashamed of themselves.
NP. Thanks also to Yves Smith for noticing Sorkin’s corruption of the truth while serving as a tool of the powerful.
The banksters haven’t been held
accountable for their reckless and exploitative behavior.
In fact, they’ve been rewarded.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/02/bonus-babies-the-big-tarp-recipients-and-their-booty
I’m not advocating ‘a personal safety problem’
but it’s about time they worry about some blowback.
I noticed a tweet yesterday which stated something to this effect:
0 Banksters arrested for their crimes
700 #OccupyWallStreet marchers arrested for peacefully protesting the practices of the Banksters!
good one!
Interesting times.
The arrests were a disgrace – but had the unintended great effect of getting the msm to cover this incipient movement.
well done!
Thanks!
I’m not sure it would be a bad thing for the banksters to be brought to the realization (they certainly seem incapable of arriving at it on their own) that the docility of the 99% cannot be counted upon indefinitely.
The question: What will the Banksters do when they realize they cannot count on a apathetic public?
The president’s specific job is to uphold the constitution, whereas an angry mob was not appointed to that task.
When the bankers buy the politicians, and make sure that they are above facing in-system consequences for their actions, they may open the door to other types of (outside-the-system)consequences.
I’m not advocating any sort of violence, but I wouldn’t shed any tears for the bankers either if they end up on the wrong side of such an angry mob.
Just as long as the angry mob molesting the Banksters contains only Tea Baggers! Still, even this best case possibility could motivate the state or a sitting government to violently suppress popular politics per se or even to suspend the constitution and implement an emergency government. I strongly suspect the days of street fighting and barricade manning have passed us by.