Ozark Michael, I have only this much more to aay as I don’t want to continue the “gotcha!” tone you set up:

The TD “copt the cops” article was meant, I believe, to point up one fact the cops might be missing that would help them to relate to the protesters more positively and cut down on their temptation to use force short of severe provocation.  They are members of the “laboring” (public service) class, too, along with so many other people who have lost out since the predations of Wall Street. (No doubt the gift of some millions of dollars offered to them looks like an attempt to co-opt their preference in services.)
  The issue is not unlike the issue in Egypt we talked about before, where early on the protesters appealed to the military to join them rather than to fight them. Of course no money was offered them in exchange.  Whether the Egyptian case was one of “co-optation” is debatable. Certainly there was nothing underhanded or deceitful about it. Likewise, in the TD article, perhaps the use of the word “co-opt” prejudiced the suggestion to some extent. “Eyes of the beholder” enter into how one “sees” such ambiguous words as “co-opt.”

There was a Truthdig article called “How (and Why) to Co-opt the Cops on Wall Street.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_and_why_to_co-opt_those_cops_on_wall_street_20111006/

You will note that in the whole thread I was the only one to note that co-opting cops is not a good idea.

I tell you gerard, that the methods you would disapprove of conservatives using… must also be disapproved of at OWS.

You will probably change your mind now and agree with everyone else, that “Co-opt the Cops” is a fine idea for “Occupy Wall Street”. If you succeed we will all regret it.

Ozark Michael:  I’m not clear about what you are asking.  My general answer would be that co-optation in general has a bad reputation.  It implies takeover, subtle or otherwise, some degree of deceit and exploitation, underhanded manipulation, etc.

Robespierre:  I hope you watched Democracy Now, 10/17/11 and heard the remarks of Vincenzo Fiore
on the negative effects of a minority of protesters in Rome when they “went violent.”  Also Mauro Vitiello. Sad, but so true.

gerard said: Non-violence is at odds with everything militarism believes and teaches. Freedom from dictatorship largely boils down to freedom from “the military.”

I will give my agreement to it. Add ‘the police’ to that mix.

The problem becomes especially acute when the military and the police are co-opted to one side of a political disagreement.

gerard, much can be lost by attempting to co-opt the military or the police into one side of a political disagreement. I am sure you agree.

Robespierre: Glad you mentioned “the military” in connection with the Egyptian reform movement. As I interpreted the complexities of it, I thought it the most crucial aspect.  The way I took it, from the beginning a lot of effort on the part of the protest leadership was to include “the military” as “brothers” not as “enemies.” How “the military” would respond was crucial in determining the “tone” of the protest. At first, and with a few exceptions, “the military” tended to side with the protesters. This means “the military” mainly involved were on the street, not in leadership positions.
  What was going on behind the scenes may have been considerably more disturbed and disturbing. As the protests continued and grew, things seemed to turn and more protesters got jailed. It is likely “the military” was caught between a rock and a hard place—support the dictatorship (system) or the people (change).
  In the end, the “hard place” exerted more power and influence and became less disposed to tolerance—which could have been expected.
  Considering it all later, it is doubly remarkable that the protesters were actually able to get rid of Mubarek in spite of “the military” being a large part of the “dictatorship” (as always).The effort to bring even some of them over to a more democratic viewpoint was itself an accomplishment.  Whether it can last or not is unsettled—again, not unexpectedly.
  Non-violence is at odds with everything militarism believes and teaches. Freedom from dictatorship largely boils down to freedom from “the military.”
Dictatorship can’t endure without military support; it’s that crucial.  Yet “the military”—like “the police” are part of “the people” too. Their loyalties are diametrically opposed the moment they concede that in order to “protect the people” they must desert “the military”.
  Of course such broad-brush analysis is pushing generalities over specifics.  But crudely put, it’s the problem of the century, I think.
  Last, I think it is totally unrealistic to expect (demand) that protest movements have previously considered in detail how post-protest days should be organized. Protest comes from people who have been denied “access” to the intricacies of political organization, knowledge and power. They are united on common over-all goals for reform, necessarily. Ideally, it would be good if ... but practically speaking, I doubt that such unified detailed foresight is possible, generally speaking.
  As to your point about “slamming” religions: Most of the time religions are a “power block” much like any other center organized for influence and domination.  They react in much the same ways as any other “power block”—that is, to maintain and advance their power. Their ideals are moral and ethical but their actual operations usually leave much to be desired so far as freedom, tolerance and peace are concerned. Both Islam and Christianity have served primarily as reactionary forces when it comes to personal freedom and peace-making. Sad to say, after more than 1000 years they are again at each other’s throats, more or less, although sporadic efforts are always being made cooperatively to come to terms with reason, which marches doggedly on in spite of its own bound feet, so to speak.

Income inequality. Really?  sounds
like justice defined by the relative
poor.  So if incomes were
standardized and all vocations were
all equally paid than all would be ok
and the corporations could continue
on degrading the environment.  In
that case the mob could be bought
quite easily. If it wasnt for corporate
greed they could make it so.  And
the sheep could continue to buy
shiny shoes and big TV’s.  Oh wait
they already do.  In fact the dole
bludgers find it as an affront and an
injustice if they dont have cell
phones and giant tv’s.  So it appears
they have already been bought in
American technopoly.

gerard, since you are being nice about it, I want to admit to you that the tanks running over the Christians werent something the Left wanted to see.

“In Egypt many of the same systemic faults are being faced:  dictatorial/military power, lack of respect among older generation for “modernization” and lack of knowledge about the cultural implications of “information technologies”, clinging to outmoded religion orthodoxies,fear of real democratic freedom.”

That analysis has quite a few holes in it. For example Egyptians are dealing with a military dictatorship because they made the mistake of only overthrowing Mubarak and not the entire system, they did not form or prepare new organs of popular, revolutionary power to smash the old state and build a new society. Tariq Ali for example, has hinted that if the uprising in Alexandria had formed something similar to the 1871 Paris Commune, the impact would have been electrifying, instead the people trusted in the old order (much like Occupy Wall Street calling for the government or fatcats to change or “listen” instead of calling for a full revolution).

As for religious ideas, they can work either way and a culture’s religious identity cannot be automatically slammed as a stumbling block. Consider the revolutionary traditions in the West from the Radical Reformation or Anabaptist movements, or the 1525 German Peasant’s War and Thomas Muntzer. It is a sad feature of the postmodern age that history and revolutionary traditions are ignored or never even made known to people anymore, so you’re stuck demanding change without any articulation of concrete, radical alternatives.

From the New York Times 10-20-11 (widely considered as more or less reliable by many people:  “Now political liberals as well as Copts said the brutal crackdown had finally extinguished the public’s faith in the ruling military council as the guardian of a peaceful transition to democracy.

“The credit that the military received from the people in Tahrir Square just ran out yesterday,” the party leader Ayman Nour said at a news conference of prominent parties and political leaders denouncing the military. “There is no partnership between us and the council now that the blood of our brothers stands between us.”
PS-It seems reasonably safe to presume that it was not…” the new revolutionary government in Egypt (who) used modern tanks to run over the Christians.” As I understand it, the “new revolutionary government” has had a “falling out” with the military since Tahrir Square, but the military still has some power, due to a remainder of the “old guard” in the government.  Things are unsettled, to noone’s surprise. Much was accomplished, but not everything.

In Egypt many of the same systemic faults are being faced:  dictatorial/military power, lack of respect among older generation for “modernization” and lack of knowledge about the cultural implications of “information technologies”, clinging to outmoded religion orthodoxies…

I guess thats why the new revolutionary government in Egypt used modern tanks to run over the Christians. Like Obama onserved, we are ‘clinging to our Bibles’ and those darn outmoded religious orthoxies too.

Knopfler:  Boiling it down to simple principles, both (in fact all) recent protests of (generally) younger people around the world reveal some common worldwide problems:  Unemployment. Lack of democratic “access” to centers of power.  Desire for a better (more peaceful, less deadly) future. Desire for Less domination from capitalist-controlled, top-down rule. Also awareness of worldwide problems (poverty, disease, climate change.
More affordable and available education. Desire for increased international/intercultural/interracial amity, due largely to Internet. Desire for equal rights and respect.Desire for an end to war, alleviation of disease and poverty.
  Hopefully, the initial intentions have everything to do with the final outcome, but the kids can’t do it alone, though they’ve made a marvelous start. A large part of “the ball” is in our (adult majority) court now— troubled as we are by US financial and military greed and reactionary tendencies to try to “go back to” something or “keep things the same”.
In Egypt many of the same systemic faults are being faced:  dictatorial/military power, lack of respect among older generation for “modernization” and lack of knowledge about the cultural implications of “information technologies”, clinging to outmoded religion orthodoxies,fear of real democratic freedom.

I STILL HAVE PROBLEM WITH THIS COMPARISON; EGYPT NOT
SPONTANEOUS CIA GENERATED NOURISHED AND TRAINED ON
TECHNICAL SOCIAL ORGANIZING.
NEW YORY =  AGAINST CORPORATE CRAP AT HOME: NOT
AGAINST CIA; WALL STREET NOT FEDERAL RESERVE.
MUBA-RACK EGYPT, SUPPORTED FIRST BY COMMUNIST RUSSIA
BOUGHT BY USA; TORTURE DEATH PRISONS ALL FOR USA USE:
NEW YORK YOUNG KIDS PROTESTING =  SAME AGE AS ONE`S
KILLING THEMSELVES = MILITARY SUICIDE DEATHS GREATER
THAN DEATHS IN BATTLE 2 YEARS IN A ROW=CONGRESS.ORG.
MAYBE EMOTIONS ARE HIGH BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS:
“DOES THE INITIAL INTENTION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
FINAL OUT COME” YES IT DOES;