The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionVision and wisdom meet in Occupy support group
by Joan Chittister on Dec. 08, 2011
There's a new group in town that you ought to know about. They just may be the beginning of a bridge between a climate of despair and a vision of new life for us all.
It's obvious that social change is in the air again. But thanks to this new group, it may be about to happen differently. Up until now, change at least initially has commonly pitted one part of society against another, Republicans against Democrats, north against south, white against black, the old against the young.
In 1922, mainstream types said of the young women who picketed the White House on behalf of women's suffrage, "They're destroying the family." Women who knew their place, "nice" women, turned their faces away from such a disgusting sight, ashamed of females who would act so boldly. "Upstanding" men dragged the women off to prison to force-feed them for wanting to do something as obscene as casting votes.
The vote came, of course, as necessary change always does. Eventually, even "nice" women did it; upstanding men accepted it; family life survived it. But nobody learned much. Almost a hundred years later, we're still suspicious of those who dare in every generation to suggest a change in systems that may have served the last era but is argued to be destroying this one.
So the temptation if not, in fact, the well-worn strategy is to brush off new social impulses of the next generation like the Occupy Wall Street movement as some kind of youthful rite of passage. Rebellion, we like to think, is simply part of growing up. It's hormonal, we say. Or, if not biological, certainly a sign of cultural permissiveness: If someone parents, teachers, the courts had simply been tougher on these kids when they should have been, they would be docile, obedient keepers of the system now.
"They're traitors," people said of the students who overturned recruiting tables during the Vietnam War protests.
"Who do they think they are?" people said of young African-Americans who dared to wait for service at lunch counters during the Civil Rights protests.
"They're a disgrace," people said of the young women who marched down streets in the '60s shouting for equal opportunities, equal pay, equal access, equal rights.
The basic attitude seems to be that if we just ignore them turn our heads, let them sit in the parks and freeze as winter comes or pepper spray them and arrest them for loitering, they will eventually go away.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
But what if it's not a generational thing? What if the elders of society are just as concerned about economic justice and disparity as younger people are? Then who do we blame for the upheaval? Or, to put it another way, what happens to a society when wisdom and energy merge?
The fact is, that is exactly what's happening. A Council of Elders has appeared on the scene.
A newly organized, independent group of leaders from many of the defining American social justice movements of the 20th century a veritable who's who of social change in the United States over the last 60 years has risen up anew, this time in solidarity with OWS.
You know these people; if not by their names, certainly by the breadth of their hearts. You have heard their cries for justice, seen their protests for peace, followed their steady, steady demonstrations of care for the dispossessed everywhere.
The Organizing Committee of the Council of Elders includes Rev. Vincent Harding, Rev. James Lawson, Rev. Philip Lawson, Dolores Huerta, Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon, Dr. Grace Lee Boggs, Dr. Gwendolyn Zoharah, Marian Wright Edelman, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Rev. Dr. George Tinker, Rev. John Fife, Rev. Nelson Johnson, Joyce Hobson Johnson and, because of their generous spirits, me, as well.
Their statement of solidarity reads: "As veterans of the Civil Rights, Women's, Peace, Environmental, LGBTQ, Immigrant Justice, labor rights and other movements ... we are convinced that Occupy Wall Street is a continuation, a deepening and expansion of the determination of the diverse peoples of our nation to transform our country into a more democratic, just and compassionate society."
To be clear that they are about more than writing statements, this group of leaders -- seasoned by all the social justice movements of their day -- started a Facebook page, launched a website, uploaded a video to YouTube and sent a delegation of older people to Zuccotti Park in New York City, to Justice Herman Plaza in San Francisco, and to Los Angeles, Oakland and Washington, D.C., to speak with demonstrators. They went to encourage this generation's young people, who are bringing to consciousness a national awareness that our wealth is in our people and our resources, well developed and well used, not in our banks. They went to bring the flame of peace and economic justice from one generation to the next.
The elders are going to be among the Occupiers, they say in their public statement, to "applaud the miraculous extent to which the Occupy initiative has been non violent and democratic, especially in light of the weight of violence under which the great majority of people are forced to live, including joblessness, foreclosures, unemployment, poverty, and inadequate health care."
And that's true, of course. But they are also a sign and voice for those of the 99 percent whose very years attest to the truth of the need for a new economy, a new spirit, a new soul among us as a people but who cannot go to the parks of the cities themselves.
The elders bring the credibility of wisdom and age and experience to the zest and vision and hope of youth.
After all, these elders have, over the years, been Occupiers themselves. They occupied the whites-only lunch counters of the country. They occupied the segregated schools and exclusive male clubs and closed male boardrooms and nuclear sites and the Pentagon. They are the veterans of marches into the midst of dogs and water cannons. They are the voices of farm workers and garbage collectors and dependent women. They have given their lives to bring life to many without ever taking a life themselves in the doing of it.
They are a living sign of a democratic revival started by their generation but still unfinished.
Most of all, this new Council of Elders has something to say about patience: Grace Boggs, now 96 and author of The Next American Revolution, writes to all those with an Occupier's heart: "We must reflect in our communities on why these systems have become so dysfunctional and what we need to do ... to create new systems and then decide on appropriate local and national actions. ... Revolutions take Time!!! Progress does not take place in straight lines."
I agree.
From where I stand, however, I think the trajectory to justice may be straighter, shorter, clearer when the generations join together to make a new future out of the best ideals of the past. Get to know these people. Go to their website. Watch them on YouTube. Join them on Facebook. They may very well be a new kind of lifeline for us all: one that joins and does not divide. One that speaks for the good of all rather than only for the good of some.
Amen Sr.Joan. Amen amen, amen
Amen Sr.Joan. Amen amen, amen indeed and very well said!!!
"We the people" truly are off in some new directions. It all either works better for everyone or it works for no one, except the very few the one percenters. That is exactly what we have now.
No society can sustain on the survival of the barest few, now known falsely as the "job creators", when their true appellation should be the profit makers and job stealers; all done at any cost to society, the nation and the world. They who live by profit at the expense of all others are NOT builders but thieves in the night. Corporations, jobs, politics, government and democracy are being killed off by these people. They, who show no personal or group responsibility by possessing little in the way of morals, values or ethics except their worship of the false god of profit at ANY cost.
Truly, it is their doings that create these problems. They have no one to blame but themselves. Begin to comprehend this situation by asking the question: after Iraq, exactly how much does a gallon of gas really cost our troops and our nation, now, and far, far into the future?
The people who make up the
The people who make up the OWS movement here in Boston are not 'crazy young people', 'drug addicts', and 'homeless people looking for a place to sleep'. Their average age is 34; and 50% have full-time jobs. Their issues have to do with a shamefully unjust distribution of wealth in our country compared to other capitalist countries. 85% of all wealth in the US is owned by 15% of the population. Their interests, the interests of monopoly capitalism are diametrically opposed to the rights and interest of working class people. The Cold War [initiated under a Democratic president: Harry Truman] destroyed the Soviet Union by employing the arms race to bankrupt the Soviets. That succeeded, but on the domestic front the Cold War was used against working class people by destroying the union movement, criminalizing free speech [McCarthy, et al.], and creating union-free states. The rescue of the major financial institutions after 2008, accompanied by the abandonment of the working class, has led to unemployment, disastrous in a consumer economy. Democracy and monopoly capitalism cannot exist together in an economy: and capitalism is winning [has won?] as it becomes impossible to be elected to public office without the money of the rich and super-rich. Can anyone think of at least 4 additional politicians like Bernie Sanders of Vermont? I can't! We can't look to our state or federal governments to establish an economically just society. The distribution of wealth in the US is a monstrous caricature of what a democracy should look like; no other major capitalist society has a discrepancy in the distribution of wealth as huge as the one in the US. Unemployment among blue- and white-collar workers [the true figure of which is at least 16%] cripples the consumer economy because the majority of people have nothing in their pockets to spend. If we had a program of the government as 'employer of last resort', as there was during the Great Depression [WPA, etc.] people would be able to stay in their mortgaged homes and survive until the economy recovers. One of the best treatments of our economic dilemma was published by the Roman Catholic bishops' conference in 1986: "Economic Justice for All". Communist? Socialist? Or just Christian!
Very true, Sister Joan! I've
Very true, Sister Joan! I've some suggestions for an even more assertive OWS movement than were recently listed as aims of the "Occupy the Caucuses" in Iowa as cited in a recent article on Common Dreams.
Those suggestions are the following:
"LET’S REVIVE the Reagan Era Bi-Partisan Strategy for the Ownership Society, as a Concrete Program towards the Non-Violent Economic Justice aimed for by the 99% Occupy Movement
Where nearly everyone, at least partly, owns their own job, via Tri-Partite Boards of Directors of enterprises having 100 or more workers (Revelation 16:19). (ART IV Section 4 of the US Constitution)
And their own home “under their own vine and their own fig-tree, with none to disturb them.” (Micah 4:4). (ART IV Section 4 of the US Constitution)
Tom Kuna-Jacob, BSFS, MA . Formerly running for US Congress as a Republican from the new 13th Congressional District for Illinois., or for US Senate. Currently running for Greene County, Illinois Board
The USA needs to lead the world to:
1) TRI-PARTITE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of all For-Profit Enterprises having 100 or more employees (Revelation 16:19) (ART. IV § 4 of the US Constitution
1/3 Workers elected by workers in Secret Ballots;
1/3 Stockholders, elected by them in Secret Ballots;
1/3 Members of the General Public, Publicly appointed by Economic Councils of 9-99, elected by secret ballots cast by all residents aged 12 or above, for every township, city, county, State, Province, Nation and Multi-National Trading Zone where a given business have a facility. Top Paid Management or Staff or Stock or Bond-Holder Profits or Dividends cannot net for personal consumption more than 10 times the gross pay of the lowest paid worker in the enterprise, or in Government. These principles from the Catholic social teaching called Distributism and Subsidiarity, and ART. IV § 4 of the US Constitution.
2) Full-time Work-Week at 20-Hrs Work for 40-Hrs Pay, with the difference paid not by the employer, but by Earned-Income Credits(EICs), funded by a graduated surtax on personal incomes, and corporate profits (after all other taxes, costs of doing business, investments, depreciation, and donations) above $52,000 per adult or employee of the given business in real 2011 dollars (Exodus. 16:16) (See also: ART. IV § 4 of the US Constitution.
3) Constitutional Amendments:
a) mandating the “Our Father...”, the Full Pledge of allegiance; and the Singing of the Full National Anthem, the Full “God Bless America”, and the Full ”Battle Hymn of the Republic” at every public-school day. The Community and the Republic have rights and duties, too, not just individuals.
b) guaranteeing due process to every human from fertilization/conception to natural death
c) national, State and Local county pre-censorship boards to prevent the publication and/or distribution or broadcasting, by any type of media, of material which glorifies meaningless displays of violence (except where allowed by a licit religion) and/or of illicit sex, especially of sexuality associated with violence;
d) lowering the voting age to 12, 14, or 16, as each county may permit; raising the eligibility for Congress to 35; Senate to 45, and President to 55. Misdemeanor for failing to register or for failing to vote in general elections.
e) 2/3 majority of both US Houses to increase the debt limit; Presidential line-item veto; requiring the current accounts budget to be balanced.
f) allowing the term “marriage” only for a promissory life-long union of one man and one
woman; but “domestic-unions” for up to 8 bi-sexuals or heterosexuals, provided at least one is of naturally occurring opposite gender; and “civil unions” for up to seven of same-gender. (Isaiah 4:1) Outlawing transgender surgery. (Isaiah 56:3)
ILLINOIS PRIMARY ELECTIONS TUESDAY MARCH 20TH 2012. Voting is your right and your privilege
I am delighted to see the
I am delighted to see the names of Nelson and Joyce Johnson among the Council of Elders. They are my friends and also my guide to justice concerns. They have been instrumental in helping many places in our country develop Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, out of their experience in setting one up here in Greensboro, NC, with the help of an international Truth and Reconciliation organization. I traveled with them and others involved in that Commission to South Africa a few years ago, and I have the greatest admiration for the work they do locally, nationally, and internationally. They too have suffered for their work, and have passed on the wisdom from their experience to others who must speak up for current justice issues.
Thanks for sharing this,
Thanks for sharing this, Joan. I went to Facebook to 'like' the page and look forward to the ongoing sharing. In recent years, I have been making a priority of invitations to speak to college and other school groups, and to young adults (20s and 30s), for exactly this reason - to make the link across the generational divide. The divide has been real. Coming to the Occupy movement with humility, not once again to lead and direct, but to listen and learn, to applaud the efforts, to offer solidarity and encouragement, and whatever we can say to have learned from our own years of struggle - this is necessary, prophetic, and crucial.
Then the divide is no longer a divide but a bridge; no, an even better metaphor, a bit more fertilizer, nutrients to keep the movement growing.
We are headed for hard, dizzying, disorienting times. Sometimes it feels so dark and depressing, other times like a great adventure that leaves one a little breathless. Occupy has become an ingenious invention, organic, complex and simple all at the same time. It is a marvelous expression of what is occurring underneath all these efforts by the rich and powerful to hold on to their dissolving world.
In the great dissolve, something new will appear. We see the signs all around us.
Thanks again!
Margaret Swedish
Spirituality & Ecological Hope
www.ecologicalhope.org
Margaret, your reply
Margaret, your reply expressed exactly what I felt after reading Joan C's article. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. You say it so well. I don't have an official vehicle for generation bridging, but keep my antennae tuned to the opportunities that do or could exist. A conscious goal of mine is/has been to expand the the age-range of a group "regulars" (i.e. women activists in their own milieus who have come together to grow for almost ten years to deepen themselves in Spirituality of Solidarity by putting it into practice and to encourage each other in the discernment & doing).
Hope. Always hope. Determination. Always determination. Holding hands. Always holding hands.
There is no generational
There is no generational divide in the Occupy spaces. I am 70, I am involved. No big deal, so are others of all ages.
The Council of Elders is a very good development, though, because its members and causes show that some positive changes can be made even in a corrupted political process. The young people in Occupy need to see and hear this message. Ending corporate personhood, for instance, would be a good first step in mitigating political corruption and facing head on the distortions in our economy.
But I am not interested in the political process. I would rather start building businesses that are worker owned and therefore do not put workers at the mercy of corporate whims and the latest inhumane fad coming out of MBA programs and elite Economics departments (which teach models that are clearly wrong and embody a dangerous form of "morality").
I am surprised that in this Catholic publication there is very little mention of how the Catholic social teaching concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity have been successfully applied in founding and developing large, successful, worker-owned cooperatives. The Mondragon Cooperative Society, for instance, founded by a priest, is the most successful operator of large scale industrial and commercial worker owned cooperatives. There are other examples.
Solidarity requires that we recognize the humanity, dignity and worth in every other human being, of any class or race or religion, even in the rich. But the concept goes further: it clarifies that the worst indignity heaped on the poor, after the denial of basic needs, is the denial of their right to contribute productively to society. They deserve the education, training and resources needed to contribute. The ideal, but not necessary, expression of solidarity is found in worker-owned enterprises with a concern for mutual respect, community, justice and a healthy environment.
Subsidiarity calls for the distribution of power downward to the lowest level possible. This is ideally expressed in worker owned enterprises where the workers democratically govern themselves in a way that makes for business success, a better community, a good standard of living and the leisure to pursue spiritual and cultural activities and challenges. The principle of subsidiarity is also at the core of the management philosophy popularized by Deming and in some cases put into good effect in capitalistic enterprises.
Here in the USA, the US Federation of Worker Owned Cooperatives is growing rapidly, largely with little or no involvement from Catholic sources. Given the rightward drift of the US Catholic church and the sorry state of the episcopacy this lack of Catholic attention might be a good thing. This cooperative movement, of course, embraces full equality for women and gays.
Right wing Catholics are using the concept of subsidiarity to justify eliminating or diminishing Social Security, Medicare, benefits for the poor and other proper obligations of government. They have no interest in fostering worker owned cooperatives but only in putting workers at the mercy of capitalists who have shown themselves to be very poor managers of a just way to govern. Their inspiration comes from the egomaniac Ayn Rand, not Christ. This right wing use of the concept of subsidiarity is perverse.
In fairness there are also small conservative (not right wing) groups truly inspired by Catholic social teaching and fully supportive of growing and developing worker owned cooperatives.
But is the member companies of the US Federation of Worker owned Cooperatives who are leading the way beyond theory to practice.
Thank you ! And
Thank you ! And Congratulations, Sr. Joan! It keeps getting better all the time. Feels like real Advent season. It is coming! He is coming ! With Good News and Liberation! Magnificat!
Just one question, and it is
Just one question, and it is a serious one.
What is the objective of the Occupy movement, how do they define success, and when will they know they have accomplished the objective and go home?
Funny you should ask
Funny you should ask Wardog00, So many others get it! No they are not done and will not fold their tents and go home.
Mike, I think a sincere
Mike, I think a sincere question deserves a respectful and a fully informed reply.
Thanks, because it was a real
Thanks, because it was a real question. I have followed the OWS in the papers and on TV, and did not "get" what the objective is.
When the civil rights protests were active, the goal was the Civil Rights Act to end Jim Crow laws.
In the '60's, the protestors' goal was to get out of Viet Nam.
The women protesting wanted the 19th amendment passed, and later the ERA.
All concrete measurable objectives. And the protestors went home every night.
Based on the other responses, the OWS will be camping out in parks until world hunger is solved, there is no pollution, everyone makes the same pay, everyone has a home. In other words, the OWS people plan to camp out until Judgement Day. I don't see how they can keep that up forever.
Wardog, I would say that
Wardog, I would say that those are in fact concrete objectives, and they only seem as ridiculous and as over the top as votes for women and a black man as president who remembers whites only lunch counters. They are worthy objectives worth camping out until judgement day for, and the shame of it is, that noone thought to do this sooner. O wait, someone did, but they cricified him.
PS--if you are not sure of their objectives, don't watch TV! The major networks have made a point of pretending they have none. Go to their website, their youtube videos, interviews and specials on DemocracyNOW, and they will tell you themselves. Go to the source, in other words.
Thanks for the suggestion. I
Thanks for the suggestion. I went to www.occupywallst.org and read the postings. Here is a sample of what they want:
1. Equal pay for everyone, regardless of occupation or expertise. A CEO should make the same as a janitor. I don't agree with this; people will do what they are incentivized to do; this normally means money.
2. Everyone gets a house; if they can't pay for it, they still get to keep it. They don't mention who will pay the people who built the houses.
3. Get rid of corporations; they made no mention of who will build things like tents, sleeping bags, cars, IPADs or other stuff.
3. Get rid of money in government by making government bigger. I don't see this working, as money will follow power every time. Try making government smaller.
There was a lot of rhetoric that I heard in my hazy freshman years at college; I have not heard it since then in the real world until now.
Wardog00 perception is in the
Wardog00 perception is in the eye of the beholder. The items you mention that OWS (and many not out there) want are your understanding of what you read. From your perspective these are kind of hazy. The problem is that your perspective is not universal by a long shot and your perspective doesn't "transliterate" some of the items as intended.
No, when I referred to hazy I
No, when I referred to hazy I was referring to the level of marijuana smoke in the air.
The goals are concrete; the thinking behind these goals are dope fueled hazy thoughts.
"in my hazy freshman years at
"in my hazy freshman years at college"
nuf sed
Wardog00, I have been to some
Wardog00, I have been to some of these encampments - encampments of which I don't support, by the way - to try to get to know those who are involved and better undersand their issues. Yet I have never seen or pick up any scent of marijuana.
Dear John Davis, I must
Dear John Davis,
I must confess I support the occupation, by a simple reason: in Spain, a reality that I know well, it was the only way to the young ones being heard. Imagine a country with a national unemployment aroud 22%, where, according to the region, the youth unemployment reaches 40 or 50%; where are thousands of new flats empty, as a result of the credit boom; where the foreclosures are uncountable; where you'll find entire villages where no one has a job; where the imigrants are leaving and the Spaniards themselves are now emigrating; where the main builders declared all bankrupcy; and where reigns a sense of despair. That's true that they started the movement some months before the OWS, that they learned to organize, and they are now trying to reach a common platform. In the recent elections, their movement was already able to produce a small shift in the votes. And why? Because all started by the occupation of Madrid's main square. Something remarkable: even if they are angry and disapointed with the system, there has been no violence. And the some applies to the occupy movement in the London's City. My biggest worry: things are so bad, that I don't know how longe they will remain non-violent. That's why I support the simbolic occupation: it was the only way to make politicians understand the casualties produced by their policies. I hope the message will be heard.
Thanks outsider, I will
Thanks outsider, I will consider your remarks. I, certainly, do support the movement and always have, as they are addressing the very issues that concern me deeply about what has happened to the working and middle class in this country because of the policies that have been implemented over the last 30 years. But I'm struggling with the tactic of the occupation. I say this fully realizing that what is being reported from the Right Wing Echo Chamber about these encampments is full of falshoods. I'm wondering if there is another, more effective way to get the message out.
So, as I said, I will consider what you have written, but know that we are more in agreement than not.
Yours in Christ,
John David
Dear John David, Of course we
Dear John David,
Of course we are more in agreement than not. Meanwhile, Time chosed "The Protester" as the figure of the year. And makes reference to the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement in Madrid, London and New York. I don't know when the international edition will be available, but I intend to buy it.
God bless you, always.
Wardog00, I went to that
Wardog00, I went to that website and your analysis of what it says is different than what I read.
This is a quote I took from
This is a quote I took from their site. Itdoesn't sound much like what you have written.
"While maintaining our nonpartisan focus on economic inequality and connecting a diversity of issues that impact the 99%, Occupations have begun to refine and hone our messaging around the big banks, foreclosures, evictions, and housing. Foreclosure auctions have been disrupted in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Bremerton, Reno, and New Orleans. Occupiers foreclosed on bank offices in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Buffalo and elsewhere. Today, a few weeks after Occupiers took over the Washington State Capital, Occupy Providence is marching on their State house to "ask this house for homes!" After the recent Day of Action to Occupy Our Homes, many cities continue to support families, especially in communities of color, as they fight back against unfair evictions. In Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, Chicago, Rochester, New York, and Oakland, Occupiers are helping homeless families find shelter and resist eviction.
I went to the commentators
I went to the commentators and posters on the website; OWS prides itself on not being organized and has no leadership.
All of my comments were direct quotes from the posters who supported OWS. You know, the ones who make up the 99%;
Wardog00, that does not,
Wardog00, that does not, necessarily prove your point, as ever blog will have extremeist contributing, but that doesn't mean that they represent the movement. But if we are on the other side of the isle on the issue, that is what we tend to do. Did you consider judging the movement by any non-extreme comments on the blog?
Anyone who considers
Anyone who considers characterizing, for example, this beloved ncronline.org website through the extraordinary blogged comments left by warbog00 or cwg would present an extremely skewed, deceitful and incorrect picture.
Charles, Clint and I seem to
Charles, Clint and I seem to be on the other side of the isle on most issues, but there has been some posts by him which I have very much appreciated. And Warbog00 and I seem to see things differently about 50 percent of the time. So with each, I have learned how not to be comfotable in putting anyone in a dismissive box.
Peach of Christ,
John David.
John, you are a Peach and I
John, you are a Peach and I learn much from your wise compassion, and thank you for this instruction.
That is a fair point; I
That is a fair point; I assume that any organization will post officially stuff that puts in the most positive light and not extreme. I went to the commentators of the blogs that were on the site because OWS prides itself as being leaderless and a base up community.
But you are right, it does add bias.
I think Wardog has a point.
I think Wardog has a point. Unless there are achievable goals you will never know when your objective has been reached.
Christ said "The poor will be with you always" so I take it that it will be judgement day before this goup finally goes home.
While some parts of their message is noble, I can't support their methods, especially the one where they are shutting down ports. The economy is enough that we don't need them creating more economic issues. Also, the extra police patrols is a unnecessary burden on stretched city budgets. They should go home, organize, work with their representatives on clear objectives, otherwise they are being a nusiance for no purpose.
By the Way, Elana, Obama has
By the Way, Elana, Obama has never seen a "White's Only" sign unless it was in a photograph or in a museum. He isn't old enough. I am 2 months older than Obama and grew up in the South and I have never seen one except in photos or a museum. He was raised in Hawaii, Seattle, and Indonesia. If he says he has, he is lying.
some fundamental goals and
some fundamental goals and some that that have recently evolved:
1. Educate the public about the growing wealth gap in the US. The top 20% own 93% of financial assets/accumulated wealth, leaving just 7% for the rest of us. Real wages have been declining for 30 years, the gap made up by growing debt. CEO and top executive salaries are now more than 300 times the average worker wage, a level never before seen. 43% of Americans are one check away from financial disaster. The Census Bureau reports that over 50% of Americans meet the definition of poverty or near poverty. A huge number of good jobs have disappeared, long term unemployment is not going away. The IMF has models that show that greater income inequality leads to frequent and more severe financial crises.
As a result of Occupy the media have finally put some focus on this problem. Polls show that most Americans now think that severe income inequality is a really serious problem and is undermining democracy.
Occupy wants Americans to think and talk about this problem and demand that politicians think and talk about it. This discussion should lead to proposals for how to fix the problem.
2. Educate the public to how banking and corporate interests have basically bought Congress through lobbying and huge campaign contribution and PACs that spend without limit on elections. Occupy wants Americans to think and talk about this problem and demand that politicians think and talk about it. This discussion should lead to proposals for how to fix the problem.
3. Occupy wants to demonstrate how inclusive democracy can work through how it conducts its General Assemblies.
4. Occupy has voted to support the elimination of corporate personhood, a fiction that confers many rights on corporations and no limits on political spending and no good citizen responsibilities.
To get a better idea, go to 5-10 General Assemblies.
I would think we/they can "go
I would think we/they can "go home"
when everyone can afford a home; when everyone is clothed; hungry children are fed; when all have access to health care; when the spirit of anger dies is us; when we treat one another as sister and brother. Until then, none of us are really home, until everyone is home.
The people at OWS all over
The people at OWS all over the world share a common object or mission, if you will. That is to awaken people to the unfairness that exists in the gap between the classes, not only in the US, but all over the world between the haves and have nots. The 1 % and the 99%. Maybe when some changes begin to be made, the occupiers will rejoice. I hope this movement doesn't "go away".
It's too important for our future democracies.
If you make $50K per year,
If you make $50K per year, you are in the top 1% of the richest people in the world. How does that make you feel?
What do American people do
What do American people do when their Petitions, emails, phone calls and letters to the editor of their concerns only to go unanswered? You take to the streets as a visual of the masses of People who are crying out for Justice against corrupt systems. Nonviolent Protests, Jesus would be proud.
I don't see the OWS movement
I don't see the OWS movement as non-violent.
Agreed. You can't claim to
Agreed. You can't claim to be non-violent protesters when you break the law and then resist arrest. The principles of civil disobedience dictate that if you break the law, then you accept the punishment for it. By resisting arrest you are forcing the police into a violent confrontation.
Interesting. In a different
Interesting. In a different arena, what do American CATHOLICS do in similar circumstances? When even non-violent protests don't work, they leave. Or just give up in-place, for the sake of the Eucharist. But not everything has been tried yet.
I can't believe that this
I can't believe that this article appeared in a Catholic publication! What about the rape, violence, theft and drugs that were part of each and every Occupy camp????? Another example of the outright hypocrisy of Liberalism. Just remember: Liberalism is a disease that has been destroying Western Civilization and Thought for the past 50 years.
Dear Sir, Please, try to get
Dear Sir,
Please, try to get some reliable information, because without it is not possible to think or have a sound opinion.
Dear Outsider, Here's some
Dear Outsider,
Here's some "reliable information" about this radical movement:
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-document-record...
http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/11/02/police-reports-reveal-ten-...
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/9747-ows-rap-sheet-growing-and-gr...
Please note, that there were never any of these types of illegal activities, downright crimes, occurring at Tea Party rallies. Further, please note that none of the Tea Party rallies engaged in practices such as laying down in the middle of busy streets, linking arms to stop people from entering or leaving hotels, or defecating on police cars or on doorsteps of people's homes.
These Occupiers are little more than street urchins and ne'er do wells, and do NOT speak for me, or for the vast majority of American taxpayers. They speak for themselves and their own selfish ideals only.
They disgust and offend me.
The best way to get reliable
The best way to get reliable information is to go visit the Occupiers. Here in Chicago there is a rich mix of young and used to be young. The earnestness is palpable. Idealism shines through the general assemblies. Go and study them, listen to their concerns.
What is a selfish ideal?
You seem to be judging the
You seem to be judging the many by the few. Also, as one who has been to some of these protests, I can witness that the violence you mention are not a part of each and every occupy protest.
They inspire me and give me
They inspire me and give me hope...
Teapartiers and OWS are
Teapartiers and OWS are horses of different colors; apples and oranges; very different beings.
The violence accompanying Tea Party ideology may not have occured @ rallies; it happened & is happening in many other more subtle ways.
You are quite right! Don't
You are quite right! Don't forget, please, the Tucson massacre.
The Occupy movement is not spreading the some kind of hate and intolerance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806...
Joan, one of the violences to
Joan, one of the violences to which you may be referring is the violence that hate does to ones own heart and soul.
Please expand your comment
Please expand your comment with examples and source. I had not heard this.
Dear Sir, just take a look at
Dear Sir, just take a look at the system’s fairness. Can you swear they are not selfish?
Revenue chief who approved Goldman Sachs tax deal announces retirement
Dave Hartnett admitted excusing US bank from £10m in interest charges was 'mistake', but leaves with £1.7m pension pot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/09/revenue-chief-retires-gol...
I will grant you that there
I will grant you that there are people who corrupt the system, but the system itself is neither good nor bad. It is merely a tool, and like all tools, can be used for good or ill based on the type of people who use it. It is interesting that much of the corruption involves trying to bypass government interventionist regulation; if the government would stop trying to regulate every aspect of the market, much of the corruption would vanish overnight.
I will argue that it is the best system around, however. Far better than the feudal system the world operated under for centuries; far better than Soviet and Chinese Communism. It is far better than Socialism. The free market gives everyone a chance to pursue their dreams, and if they fail, the market does not hold that against them, but offers them repeated opportunities to succeed.
As to fairness, life is not fair. This is not Heaven, and we will never be able to create some utopia here on earth. The fall of Mankind saw to that. When people cheat others, such as Bernie Madoff did, then they should rightly be prosecuted, just as he was. That's the role of government. But, insuring fairness? That is NOT the role of government. Fairness cannot be legislated. Nor should it be.
If people think that this system if failed and broken and they long for something else, they are free to set up their own little communes and practice Socialism all they want. So, go ahead and do that, if that's what you want to do. But, be kind enough to leave the rest of us alone, if you please. And, while you're at it, take some of the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax with you. I grow weary of paying my fair share of taxes, and paying theirs as well.
The comment that only 47% of
The comment that only 47% of Americans pay federal income tax is so carefully worded, is it not?
We ALL pay sales tax; All who earn wages pay FICA; we pay State taxes, excise taxes, and of course the "tax" that is paid by breathing air polluted by careless industries.
Now, I personally pay a nice chuck of Federal income tax, and I'm happy to ... I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country. I would be even happier if all the unemployed had jobs, but that seems to be the biggest complaint: the jobs are not there, and the pay for the jobs that are there is falling.
No amount of carefully parsing tax statistics can avoid those simple facts.
But the taxes that go to pay
But the taxes that go to pay for the federal social spending and various services are not paid by those who make use of them the most. Sales taxes go to local communities and states; the same with excise taxes. FICA and Medicare are taxes paid so that, in theory, at a given age, that money will be returned to those who paid in the form of benefits. State income taxes support the states.
But, my federal income taxes help to subsidize those who pay no federal income tax, and yet make use of the federal services and social programs that my taxes help to fund. I object to that. As President Obama himself has said about mandatory health insurance, "everyone should have some skin in the game". That is true for federal taxes as well. Everyone should pay some federal tax across the board...a flat tax of 15-20% across the board, regardless of wealth or lack thereof.
And, if the jobs are not here anymore, we can thank the labor unions for that. Thanks to the unions, labor costs increased radically, pay for relatively unskilled labor increased, legacy costs (pensions, perpetual health care, etc.) for people who are no longer producing any good or service increased, and it became so expensive to manufacture in this country, that companies looked elsewhere. Thanks AFL-CIO!
Someone who works 40 or more
Someone who works 40 or more hours a week for substandard wages is subsidizing the lifetyles of the billionaires who own Wal-Mart, McDonald's and Home Depot and Domino's Pizza etc., and the least they can do is pay more in income tax so they can help the rest of us take care of the employees that they underpay.
If you don't agree with that, then AT LEAST change US labor law so it is not so easy for companies to fire employees who try to organize a labor union and negotiate a fair contract for themselves.
Tea Party = Hypocrites.
Clint has it entered your
Clint has it entered your mind there is a reason such a high percentage of Americans don't pay federal income tax? The number alone should clue you into how badly the middle class has been eroded. Have you tried to support yourself on Walmart wages lately? You know Walmart, America's largest employer?
I must agree with you about
I must agree with you about the evils of liberalism. Even if they are not those you are thinking about, I presume: the term is aplied, in Economics, to the Chicago school and his mentor, Milton Friedman. His thought, based on the idolatry of the market, in its derugulation and in the oposition to any kind of government intervention, contributed to the financial-economic crisis that plunged the US and the world in the biggest recession since World War II, and that, yes, is mining the Western civilization and its role on the world. The more extreme supporters of his theories are called neoliberals, and are at the roots of the libertarian ideology of the Tea Party movement. The biggest economists of our times are defending an approach more centered in the thought of John Maynard Keynes, that helped, in the 30s, to deal with the Great Depression. Very similar to the crisis we are all facing since 2007-2010.
Before you make such
Before you make such assumptions about government being able to end depressions, I suggest you look at the article "What Ended the Great Depression" found here,
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/
The choice is simple. Do we put our trust in the government, an entity that cannot run the Post Office, Amtrak, or Social Security and Medicare efficiently? Or do we put our trust in ourselves, in the markets, in companies and corporations that are responsible to shareholders?
I choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Do you trust blindly Lehman
Do you trust blindly Lehman Brothers, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, the banks who started the subprime crisis; those who filled the system with poisoned derivatives; those institutions that were saved from bankrupcy with uncountable billions from taxpayers; and those who returned imediately to their old schemes, speculating without limits or control and are once more a threat to the US's and the world's financial system? I beg your pardon, but I think you trust too much.
And do you trust the
And do you trust the government that funded and provided "oversight" to Fanny and Freddie (government-owned and operated banks)? Do you trust the government that, under Bill Clinton and, sadly, George W. Bush, incentivized banks to make loans to individuals and families to buy homes that they could not afford, folks who were not eligible for ordinary mortgages and thus home ownership?
Do you trust the government that bailed out these banks? All the banks did was ask for assistance, it was the decision of the government to actually give billions to the banks.
Excuse me, Fanny and Fredy
Excuse me, Fanny and Fredy are not banks, but they were in deep trouble because of the irresponsible behavior of banks. Please, just take a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
Do we trust Bank of America,
Do we trust Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Enron, Goldman Sachs and others who are willing to run over people for the sake of excessive profits for a few? Yes I trust my govenment to protect me, it has done a great job since 9/11 and I live in NYC, to take care of my mail, garbage, and I wish I was on the Veterans Medical since that is much better than my private for profit health insurance. Government should be more focused on the common good. No, I will not put my trust in markets, companies and shareholders whose sole goal is to put more profits into the hands of a few. These same entities will screw the consumer every time. I just saw that with the takeover of Bally's. Sorry CWG, tell all those people who are being laid off from Goldman this month so they can pay outrageous bonuses to the top. Its greed CWG, and it needs to be regulated.
I am a shareholder in Bank of
I am a shareholder in Bank of America, and I expect the company that I own (as a shareholder) to make a profit for me. Corporations are not social welfare organizations, and they do not exist to give jobs to people. They exist to make a profit for their shareholders. Anything less is unacceptable.
How, precisely, do these banks "run over people" to make a profit? They lay off or terminate employees only because they are required to do so to remain profitable. And, if an organization employs 100 people, but can function just as well, just as efficiently, with 50, then why should they keep 100? If the company's sole purpose is to provide people with jobs, well that's fine and good. But that's one of the secondary goals of private business, the primary focus of any company is to make a profit for those who own it.
Perhaps you are referring to the banks foreclosing on homeowners who cannot pay their mortgages? Well, heaven forfend that we expect people to pay their debts and then hold them accountable when they are not able to do so! No one forced these folks to take out these mortgages in the first place. No one forced them to buy homes that they could not afford, or take out second, or even third, mortgages, thereby placing them in a situation where they owed more than their home was worth. They entered into these mortgages of their own free will, and now they are being expected to (GASP!) actually pay back what they owe! (those heartless banks, making people take responsibility for their own choices!)
What Enron did was wrong, there can be no question of that. And yet, the employees chose to keep most, if not all, of their retirement savings plans with the company. They had the choice to diversify their investment portfolios, and so reduce any potential losses in their retirement plans. But, that's complicated, it requires people to actually take responsibility for their own retirement plans, to read up on stocks, bonds and mutual funds, to make decisions about which are best, and to monitor those funds, buying and selling when the market is right. Far easier to keep all the money in one place.
In the end, this is about responsibility for one's own choices. College students to choose to take out enormous loans, rather than work, save money, and pay as you go, are expected to pay those loans back (gasp!). Folks who take out mortgages on their homes are expected to make regular and consistent payments, or they run the risk of being foreclosed upon. People with retirement plans that are based on the stock, bond and mutual fund markets are expected to take some ownership, some responsibility, to diversify and monitor their own retirement plan.
I know, it's unheard of -- taking responsibility. Far easier to blame the heartless corporations who "run over people" in order to make a profit. Far easier to ask the government to stop banks from foreclosing, or force the banks to forgive student loans. Far easier to pitch a tent in a park, sit around and sing, hold protest signs, lay down in the street, block hotel entrances, defecate on police cars, than to actually take responsibility, look for a job (even if it's only flipping burgers) and start to get back on one's feet.
Just to add to your comments,
Just to add to your comments, it amazes me that OWS isn't demonstrating for more jobs, lower taxes and less regulations. The path we are currently on is not sustainable.
Andrew K
Andrew, I am going to push
Andrew, I am going to push you a little here because I think it is important. So I will ask that you develop your position a bit futher. As I have mentioned in another thread, the data is in about what lowering taxes did. After Bush lowered taxes we had both the slowest job and economic growth in 60 years! Also when Bill Clinton raised taxes there was 5 times more jobes created than what was created under Bush after he lowered them. When we talk of raising taxes, I think it is only fair to mention that Obama has lowered taxes (most Fox News audience don't seem to know that) and we should be clear that we are now talking of raising taxes only on those making over 1 million dollars a year (When the pundits on the Righ simply say "raising taxes", I think it is a scare tactic that I don't think is very honest).
Also, if there was not the reduction of regulations, Wall street and the banks would not have been able to do some of the things that they did that helped to bring on this terrible economic situation. Just think how different things would have been in the housing market if the Glass Stendal act was not passed by the Republicans that allowed banks to merge with other institutions to create these mortages and then sell them. I don't think we would have had this housing bubble if that regulation was in place.
I am very worried about the economic situation we are in, as I know you are as well. From the Right, I hear a lot that raising taxes on those making more than 1 million dollors will kill jobs and that more regulation will choke business. However, I don't hear or read any data that supports these positions. As I showed above, I do read data that shows otherwise.
So, in order for me to make an informed opinion, I ask that there be some data to support the positions you are promoting. Isn't that a reasonable request? Otherwise it is just blind ideology and considering where we are, both sides need to step back and be open to doing an objective analysis.
Also, some things to consider: the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office recently finished their reveiw of the Stimulus package. They stated that it did save jobs and that we made money or are on track (actually ahead of schedule) from the bank bail out. If you have time read the conservative columist David Brook's (formerly of the Wall Street Journal and, presently, with the NYTimes) analysis on how the Obama administration has delt with the issue of regulation. I think you might be surprised.
In the end the issue of raising/reducing taxes and regulations has to be looked at thru the situation we are now in and, allowing that all situations are not exactly the same, we still can gain some knowledge by what we know from past actions. FDR's policies was to put more money in the hands of the working and middle class to turn around the economy. The Republicans policies seem to be to put money in the hands of the rich to create jobs for the working and middle class. I understand that, but I don't see any data to support it, just the sound bite of "job creators".
Yours in Christ,
John David
Thanks John! Now I have to
Thanks John! Now I have to think! What I want to say is the president wants to extend the social security payroll tax savings. In doing so he is agreeing to raid the trust fund which is jeopardizing the benefits of future recipients. The IRS reported that (I think I got this right) 6% of the population pays over 50% of the taxes in the USA. 46 or 48% of the population pay no taxes at all. There are people who get a tax refund each year from the government who don't even pay one $1 in income taxes. We have a tax code that is so voluminous that there is a seperate industry just to help people avoid taxes. Am I the only one who thinks this is bordering insanity!
Glass Stegal was definately necessary and should be enforced but I think it expired or something. Dodd-Frank makes no sense and bailing out companies with taxpayer money has got to stop! Let them fail.
Respectfully,
Andrew K
Amdrew, let me know what you
Amdrew, let me know what you think, especially, about the tax issue. I am remembering from one of your posts a quote about if we cannot learn from the mistakes of the past, we are destine to repeat them. I think of this quote when I hear about cutting taxes becauses of the data, which is available, about what has happened when the Clinton administration raised taxes and what happened when the Bush Administration cut them. There may be more to consider, I understand, but still this is very necessary information when we are having a discussion about the effects of tax cuts on economic growth and job creation. Yet, I never see it addessed by the pundits on the Right. I am only left to spectulate as to why.
Also, if you can tell me why the Glass Stegal legislation was necessary, I will listen. My understanding that it was the change allowed by this legislation that allowed these banks to do so much that was reckless with the morgage situation. Also, you don't explain why Dodd/Frank makes no sense so I can't respond to that either. I know that the Right have promoted the idea tha it is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who are the demons in this situation. But, keep in mind it was the Republicans who were the ones who headed the committee that delt with the issue for 12 years; up into 2006 - not Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.
Andrew, I am uncomfortable whenever anyone stands on ideology alone as you seem to be doing with some of these issues. The reason I say this is that any ideology may be right for one situation and wrong for another. Yet those who are commited to an ideology tend not to do an independent analysis of any given situation. They just dig in their heels because they have some emotional commitment to some ideology, be it Right or Left (I guess one could say that my ideology is that no ideology is a "fix" for all situations and that movement in one direction has to be balanced by movement in the other).
I think we need to take a larger look at what letting some companies fail could do to the larger economic picture. One example is that my thoughts are that if the Auto industry was allowed to fail, there would be a very strong ripple effect; one that could have caused us from hanging by our fingernails on the cliff of a great drepreession into falling fully into it.
I believe the same was with the Banks, but am very disappointed that there were not more in the agreement of the bailout to ensure that the banks loosen up the credit, which they don't seem to have done. So I guess I would ask, what do you see as happening if the govt. did not intervene in these situations (and keep in mind that they did not take these industries over. They just had some oversight until they could be strong enough to get back on their feet and the tax payers are making money on the bailout)?
I don't think that anyone would argue that the tax code does need to be revivised. Yet the disagreements tend to be how they need to be revised.
Andrew, I just want to move beyond just making bold statements. It can feel very empowering to do so and some will see that as an "informed" position. I am not one of these who would. I need to have supporting evidence before I can embrace a positon. My intellect demands it as does the very delicate situation in which we, as a country, find ourselves. Too many pundits are depending on us to accept their analysis, which, too often, is replaced by a passionate, scorning energy. As I have stated before, I strongly resist this, even if it comes from those with whom I am in agreement.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues which we both have a deep, sincere concern.
Respectfully yours in Christ,
John David
John, I don't believe I am
John, I don't believe I am standing on ideology when I write my comments. If I'm coming across that way it’s not intentional.
Glass-Steagall was good legislation because for 60 years it separated commercial banks from the riskier investment banks, and that protected the depositor.
Dodd-Frank is bad legislation because it sets up all kinds of oversight within the banking industry but doesn't to a blessed thing to protect the depositor.
I can't say if we did the right thing by bailing out AIG, GM, and Chrysler.
Let's just say it was an experiment that so far hasn't backfired on us. By intervening in private companies with taxpayer money is very dangerous because then it will be expected by everyone who wants to rely on government when they fall into financial distress.
Regardless of how much you feel taxes help our economy (speak about standing on ideology John!) when taxes are lower, it spurs economic activity and the government collects more revenue in a productive economy. Come on John, I know you know this but I think you are enjoying this argument way too much!
In Christ
Andrew K
Andrew, I think we are in
Andrew,
I think we are in agreement with the Glass Standall legislation, as I do very much think that the Banks have to be seperated from the other commerical lending instituions. I may have confused things here, as I though that it was that legislation that elimitated that seperation.
I think when one feels that Govt. intervention is never a good idea, one is standing on ideology. Actually, when one thinks anything is never a good idea, it is then that they are standing on ideology. I do not have an ideology on raising taxes and am not sure where you got the thought that I do. When I speak of raising taxes, I am looking at this present situation and see raising taxes on those who are making more than 1 million dollars as necessary. I have no problem agreeing that there are times to decrease taxes, hence I do not see that I am letting an ideology make that decision for me.
If the Dodd Frank Bill left depositors vulernable, then it was incomplete, but not wrong. I think that is an important distinction. It seems clear to me that the decrease in regulation of Banks was a significant factor in what brought on the crash, so I feel that there is a need to go back when there was more regulation in this industry.
Andrew, your last paragraph confuses me as it has been shown by bi-partisan review that the Bush tax cuts did not spur the economy or create more jobs (and, as I mentioned the economic growth was greated when Clinton raised taxes. This review was based on the very 5 promises the Bush administration said would happen if the tax cuts were passed and 4 of the 5 failed completely and the 5 was a "yes, maybe if you look at it from one angle". If the data showed otherwise, I would agree with you. I don't know why you are insisting that it did. If you show me data that these tax cuts did stimulat the economy, I will review it.
Andrew, I have no emotional commitment to any position on the economy - none at all. So if cutting taxes does work, I'm all for it. I just want to see an economy that is thriving and giving fair opportunity to anyone who is willing to work hard and providing a solid safety net for the elderly and disable.
Yours in Christ,
John David
I disagree John. When a bill
I disagree John. When a bill is bad it needs to be erased and replaced. You don't try to find the merrits in it's intent. Case study: Jon Corzine and his corruption as CEO of MF Global. He gambled 1.2 Billion of investor money without them knowing and he testifies he doesn't know where it is. Dodd Frank is a useless piece of legislation.
John, your last paragraph says it all. That's where I am as well.
See you on the next blog.
In Christ.
Andrew K
"when taxes are lower, it
"when taxes are lower, it spurs economic activity and the government collects more revenue in a productive economy".
This was a theory and proved to not be true. Even if it were true what you are saying is that the time to cut taxes is when we are in a productive economy. But we are not now in a productive economy.
John David was correct when he stated that we had the slowest economic and job growth in 60 after Bush cut taxes. Are you denying this or ignoring it?
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Let's just say it was an experience that so far hasn't backfired on us".
Actually, it did work. It sounds as if you just don't want to admitt it.
Post new comment