FA+
Shop
My Thoughts: Occupy Wall Street
14 years ago
HEALTH █████
ENERGY █████ Aimless
█ Generations have passed, since the last time the "public" have protested; as such there's plenty of people, myself included, who have never bore witness to social unrest. Many names have been thrown at the protestors, many of them derogatory, and even the support for them seems confused.
I'm not confused. People often try to dig for reasons and explanations for things that have no simple answer. Do I have an answer? Of course not, but at the same time I'm not confused. Many have ask "What do these protesters want?" and that's not the right question to be asking. If you instead ask "What do these protesters don't want." and the answer is a bit more clear; and it's more clear because the list is shorter. It all boils down to this single statement: "Stop ignoring us."
It's not about the economy, or media, or politics; it's about everything. It's also about justice (or morality). Somewhere along the way wealth became tied to morality, this is why you hear how it's 'immoral' to take a person's wealth and give it to someone else. That it's immoral because it wasn't that person's choice to part with that wealth. That it's immoral to force that person to part with his wealth. That the moral thing to do would be to rely on that person being generous and moral and part with his wealth willingly. Perhaps people need to think on if the tale of Robin Hood is a moral or immoral one: Rob from the rich, and give to the poor. The tale wasn't about "Leave the rich alone, and hope they give to the poor."
If at this point you're thinking "Oh well you're just attacking the rich now!" let me continue the thought: As I said, money has become tied to morality, if not outright replaced it. This allows the wealthy to do immoral acts and simply pay for it with money to make things 'better.' This can be in the forms of fines, donations, or lawyers. The poor get sent to jail, and the rich walk away Scott free. Justice? Morality? Nope, just money.
Money has bought the government, money has bought the courts, money has bought the law, and money has bought morality. A lot of people feel this is wrong, so they're out there for one reason or another; but ultimately they feel that money should not be the rule, but rather that people should be the rule. They want that back. People want this back across the world.
The majority of the people opposed to the movement worship money, and don't care about the people. This means that yes, there are even rich people who support this movement; because they too believe that people should be the ones who have the say in what the world should be like, not money. It's not too hard to sort out the people who are pro-money: They thumb their noses down on these people because they are unemployed, or unkempt, or they are simply 'rich envious', or because they think they want a free ride; all their commentary is all about wealth. It's just money, money, money.
People who have followed my journals in the past know of my rather dour view on money, and that it serves to distract from what is generally important in life. I think the occupy movement is simply a culmination of that sentiment across many and varied groups.
Finally, for a last bit of perspective on the price of morality: Koch Industries has a revenue of around 100 billion dollars a year. It's CEO donated 500 million to cancer groups, and the company paid 500 million dollars in various environmental fines over the course of it's operations. The revenue of the corporation is such that in a single week that 1 billion dollars is covered. A bargain if you ask me, if the price for a clean conscious is simply 1% of a single year's revenue.
In the end don't ask the occupiers of Wall Street for solutions, that's not their job; because they aren't leaders, and they are there to express their discontent with the system. A system in where money determines everything. They need a leader, they need someone to rally them, they need someone to be able to change things. Maybe someone will step up, maybe someone will not; in any case there's no going back at this point. Something is going to give, and in the end there's more who believe in power to the people, than power to the money.
As for myself I was tempted to attend a local protest, but then I remembered that I gave up on society on a whole a long time ago. I'm just here taking notes and observing.
ENERGY █████ Aimless
█ Generations have passed, since the last time the "public" have protested; as such there's plenty of people, myself included, who have never bore witness to social unrest. Many names have been thrown at the protestors, many of them derogatory, and even the support for them seems confused.
I'm not confused. People often try to dig for reasons and explanations for things that have no simple answer. Do I have an answer? Of course not, but at the same time I'm not confused. Many have ask "What do these protesters want?" and that's not the right question to be asking. If you instead ask "What do these protesters don't want." and the answer is a bit more clear; and it's more clear because the list is shorter. It all boils down to this single statement: "Stop ignoring us."
It's not about the economy, or media, or politics; it's about everything. It's also about justice (or morality). Somewhere along the way wealth became tied to morality, this is why you hear how it's 'immoral' to take a person's wealth and give it to someone else. That it's immoral because it wasn't that person's choice to part with that wealth. That it's immoral to force that person to part with his wealth. That the moral thing to do would be to rely on that person being generous and moral and part with his wealth willingly. Perhaps people need to think on if the tale of Robin Hood is a moral or immoral one: Rob from the rich, and give to the poor. The tale wasn't about "Leave the rich alone, and hope they give to the poor."
If at this point you're thinking "Oh well you're just attacking the rich now!" let me continue the thought: As I said, money has become tied to morality, if not outright replaced it. This allows the wealthy to do immoral acts and simply pay for it with money to make things 'better.' This can be in the forms of fines, donations, or lawyers. The poor get sent to jail, and the rich walk away Scott free. Justice? Morality? Nope, just money.
Money has bought the government, money has bought the courts, money has bought the law, and money has bought morality. A lot of people feel this is wrong, so they're out there for one reason or another; but ultimately they feel that money should not be the rule, but rather that people should be the rule. They want that back. People want this back across the world.
The majority of the people opposed to the movement worship money, and don't care about the people. This means that yes, there are even rich people who support this movement; because they too believe that people should be the ones who have the say in what the world should be like, not money. It's not too hard to sort out the people who are pro-money: They thumb their noses down on these people because they are unemployed, or unkempt, or they are simply 'rich envious', or because they think they want a free ride; all their commentary is all about wealth. It's just money, money, money.
People who have followed my journals in the past know of my rather dour view on money, and that it serves to distract from what is generally important in life. I think the occupy movement is simply a culmination of that sentiment across many and varied groups.
Finally, for a last bit of perspective on the price of morality: Koch Industries has a revenue of around 100 billion dollars a year. It's CEO donated 500 million to cancer groups, and the company paid 500 million dollars in various environmental fines over the course of it's operations. The revenue of the corporation is such that in a single week that 1 billion dollars is covered. A bargain if you ask me, if the price for a clean conscious is simply 1% of a single year's revenue.
In the end don't ask the occupiers of Wall Street for solutions, that's not their job; because they aren't leaders, and they are there to express their discontent with the system. A system in where money determines everything. They need a leader, they need someone to rally them, they need someone to be able to change things. Maybe someone will step up, maybe someone will not; in any case there's no going back at this point. Something is going to give, and in the end there's more who believe in power to the people, than power to the money.
As for myself I was tempted to attend a local protest, but then I remembered that I gave up on society on a whole a long time ago. I'm just here taking notes and observing.
As for your opinion, most people that give up are surfaced on a pinpoint, I'm not saying you are, i'm explaining that people need to realize just because they dislike something doesn't mean its wrong.
Great example: Homosexuality. There are over 140 million species that have homosexuals, and yet in only one is it a problem. In Humans. I once met someone that thought this was because (And I quote) "The animals are the scum of the earth,the mineral,the dirt."
Out here in Colorado, I swear ALL of the 50 protesters were college kids. Honestly, I don't blame them. College degrees don't guarantee anything anymore. Hell, at Wal-Mart we have 8 or so customer service managers. One recently left so we promoted a new guy, from Cart Pushing. At first, everyone was like, what the hell? Turns out, he has 2 masters.
He has 2 masters, yet, he had no choice but to start as a Cart Pusher. He's a customer service manager now, but that means he's making $1 more than I am. I'm a cashier by the way.
The system set itself in a loop, who controls the system? The government! WRONG! Protesters are barking up the wrong tree. Society controls how things work, the world economy dug it's own hole.
I wonder who's the turd that thinks protesting the government would fix economic problems. The the government DID control the economy then that would be communism.
I hate that word. Vacuum. Two "u"s should never be together.
They're not very self-aware, though.
In all honesty, I never expected to see anything like this; far more likely in my estimate was trouble stirring from fearful far right wingers who are terrified of everything and cling to their guns. Moreover, to see it done peacefully and (for the most part) lawfully is putting into perspective just how corrupt the various bodies trying to dismantle it are. Whether anything is changed or not, these people have a right to be heard.
They are slandering the wall street bunch non-stop.
Even after they were outed to have sent rabblerousers into the crowd to disrupt, an discredit it.
A gathering of people who oppose the bile they spout, and they try to sabotage it by turning it violent?
On that alone they should all be hung in shame. It goes against everything the constitution stands for.
Currently, money is the best and sometimes only way to have certain freedoms, such as the freedom to be treated when ill.
The day that money cannot buy human rights is the day money stops being elevated to the level of moral currency. That is what we must change.
I'M TAKIN OVER 'YO JOURNAL DAWG.
"So we're out of food. No more eating."
"Also none of the water is good for drinking, GL."
I don't see things getting better anytime soon. Money can't buy you happiness, they say, but it seems like money can buy you everything else. What a cruel fate.
& just cause they are big shots in wealth doesnt make them better.
Only the big corporations really have money, and they are steered by managers who have to thank other managers for their jobs which in turn got their jobs from... surprise... other managers. You are lucky if a few of them look beyond the next fiscal quarter.
Not to mention the long-term damage they cause by doing so.
But for those that earn it,thats a whole different thing & Im ok with it.
I read your message a few times and i think the message is
your upset and want truth?
Four BILLION Dollars. That is an absolutely lucidrous amount of money that I can hardly wrap my mind around it. Four billion dollars outweighs the entire economy of many nations in the world combined. That much money feed thousands and thousands of people, it could stabilize recessions, it could pay for houses and hospitals and schools. But no, this absolute waste of a person spent it on the ultimate vanity item.
Yes, you're right: spending money does help others. But the way I see it, this is just more of what we've come to expect from the richest of the rich: the bulk of the money is kept among the richest, and only some of it returns back down the tubes to the 99%.
This is not to say that all (or even most) successful people are morally lacking, by any means. However, there have been enough people who were both successful and morally lacking that have damaged both the economy and societal structures as a whole, that pressure is mounting. As the economy worsens, the strain is most felt by those already economically disadvantaged. The gap between classes widens, and people get discouraged, even angry. People whose health and livelihoods are threatened. People who struggle to make rent and keep the power on each month. People who have to just ignore potentially dangerous medical conditions because they know they can't afford to seek treatment.
It's like when the government contracts an activity privately - there is now a company that has a CEO or whatever who takes a big paycheck while they hire people at or below the original wage. The additional activity is sucked off to the executive class, not to the lower class.
And since the executive class, by definition, spends less of each dollar they ear, it goes through the economy fewer times each year. That means 'trickle down' begets actually a slowing economy, not a growing economy.
Honestly the thing that angers me most about this.. other than the police brutality, is the ignorant childish attack comments I see online, the insults and the blatant ignorant defending of what they dont even realize are their lords and masters.
I like to point out that there is 14.x trillion dollars in our economy - that's everyone's income, basically. There are 113 million households. The median income of a household is $50 thousand. If you make more than $50K, then you need to pay a higher rate - because you're getting not only a bigger piece of the pie, but you're getting more benefit than is your share.
Anything about whether people who don't make any income should be paying taxes or not getting welfare or whatever is a red herring. Those things are 'old people not dying on your lawn' fees and 'make sure that your net worth doesn't sink fee' or 'so you can hire educated workers fee' or whatever.
Also, this is a democracy - saying that rich people have a veto is inherently undemocratic.
If it was farce it's funny. If it is serious, then my heart aches for what is considered goodness in today's world.
My immediate thoughts upon seeing the occupy Wallstreet coverage on TV and youtube was "oh bloody finally". Up until now the "people" who have been making the news in the US have all been the tea party nutjobs who just seem to have swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker. Even if these protesters don't have truly unified goals or leadership, it's about time someone targetted the ones who actually caused the whole crash in the first place.
If every person who has "given up" on society got out there and did some good instead of sitting back waiting for the collapse that will never come (humans: Tenuous bastards for 2 million years), society would be doing a lot better.
It's like the people who say "My vote doesn't count. I'm just one person." Yes. The millions of people who say that, they all individually feel there's nothing they can do. They feel like they have no influence until you realize it's half the fucking population. If they DID SOMETHING, they'd make waves.
No snowflake wants to take the blame for the blizzard, so a fuckton are sitting out. That's the issue though! A blizzard of kindness and change that will fix the world won't happen without them!
Money has replaced morality.
What the protestors DON'T want is more important than trying to find out what they do want.
It's cheaper to do something wrong and pay a fine, than to do the right thing. (And nevermind that the lasting impact of environmental damage is much farther reaching than what a simply fine pays for.)
It's not the responsibility of the protestors to solve all of the problems. (Especially since so many of the problems are just being ignored.)
Sadly, when anything turns the other way, a different set of standards is applied. The wealthy say that the protestors need to come up with solutions, but when the wealthy raise an issue, they always claim that it's someone else's job to figure it out.
There's a bit of an odd problem in some parts of Canada, (maybe in the USA as well) of the working homeless. People who can't afford rent or a deposit, so end up living in a tent somewhere and still go to a job.
More like every few years. Almost every generation of 20-somethings decide they have to do something to resolve whatever grievance for which they alone have the answers.
Better to ask who would benefit most from the so-called occupation. It will not be the generation for which they stand/sit/occupy.