|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 10, 2011 7:38:05 GMT -5
Occupy Wall Street: More from the culture of narcissism By Star Parker www.JewishWorldReview.com | I wouldn't think it would be worthwhile to draw attention to the Occupy Wall Street "movement," or its list of demands that wouldn't pass muster in an average kindergarten class. But if America's president and vice president choose to talk about it, and give it credibility, then it's news. According to Vice President Joe Biden, demands such as free college, pay independent of work, a $20 minimum wage (why not $100 or $1,000?), and a nation with open borders have legitimacy and "a lot in common with the Tea Party movement." President Barack Obama sees these demonstrations against corporate America as reasonable protest toward "the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this situation to begin with." This should provide perspective to what our most fundamental problem is today. We have an endangered species in America whose loss threatens our future. That species is called the American adult. Can someone please explain to our vice president the difference between a screaming infant not getting what he wants when he wants it, and an adult who understands personal responsibility, humility, work and service to others? A functioning free society requires citizens who are adults, capable of overseeing and administering a government that enforces laws that protect life and property. Once government simply becomes a playpen for those who believe they run the universe and make its basic laws, and also believe that the rest of us must submit to their hallucinations about what is just, we wind up where we are today. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that, according to the latest census data, 48.5 percent of American families are on the receiving end of some sort of government program, the highest percentage in our history. To provide some perspective, this figure was 10 percent in the 1920s, and a little more than 30 percent in 1980. During the 1960s, a watershed decade when the infantile culture of narcissism began to subsume free adult culture in America, more government programs were born than in any other period. By 1980, four of these programs of the 1960s -- food stamps, Pell grants, Medicare and Medicaid -- accounted for $164 billion in annual spending. Today these four programs swallow almost an additional trillion dollars. In all our history, there is only one instance of major reform of a government spending program, and that was the welfare reform that was passed in 1996. These government programs are pure monopolies driven by political power, not by efficiency or whether they are serving real needs of citizens. They don't change, they only grow. This contrasts with America's corporations, which Wall Street protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge, and America's president and vice president, would like us to believe control everything. But if big corporations did control everything, they would, like government programs, never change or lose power. But large firms regularly come and go, because, in contrast to government programs, they remain powerful only as long as they are serving consumers. Of the 30 major corporations that constitute the Dow Jones Industrial Average firms, only eight were on the list in 1980. The 30 Dow Jones Industrial Average firms have changed 45 times since the average was started 115 years ago. No, Mr. Biden. Occupy Wall Street has nothing in common with the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement is protest against abuse of political power and the increasing marginalization and disrespect for truths, such as protection of life, liberty and property that define American freedom. Occupy Wall Street is about lust for political power, about defining what others should have, and redistributing and spending what belongs to some else.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 12, 2011 8:09:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 14, 2011 7:08:22 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=crony-capitalismShould Liberal’s support Occupy Wall Street? Published October 13, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain That’s the question the editorial staff asks and answers in an editorial written for the publication’s November 3rd edition. The answer they give is a qualified “no”. Qualified in that while they sympathize with some of the points raised (which they note ironically are similar to those raised by the Tea Party), they find the movement mostly too radical. Why? Well here’s the reasoning that struck me as interesting: One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives. But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. Okay. Liberals are capitalists. Let that sink in. How does one seek to “level an unfair economic playing field” and claim to be a capitalist, where an unleveled playing field is almost a prerequisite to its economic success. That may sound odd, but it is capitalists who fund capitalism and they’re usually far and away richer than most of those who end up benefitting from the economic system. The very people OWS is protesting. Venture capitalists are usually found in the 1% the protesters are decrying. While I agree that under law, the playing field should be equal, crony capitalism (which isn’t capitalism at all) should be ruthlessly discouraged and government intrusion in markets dialed back to zero. I see neither of those latter two items on the liberal agenda. And remember – capitalism doesn’t claim to have a “level playing field”, but what it does promise is to be like a rising tide and lift all boats to a different and higher economic level of prosperity. Its record backs that claim. So make what you will of the editorial’s claim about the liberal version of capitalism, however they are seeking to distance themselves from the OWS crowd because it seems to mostly represent those who anti-capitalist. However flawed the liberal idea of what constitutes capitalism, they at least acknowledge its worth and the fact that it is the basis of our success. As Daniel Foster says – “let’s hold them to this” and make sure to remind them the next time they go on an anti-capitalist rant or write approvingly of government intrusion in the markets. Uber liberal Oliver Willis rejects everything the New Republic says because, he claims, they’ve been wrong about everything in the past. I assume that passes for “critical thinking” in WillisWorld. Willis obviously finds the OWS platform, such that it is in all its anti-capitalist glory, to be pleasing enough in some form or fashion that he implies support. In fact, I believe what the New Republic sees for the most part is a genuine but very small core of people who began this simply out of frustration and now have the usual radical, anti-capitalist, socialist A.N.S.W.E.R. professional protesters along with labor unions like the SEIU joining in and taking over the protest sensing a chance to again push their tired and failed agendas. Dana Milbank gives an example on who or what has shown up at the Washington DC event in, well, less than impressive numbers: But while the Occupy movement in the capital has invigorated left-wing groups — Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, Common Dreams, Peace Action, DC Vote, Community Council for the Homeless and a score of other labor and progressive organizations are represented on Freedom Plaza — it has not ignited anything resembling a populist rebellion. To swell their ranks, protesters recruited the homeless to camp with them. Already, there are factions. While the Freedom Plaza group, calling itself “Stop the Machine,” prepared to storm the Hart building, an AFL-CIO group was planning a conflicting event on the plaza. A few blocks away, in McPherson Square, an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street had established an encampment of a few dozen sleeping bags. The Occupy movement is in the midst of being co-opted by the usual suspects. And that will bring the usual results. Rhetoric that most Americans will find offensive coupled with childish actions that will have those who tentatively support the movement drop them like a hot rock. Right now, of the “99%” out in flyover land, only 36% support the protests. Anyway, Daniel Indiviglio at the Atlantic pretty much agrees with the New Republic and gives a reason that is more closely aligned with the progressive view of “capitalism” as it defines and supports it and as I’ve always understood them to believe: The sort of anarchist-socialist radicals that can be found at the OWS protests threaten the progressive view that there are times when it is sensible and morally righteous for the government to intervene and prop up the economy, an industry, or even specific companies, if that action is thought to benefit the economy on a whole. The difference here is that the radicals think the occasional need for a bailout proves that capitalism is doomed and should be shuttered, while progressives believe that bailouts can help capitalism to work. When you realize what is at the root cause of the problems we now are fighting to overcome, you realize the progressive version of “capitalism” is a failure. As usual, their instrument of change is the blunt force of government where one doesn’t have to convince, persuade or sell. Just dictate and do. That’s the antithesis of capitalism and markets. I don’t think the word means what they think it means. But don’t tell them … they really, honestly think they’re capitalists. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Oct 14, 2011 16:19:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 18, 2011 12:13:21 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?tag=charles-gasparinoWhy OWS will fail to ignite a “revolution” Published October 18, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain Succinctly, it is just another in a long line of Marxist protests which just hasn’t been fully found out yet. And, it’s useful to a certain political contingent at the moment. But, as Charles Gasparino notes in his NY Daily Post article, at its core Occupy Wall Street is an anti-capitalist Marxist movement: The standard portrayal of the Wall Street protesters goes something like this: Ragtag group of unemployed young adults, venting often incoherent but overall legitimate populist outrage about economic inequality. But go down to the movement’s headquarters, as I did this past weekend, and you see something far different. It’s not just that knowledge of their “oppressors” — the evil bankers — is pretty thin, or that many of them are clearly college kids with nothing better to do than embrace the radical chic of “a cause.” I found a unifying and increasingly coherent ideology emerging among the protesters, which at its core has less to do with the evils of the banking business and more about the evils of capitalism — and the need for a socialist revolution. Gasparino goes on to detail what he found and it’s as unremarkable and as expected a listing of what you’d find at any A.N.S.W.E.R. protest. You know it is radical when even Richard Trumka is vilified: That was pretty mild compared to the sentiments offered in the official “Statement of the League for the Revolutionary Party” on the protests. These guys view as the enemy not just Wall Street tycoons, but also liberal labor leaders like Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO. The problem with Trumka, according to the Revolutionary Party and its Zuccotti Park contingent: He wants to work with wishy-washy Democratic Party politicians, where the true revolutionaries want to “defend and develop Marxist theory as a guide to action,” which is the protests’ real purpose. And yet Trumka is one of many Democrats who at least tentatively embraces this mob. Political expediency. They want to use this to validate their class warfare campaign. Yes friends, the murderous Che is again plastered on everything and the “revolutionary” Marxist spirit permeates everything – which is why this is eventually destined to implode: Maybe the worse-spent dollar I have ever spent in my life was on a propaganda broadsheet titled “Justice,” which advocates “Struggle, Solidarity, Socialism.” On the front page of the newspaper-like document, beneath the headline “Capitalism: System Failure,” was a tease for a story on the economy and how “influential business economist Nouriel Roubini” recently said how “Karl Marx had it right. At some point, capitalism can destroy itself.” Yes, the left-leaning Roubini made that fatuous statement, and many similar ones — so many, in fact, that he has lost much of his credibility in financial circles, though that didn’t quite make it into the “Marx Was Right!” story. Also absent was any notice of how the much-hated banks benefited not from free-market capitalism, which would have let them fail in 2008, but from crony capitalism that bailed them out. The similar cronyism practiced by Trumka and the Obama administration — massive spending on useless but politically connected businesses like Solyndra, paired with class-warfare rhetoric — likewise has very little to do with free markets. Yeah, this ain’t the ‘60s kids. And the core then was just as radical as the core of OWS is now. When the war in Vietnam ended, so did the ability of the radicals to get their anti-capitalist message out. Eventually this will be seen by the populace as a whole for what it really is. That’s because at some point, the true nature of that core that Gasparino talks about will shine through in such a way that even slick spin doctors won’t be able to credibly deny it. And when that happens, the entire movement will collapse like a wet paper box. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 19, 2011 6:57:54 GMT -5
Wall Street Protesters Half Right By John Stossel www.JewishWorldReview.com | What's there to say about Occupy Wall Street? The answer isn't so simple. Some complain about taxpayer bailouts of businesses. Good for them. In a true free market, failing firms would go out of business. They couldn't turn to Washington for help. But many protesters say they're against capitalism. Now things get confusing. What do they mean? If by "capitalism" they mean crony capitalism (let's call it crapitalism), a system in which favored business interests are supported by government, I'm against that, too. But if they mean the free market, then they are fools. When allowed to work, the market has lifted more people out of the mud and misery of poverty than any government, ever. The protesters are also upset about income disparity. Here again we should make distinctions. To the extent the country's income disparity is the result of crony capitalism, it's bad. Yet even if America had a true free market, there would be income disparity. It's a byproduct of freedom. Some people are just more ambitious, more energetic and more driven, and some have that ineffable knack of sensing what consumers want. Think Steve Jobs. But it shouldn't matter if the income gap between you and rich people grows. What should matter is that your living standard improves. Your living standard many not have improved lately. Over the past decade, median income fell. But that's an aberration largely caused by the bursting of the real estate bubble. Despite Wall Street protesters' complaints about rich people gaining at the expense of the poor, the poorest fifth of Americans are 20 percent wealthier than they were when I was in college, and despite the recession, still richer than they were in 1993. And income statistics don't tell the whole story. Thanks to the innovations of entrepreneurs, today in America, even poor people have clean water, TV sets, cars and flush toilets. Most live better than kings once lived — better even than the middle class lived in 1970. Some protesters say they hate the market process that makes that possible. They call rich people "robber barons." That term was used by American newspapers to smear tycoons like Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller. But Vanderbilt and Rockefeller were neither robbers nor barons. They weren't barons because they weren't born rich. They weren't robbers because they didn't steal. They got rich by serving customers well. As Burton Folsom wrote in "The Myth of the Robber Barons," there were political entrepreneurs, who made their fortunes through government privilege, and market entrepreneurs, who pleased consumers. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt were market entrepreneurs. Vanderbilt invented ways to make travel cheaper. He used bigger ships and served food onboard. People liked that, and the extra customers he attracted allowed him to lower costs. He cut the New York-Hartford fare from $8 to $1. That helped people. Rockefeller was called a monopolist, but he wasn't one. He had 150 competitors — including big companies like Texaco and Gulf. No one was ever forced to buy his oil. Rockefeller got rich by finding cheaper ways to get oil products to the market. His competitors vilified him because he "stole" their customers by lowering prices. Ignorant reporters repeated their complaints. In truth, Rockefeller's price cuts made life better. Poor people used to go to bed when it got dark, but thanks to Rockefeller, they could afford fuel for lanterns and stay up and read at night. Rockefeller's "greed" may have even saved the whales. When he lowered the price of kerosene, he eliminated the need for whale oil, and the slaughter of whales suddenly stopped. Bet your kids won't read "Rockefeller saved the whales" in environmental studies class. I have at least found some common ground with some Wall Street protest supporters. Joe Sibilia, who runs the website CSRWire (Corporate Social Responsibility), told me, "You can't have an environment where people are betting on financial instruments with the expectation that the government is going to bail them out." So we agree that Wall Street bailouts are intolerable. Now we just have to teach our progressive friends that truly free markets work for the benefit of all.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Oct 20, 2011 8:51:12 GMT -5
Hey, Occupy Wall Street: What, No Anti-Obama Signs? By Larry Elder www.JewishWorldReview.com | The Occupy Wall Street folks tell us to blame Wall Street for the nation's financial troubles. Notice the no-fly zone over President Barack Obama. Where are the anti-President Barack Obama signs or the verbal chants denouncing the President? Imagine the protests/sit-ins/rallies/mass marches on Pennsylvania Avenue — not Wall Street — if after two years of Republican White House leadership, America remained stuck on over 9 percent unemployment! Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and President Barack Obama say they sympathize with the protestors. Of course, they do. After over two years of reckless spending, the inflationary printing of money, massive "stimulus" that failed to "save or create" 3.5 million jobs, green technology "investments" in soon-to-be-bankrupt companies whose investors donated to and raised money for the President's election and unpopular bailouts, the dismal results are in. What to do? Find a scapegoat — provided it isn't Freddie, Fannie or the Community Reinvestment Act, the real culprits behind the housing meltdown. No, Wall Street will do nicely. Just keep Obama's name off the list of grievances: "Greedy" investment bankers? Obama's second chief of staff, William Daley, previously worked as Midwest chairman for JPMorgan Chase. Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, worked as an investment banker and pulled down $18 million in two-and-a-half years. Bailouts? President Bush bailed out financial institutions, and Obama raised the ante, bailing out more companies, including GM and Chrysler. Federal reserve? Obama reappointed Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. Most Americans aren't buying the blame Wall Street nonsense. One in three likely voters, according to The Hill, blame Wall Street, while 56 percent blame Washington. A USA Today/Gallup poll of all Americans found that 30 percent blame big financial institutions, with 64 percent pointing the finger at Washington. Thirty percent is still a frighteningly big number for such irresponsible scapegoating. Yoko Ono, John Lennon's $500-million-net-worth widow, offered her support: "I love 'Occupy Wall Street'! John is sending his smile to 'Occupy Wall Street.' I am sending my love to 'Occupy Wall Street.' We are all working together. You are letting the world know that American activists are doing this. That gives them inspiration and encouragement. That is very important now for the United States and the world. As John said: 'One hero cannot do it. Each one of us have to be heroes.' And you are. Thank you. …" Given Ono's support for those opposing excessive greed, how does she explain away the $500 million? According to the reaction to my Facebook post on the question, not very well: "I am betting she doesn't keep all her money in a mattress! You think she would pull all her money out of the banks or out of Wall Street? Not likely." "Let's not forget that her late husband wrote the Marxist anthem 'Imagine' while living in a Park Avenue penthouse. 'Imagine no possessions …'" "She is a rich lib … she did not earn the money she has. Thus she does not understand like most liberals what they r complaining about. Someone should ask her … 'Hey Yoko! Thank you for working hard to keep d memory of John going. … But d money u have now … is it easy to keep, do u have bills to pay. … who made your clothing … how about d limo? Private home, vacation home … do u shop at Walmart with d regular folks … or at Target? U going back to ur castle in New York? How much will u give to d US Treasury?'" "Here's a line John forgot to put in his song, 'Imagine there's no liberals. It's easy if you try.'" "Yoko Ono!! She's still around? Is she taking some of those nuts back to her house for shelter? Oh wait. … They expect only US to walk the walk while they just talk and talk and talk … and go back to their alternative universe they live in. …" "If she never sings again, that's gift enough for me." "But she worked hard for her money … oh … never mind." As for erasing the "wealth disparity," the protestors have their work cut out for them. A 2006 study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research looked at wealth distribution worldwide. Defining "wealth" very broadly as the sum of all assets — not just financial assets — minus debts, the study concluded that the top 10 percent of the world's adults control about 85 percent of world's household wealth. The top 10 percent of Americans own 69.8 percent of their country's wealth. In Switzerland, the top 10 percent own 71.3 percent, and in France it's 61 percent. Meanwhile, on the West coast, an "Occupy L.A." protestor who identified herself as a Los Angeles Unified School District employee knows exactly whom to blame: "I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country." Hey, at least she didn't blame Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Nov 1, 2011 6:56:37 GMT -5
Democracy Versus Mob Rule By Thomas Sowell www.JewishWorldReview.com | In various cities across the country, mobs of mostly young, mostly incoherent, often noisy and sometimes violent demonstrators are making themselves a major nuisance. Meanwhile, many in the media are practically gushing over these "protesters," and giving them the free publicity they crave for themselves and their cause — whatever that is, beyond venting their emotions on television. Members of the mobs apparently believe that other people, who are working while they are out trashing the streets, should be forced to subsidize their college education — and apparently the President of the United States thinks so too. But if these loud mouths' inability to put together a coherent line of thought is any indication of their education, the taxpayers should demand their money back for having that money wasted on them for years in the public schools. Sloppy words and sloppy thinking often go together, both in the mobs and in the media that are covering them. It is common, for example, to hear in the media how some "protesters" were arrested. But anyone who reads this column regularly knows that I protest against all sorts of things — and don't get arrested. The difference is that I don't block traffic, join mobs sleeping overnight in parks or urinate in the street. If the media cannot distinguish between protesting and disturbing the peace, then their education may also have wasted a lot of taxpayers' money. Among the favorite sloppy words used by the shrill mobs in the streets is "Wall Street greed." But even if you think people in Wall Street, or anywhere else, are making more money than they deserve, "greed" is no explanation whatever. "Greed" says how much you want. But you can become the greediest person on earth and that will not increase your pay in the slightest. It is what other people pay you that increases your income. If the government has been sending too much of the taxpayers' money to people in Wall Street — or anywhere else — then the irresponsibility or corruption of politicians is the problem. "Occupy Wall Street" hooligans should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Maybe some of the bankers or financiers should have turned down the millions and billions that politicians were offering them. But sainthood is no more common in Wall Street than on Pennsylvania Avenue — or in the media or academia, for that matter. Actually, some banks did try to refuse the government bailout money, to avoid the interference with their business that they knew would come with it. But the feds insisted — and federal regulators' power to create big financial problems for banks made it hard to say no. The feds made them an offer they couldn't refuse. People who cannot distinguish between democracy and mob rule may fall for the idea that the hooligans in the street represent the 99 percent who are protesting about the "greed" of the one percent. But these hooligans are less than one percent and they are grossly violating the rights of vastly larger numbers of people who have to put up with their trashing of the streets by day and their noise that keeps working people awake at night. As for the "top one percent" in income that attract so much attention, angst and denunciation, there is always going to be a top one percent, unless everybody has the same income. That top one percent has no more monopoly on sainthood or villainy than people in any other bracket. Moreover, that top one percent does not consist of the "millionaires and billionaires" that Barack Obama talks about. You don't even have to make half a million dollars to be in the top one percent. Moreover, this is not an enduring class of people. Nor are people in other income brackets. Most of the people in the top one percent at any given time are there for only one year. Anyone who sells an average home in San Francisco can get into the top one percent in income — for that year. Other one-time spikes in income account for most of the people in that top one percent. But such plain facts carry little weight amid the heady rhetoric and mindless emotions of the mob and the media.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Nov 7, 2011 10:25:51 GMT -5
Look Who's Singing Along In Karaoke Of Revolution By Mark Steyn www.JewishWorldReview.com | Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared his forces were there to "preserve disorder." I believe that was one of Hizzoner's famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland City Council have made "preserving disorder" the official municipal policy. Last Wednesday, the "Occupy Oakland" occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation's fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of "shopping," destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation "F**k", etc. And how did the Oakland City Council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for "Occupy Oakland" and to call on the city administration to "collaborate with protesters." That's "collaborate" in the Nazi-occupied France sense: the city's feckless political class is collaborating with anarchists against the taxpayers who maintain them in their sinecures. They're not the only ones.When the rumor spread that the Whole Foods store, of all unlikely corporate villains, had threatened to fire employees who participated in the protest, Regional President David Lannon took to Facebook: "We totally support our Team Members participating in the General Strike today — rumors are false!" But, despite his "total support," they trashed his store anyway, breaking windows and spray-painting walls. As the Oakland Tribune reported: "A man who witnessed the Whole Foods attack, but asked not to be identified, said he was in the store buying an organic orange when the crowd arrived." There's an epitaph for the republic if ever I heard one. "The experience was surreal, the man said. 'They were wearing masks. There was this whole mess of people, and no police here. That was weird.'" No, it wasn't. It was municipal policy. In fairness to the miserable David Lannon, Whole Foods was in damage control mode. Men's Wearhouse in Oakland had no such excuse. In solidarity with the masses, they printed up a huge poster declaring "We Stand With the 99%" and announcing they'd be closed that day. In return, they got their windows smashed. I'm a proud member of the 1%, and I'd have been tempted to smash 'em myself. A few weeks back, finding myself suddenly without luggage, I shopped at a Men's Wearhouse, faute de mieux, in Burlington, Vt. Never again. I'm not interested in patronizing craven corporations so decadent and self-indulgent that as a matter of corporate policy they support the destruction of civilized society. Did George Zimmer, founder of Men's Wearhouse and backer of Howard Dean, marijuana decriminalization and many other fashionable causes, ever glance at the photos of the OWS occupiers and ponder how many of "the 99%" would ever need his 2-for-1 deal on suits and neckties? And did he think even these dummies were dumb enough to fall for such a feebly corporatist attempt at appeasing the mob? I don't "stand with the 99%," and certainly not downwind of them. But I'm all for their "occupation" continuing on its merry way. It usefully clarifies the stakes. At first glance, an alliance of anarchists and government might appear to be somewhat paradoxical. But the formal convergence in Oakland makes explicit the movement's aims: They're anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life — just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What's happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: the government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class and the criminal class in order to stick it to what's left of the beleaguered productive class. It's a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. Only the criminal class is reasonably upfront about this. The rest — lifetime legislators, unions defending lavish and unsustainable benefits, "scholars" whiling away a somnolent half-decade at Complacency U — are obliged to dress it up a little with some hooey about "social justice" and whatnot. But that's all it takes to get the media and modish if insecure corporate entities to string along. Whole Foods can probably pull it off. So can Ben & Jerry's, the wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch corporation UniLever that successfully passes itself off as some sort of tie-dyed Vermont hippie commune. But a chain of stores that sells shirts, ties, the garb of the corporate lackey has a tougher sell. The class that gets up in the morning, pulls on its lousy Men's Wearhouse get-up and trudges off to work has to pay for all the other classes, and the strain is beginning to tell. Let it be said that the "occupiers" are right on the banks: They shouldn't have been bailed out. America has one of the most dysfunctional banking systems in the civilized world, and most of its allegedly indispensable institutions should have been allowed to fail. But the Occupy Oakland types have no serious response, other than the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by government-funded inertia. America is seizing up before our eyes: The decrepit airports, the underwater property market, the education racket, the hyperregulated business environment. Yet curiously the best example of this sclerosis is the alleged "revolutionary" movement itself. It's the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It's more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don't mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al., but also, say, the photo in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old "unemployed cosmetologist" with remarkably un-cosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it's London, 1977, and she's killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that's 3 1/2 decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America's revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can't even invent their own hideous fashion statements? Last weekend, the nonagenarian commie Pete Seeger was wheeled out at Zuccotti Park to serenade the oppressed masses with "If I Had a Hammer." As it happens, I do have a hammer. Pace, Mr. Seeger, they're not that difficult to acquire, even in a recession. But if I took it to Zuccotti Park, I doubt very much anyone would know how to use it, or be able to muster the energy to do so. At heart, Oakland's occupiers and worthless political class want more of the same fix that has made America the Brokest Nation in History: They expect to live as beneficiaries of a prosperous Western society without making any contribution to the productivity necessary to sustain it. This is the "idealism" the media are happy to sentimentalize, and that enough poseurs among the corporate executives are happy to indulge — at least until the window-smashing starts. To "occupy" Oakland or anywhere else, you have to have something to put in there. Yet the most striking feature of OWS is its hollowness. And in a strange way the emptiness of its threats may be a more telling indictment of a fin de civilisation west than a more coherent protest movement could ever have mounted.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Dec 2, 2011 20:51:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Dec 3, 2011 9:17:49 GMT -5
That one is spot on, Keith. I wish I could say it that well.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Dec 5, 2011 15:22:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Dec 5, 2011 17:35:33 GMT -5
Yes, he does. I listened to this a few days ago and Glenn Beck played it on his radio show.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Dec 5, 2011 22:47:49 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Dec 5, 2011 22:48:37 GMT -5
I've liked Corrolla since he was Jimmy Kimmel's sidekick on an old comedy central show called "The Man Show." It was pretty raucous then.
By the way, they're just words. I'm reminded of the classic bit from George Carlin; "The seven words you can't say on TV." Of that list, I think we're probably down to only two or three anymore during prime-time.
|
|