Elusive Trope's picture

    The Prize Upon Which We Keep Our Eyes

    By Elusive Trope on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 8:03pm |


    "The prize....there it is!"

    There has been a comparison of the current Occupy movement and the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.  In some ways, there is a truth to that.  Whereas the latter looked to achieve racial equality, the former is seeking to achieve economic equality.  The problem is that racial equality is easier to grasp than economic equality (although the arena of the means to remedy the equalities is another matter - see affirmative action).

    As a young lad in the 5th grade, I became fascinated with the Underground Railroad.  I still remember the delight of the school librarian when I asked her to help me find something on the topic just because I wanted to learn more about it and not because it was part of some assignment (although at the time I didn't understand the subtext of her glee).  This interest led me to the Civil Rights movement and the numerous stories about living in the segregated South.

    One story has stuck in my mind.  A man recounts how as a child he had to urinate and he ran to the nearest public restroom.  A sign on the door said "For Whites Only."  He ran to find one he could use.  But in the process he ended up urinating in his pants.  And so much of why the Civil Rights movement caught on with those who were not directly impacted by racial discrimination was that it tapped into a basic sense of decency they could understand.

    Why should the color of someone's skin determine who could use the restroom?  Why should what race I am matter whether I could walk into a cafe and order a piece of pie?  Why should my ethnicity determine where on a bus I can sit?

    And the solution to the problem seems so simple.

    All restrooms are open to everyone.  Everyone should be able to sit down and order a slice of pie.  Anyone should be able to sit where they please on the bus. 

    Those who disagree are, well, idiots and bigots.

    Economic equality is not so simple.  What does that mean exactly?  Unfairness, that's another matter.  Although not perfectly simple, we all get the concept of an unleveled playing field.  We get the idea of how some are given an unfair advantage.  And we definitely detest unfairness, regardless of our political stripes.  One only has to listen to the profanities of a sports fan screaming at the tv about how the referees are favoring the other team to understand that.

    Bur economic equality? 

    The basis of racial equality is based on the notion that the opportunities and benefits of society should be accessible to everyone, regardless of the individual's race.  Economic equality is based on the notion that economic status should achievable based on....what?

    The problem is that in our society and any foreseeable society there will be those are more wealthy than other people.  Even in the most socialist societies of Europe, there are those whose bank accounts dwarf those of others.  Is it unacceptable that this family has an income of 23K and that family has an income 94K?  Is it acceptable that it is a big deal for this family to go to the movies on a Friday night and that family vacations in the south of France every year?

    While the focus on the 1% is a nice PR move, it avoids the more nuanced issues at the heart of how wealth is distributed in society.  What it definitely avoids is what is the definition of economic equality. 

    So what about those in the top 5% of the 99%?  Are they to be treated and be provided the exact same services and benefits of the government as those who make up the bottom 95% of the 99%? 

    At the heart of all this is what is the basic standard of living each of us in society are entitled to - what standard of living is our right? 

    What is the economic prize upon which we are to set our eyes?

    Artappraiser linked to an excellent article / opinion piece by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus entitled " Modernnising liberalism" (and here is the link to the article at the Breakthrough Institute where the article was first posted - which has an intro not in the other link).   This article inspired this current blog, but in particular it is the beginning of their article which is relevant to this blog.

    In 1931, the historian, James Truslow Adams, published The Epic of America, the first book in American letters to name the American Dream. In the epilogue, Adams defined it as the idea that "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement". Like Ralph Waldo Emerson in "Self-Reliance" and Frederick Jackson Turner in "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", Adams put his finger on an essential aspect of the meritocratic and manic, American character, one that runs through European dreams of the New World, Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography and the boys' books of Horatio Alger.

    Though published in the depths of the Great Depression, Adams' American Dream was strikingly postmaterialist. The Dream was not "a dream of merely material plenty, though that has doubtless counted heavily", he wrote. The Dream was "being able to grow to fullest devel­op­ment as man and woman". Adams warned that hypermaterialism and status seeking could overshadow the true meaning of America.

    It is the American take on the essential question: What is a life lived well? 

    Does it matter that this person can afford a flat screen tv and I cannot.  Is there something wrong with society if this facet exists?

    The Civil Rights movement tapped into a fundamental sense of fairness. There is part of the Occupy movement that taps into this and it is this that it finds its strength.  If one can show the actions of others is interfering with someone else from achieving a life that is better and richer and fuller for no good reason, then one is a good position.

    But then we are back to the question as to how to we define a better and richer and fuller life.  What income is necessary for that?  And what is the responsibility of those making more to help ensure that this equality is achieve

    How much of our fullest development is dependent upon our bank account?

    As a result of yesterday's Day of Action, I went to the Occupy Wall Street website.  On the home page this the basic blur which sums up what is OWS:

    Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

    This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.

    What is the prize here?  At best it is about a new government process to achieve the prize.  But the prize is still undefined. 

    Just below that is the Madison Avenue like tag line:

    the only solution is WorldRevolution

    Gee....perfect for bumper stickers and I'm sure someone will make a profit on the selling of corresponding t-shirts.

    The issue is not what we are revolting against.  The question is what are asking to replacing that which we are revolting against.  One only has to listen to MLK's speech at the Washington Monument to understand what the Civil Rights movement envison as replacing the current status quo.

    So maybe the question has to be: if the leadershipless Occupy movement had a leader who gave a "I have a dream speech," what would that sound like?

     

    Comments

    To me, these questions aren't that confusing.

    There were many times in my life when I was able to coast by because I was smarter than other people around me.  I could be lazy and still succeed in accomplishing my tasks, while other people had to work harder, and received less reward.  That always seemed wrong to me.  I felt guilty about it, and I think I was right to feel guilty.

    I still have colleagues who work harder than me, but are not paid as much as I am.     That doesn't seem right.  Aren't their lives and families as important as mine?

    During the health care debate it was revealed that some health care CEO's had $10 million salaries.  I remember thinking, "What kind of person demands that kind of personal compensation, drawn from the insurance payments and out-of-pocket payments of struggling people, in order to be induced to contribute their talents to the care of the sick and the dying?"   The answer: a greedy, selfish pig.

    My sense of justice tells me that we should have a society in which everyone has a task to perform that matches their abilities, and is necessary to the functioning of a prosperous democratic society, and they are compensated according to how diligently they complete those tasks, and not according to how important that task is in the scheme of things.  What we should ask in measuring the merit of a person is not, "How much value does that person's task generate?"   We should ask instead, "Has that person done their job?"


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:19pm

    I think there's a lot to this, but at the same time we need to make sure that we don't disincentivize education or other forms of investment. Should someone who invested years of their time in getting an engineering degree earn significantly more than someone who doesn't think math is important? That's not as easy a question to answer as some on the right or left would like to think.

    On one hand is the fairness aspect: you (presumably) and I find math much easier than many others, most likely due in large part to our parents, whether it's their genetic legacy or just how they affected our childhood. So, it was much easier for us to get a college degree.

    On the other hand is the pragmatic aspect: we could've found other ways to enjoy our college years. If there wasn't a good reason, we could've decided to goof off (even more than we did) while at college.

    These fairness/pragmatic questions aren't limited to a college education, but I find that's an easier one to ponder than some of the other personal investment scenarios.

    Now, I'm not saying you do want to make all wages equal. Elsewhere you mentioned a 5-10x rule-of-thumb. I think that's reasonable. I'd be willing to invest time in college for a 2x increase in income.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 7:27am

    Should someone who invested years of their time in getting an engineering degree earn significantly more than someone who doesn't think math is important?

    One thing to consider is the way people will view their time investment if we take the money investment out of the picture.  Suppose the public treasury pays for the engineering training for those with the talent and desire to pursue it.   Then what we are talking about is the difference between a person who worked for several years at getting an engineering degree and one who worked for several years at something that did not require that further advanced education.  But for many people going to a nice school and learning something challenging is much more enjoyable than operating construction machinery out in the heat or cold.  And the prospect of spending a career working on an engineering team designing products and organizing engineering projects is much more attractive than the prospect of being, say, a line worker working up to factory foreman.

    So I'm not sure how much additional incentive you need to provide.  How many people will say, "Damn, I'm slaving away here learning analytic mechanics in this ivy-draped arcadian community, so that I can work on engineering projects for my whole career, when I could have been slaving away doing some manual labor instead, and preparing for a career of manual labor."   Some people would say that.  And those are probably the people who make the best fit for the manual labor jobs anyway.

    We can also provide people with more incentives to learn, if more incentives are necessary,  by paying them.   It is appropriate in some cases to pay people to learn and treat learning as their job.  If a young person pursuing an engineering degree has their education and living expenses paid for, and receives a $10,000 stipend as well, that will seem like a pretty good life.  (Especially if we have removed such options as going to Wall Street and earning $1 million instead.)   I think we can make sure people get all the education we need them to get by deciding which paths are publicly subsidized and which are not.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 9:58am

    When I look at the nomadic tribes of the plains I think what a life.

    Pitch a tent alongside a majestic river  in what is now the Yellowstone region and follow the herd. 

    Tending for my family and community needs.

    Telling the 1%.....  either you work and pitch in, or leave. We have only one Chief and he works for the good of the tribe.

    What is an engineers carbon footprint? How much stuff does one need take to make one happy? How much is the real cost, of so called progress.

    Did the tribes have stress related diseases?


    by Resistance on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 10:27am

    I wonder whether your wife would equally welcome that lifestyle.

    http://www.bluecloud.org/work.html
    http://www.bluecloud.org/role.html


    by anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 1:29pm

    Well all I need is a piece of pie and a place to piss.

    That's a good message for me!


    by Richard Day on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:21pm

    DD's Four "P" plan for America! (Piece Pie, Place Piss)  
    I think this beats the hell out of the 999 plan.  


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 1:23am

    Dude, what's up with you and flat screen tvs?


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 3:08am

      “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” (Exodus 20:17 ESV)

    You shall not covet your neighbors flat screen TV?


    by Resistance on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 4:30am

    If I concede on the wife can we discuss the female servant?

    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 5:23pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsdEXETPGo&feature=fvst


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 6:58pm

    A great dance band--where did I put that collar, anyway...?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 11:46pm

    I don't know what you mean by the collar?

    I don't like the YOKE  that has been placed upon us, by those who most benefit from our bondage and labor. They profit while we struggle to find food and shelter.

    Was the old way really that bad, considering what we traded away.

    We traded away Freedom in exchange for slavery to the money changers? 

    We may have had the burdens of living then, in order to survive; now were enslaved with a the same burdens in order to survive. 

    You produce and some middle man skims off an easy life, because you have to carry his load too.

    Were peoples desires beyond what was needed,  really worth all the cost and trouble?

    Do you really want to support the 1%? If not quit supporting the political, judicial  and economic system or structures, that keep them elevated and in control

    =====================================

     “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
     “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble    .  (Matthew 6:25-34 ESV)


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 1:22pm

    Since you arrive, in the end, at a restatement of my *business plan ("Have no thought for the morrow"), I must argue for the King James version, which really scans much better than the proffered text.

    Now, about that maidservant I've been coveting...

     

    *I am Vice President for neither toiling nor spinning--a demanding position.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:12pm

    Flat screen tvs for me sum up materialism.  I mean the old style tvs were fine.  But I have been around too many people who were all hyped about getting one, and they covered the spectrum of political stripes.  But the fact that we are considering do I have one or not have one, that this question floats in our mind, says we are a particular level of basic needs being met.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 1:58am

    The prize we all should seek is........ Contentment.

     In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”  (Acts 20:35 ESV)

    True contentment comes with empathy.
    Tim Finn

    Man falls from the pursuit of the ideal of plan living and high thinking the moment he wants to multiply his daily wants. Man's happiness really lies in contentment.
    Mohandas Gandhi
    Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/contentment.html#ixzz1e8t8XTij

     


    by Resistance on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 5:02am

    You are oversimplifying the civil rights movement, AT, and overcomplicating economic justice, and apparently just refusing to see the message of OWS. 

    What is the prize OWS seeks? It seems pretty clear here, directly from their Web site via your citation, above:

    This #ows movement empowers real people to create change real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society.

    That isn't difficult to understand. People can be engaged directly in the creation of the future of the country. Protesting the egregious behavior of the 1% is a way to bring people together and start a conversation.

    If you expect a leader to hand a pre-packaged agenda to you, tell you where to stand and when to clap and what signs to hold up, then OWS isn't for you. You're looking for a coach.

    If you want to participate in the future, rather than hand off decision-making to Wall Street and their DC lackeys, then hie thee to the nearest general assembly (which, by the way, is pretty much what you do when you blog here).

    Will it work? I don't know. But so far, OWS has managed to change the conversation when no individual leader could do so.


    by Red Planet on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 12:02pm

    I'm sorry, but the conversation has been ongoing.  It has always been there.  The web expanded the reach, but it has always been there.  People basically have an opinion on most of the issues, it is generally that they don't spend that much time on each issue.

    Personally I am not looking for a leader.  But let's face it, without MLK, and the others that were in the second tier like Jesse Jackson would the Civil Rights movement had been able to achieve what it did? 

    To ask for a focused agenda is not the same thing as a pre-packaged agenda.  Is Occupy about college tuition  in New York?  Is it about gender equality?  or environmental sustainability?  All worthy causes.  But the point is - if you hav e a progressive grievance - then you occupy, which ends up making occupy equated with protest.  Which basically means then that occupy means nothing in particular.

    The big point though is that the Occupy movement has not offered a consensus on the solution.  Is capitalism the problem?  Do we get rid of corporation altogether? or do we just regulate them more?

    And they haven't change the conversation.  They have just added something to the conversation.  Which is no small thing.  But the system remains.  As strong as ever.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 2:10am

    The Civil Rights movement had leadership. An individual like Rosa Parks took an action, Martin Luther King Jr and others got local leaders, other ministers, professionals and citizens to back the decision to reject the open oppression. There were clear goals.

    The fact that some would enter into professional schools, others open businesses and others would perform manual labor was taken as a given. What was rejected was the idea that the country operated under a meritocracy. Their were educators who could have headed major corporations or been leaders on Wall Street.

    Today we see the party of "Meritocracy" produce Governors like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry and businessmen like Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich is hailed as a great Conservative thinker.

    Blacks have realized that the game is rigged. We don't belittle the accomplishments of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, etc. but we do realize that if the folks on Wall Street are truly the best and the brightest, the country is truly doomed.

    I doubt that most of the folks doing derivatives actually understood the math. There was any 5 year or 10 to deal with the inevitable fallout. Wall Street committed fraud. If the faces had been mostly, Black , Hispanic or female. There would have been immediate questioning of how "certain" people attained such respected places in financial institutions. There would have been jail sentences in the case of Blacks and Hispanics. If the women weren't jailed, it would be a long time before another female could rise high in the financial hierarchy.

    Economic equality is a nebulous concept. People ae reacting to a sense that the game is rigged. A bunch of privileged folks are getting away with totally immoral activity. On one level, the way Blacks got treated economically  by the actions guided by White Citizens Councils is no different than the way Wall Street treats the majority of US citizens.

    Blacks realized that leaders were going to be required to directly confront their enemies. The idea of a "leaderless" attack would have been considered ridiculous. Taking down a leader, like a Medgar Evers or a Martin Luther King Jr only quickened the pace of change.

    Leaders are neede to step up and direct what change in tactic is needed to counter the ouster of OWS from the parks.

    http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/11/dear-ows.html

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 2:02pm

    From what I can see is not only is there a lack of leadership, there is an inherent hostility to leadership in the movement.  It is as if they believe the myth that what happened in Egypt occurred as a result of just some organic unfolding of resistance and revolt. 

    Your link is good.  People should read it.  But doing something that focused would require people...focus.  Focus on one one agenda item.  There are many problems from the environment to college tuition to investment in the infrastructure.  The Civil Rights movement was sucessful because it focused on one thing and one thing only.  

     


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 2:32am

    There are leaders.  Some people have been involved in organizing the movement from the start.  But they are trying to build a movement that is decentralized and adaptive, and that refrains from making a narrow list of demands, so that it can avoid being pigeonholed and contained.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:04am

    While that makes sense, there is also the danger on the other side of spectrum: one ends up being for everything, and thus nothing.  Normally I avoid the half-hour evening news on the major networks, but on Thursday I caught one of them.  The day of action in NY was the lead story (a nice accomplishment) - but the end of the report was the reporter asking protesters what they wanted / what are they against.  As one might imagine, every person said very different things, including one exchange where one protester jumps in to correct another protester.  It also included one woman who was for the eradication of males.  So if you don't want to be pigeonholed then all the extremes on the edge are part of the definition.  That is just the way it is.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:49am

    Anybody can read the commentary and public statements of the various occupy movements across the country.  While there is a great deal of diversity, there are also a few very central common themes: corporate greed, plutocratic control, a declining standard of living for the majority of Americans, blighted prospects for America's young people.   You don't have to have an official spokesperson to have a central message

    To single out some crank issue like "eradication of men" as somehow just as worthy of attention as the core messages is just a case of the corporate media being assholes.  That's how they respond to a perceived threat to their privileges.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:10am

    Of course someone who is either sympathetic or at least "objective" can discover the fundamental and significant themes. But that isn't the point.  The choir is the choir.  The point is to grow the choir.  And these prospects are going to come to understand and potentially have their epiphany through such thing as the corporate media.  It's not fair, but that is the way it is. 

    So the more one can one do to lessen the ability of the corporate media to distort things the better. 

    There seems to be two fundamental goals in much of the occupy movement.  On one hand there is the 1% control on the system message.  Then there is the, for lack of better term, direct democracy approach of governance.  The objectives of the two while may be complimentary in the long run are not necessarily so in the short run.  

    So one has to ask oneself: am I willing to give up making actual inroads on pulling back the power of the 1% in order to make inroads on the way we govern ourselves in the long run?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:26am

    Well, I've decided it's better just to watch and reflect as this movement grows - and it certainly is growing and becoming more powerful - and try to contribute an idea here or there to the mix, rather than jerking my knee in response to every aspect of it that rubs me the wrong way.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:58am

    Just how has it become more powerful? What has changed in the way the 1% does business?  If one goes by polls, the movement is losing support of the standerbys rather than gaining. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 3:39pm

    I'm done with this thread.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 5:20pm

    okie dokie. but it would give the appearance you believe i am right about all this.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 6:46pm

    For Pete's sake, aren't you capable of going a single post without bombarding it with your obsessive but, but, but, buts, and then insisting on taking the last word on everything?

    So for the record, I think you are wrong.  But I decline to debate you, because I also think you are obtuse.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 7:36pm

    Well for the record, this is one is my blog.  You took the time to make a comment that you were not going to comment further, allowing me to respond to it.  Had you just walked away  that opportunity would not have been created. 

    And calling me obtuse is just an easy way out of confronting my particular take on things.  And in part the "but, but, buts" are an outcome of a world that cannot be easily understood and detailed.  Those who take ambivalence to an art form have long and storied history in the cultural discourse.

    In the end each of us reflect a larger constituency, in one manner or another.  So if I, a basic liberal for most intents and purposes, am not convinced by the current rhetoric of the occupy movement there are most likely a number of those like me who feel the same way.  Declining to debate me because you think I am obtuse means you are basically giving up on a whole group of potential recruits for the upcoming revolution.  So be it.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:07pm

    I decline to debate you because the debates with you never go anywhere.  They just enable your aimless kvetching.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:19pm

    is it truly aimless though, that is the question grasshopper.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 11/21/2011 - 12:03am

    I'll put my reply at the bottom.


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 6:09pm

    I sincerely doubt that most OWS types would be willing to give up the basic pillars of a regulated market economy.  I don't see the 99% movement as being against wealth, per se.  It's about wealth unfairly won and cordoned off in families or communities.  The accumulation of wealth is largely fine, until it stops others from doing the same.  You mentioned the differences between the top 5% of the 99% and everyone else.  No doubt.  Things are complicated.

    But here's why the 1% is important.  It used to be that even in an expensive place like Manhattan that people in the upper part of the 99%, (call them upper middle class) could participate in the city's civic life.  They used to be able to buy into a co-op.  Now the board scoffs at an applicant making six figures because the other applicant is worth millions.  They used to be able to serve on a charitable board, but now the fundraising requirements are so high that only bankers, hedge fund managers and high level executives can do this.  Sending your kid to prep school?  That used to be possible for the upper middle class, but tuitions have been driven up by a wealthier caste for whom the difference between $15,000 a year and $50,000 a year is not that important.  In New York, at least, but I think this is global, the 1% have basically caused inflation in the prices of civic involvement, real estate and education so that even people who are well off by national standards can no longer partake.

    And our culture celebrates this.

    I don't think that any but the very few demand equal outcomes.  The economy will likely continue to do absurd things like making Snooki rich and making Jon Corzine your boss.  But we can still set some minimum standards for people, such as:

    The right to retire comfortably after 35 years of work, whether funded by personal savings or public pensions.

    The right to medical care at the highest levels, without regard to cost.

    The right not to be forced into war, as either citizen or soldier, unless it is absolutely necessary.

    The right to a college level education, or trade schooling, without an albatross of lifelong debt.

    The right to a financial system that serves the country in the manner of a utility.

    The same right to appeal to the government and to be heard that is enjoyed currently by corporations and their lobbyists.

    A chance at upward economic mobility, not for "future generations of your family" but for you, in the one life you get to live ever.

    A year paid sabbatical for every ten years of work.

    We can have all of those things and still have fabulously rich people, by the way.  But the rich are going to have to lose some of their wealth and influence in order for us to get there.  Don't worry, no one will suffer.  I don't even believe in taking away (entirely) a person's right to pass a fortune down to their kids.  But I do think we have to face that it's not fair to expect most Americans to toil cradle to grave doing something they don't even want to do while others get the freedom to be socialites based on nothing more than being born rich.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 2:27pm

    But I do think we have to face that it's not fair to expect most Americans to toil cradle to grave doing something they don't even want to do while others get the freedom to be socialites based on nothing more than being born rich.

    So how do you propose exactly we address this unfairness?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:29am

    Better labor laws would do help.  Also, government subsidized savings programs for the middle class.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 11/21/2011 - 1:44pm

    I've been reading a lot on the OWS mobs and listening to commentators and other such talk and accidently ran smack dab onto what it's all about. It was so frigging obvious I couldn't see it because it was staring me right in the face and I failed to see myself in the reflection.

    I'm going to take the next few days to gather up some material and will post a blog. All I'll say for now is we've always known who the OWS mob was and both political parties use to go out of their way to  court them.

    It's 0h-dark thirty am here and I'm off to bed after an 8 hour shift. More to come by Thursday or Friday.


    by Beetlejuice on Sat, 11/19/2011 - 10:42pm

    if the leadershipless Occupy movement had a leader who gave a "I have a dream speech," what would that sound like?

    Upstream you asked a few questions and I'd like to reply and it answers the question who should be the leader........ but he would  probably will be crucified again.  

    Just how has it become more powerful? What has changed in the way the 1% does business?  If one goes by polls, the movement is losing support of the standerbys rather than gaining. 

    It became more powerful, long before this movement.

    The message of occupy, can't reach the heart of many who have already become hardened.  The occupy movement is the visible sign of the failure of governments unable to affect the peoples hearts.  Governments offered no protection from human failings.

    It is in mans heart to do badness.   Genesis

     

    Proverb 4 >>
    New International Version 1984

     

    Wisdom Is Supreme

    1Listen, my sons, to a father’s instruction;

    pay attention and gain understanding.

    2I give you sound learning,

    so do not forsake my teaching.

    3When I was a boy in my father’s house,

    still tender, and an only child of my mother,

    4he taught me and said,

    “Lay hold of my words with all your heart;

    keep my commands and you will live.

    5Get wisdom, get understanding;

    do not forget my words or swerve from them.

    6Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you;

    love her, and she will watch over you.

    7Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom.

    Though it cost all you have,a get understanding.

    8Esteem her, and she will exalt you;

    embrace her, and she will honor you.

    9She will set a garland of grace on your head

    and present you with a crown of splendor.”

    10Listen, my son, accept what I say,

    and the years of your life will be many.

    11I guide you in the way of wisdom

    and lead you along straight paths.

    12When you walk, your steps will not be hampered;

    when you run, you will not stumble.

    13Hold on to instruction, do not let it go;

    guard it well, for it is your life.

    14Do not set foot on the path of the wicked

    or walk in the way of evil men.

    15Avoid it, do not travel on it;

    turn from it and go on your way.

    16For they cannot sleep till they do evil;

    they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall.

    17They eat the bread of wickedness

    and drink the wine of violence.

    18The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn,

    shining ever brighter till the full light of day.

    19But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness;

    they do not know what makes them stumble.

    20My son, pay attention to what I say;

    listen closely to my words.

    21Do not let them out of your sight,

    keep them within your heart;

    22for they are life to those who find them

    and health to a man’s whole body.

    23Above all else, guard your heart,

    for it is the wellspring of life.

    24Put away perversity from your mouth;

    keep corrupt talk far from your lips.

    25Let your eyes look straight ahead,

    fix your gaze directly before you.

    26Make levelb paths for your feet

    and take only ways that are firm.

    27Do not swerve to the right or the left;

    keep your foot from evil.

     

    The 99 % are suffering, because many gave up Godly wisdom, for worldly riches.

    What has changed in the way the 1% does business?

    Nothing, it’s just that more people have listened to and adopted the wicked WAYS of leading their lives.

    When instead they should have listened 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life……John 14:6  New International Version (NIV)

    They have accepted the ways of selfishness and greed; rather than “love of neighbor”. They find no profitableness in Godly devotion.  In their hearts they say “there is no God; there is no need to store treasures in heaven, get your treasure now” 

    the movement is losing support of the standerbys rather than gaining. 

    SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES FOR IGNORING THE LAW WRITTEN FOR OUR BENEFIT

    Those who love the law are now fewer in number. It is hard to reach the hearts of the Godless or their conscience.  The love of goodness is cooling off.

    You must love your GOD,  then you'll listen, so you will not displease.

    You will love your neighbor because you are acting upon what you learned from your GOD

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

     37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a]38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  Matthew 22:34-40  New International Version (NIV)

    http://www.acts17-11.com/money.html

    1 Tim 6:10-12 (NIV) For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many griefs. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

    Where the love of money IS; That is where you will find an occupy movement; but if it doesn’t listen to the Great Teacher, the Christian Leader; any foundation it lays will not last, as proven by the one that is crumbling now.

    We Christians have a leader, but who’ll listen? Who’ll look to get their hearts straightened out?  


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 6:31pm

    with all that and yet you really end up saying nothing.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 6:43pm

    Talk about someone who says nothing.

    You buffoon.

    You're the one blathering on and on with his grand generalities about how the system hasn't been affected, at all, and how the Occupy people haven't even changed the conversation. All with no evidence offered. Just you, and your grand opinions.

    You don't even seem to note how other people here say they're uncertain, or they're learning something, or the path is unclear.

    But not you.

    Nosirree. For you, there's a whole world of problems and hurts coming from Occupy, and all clear as day. To you.

    Ooooooh the violence. It's like the French Revolution.

    Oooooh, there's no leaders. It's not like Civil Rights.

    Ooooh, be wary there could be bad people. Best to be a bystander.

    Ooooooh, do you think they want to abolish the corporation.

    Ooooooh, what about unfairness? They haven't said how they'll fix that!

    Oooooh, the system isn't changing, the system isn't changing!!!

    Oooooh, the poor fools, wanting to start a conversation around a barrel!

    Oooooh, they should all go home, they've lost. 

    You just never cease pontificating, do you? 

     

    Talk about someone who says nothing.

    Bah.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:07pm

    Dude, I respect you, I really do. But did you truly get anything out of Resistance's scripture dump*? If there's anything meaningful in what he wrote, it got buried, and quite deeply.

    *If you want to read that in a scatological sense, be my guest.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:43pm

    The supercilious, don't agree with the founding fathers?

    They have caused our Nation much grief (1)

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

    Once we get past the issue of self evident, amongst the group of people with sound reasoning, (which by the way, I do not include the supercilious)

    “Endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS”

    It was never a question by the signers of our Declaration, that to secure these rights and to protect WE the People from the unscrupulous supercilious; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were to be viewed from the Creators viewpoint.

    =================================

    Washington's Farewell Address 1796

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”  (1)

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

    (1A) It’s obvious VA, you’re not a sincere friend of our Nations people. VA, the Supercilious and Trope, seek the destruction of the foundation of the fabric.


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 10:17pm

    Sometimes, yes, I get rather a lot from Resistance's scriptures. Sometimes they can be too long, but so are most of my own comments. 

    And to ask whether I get more from Scripture than from the endlessly vacuous commentary from Trope, well... that's an easy one.

    1. In this riff, Resistance found a chapter that resonated off the "keep your eyes on the prize" phrase - verse 25 in particular. Which is saying we should keep our eyes fixed on Wisdom. And in this circumstance, perhaps we DO need to avoid Trope's path - of narrow political "goals" such as an amendment to piece of legislation X - but rather should step back and look at what we're truly lacking right now.

    2. In fact, it rather amuses me that Trope thinks these Bible verses have no meaning, when his title is from the Civil Rights movement, consisting largely of people who would have understood the Wisdom that Resistance quotes far more closely than Trope's do nothing'ism. Nonetheless, Trope feels superior, and mocks. Que sera sera.

    3. After that, Resistance suggested that if we were looking for leaders, perhaps we should try listening to Jesus. Well... I get that. 

    4. And as far as any particular direction to be taken, he suggested love thy neighbour over love of money. Seems sensible to me. Also seems perhaps the single most apt thing to be preaching to Americans, after their decades of false preachers with their "prosperity gospels."

    So, ummmm, yes. I may not agree with Resistance on all things. But on these things... I'm with him. 

    And as for Trope? Shoo fly.

     


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 9:41pm

    You know this is what is so frustrating about you - because I know you know better - in no way did I assert that there is no value to be found in the Bible.  Using your logic, I take you are totally behind everything Jerry Farwell said.  You are behind every interpretation done by the Catholic Church over its long history and so on.  To say that they were blathering is to say there is no value to be found in the Bible. 

    And then the little part about - hey we shouldn't have leaders, but we should listen to Jesus - well what I can you say.  Your loathing of me just makes you go into nonsense land.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:31pm

    I have said the conversation has been changed, and in general that the occupy movement has had its successes.  You're living in your little either/or world, like George W Bush, saying either you're with us or you're against us.  There is no middle ground. No gray or grey areas. 

    I make no claim that everyone else here or elsewhere are utterly certain.  What I would claim is that many write about the topic which is addressed to those who are basically certain in the rightness of the tactics of occupy, and thereby ignore those who are uncertain.  The latter being the ones who need to be convinced. 

    People can do what they want to do.  In the end, no matter to me, really.  Those walking from NY to DC - more power to them.  But this is about a movement.  The Civil Rights movement wasn't about people saying 'we just people to know how we see things.'  It was about 'we want others to see things as we see them.'  The same with the Occupy movement. 

    And because you are part of the choir you explode when someone doesn't just see the light, offers criticism, etc.  I am the buffoon.  Whatever, your rants roll off me like water, in case you are interested.

    But here's a suggestion, why don't you write a blog about what you believe.  And then I can come on to it and use a comment like "oh you just see things clear as day" on it.

    And you know what - the blogosphere - it is composed of...hmmm...let me think here...yes, that's it...people pontificating.  It would seem you only have an issue with that with people with whom you have disagreement.  Petty.  Oh so petty.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:24pm

    I am not surprised, YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, on the deeper things of life and the lessons to be learned as recorded in the Bible, is a part of the problem.

    To you and many others; Godly wisdom is nothing of value, as evident by the continuing spiral into moral depravity and abuse, where folks who don't want to apply the principles taught in the Bible, people who reject the Bibles values, give nary a thought to covet and defraud others and they accept a world where justice for the lowly is perverted. 

    You asked about a leader and I provided one that should be listened to. You offered NOTHING of real value to get us out of this pit of despair.  

    The OWS doesn't need a new messiah, we only have to apply the principles taught in the Bible. Don't allow the wicked to lead us, their interest is not in our best interest.

    Unless the wicked do serve your interests and it works better for you to mock the value of the Holy Scriptures? 

    Are you saying "nothing to see here, move along folks" ?

    That would serve a purpose of  keeping the wicked from accountability. "No need to store treasures in heaven, get all you can. however you can NOW"   

    Did the bankers break the written law man or a moral law? Did they prey upon the weak, a violation of Gods laws?

    To any reasonable person looking objectively;  Mans laws are obviously inadequate, it did not prevent a global collapse.  


    by Resistance on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:31pm

    Given your rage etc all I can say is that you take some time to learn the wisdom of Buddha.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:25pm

    If you want to learn from Buddha and stage a sit down and douse yourself with gasoline and light a fire. Some might consider that you offered something other than hot air, some might even say, you did give a little light to guide a dung beetle to you. 


    by Resistance on Mon, 11/21/2011 - 4:39pm

    Are you saying "nothing to see here, move along folks" ?

    I am saying the exact opposite.  There is something here.  Let's not move along.  But since we are here, let's do it right.  I guess that is a message people don't want to hear.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:35pm

    Without attempting to argue specifically for or against OWS pursuing a clearly stated agenda, your comparison of their activities with the Civil Rights movement brings several distinctions to my mind:

    Martin Luther King Jr. often repeated the phrase, "We only ask for what has already been written down." The clarity of the movement's message was not only a reflection of the level of organization brought to fruition by certain leaders but the obvious quality of the wrong being protested against. The discrimination of our society based upon racial differences canceled the language of our Nation's rationale for existence from the very moment that language was uttered. It required a strenuous bifurcation of consciousness to allow the two antithetical bodies to occupy one place.

    As you observed yourself, the problem with how to address the inequity of the present system of exchange is not a matter of a contradiction to any formulated right. In addition to that fundamental silence, the progression of collective bargaining that changed the game of how labor makes deals with capital has brought about a successful counter move that has atomized the management class the labor struggled so hard to be equal to. So now there are three classes, not just two.

    While Marx was not helpful in least in the work of figuring out the differences between private and public life, his critique of unionism as an opportunity for Capital to cancel all opposition to itself has been demonstrated with prejudice. The problem of that co-option is much larger than any particular group being able to articulate their goals in a compelling way.

    How does one go about pointing to something larger than any one formulation of a problem? Now there are some who say that such a gesture is meaningless. But even Baudrillard's expression of that thought is a challenge to prove him wrong.


    by moat on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 7:57pm

    Martin Luther King Jr. often repeated the phrase, "We only ask for what has already been written down."

    Moat do you know what he was referring to?

    Is it this or something else?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

     

    Were we supposed to look for guidance from the Creator on the issues of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness  to make CERTAIN?


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 8:43pm

    How does one go about pointing to something larger than any one formulation of a problem?

    Indeed.  Occupy has made a dent in it.  Bravo for that.  But I have to shake my head (arrogantly? maybe)  towards those who believe that if pitching a tent causes a dent then it must be the whole way to pointing that something larger.

    Since I have already brought him up -- Buddha cautioned on mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 11/20/2011 - 11:45pm

    Latest Comments