Janet Daley said what???

So it turns out Janet Daley is kind of an idiot.

In a recent op-ed in the Telegraph, Ms. Daley says that OWS has "failed the essential test of protest" because its political objectives aren't well-defined, unlike the protests she participated in during the 1960s at Berkeley:

"The abolition of racial segregation in the Southern states of America (and de facto segregation in its Northern ones), the right of black US citizens to register as voters, and opposition to American military action in Vietnam still seem to me to be issues on which it was necessary and right to take a stand. The reason that I find it impossible to feel any kinship with the erstwhile campers of Zuccotti Park – let alone their imitators in London – is not because I repent of my own youth, or no longer accept the value of public protest. There is all the difference in the world between what we did then and what is going on now."

Janet's absolutely right.  There is "all the difference in the world" between then and now.  When she was at Berkeley there was a war going on in Vietnam.  "End the war in Vietnam" was a clear and easily-defined goal, and it fit nicely on a poster.  As for racial segregation in the South, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in direct response to the concentrated efforts of protesters and civil rights advocates, both in the South and across the United States.  In both of Ms. Daley's examples, it was possible (and relatively easy) for protesters to demand specific, achievable policy changes.

Unfortunately, OWS is attacking a different monster, one that has infiltrated every aspect of our social, political and financial institutions.  You can't write a law that outlaws greed and corruption, and it's not the responsibility of protesters to demand specific policy changes.  I'm sure a philosophy major from Berkeley could suggest a 0.002% financial transactions tax, but what would that number be based on, and who would consider his/her suggestion to be legitimate?

Ms. Daley is pandering to the Telegraph's conservative audience with this piece, and it's annoying that a woman who's smart enough to see the obvious differences between the 1960s and the 2010s is ignoring them for personal gain.