Thursday, November 17, 2011

Occupy ALL the Things

I have been silent for quite a while on here.  I've been teaching myself web design (HTML, CSS, Javascript).  The first two went quite well.  The third is more complex and will take a bit more to fully grasp, and then eons more to master.

But I return to my ranting forum for one purpose: the Occupy movement. (I capitalize out of respect)

I have had many political, fiscal, and generational discussions in my life but I don't think I've ever come across a topic that is misunderstood in such a unique way.  The Occupy movement is an outcry from Americans disgusted with their ultra-partisan, auction-block of a government being allowed to bully their citizens (and citizens of other countries as well) and then expect thanks for it.

Many revelations have come to light in the 2+ months since Occupy began.  We see that Congress and the White House still don't seem to take it seriously.  Employees of the banks themselves have nothing but taunts.  ("Get a job." seems to be the most prevalent and misinformed comment.)  We see that police departments are allowed to use any force necessary to move people where they want them.  We have seen 25 year old punk cops use excessive force, and on many occasions pepper spray and tear gas, against war veterans.  Just yesterday I saw a photo of an 84 year old woman who was pepper sprayed in Seattle.  With all due respect, I can't imagine she was much of a physical threat.

But the most disturbing part is that many Americans can't be bothered enough to look past the flashy headlines and see what is actually happening.

If I got all of my information from official police department quotes and the evening news I would think that Occupy was made up entirely of unemployed, slacker college hippies smoking weed and looking for a handout.  This could not be further from the truth.  The Occupy movement is incredibly transparent in their makeup and motives.  People of all ages and backgrounds are part of Occupy.  Jesus, Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie showed up in support. (Combined age: 156. Or 2167 depending on how you read the previous sentence.)  Occupy Wall Street had organized a library of an estimated 4000 books.  These books were electronically logged and searchable.  I use the past tense because Billionaire Bloomberg had most of these books, along with any possessions left behind when fleeing officers in riot gear, destroyed while forcing people out of Zuccotti Park.

I find it difficult to focus my thoughts on writing coherent sentences on this subject.  I am so incredibly disgusted by the hypocrisy and uncaring nature of nearly anyone in power in my government.  President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had nothing but praise for protests in Egypt, as well as other countries involved in the so-called "Arab Spring".  But when our citizens attempt to use identical forms of protest (and much more peacefully might I add) that support is conspicuously absent.

I don't hate money or corporations.  In fact, I quite enjoy the former and have several corporations that I fully support.  But neither should be allowed to influence the votes of our lawmakers.  When debating tougher regulations on investments, environmental issues, even school lunches, the interests of the citizens of this country should ALWAYS come before the interests of the companies involved.

(Warning: From here on out is political and semi-obscenity-laced.)

Can we please stop verbally blowing Ronald Reagan?  His trickle-down plan was horseshit from the start.  If you want to help poor Americans you have two options: 1) Stop taking so much of their money. Or 2) Give them more money.  I'm not big on handing out money so I particularly like option 1.  Notice how neither of those approaches are "Give money to banks, corporations, and the wealthy and they will fix it for us by creating jobs and doing what's best for everyone" because that is ridiculous.  It didn't work then but apparently we are too fucking stupid to learn from the past. (re: two gulf wars)

Bailing out the banks was exactly the same approach as Reagan's trickle-down bullshit.  If you have banks failing and people losing their homes because they can't make their payments you, once again, have two approaches.  (I'm not mentioning that the banks created the problem on their own while government oversight was so feigned that the practices were almost endorsed.)  1) Give money to the banks to ensure they don't fail.  Hope they use this money to pay off some of their own domestic debts and then ease the crunch on their homeowners.  2) Give money to the homeowners themselves.  Have stipulations and restrictions that the money can only be used for mortgage payments.  Give them the option to use that money to make their normal monthly payments or use one lump sum to lower their overall mortgage amount.  People who wanted to keep their homes would probably choose the monthly payment route to ease their monthly financial burden.  People who wanted to sell their homes would probably use the lump sum amount so that the total amount of their mortgage would more closely resemble the actual value of the house, therefore dropping the asking price and making the home more attractive.

Both of the above options end with our government's money in the banking institution's pocket.  But the first way bypasses any regard for the homeowner.  It is completely reliant on the bank making the "right decision" and helping the homeowners they already showed they were willing to screw.  In fact, a good deal of this money went to pay for bonuses for executives and outstanding debts the bank had, many from over-seas lenders.  Meaning, the money that was meant to help homeowners actually went to executives and over-seas lenders.  Meanwhile, our government couldn't even be tasked with tracking where the money actually went.

You're telling me that no one in the entire fucking United States government thought that the banks would look out for themselves rather than the homeowners?  I don't know whether I hope Congress was so inept that they didn't see that possibility or that they allowed it because they were corrupt.  I honestly can't decide which is worse.

Option 2 in the above scenario allows homeowners to keep or sell their houses while easing their entire financial burden.  Having help paying your mortgage means you don't have to feed your kids $.89 hamburgers from McDonald's.  In one move you have helped the money crunch and potentially helped with peripheral issues such as childhood nutrition.  Freeing up money in the household is good for the homeowner and businesses alike.  If all your money is going to your mortgage then you don't have money to spend anywhere else.  And is this scenario the "bailout" money STILL makes its way to the banks for them to use on bonuses and their own debts.

Why was option 2 not an actual option?  Why have the banks not been held accountable for their illegal business practices that brought the entire country to the brink of financial ruin?  Why has Congress not been held accountable for their actions enabling the practices and then cleaning up the mess afterward?  Why are these banks and corporations allowed to manipulate the tax code to minimize, or even eliminate, the need to pay taxes while the average American has no such loopholes?

These questions along with many others including healthcare (How can a government force a citizen to buy a product? Why does Congress get better healthcare for free than their constituents can purchase?), foreign aid/wars (How can we shovel cash at dictators who openly commit acts of violence on their own citizens, and then turn on them and take them down when they show a weakness?), and corporate influence on Washington (see above) are what Occupy is all about.  You can't boil it down to one point that can be bastardized into a Red or Blue argument.  And that really pisses off the opponents of change and the defenders of the status quo.

I'm not talking about the individuals that make up Occupy.  If you go to each person and ask them to name their top three issues they want addressed you will get a myriad of answers spanning every conceivable topic.  Because Occupy is NOT about banding together to occupy Wall Street, or Boston, or any specific thing.  It's about pissed off Americans banding together and telling the U.S. government that the status quo is no longer acceptable.  Occupy doesn't expect Congressmen and businessmen to have epiphanies of the soul and suddenly find the goodness in their heart.  Occupy's success will not be anchored by how many politicians and celebrities join the movement.  Occupy is about having an informed public, conscious of its governments' actions, that is willing to hold elected officials and businesses accountable for their actions.

An ignorant public is an easily manipulated public.  Occupation does not destroy its target.  In its current incarnation, to Occupy something means to observe, illuminate, and become knowledgeable about it.  And knowledge is power.

So, regardless of your financial, political, sexual, generational, or any other affiliation, I say:  Don't Occupy one thing.  Occupy ALL the things.




(image source: http://nycfaultline.com/2011/10/08/occupy-all-the-things/)