Pro-Lifers claim that life begins at conception, and that a fetus in the womb is equivalent with an infant, a 35-year-old, or Ryan Seacrest. (They're right about Ryan Seacrest).
Yet, some of these Pro-Lifers do things with pictures of fetuses that... well... no one in their right mind would do with photos of dead human beings.
Like this: Fetus Trucks Circling Downtown Tampa
Can you imagine any sane person driving a truck plastered with graphic pictures of murdered adults? Of course not.
So why is covering a truck with photos of abortions okay???
I guess it's because... drumroll... Pro-Lifers don't really believe fetuses are people.
If Pro-Lifers really valued these fetuses as children, there's no way they would parade around their naked, bloody, dismembered corpses in public. That's not something we do with human beings. If you value a life, you don't treat that life like another murder image to plaster to the side of your truck. A death is a tragedy, not a marketing ploy.
If these fetuses really were human beings, you'd expect Pro-Lifers to treat them like human beings-- with love, a proper burial, mourning, respect. Instead, their "crime scene" photos are used to shock and disgust people. How does that convince anyone that their life is worth something?
But I guess logic isn't the strong suit of the Pro-Life community.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to end abortion, dead baby photos are not the way. A ban is not the way.
All the discussion of rape exemptions, sonograms and dead babies distracts from the real issue at hand. Abortion, most often, is a symptom of our larger societal ills: poor education, poverty, sub-standard health care. When a woman gets pregnant, it should be a joy... but unfortunately, these issues often make it into a tragedy. If we alleviate these issues, the amount of abortions in this country will drop significantly.
Provide comprehensive sex education, including birth control, to prevent teen mothers. Provide assistance for single parents and lower-income families. Improve the health care system so mothers-to-be don't have to worry about how to afford medical bills. Create incentives for minimum wage employers to provide paid maternity leave for their hourly workers. Create a program to help poor families afford babysitting costs. Provide maternity care for those who choose to go forward with giving a child up for adoption. Provide extra assistance for those who choose to raise a child with disabilities.
Give that pregnant woman all the support she needs for 9 months of pregnancy and for 5 years after that (the most crucial in a child's development), and you'll make the experience of bringing children into this world--and raising them--a less painful one. If you do that, there will be less reason to make the agonizing choice to abort a child.
But that takes a lot of work. A lot of money. And a lot of logic.
Driving trucks around with photos of dead babies is just a whole lot easier.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Why Homophibia Isn't An "Opinion," It's Wrong
Jessie Bering has a nice story on Slate.com today, a rebuttal against conservative claims that accepting homosexual behavior is wrong. (he must have read my piece a few weeks ago) He makes four main points:
-Homosexuality is not a choice. Because no one "chooses" to be straight. There's not a moment in everyone's life where they stop and think, "Hmm, men or women??? This is sooo hard to decide!!!!!" Bering writes: "A true heterosexual... has never experienced meaningful same-sex desires and understands that one cannot choose to act on what is simply not there." If that's true, then isn't it equally valid to say a gay man or woman similarly never faces such a "choice?"
-Homosexuality is not any more disgusting than heterosexual relations. To wit, homosexuals are not the only ones participating in anal sex, and... I mean, if its totally legal for Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold to get it on, well, we shouldn't really be concerning ourselves with legislating relationships based on how pleasing or disgusting they are to think about. Bering writes, "...because of disgust rhetoric, [bigots] have sexualized gays and lesbians to such a degree that all they can see in them is contaminated bodily excretions. Lofty emotions such as love and romance are for actual straight human beings like them, not for filthy animals fornicating and spreading disease."
-Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Bering writes: "The American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual in 1973. The consensus—which has been reiterated many times since—was that in spite of the toxic social conditions in which they so often find themselves, the majority of gays and lesbians are well-adjusted, high-functioning, and contributing members of society. Emotional health issues such as depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts found at higher than average rates among gays and lesbians are the consequences of their living in an intolerant world." Well said. The only harm that comes from this "mental illness" is the harm inflicted by other people.
-Homosexuality is not "unnatural" or "against God." Here's where Bering goes a little off the rails... "what all men really should be doing is putting their penises to the promiscuous use for which they were intentionally designed. And about every other day, women should fill their vaginal canals with the seminal fluid of a different man. If that makes you uncomfortable, take it up with the Creator." The truth is, he doesn't really need to go there. The reality is, interpretations of the Bible vary among different religious groups and among the followers in that group. While evangelicals may uniformly believe God is telling them "gay is wrong," others who believe in God do not believe that. Remember.... the Bible was once interpreted to say that the world was flat, that black people were the sons of Cain, that Jews murdered Jesus, and so on. We've since become enlightened otherwise. As for unnatural... have you read 50 Shades of Grey? No one is calling for that behavior to disqualify couples from marriage. Not all straight couples can have kids, or want to. If the sole purpose of a marriage is to generate offspring, then why not outlaw sterile couples or childless couples as well? And what is natural? Hell, light bulbs are unnatural. Are we outlawing them?
All the other arguments against homosexuality are equally bunk. All gays are pedophiles? Well, we already have laws against pedophilia. It's as ridiculous an argument as saying all gun owners are murderers. See what I did there?
Are all lesbians just man haters? Well, I play on a softball team with a few of them, and they seem to like me.
Will we all start marrying animals? Let's say you want to marry your dog. How do you know if he wants to marry you? The issue here is consent. Two adult males or two adult females can freely voice their consent to marriage. Your dog's "ruff ruff" does not constitute a legally binding agreement.
The bottom line is, there shouldn't be any laws regulating anything two consenting people do with each other, as long as they aren't hurting anybody else. And making you feel disgusted doesn't qualify as hurt. Otherwise the makers of The Real Housewives shows on Bravo would be in jail right now as far as I'm concerned.
If you're allowed to wear a clown costume while hanging upside down with a banana in your ass singing the Star-Spangled Banner while a girl you met at the bar hours before gives you a Red Hot (like snowballing, but with hot sauce), then you really shouldn't be concerned if two people of the same sex who love each other want to get married.
Really, why do you want the government in your bedroom so bad?
-Homosexuality is not a choice. Because no one "chooses" to be straight. There's not a moment in everyone's life where they stop and think, "Hmm, men or women??? This is sooo hard to decide!!!!!" Bering writes: "A true heterosexual... has never experienced meaningful same-sex desires and understands that one cannot choose to act on what is simply not there." If that's true, then isn't it equally valid to say a gay man or woman similarly never faces such a "choice?"
-Homosexuality is not any more disgusting than heterosexual relations. To wit, homosexuals are not the only ones participating in anal sex, and... I mean, if its totally legal for Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold to get it on, well, we shouldn't really be concerning ourselves with legislating relationships based on how pleasing or disgusting they are to think about. Bering writes, "...because of disgust rhetoric, [bigots] have sexualized gays and lesbians to such a degree that all they can see in them is contaminated bodily excretions. Lofty emotions such as love and romance are for actual straight human beings like them, not for filthy animals fornicating and spreading disease."
-Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Bering writes: "The American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual in 1973. The consensus—which has been reiterated many times since—was that in spite of the toxic social conditions in which they so often find themselves, the majority of gays and lesbians are well-adjusted, high-functioning, and contributing members of society. Emotional health issues such as depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts found at higher than average rates among gays and lesbians are the consequences of their living in an intolerant world." Well said. The only harm that comes from this "mental illness" is the harm inflicted by other people.
-Homosexuality is not "unnatural" or "against God." Here's where Bering goes a little off the rails... "what all men really should be doing is putting their penises to the promiscuous use for which they were intentionally designed. And about every other day, women should fill their vaginal canals with the seminal fluid of a different man. If that makes you uncomfortable, take it up with the Creator." The truth is, he doesn't really need to go there. The reality is, interpretations of the Bible vary among different religious groups and among the followers in that group. While evangelicals may uniformly believe God is telling them "gay is wrong," others who believe in God do not believe that. Remember.... the Bible was once interpreted to say that the world was flat, that black people were the sons of Cain, that Jews murdered Jesus, and so on. We've since become enlightened otherwise. As for unnatural... have you read 50 Shades of Grey? No one is calling for that behavior to disqualify couples from marriage. Not all straight couples can have kids, or want to. If the sole purpose of a marriage is to generate offspring, then why not outlaw sterile couples or childless couples as well? And what is natural? Hell, light bulbs are unnatural. Are we outlawing them?
All the other arguments against homosexuality are equally bunk. All gays are pedophiles? Well, we already have laws against pedophilia. It's as ridiculous an argument as saying all gun owners are murderers. See what I did there?
Are all lesbians just man haters? Well, I play on a softball team with a few of them, and they seem to like me.
Will we all start marrying animals? Let's say you want to marry your dog. How do you know if he wants to marry you? The issue here is consent. Two adult males or two adult females can freely voice their consent to marriage. Your dog's "ruff ruff" does not constitute a legally binding agreement.
The bottom line is, there shouldn't be any laws regulating anything two consenting people do with each other, as long as they aren't hurting anybody else. And making you feel disgusted doesn't qualify as hurt. Otherwise the makers of The Real Housewives shows on Bravo would be in jail right now as far as I'm concerned.
If you're allowed to wear a clown costume while hanging upside down with a banana in your ass singing the Star-Spangled Banner while a girl you met at the bar hours before gives you a Red Hot (like snowballing, but with hot sauce), then you really shouldn't be concerned if two people of the same sex who love each other want to get married.
Really, why do you want the government in your bedroom so bad?
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
It Must Be Obama's Fault
Cat Murder Rate, Hooliganism On The Rise
The best two paragraphs of journalism this year:
Of course, it's the damn tomcat teenagers.
The best two paragraphs of journalism this year:
Cats aren't just a danger to others, they're also a danger to themselves. The cats in the study were seen engaging in such risky behavior as crossing roadways (45%), eating and drinking things they found (25%), exploring storm drains (20%) and entering crawl spaces where they could become trapped (20%).
Male cats were more likely to do risky things than female cats, and older cats were more careful than younger ones.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Do No Harm
"Do no harm." It's the Hippocratic oath, taken by doctors upon their graduation from medical school. It should also be the goal of every law our government passes. It should be the mantra congressmen recite every time they enter the Capitol Building. Our government's job is to keep us safe... not to punish us.
Punishment is how totalitarian governments keep their people in line. The United States, since its inception, has believed punishment should only be reserved for those who harm others (even if administrations throughout our history have sometimes forgotten that.) That's why we call it justice.
But punishment is what banning gay marriage is all about. Plain and simple. You can't call it justice.
Gay marriage is not a thing that harms others. A law against gay marriage is not a law that protects people. It's a law that protects the moral beliefs of one subset of citizens, around 50% of Americans (most living outside major population centers) and thinning out by the day.
When a man marries a man, or a woman marries a woman, NOBODY IS HARMED. Nobody dies, no one suffers financial loss or bodily injury. Why make a law against it? Who is harmed?
-The Children! Oh, Think of the Children!!!!
-Themselves! Their immortal soul!
-God!
-Marriage!! Marriage is harmed!!!!
Let's take these one by one.
The Children! First of all, there's no law against single parents adopting children, there's no law against shitty parents, and there's no law against Octomom. Kids are screwed up everyday by heterosexual couples and other unorthodox unions. On the flip side, we see kids who turn out perfectly fine after being raised by single parents, unmarried parents, divorced parents, etc. Just because two people are of the same sex does not disqualify them from being good parents. No scientific study has ever shown same-sex parenting results in universal harm to children. In fact, the few examples we have are doing pretty well. To address another issue-- no kid has ever decided to become gay because they thought it was cool. People don't decide to become gay any more than they decide to breathe. It just happens. It's happened as long as there have been human beings. Somehow, our species lives on. If parents are truly horrific--abusive, neglectful--we already have laws to punish them.
Their Immortal Soul!!! Evangelicals are not evil people (most of them, anyway). As part of the evangelical belief system, it's a given that anyone who has not accepted Jesus will go to hell--eternal damnation alongside Hitler, Osama, and the guys who wrote the Macarena. Evangelicals don't want people to go to hell... because they CARE. So it is with love that they want to make gay people suffer. Because suffering a little in this mortal world will save them an eternity of suffering in the afterlife.
Well, that's sure nice of them... but not everyone has that belief system. In fact, Christianity itself is divided on the issue. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin... but is it a sin greater than any other? The Bible has a whole list of sins that people tend to do on a regular basis. Turning on the TV on the Sabbath is a sin. Yelling at your mom for nagging you is a sin. Not marrying your dead husband's brother is a sin. The list goes on. Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross so our sins may be forgiven. Judaism teaches that repentance can remove the severity of God's decree. I don't know what Muslim views are, but I'm pretty sure there's room to wiggle out of hell there too. Just because someone sins doesn't mean their soul is damned. A homosexual can do a great number of things to help the world and make it a better place-- surely the weight of a man's deeds can make up for a man's failings. That's what modern religion teaches us. In Ancient Greece, people used to be damned for the sins of their fathers!
God! Once again, not everybody believes in this guy (or, according to the movie Dogma, Alanis Morissette). And in America, we have separation of church and state, so the government should not be looking to protect God's feelings. All world religions believe God gave us free will-- the ability to rise, or the ability to fall. Why would he do that if he wanted us to force everybody to do his will? God gave us the ability to make our own moral choices because he wanted us to learn the wisdom of making those choices. If we proscribe morality--personal morality that doesn't affect the lives of other people--then we short circuit free will. We take away the meaning behind making a moral choice. If there is no choice, then what can we learn? We're not people, but walking reactions to stimuli. God only knows that we lived our lives afraid of punishment, not that we were wise enough to make the right choices.
Plus, he's a big guy. There are way worse things humanity does to hurt his feelings.
Marriage! Is a word, a concept. At the very most, an "institution." It is not a person. Gay people getting married does not harm people in heterosexual marriages. Heterosexuals have done enough damage on their own. Look at the divorce rates, episodes of Teen Mom on MTV, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. Are we really saying that the institution of marriage is under threat because MORE PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED?? That's ridiculous. If anything, the fight for gay marriage has shown just how important a loving, official union.is. If a group of people are fighting this hard for the right to be married, then it must be something worth fighting for. Why exclude them? Because they don't look like you? Because they can't have kids? Does a sterile, interracial punk rock pierced-to-the-nines couple threaten other people's marriages? In the 1950s, a lot of people may have thought so. Only bigots and cranky old people do now.
Are you going to say, "Well, I guess I won't get married, because if the gays do, its not special anymore"? What are you, three years old? You wanted the toy truck when you were the only kid who had one, but now that Jimmy and Sarah and Maxwell got one--screw that, its not cool anymore? Are you going to say, "I'm going to get divorced because Sam and Dave are getting hitched"? Why? So you can be available for a little gay union of your own?
Will gay marriage open the door to polygamy? Incest? Beastiality? Well, only if you believe love between two consenting adults is the same as those things. Which it is not. Power imbalances, issues of consent, potential for abuse and coercion is just not as present in a union between two equals.
President Obama is right to support Gay Marriage. Now he's got to follow through. It's time for America to grow up and stop acting like children. We're at war overseas. The economy sucks. Cadbury Creme Eggs are smaller than ever. THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.
Do no harm. We follow that oath, and America stays alive. We break it, and the patient dies on the table.
Punishment is how totalitarian governments keep their people in line. The United States, since its inception, has believed punishment should only be reserved for those who harm others (even if administrations throughout our history have sometimes forgotten that.) That's why we call it justice.
But punishment is what banning gay marriage is all about. Plain and simple. You can't call it justice.
Gay marriage is not a thing that harms others. A law against gay marriage is not a law that protects people. It's a law that protects the moral beliefs of one subset of citizens, around 50% of Americans (most living outside major population centers) and thinning out by the day.
When a man marries a man, or a woman marries a woman, NOBODY IS HARMED. Nobody dies, no one suffers financial loss or bodily injury. Why make a law against it? Who is harmed?
-The Children! Oh, Think of the Children!!!!
-Themselves! Their immortal soul!
-God!
-Marriage!! Marriage is harmed!!!!
Let's take these one by one.
The Children! First of all, there's no law against single parents adopting children, there's no law against shitty parents, and there's no law against Octomom. Kids are screwed up everyday by heterosexual couples and other unorthodox unions. On the flip side, we see kids who turn out perfectly fine after being raised by single parents, unmarried parents, divorced parents, etc. Just because two people are of the same sex does not disqualify them from being good parents. No scientific study has ever shown same-sex parenting results in universal harm to children. In fact, the few examples we have are doing pretty well. To address another issue-- no kid has ever decided to become gay because they thought it was cool. People don't decide to become gay any more than they decide to breathe. It just happens. It's happened as long as there have been human beings. Somehow, our species lives on. If parents are truly horrific--abusive, neglectful--we already have laws to punish them.
Their Immortal Soul!!! Evangelicals are not evil people (most of them, anyway). As part of the evangelical belief system, it's a given that anyone who has not accepted Jesus will go to hell--eternal damnation alongside Hitler, Osama, and the guys who wrote the Macarena. Evangelicals don't want people to go to hell... because they CARE. So it is with love that they want to make gay people suffer. Because suffering a little in this mortal world will save them an eternity of suffering in the afterlife.
Well, that's sure nice of them... but not everyone has that belief system. In fact, Christianity itself is divided on the issue. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin... but is it a sin greater than any other? The Bible has a whole list of sins that people tend to do on a regular basis. Turning on the TV on the Sabbath is a sin. Yelling at your mom for nagging you is a sin. Not marrying your dead husband's brother is a sin. The list goes on. Christianity says that Jesus died on the cross so our sins may be forgiven. Judaism teaches that repentance can remove the severity of God's decree. I don't know what Muslim views are, but I'm pretty sure there's room to wiggle out of hell there too. Just because someone sins doesn't mean their soul is damned. A homosexual can do a great number of things to help the world and make it a better place-- surely the weight of a man's deeds can make up for a man's failings. That's what modern religion teaches us. In Ancient Greece, people used to be damned for the sins of their fathers!
God! Once again, not everybody believes in this guy (or, according to the movie Dogma, Alanis Morissette). And in America, we have separation of church and state, so the government should not be looking to protect God's feelings. All world religions believe God gave us free will-- the ability to rise, or the ability to fall. Why would he do that if he wanted us to force everybody to do his will? God gave us the ability to make our own moral choices because he wanted us to learn the wisdom of making those choices. If we proscribe morality--personal morality that doesn't affect the lives of other people--then we short circuit free will. We take away the meaning behind making a moral choice. If there is no choice, then what can we learn? We're not people, but walking reactions to stimuli. God only knows that we lived our lives afraid of punishment, not that we were wise enough to make the right choices.
Plus, he's a big guy. There are way worse things humanity does to hurt his feelings.
Marriage! Is a word, a concept. At the very most, an "institution." It is not a person. Gay people getting married does not harm people in heterosexual marriages. Heterosexuals have done enough damage on their own. Look at the divorce rates, episodes of Teen Mom on MTV, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. Are we really saying that the institution of marriage is under threat because MORE PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED?? That's ridiculous. If anything, the fight for gay marriage has shown just how important a loving, official union.is. If a group of people are fighting this hard for the right to be married, then it must be something worth fighting for. Why exclude them? Because they don't look like you? Because they can't have kids? Does a sterile, interracial punk rock pierced-to-the-nines couple threaten other people's marriages? In the 1950s, a lot of people may have thought so. Only bigots and cranky old people do now.
Are you going to say, "Well, I guess I won't get married, because if the gays do, its not special anymore"? What are you, three years old? You wanted the toy truck when you were the only kid who had one, but now that Jimmy and Sarah and Maxwell got one--screw that, its not cool anymore? Are you going to say, "I'm going to get divorced because Sam and Dave are getting hitched"? Why? So you can be available for a little gay union of your own?
Will gay marriage open the door to polygamy? Incest? Beastiality? Well, only if you believe love between two consenting adults is the same as those things. Which it is not. Power imbalances, issues of consent, potential for abuse and coercion is just not as present in a union between two equals.
President Obama is right to support Gay Marriage. Now he's got to follow through. It's time for America to grow up and stop acting like children. We're at war overseas. The economy sucks. Cadbury Creme Eggs are smaller than ever. THERE ARE BIGGER PROBLEMS WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH.
Do no harm. We follow that oath, and America stays alive. We break it, and the patient dies on the table.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Why The 99% Doesn't Like The Occupy Movement
Remember when it was called "Occupy Wall Street?"
Remember when the protests were near the offices of the investment banks and trading firms that helped bring on the financial crisis?
Remember when "Occupy Wall Street" framed the debate as, the 99% vs. the elites who abused their role in the financial system and gambled with the fiscal health of the United States?
Well, that's all in the past.
What is "Occupy" now? Well, just read the description of their "May Day" (emphasis mine):
"We are here to celebrate our power as people who have found unity of purpose. Today we assert our power as working people. We declare our solidarity with all people of the world. We affirm our rights to economic security, to meaningful work, to health care, to public services, to safe and healthy communities, to free, quality public education from pre-K to college, and to civil liberties..."
Wait, there's more!
" We seek an end to an era wherein a handful of political and economic elites govern in the name of democracy. We want an end to assaults on our human rights. We want an end to tax breaks for the rich. We want an end to the attacks on our right to organize. We want an end to the mass incarceration of people of color. We want an end to all wars and an end to the militarization of our foreign policy. We want an end to our current political system that is bought and paid for by 1%- ers. We want legalization, equal rights, civil rights, and a path to citizenship for immigrant working families. And we want citizenship to mean, as it should, that all people are to be treated justly and equally by their government."
Phew! Anything else, occupyers? To the schedule of events!!!
"Guitar Workshop and Rehearsal with Tom Morello
Meditation Flash Mob followed by Kirtan
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit, Trans and Gender Non-Conforming Contingent!
Occupy the Rent Guidelines Board: A Tenants’ General Assembly"
So... in short, Occupy is now about every single liberal cause and hippie movement of the last 60 years, with a grab bag of anarchist ideas and communist philosophies. Their goal is to not only end corporate malfeasance, but also to return to a simple way of farm living and learn guitar.
To accomplish these targeted, "unified" goals, which are absolutely all related to one another and all have the same urgency and context, the May Day organizers have planned to hit the 1% right where it hurts... right in the gut of the 99%.
Yes, that's right. In order to teach those "government elites," they're going to help shut down transportation and commerce for the day. In other words, make it really difficult for working people to get to work and do their jobs. This will hurt the 1%, because they'll be forced to either stay home in their mansions and play tennis in their indoor recreation areas, or they'll need to take their helicopters to work or risk being late for work at the companies they own. HOW WILL THE 1% SURVIVE!!?!?!
Surely, when the 1% see the streets they rarely ever travel on blocked by guitars and wannabe-Buddhists, they'll immediately surrender, handing Jimmy Ninetynineperecent the keys to the Capitol Building. "We so sorry, 99%," Mr. Moneybags will say. "Your rendition of Knocking on Heaven's Door while blocking traffic on 5th Avenue really spoke to my soul, and convinced me to take you completely seriously. I admired how organized and focused your movement is. The 526 things you said you wanted? Done."
And then the 99% will rejoice!! Who cares if their lives were made more difficult and annoying for a day!? Who cares if someone lost their job because the ladies boutique they worked for had slow business due to the Occupy protest blocking the street? Or an ambulance couldn't get through to save a life because Harry Hippieshoes was leading a parade of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israeli Mexican Immigrants For Legalization of Marijuana and Exotic Animal Ownership?
Okay. Enough with the sarcasm. But as one who identifies with many of the 828.3 causes the Occupy movement represents, I'm terribly frustrated. Because instead of fighting for something everyone can get their head around--the out-of-control corruption of our financial system by investment banks, risking our money to help themselves get richer--the movement is instead broadcasting a muddled message and carrying out actions that only seem designed to malign police officers and the working class. A YouTube video of a cop pepper-spraying protesters gets a lot of clicks, and makes people mad at cops, but does it really do anything to focus our attention towards the growing gap between rich and poor in America? No.
"Why is the general public so negative about the May Day protest?" an Occupyer asked the popular social news site Reddit--a site that helped drive the initial protests. The best answers could be summed up like this:
"When you inconvenience and annoy the common man, he does not rally to your side. He sees you as the enemy, not what you're fighting against."
That's why the Occupy movement will fail. They're occupied with too many things, and they're occupying the wrong places.
Remember when the protests were near the offices of the investment banks and trading firms that helped bring on the financial crisis?
Remember when "Occupy Wall Street" framed the debate as, the 99% vs. the elites who abused their role in the financial system and gambled with the fiscal health of the United States?
Well, that's all in the past.
What is "Occupy" now? Well, just read the description of their "May Day" (emphasis mine):
"We are here to celebrate our power as people who have found unity of purpose. Today we assert our power as working people. We declare our solidarity with all people of the world. We affirm our rights to economic security, to meaningful work, to health care, to public services, to safe and healthy communities, to free, quality public education from pre-K to college, and to civil liberties..."
Wait, there's more!
" We seek an end to an era wherein a handful of political and economic elites govern in the name of democracy. We want an end to assaults on our human rights. We want an end to tax breaks for the rich. We want an end to the attacks on our right to organize. We want an end to the mass incarceration of people of color. We want an end to all wars and an end to the militarization of our foreign policy. We want an end to our current political system that is bought and paid for by 1%- ers. We want legalization, equal rights, civil rights, and a path to citizenship for immigrant working families. And we want citizenship to mean, as it should, that all people are to be treated justly and equally by their government."
Phew! Anything else, occupyers? To the schedule of events!!!
"Guitar Workshop and Rehearsal with Tom Morello
Meditation Flash Mob followed by Kirtan
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit, Trans and Gender Non-Conforming Contingent!
Occupy the Rent Guidelines Board: A Tenants’ General Assembly"
So... in short, Occupy is now about every single liberal cause and hippie movement of the last 60 years, with a grab bag of anarchist ideas and communist philosophies. Their goal is to not only end corporate malfeasance, but also to return to a simple way of farm living and learn guitar.
To accomplish these targeted, "unified" goals, which are absolutely all related to one another and all have the same urgency and context, the May Day organizers have planned to hit the 1% right where it hurts... right in the gut of the 99%.
Yes, that's right. In order to teach those "government elites," they're going to help shut down transportation and commerce for the day. In other words, make it really difficult for working people to get to work and do their jobs. This will hurt the 1%, because they'll be forced to either stay home in their mansions and play tennis in their indoor recreation areas, or they'll need to take their helicopters to work or risk being late for work at the companies they own. HOW WILL THE 1% SURVIVE!!?!?!
Surely, when the 1% see the streets they rarely ever travel on blocked by guitars and wannabe-Buddhists, they'll immediately surrender, handing Jimmy Ninetynineperecent the keys to the Capitol Building. "We so sorry, 99%," Mr. Moneybags will say. "Your rendition of Knocking on Heaven's Door while blocking traffic on 5th Avenue really spoke to my soul, and convinced me to take you completely seriously. I admired how organized and focused your movement is. The 526 things you said you wanted? Done."
And then the 99% will rejoice!! Who cares if their lives were made more difficult and annoying for a day!? Who cares if someone lost their job because the ladies boutique they worked for had slow business due to the Occupy protest blocking the street? Or an ambulance couldn't get through to save a life because Harry Hippieshoes was leading a parade of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israeli Mexican Immigrants For Legalization of Marijuana and Exotic Animal Ownership?
Okay. Enough with the sarcasm. But as one who identifies with many of the 828.3 causes the Occupy movement represents, I'm terribly frustrated. Because instead of fighting for something everyone can get their head around--the out-of-control corruption of our financial system by investment banks, risking our money to help themselves get richer--the movement is instead broadcasting a muddled message and carrying out actions that only seem designed to malign police officers and the working class. A YouTube video of a cop pepper-spraying protesters gets a lot of clicks, and makes people mad at cops, but does it really do anything to focus our attention towards the growing gap between rich and poor in America? No.
"Why is the general public so negative about the May Day protest?" an Occupyer asked the popular social news site Reddit--a site that helped drive the initial protests. The best answers could be summed up like this:
"When you inconvenience and annoy the common man, he does not rally to your side. He sees you as the enemy, not what you're fighting against."
That's why the Occupy movement will fail. They're occupied with too many things, and they're occupying the wrong places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)