The Addiction To Power

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

          - Lord Acton

I received a tweet last night that read "You don't believe big banks are funding and influencing political policy? Or is it just "stupid" as u so elegantly put it?"  I would have liked to have tweeted a short answer back but I find Twitter too constraining for real conversation. It's a handy way to connect or announce something but it's not really a great venue to for expressing ideas, as you can easily see by simply reading most of the tweets that fly by in ten minutes.

It was a good question though and deserves an answer.

I absolutely do believe that banks and other financial institutions fund political parties to try and influence government policy but I also understand that this isn't the province of the banks alone. Occupy has tried to frame the debate, which is a good thing, but they have tried to frame the debate simply around the the concentration of wealth and once identifying the 1% as a group, Occupy has then gone on to simply lump all of the ills in the world at the doorstep of that group. It's both inaccurate and naive. The woman who tweeted me the original question had earlier tweeted that she believe Qadafhi  had been defeated because of the influence of the banks rather than by the people of Libya. That's like concluding that Occupy is an instrument of the 1%.

What influences governments and government policy more than financial contributions is power because power grants power. Those who seek power in one area will seek the support of those who have power in another. Money can buy power but it isn't just financial power that influences and not all power is  concentrated  in the 1%.

The big unions, for example, have considerable power and influence in both our political and financial systems and I am not talking merely about blue collar worker unions like the Teamsters or the UAW. Teachers unions, unions representing health care professionals, law enforcement and others have sufficient membership (and pension funds which invest billions) from whom politicians trip all over each other trying to get voter support.  They are influenced by unions in policy development and tax breaks and offer those and other considerations in exchange for electoral support. 

Large religious groups like the fundamentalist Christian right, which framed the debate on issues like abortion, Muslim and Jewish and other groups have no small influence on politics, especially in the areas of immigration, foreign policy and certain social issues.

Lobby groups like the National Rifle Association have more power than some 1% financial institutions. The NRA has successfully blocked limitations on the acquisition and ownership of firearms in the U.S for decades despite increased gun crime.

Even multi-cultural groups, if they represent enough people and are vocal enough can influence policy and political direction. In Canada, French-speaking Canadians represent less than 26% of the country's population but have had enough power to successfully have the federal government declared functionally bilingual, influenced government policy and have had political parties chasing their votes for decades.

The two things all of these groups have in common are that they wield a considerable amount of power and influence on the political process and none of them represent the so-called 1%. Their power comes from the size of their membership. The political process is moved by whatever pressures it and while money can buy influence, nothing is more influential than a group that has the voting power to swing an election.

Consider the growing power and influence of the environmental movement which does not gain its power from concentration of wealth but rather by the popularity of its cause. It isn't money that draws people to support the environmental movement, it is the belief in the cause that draws more people to it. The growth of support for the environmental movement gives it power, a power that is having an increasing influence on politics and government policy around the world.

Occupy is a group with a bit of power now, although nowhere on the scale mentioned above but it should be clear to members of Occupy, or at least those who actually think about things, that the only reason for coming together is because a large group can have the power to effect change more successfully than a small group or individual. In that way, Occupy is in some ways, the very thing it accuses the 1% of being.

As Marting Luther King and Gandhi showed us in the past, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I believe that groups can be more effective in having their voice heard than just one individual (although not always) and if enough voices are singing the same song, that song can influence government and politicians to bring about change. The unfortunate downside is that typically, the larger the group grows and the more success it achieves, the more power it gains and power corrupts. You can already see it in Occupy as much as in any group that has wielded power in our system. As Occupy grows, it draws more and more to its cause who are attracted more by the power of it all rather than by the cause itself.

One of the reasons I criticize Occupy (aside from some of the stupid rhetoric of the lunatic fringe and its mindless violence) is that it has targeted the wrong enemy. To be sure, there is far too much corporate greed in this world. It is equally true that financial institutions have been careless, conducted some of their business like pigs at the trough and too often allowed their greed to make them just plain stupid but they are not alone and they, are not comprised solely of the 1%. It is also true that many in the 1% have made significant contributions to society. It isn't money that is the enemy, it is the abuse of power by any group or individual who uses it for their own benefit at the expense of the society at large.

Unions, political lobbies, cultural and religious groups, as well as, many in the poorly defined 1% have significant influence and are all guilty of misusing that power.

It is the concentration of power in the hands of special interest that is corrupting our democracies not simply money. Money is merely one more means to power and often a bi-product of it.

Power is heady stuff and you can easily get drunk on it. It is more intoxicating than alcohol and more addictive than crack. Those who have tasted it find it very difficult to walk away from and like trying to quit smoking, the craving continues.\ Power breeds the belief that only you have the answer. Only you and your group are right and the ends justify the means. Winning is never enough and once power has been exercised, those who wield it look for new battles to fight and new wars to win.

Hackers invade the privacy and abuse the rights of others, not in pursuit of some noble cause but because they are addicted to the rush they get from exercizing a power over others by the invasion of their computers . They lose all sense of morality; steal data and destroy computers and large systems with viruses and trojans for no other reason than the sense of power it gives them. It's power that drives them because having power is the addiction.

Occupy has seen some of that within its own ranks as some individual or group has tried to influence and even control a GA agenda. In New York there have been complaints about secret OWS agendas kept from the larger movement  We see the same thing every day in our democracies and here's the thing. It isn't a 1% issue. All of us, including the so called 99% thirst for some kind of power and while we may try to fool ourselves that in our case, at least, it is for noble purposes; as the smoking issue demonstrates, too much power breeds a kind of reverse tyranny.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is merely a tool, sometimes the result of power and usually something we use to buy stuff. It isn't the financial elite that Occupy should be fighting, it is the power elite and unfortunately, that elite is comprised of many of us because we all belong to some group, union, religion or culture. We all come together in one way or another to try and influence things in our favour.

 How you fight that is more complex than simply chanting we are the 99%. It is the thoughtful, resonsible and compassionate exercising of the power that can bring about real change. Simply using power to get what "we" want is nothing more than what we already have....a system corrupted by special interest and greed.

At the end of the day, it is the addictive and corruptive nature of power and not merely the concentration of wealth that is what undermines our democracies today. Occupy is fighting the wrong enemy but then we all have made that same mistake in the past. To win this war, we need to look not only who has power but who has the power to influence those in government and that folks is more than just a few banks and securities companies. Unfortunately, too many of us are part of one group or another scrambling to gain enough power to influence in our group's favour, how the game is played.

It is precisely what Occupy is doing now but to paraphrase Gandhi, you can't win by becoming what you oppose.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

A Response To Occupy Sydney's Invitation To Comment

Earlier today I received a tweet from Occupy Sydney inviting me to comment on a essay called Democracy.I was surprised to receive the invitation for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I am not a constitutional scholar and would only be able to comment as a citizen living in a democratic country. Secondly, I have been somewhat critical of the Occupy movement lately and was surprised that anyone in Occupy would actually want to consider my opinion.

Still, I believe in dialogue, especially dialogue with those with whom you don't agree so I gave up my plan to goof off with my dog Jasper on a damp Friday afternoon and settled down to read the Democracy essay.

I was surprised to discover that Democracy was written by former member of Parliament, Bill Blakie. While Mr. Blakie and I are not on the same side of the political spectrum (the NDP are a socialist party). I have always had a considerable respect for him. He is well-known for his integrity and his intellect, as well as, his good humour. He's a big guy with a big personality and a sharp mind.

He served in government for 32 years first in federal politics until 2008 and then provincially until earlier this year. He retired in late winter and is now a professor of theology. His essay is well researched, articulate and accurate as far as it goes but it is an academic review of Canadian democracy that is not put in practical context and it is that context I want to address here.

The cornerstone of his essay is the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister of Canada and constitutionally, he is correct but he leaves out certain key elements that balance that power. To understand that context, a quick overview of Canada's system of government.

Canada is a parliamentary democracy based on the British system. It has two arms of government, a legislative branch and a judiciary. Technically it has an executive branch in the monarch but does not have an executive branch similar to that in the United States. Most, but not all, executive authority is vested in the Prime Minister who sits, with his/her party in the House of Commons which is part of the legislative branch of government. All members of the House of Commons are elected.

The Legislative Branch of Canadian Government

Canada uses a party system as do most democracies and has a "first past the post" electoral process which means that the party with the most seats usually forms the government. I say usually because while it is true that the winning party always forms the government if it has won more seats than all of the opposition parties combined, it is possible under our constitution for the opposition parties to form a coalition and form a government if their total seat count is higher than that of the winning party. In this scenario, the decision is exclusively in the hands of the Governor General who has the authority to ask the party who won the most seats to try and govern or in the alternative, to invite the opposition coalition to try and form a government.

All members of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister are elected directly by the people and each represents a specific electoral riding in the country. The Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister from within his/her own group of sitting members of parliament (although, he/she has the prerogative to appoint a member of the senate to cabinet as well). It makes sense to leave cabinet appointments to the Prime Minister because they not only constitute his/her advisory group in the development of policy but also act on his/her behalf as heads of various government ministries. It would severely restrict a Prime Minister and his or her government in moving their agenda forward if cabinet appointments were made by an independent committee.

The other arm of the legislative branch is the senate which is smaller than the House of Commons and who's members are appointed by the Prime Minister. While the Senate technically has the right to propose legislation, they do no have the political support or a mandate from the people for it and almost never do. It should be noted that while the Prime Minister has the authority to appoint senators, that authority is only available to him/her when there is a vacancy. This prevents the Prime Minister from stacking the Senate in his/her favour and in fact, prime ministers have no constitutional choice but to live with a senate that is comprised of members mostly appointed by their predecessors.

The Senate in Canada serves primarily as a house of sober second thought. Their primary responsibility has evolved to that of reviewing legislation passed by the House of Commons and either approving it or sending it back to the House with amendments for consideration. The Senate cannot veto legislation because they are not elected by the people.

The Judicial Branch of Government

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's highest court and the court of last appeal. Canada's judicial system is pyramidal, with many different levels of courts who's judges are appointed by either the provincial or federal governments. The Prime Minister appoints judges to the Supreme Court.

Again, as with the Senate, the Prime Minister can only appoint new judges to the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy and cannot reconstitute the court in his or her favour. As with the Senate, the current prime minister has no choice but to live with the court constituted by his/her predecessors if no seats become vacant.

The Supreme Court is completely separated from government interference or political influence and has the authority to over-turn legislation brought before it that it deems to be in contravention of the Constitution or Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This prevents any government from enacting restrictions on the rights guaranteed to Canadian citizens by its constitution and its charter.

The way the Democracy essay  is written makes it appear as if the prime minister of Canada has more executive power than the President of the United States but that simply isn't true. The prime minister is the leader of his/her party and is elected by his/her party and serves as leader at the pleasure of members of the party. He or she can be removed as leader by that same party following a leadership review set out by the constitutions of each party.

I'm not going to address every point raised in the democracy essay but I will address the overall point about the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and it is the monarch who is the head of state. The Governor General (GG) represents and is appointed by the monarch on the advise of the Prime Minister. The GG is the head of Canada's armed forces although takes no practical role in their operation and as already noted, has the constitutional right to dissolve parliament, call elections and determine who should form a government in a minority parliament. The Prime Minister can recommend, advise (and sometimes beg) but these powers are the exclusive prerogative of the GG and only the GG.

Some of the power Mr. Blaikie attributes to the Prime Minister, such as preventing someone from running for office or removing them from his/her caucus have nothing to do with government. They are party authorities granted to the leaders of all political parties by their own party.  The leader of Mr.Blaikie's former party had the same authority granted to him by his party and  not by our constitution.

I could drone on and on but even I am beginning to find this pretty dry stuff. So let's cut to the chase.

The simple fact is that while it is far from perfect, Canada has a functioning democracy where power is not constitutionally concentrated in the hands of a few or even one person. Under the American model, a considerable amount of power is placed in the hands of the President and balanced by placing a similar amount of power in the hands of their legislature. Both systems work, as far as they go and both are imperfect.

That's the trouble with democracy. It's virtually impossible to make it perfect. The reason lies in the fact that democracy is an ideal but it is a shared ideal. The trouble with shared ideals is that we all have a slightly different opinion on how best to achieve them. Consequently, democracy ends up being a messy compromise of ideals where everyone gets some of what they want but nobody gets everything they believe in. Democracy is a government system built on consensus rather than an absolute. Only ideals are absolute but in practice, only compromise is workable.

Unlike the American system, the Canadian system relies on a dispersal of power. What Mr. Blaikie fails to mention is that Canada is actually a federation comprised of provinces and territories and that there is a significant balance of power between the federal and provincial governments. It is the provinces, under a complex formula, who approve or disapprove any change to the country's constitution. Further, the constitution contains a "not withstanding clause" which allows any province to opt out of a government program or act in contravention of federal legislation if it sees fit.

It isn't perfect but it works in its way. The real problem with our democracy is not its constitutional structure but the fact that it has been hijacked by political parties and their backroom strategists, pollsters, special interest groups (most of whom are in the 99%) all supported by a mainstream media that is typically too lazy to be as critical as it should. Changing the constitution won't address those issues, only the electorate through protest and putting pressure on its elected representatives has a chance ofachieving it.

I had hope that the Occupy Movement would be the catalyst for some of that pressure but became disillusioned once I saw the drivel being expressed by too many as the movement expanded. Only serious people who understand the real issues and who can offer up real solutions will be taken seriously. People who run around sloganeering, jump from issue to issue often without much knowledge or thought and those who believe that the best way to win is to yell louder than everyone else won't accomplish much. Want proof? We had people like that before Occupy. They're called politicians and look what they've accomplished. Why would any protest movement want to emulate them?

When I read posts and tweets from members of Occupy that just don't get their facts right, I get frustrated but what frustrates me even more is that Occupy doesn't get it. The very fact that they are in the squares and parks of cities around the world, the very fact that they can post and tweet that drivel and the very fact that they can stand up and call for change is democracy's greatest strength. As imperfect as all of the democracies in the world may be, they are still a thousand times better than regimes like Syria and North Korea.

When I read a tweet from some member of Occupy claiming the movement is under brutal attack by police who are evicting them from the park and arresting them when they don't obey, I think about all the people in those non-democratic countries who were tortured, who were oppressed and died in pursuit of what we have and too many take for granted.

It isn't about democracy, it should be about working to make our democracy better. You can't do that by defecating on police cars, posting poorly informed and often completely incorrect accusations against government and business or shouting out meaningless slogans that only turn away the movement's best opportunity for support....the majority of us who actually are the 99%. 

Occupy was given an opportunity. It started well but is faltering now because it has not learned from history. It was not prepared for the responsibility of protest, only the opportunity to protest. That opportunity was granted by the very democracies they shout at now but clearly don't understand.

For those who are interested, here is the linke Mr. Blakie's essay on Democracy
http://occupysydney.visibli.com/share/cgloPL

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Weekly Stupidity Awards: For October 21, 2011

Welcome to the second issue of the Weekly Stupidity Awards. It's been a busy week for those who practice stupidity so selecting just those worthy of awards  and honourable mention was a bit of challenge. We persevered, however, and here are our choices for this week.

1. Gold Award: Regional Medical Officer of Health - Ottawa, Canada

Last Saturday, the Regional Medical Officer of Health for the City of Ottawa announced that there were thousands of patients and former patients that may have been infected by Hepatitis or HIV at a local area clinic over the past ten years. He declined to name the clinic which meant that most of the city spent the rest of the weekend worrying about whether it was the clinic they had visited and whether or not they might be infected.

On Monday, he held a press conference to identify the clinic and the doctor involved. He indicated that there was a minimal risk of infection and that all former patients were being contacted directly. Say what? Why did you make the announcement on Saturday then? What was the point of creating needless worry and concern? On Tuesday he held an interview with a local radio station in order to defend his actions by blaming jurisdictional conflicts. Now he is attempting to defend why it cost $750,000 to send out just over 6,000 registered letters to patients of the clinic.

2. Silver Award: Michele Bachman's Impersonation of Sarah Palin

It's hard to tell if it was the bright lights or just her own limitations catching up to her but Michele Bachman outdid herself at the week's GOP leadership debates in sin city. After first blaming Obama's immigration policies on the fact that  relatives of his had an immigration issue, she then  attacked the president for first putting the U.S. into Libya and "now Africa".  I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you want to be president of the most powerful country in the world, you should at least know that Libya is actually in Africa. It might be useful in the development of foreign policy.

But Ms Bachman is following along in the best Tea Party tradition of Sarah Palin who's knowledge of geography is only slightly better than Bachman's. But help is on the way. I understand the Tea Party is accepting donations to buy them both an atlas (no doubt one that involves crayons and pages to colour), so I'll be sending along a few dollars. I'm always happy to help in any way that I can.


3. Bronze Award: The Zombie-safe House Competition
Architects Southwest, an architecture firm in Louisiana has called for submissions from architects, designers and I suppose the idly creative for designs of a house capable of surviving an attack by the  undead. The top contender is the Zombie Ranch, a zombie-powered concept that has the humans living in a spiral housing system safely out of harm's way while zombies run around in circles below, on treadmills that power turbines that create power for the house.

It almost sounds like the perfect job for some of the Occupy protesters looking for a seasonal job over the winter once the snows hit and they're driven from the parks.by that first blast of Arctic air.

4.. Honourable Mention: Couple Have Sex While Sky Diving

A couple, in California, jumped out of a small plane last weekend and, as one report put it, copulated in mid-air. I admit that I spent a bit of time trying to figure out the logistics of that and finally came to the conclusion that it was a both daring and stupid. I don't actually have an issue with them having sex in the air and I acknowledge that I would have been too busy screaming as I plummeted to earth to pull it off. For me, the stupid part is that they did this to get the attention of shock-jock Howard Stern. What does it say about your life when you're willing to make an ass of yourself just to get a nod from someone like Stern. No word from Stern yet but it appears the couple were very successful in capturing the attention of the FAA who are investigating.

5. Honourable Mention: Kevorkian's Assisted Suicide Machine Up For Auction

Just in time for Christmas, the assisted suicide machine used by Jack Kevorkian also known as Dr. Death, is being offered for sale next week at an auction to be held in New York. It never ceases to amaze me at just how stupid a society can be and it doesn't get much stupider than auctioning off a homemade suicide machine. I suppose there are those who will think this makes the perfect Christmas present for someone who has everything. Certainly I can't think of anyone who would want to have this although I can think of a couple that I wouldn't mind have use it.

6. Honourable Mention: Actress Susan Sarandon Calls Pope A Nazi

Here we go again. Another celebrity only opening her mouth to change feet and further expose her own limitations. I'm not a Catholic and I'm certainly not a Nazi but I know the difference between the two. Nazis were an oppressive regime that rounded up millions, shipped them off to concentration camps where they were brutally enslaved and murdered. They started a world war that resulted in the deaths of more than 13 million people and were responsible for the destruction of most of Europe. For all it's faults, I don't recall the Catholic Church engaging in that kind of psychopathic behaviour.

Sarandon's comment, which was based on the fact the current Pope was for a brief time, a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a child, demonstrates that her knowledge of history is as deficient as her understanding of either the Catholic Church or Nazi Germany. Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory under the Nazis and the child who would later become Pope, didn't have a choice. Calling him a Nazi for something he was forced to do as a child is sort of like calling Sarah Palin an intellect because she read an article in People magazine once.

A Couple Of Runner-Ups
These stories came close to making the top 6 but there was just too much competition. Still, they deserve at least some mention for the level of stupidity they illustrate. Both stories come under the heading of Assault With A Friendly Weapon.

A woman in Chicago has been charged with domestic battery for attacking her husband by throwing cupcakes at him. The man called the police after a food fight got out of control. I'm not sure what the issue is here. Certainly, if my wife started throwing cupcakes at me (or chocolate chip cookies) the last thing I'd do is call the police. I'd be too busy eating.

A man in Arizona has been charged with assault after he licked the scraped knee of a woman he helped back to her feet following a fall. Apparently the man helped the woman back to her car, knelt down and began licking her knee and then tried to lick her face. I've heard of licking your own wounds but this goes a little over the edge.

And that's it for now. Another week of outstanding stupidity proving once more that we are going to need as many buses as we can get our hands on. (refer to Sept. post,"Get On The Bus")

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Arguing With A Saint

Everything that is done in the world is done by hope.

-Martin Luther

In his letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul wrote that of faith, hope and love, it was love that was the greatest of the three. It probably isn't smart to argue with a saint, even a dead one but fools rush in where the politically correct fear to tread, as they say (or something like that). I think St. Paul was correct in identifying the big three, I just believe that it is hope, not love that is the most important.

 Many live without faith in much beyond themselves and their own abilities. Even animals feel affection (I only have to look at Jasper to be reminded of that) but only people experience hope. Unlike faith which is purely intellectual and love which is purely emotional, hope is both; a human mix of emotion and thought.

Hope is what gives us the strength to stand again when we stumble or are driven to our knees. It is hope that gives us the courage to struggle on in the dark until we find light again. It is hope that drives us on when we are alone and have lost our faith and hope is what gives us the belief that we will find love again. It is the ability to hope that separates us from all other living things because it is hope that makes us human.

The tradition is that the sign over the gates of Hell read, "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter." Hell rejoices in those who place their faith in vain and celebrates love unrequited but it can't countenance hope because it is the belief that there is something better. Hell is not a place for me; I believe that Hell, like despair, is the absence of hope.

I have learned in my life that you can live without faith and get through the days without love but not without hope. Without hope, you lose the ability to believe in anything and your faith is lost. Without hope you lose the ambition to love again or trust the love that may be around you already. Without hope, there is little but despair and I have learned that despair is just another name for Hell.

I am one of the fortunate ones. I found hope again in my life and am filled with it every day. That hope gives me faith in those I love and that my faith in something beyond myself is not in vain. I have lived without that faith and without love and survived. It is hope that leads me on and causes me to believe in myself and this place we all share.

Someday, I hope, we all will get it right, maybe not in my lifetime but some day.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Occupy And The Long Goodbye

Be not careless in deeds, nor confused in words, nor rambling in thought.

                                                                                            - Marcus Aurelius

I have watched the Occupy Movement almost from the beginning and defended it in my writing from those who criticized it and attempted to dismiss and demean it. I related to the frustration expressed by the original Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters because I shared their same frustration and anger with corporate greed and cynical politicians who have forgotten that they represent all of the people not just a privileged few.

But as each day passes and Occupy grows a bit and it mistakes celebrity guest appearances and chatter on the Internet for real support, it is also becoming more and more like the very thing it protests. It is developing a reverse kind of elitism that masquerades as democracy and which is every bit as arrogant as what they accuse the 1% of being. Like so many that have gone before, it shouts down criticism and laps up self-praise like a thirsty dog at a bowl of water.

Nowhere is this  more evident than in the constant barrage of tweets on Twitter and posted messages on various social networking sites. Here is a random sample of some of those messages.

"Hey Ottawa. You've been Occupied!"

This tweet followed Occupy Ottawa's small but highly disruptive protest march during rush hour which only served to inconvenience others in the 99% by delaying them from getting home. Nothing like adding insult to injury by flipping a verbal finger to those you are trying to encourage to support you.

"America Isn't Broke. Money Doesn't Just Disappear. It's Been Redistributed to the Rich & Pulled Out of Circulation"

It's almost impossible to believe that someone could be this stupid and so willing to share that fact with the world. Clearly he (or she) thinks that the reason there are poor is because money is disappearing. I suppose he thinks the rich are now hiding their money under their mattresses so the 99% won't get it. What about the millionaires within the 99%, are they hiding their money in coffee cans in holes dug in their back yards? And for the record...America is about as close to being broke as they can get without actually turning into Greece.

"When ordinary people wake up, elites begin to tremble in their boots."

It's bad enough to lie to yourself but when you expose it to the world, you expose the weakness of  your position. I don't hear much trembling going on in the 1%, just a lot of laughter at the mindless babble coming from Occupy and its supporters that is posing as intelligent conversation. 

"Dear 1%. All UR SQUAREZ BELONG TO US!!!!"

Here's a clever slogan. Of course it's undermined a bit by the fact that the poster can't spell a simple word like squares and the fact that most of the occupy movements are in the parks and "squarez" because they obtained permission and/or permits. Those parks and squares belong to all of us, not just the illiterate. This yahoo was clearly not aware of the fact that there is a significant difference between squatting and ownership.

"We don't change the world by talking or thinking. Change comes from putting boots on the ground and protesting in the public square!"

Power to the people! No need to think, just put on your boots and join us. We protest without thought. We address issues without the need to discuss them  but we have new boots so it's all good. There's a true rallying cry for you.

"There are five unemployed people for every job opening in America today. They're not lazy. You're just an asshole!"

No need for fact or informed debate here just call somebody an asshole and you've proven your point and won the argument. This comment actually did make me tremble but for all the wrong reasons. It embarrassed me that I had actually spoke out in support of a movement that allows people who think and speak like with so little thought to represent it and speak on its behalf.

Clarification: We are totally against NATO intervention in Libya and would have rather seen the rebels rise up alone
This is mindless opinion masquerading as intellectual thought. It's typical of those who form their opinions without bothering to check their facts. NATO didn't intervene. It was the people of Lybia, who were being slaughtered by Qadaffi in their revolt, who asked for military help. NATO went in to protect the rebels and the civilian population not to fight their battles. If they hadn't the rebels wouldn't have won what they won today. They'd be dead or in prison. But then, it's always easier to sit back in your safe, western democracy and encourage others to die for their cause when you don't have to do the dying.

It should be noted that these were not tweets or posts from private and personal accounts nor were they the most inane or the most stupid I found. They are merely representative. All of these and the dozens of others I have saved, came from posts on official Occupy social networking sites and/or Twitter accounts.

Where once, Occupy seemed to stand for something, it is rapidly losing control of its own message and purpose. I have read messages (including another today) fawning over celebrities who came out for an hour and the obligatory photo op. I've read messages flying back and forth between different factions of Occupy accusing each other of trying to take over meetings. And I've read apologies for previous messages by "other members of the team", along with, more misinformation and confusion than I have ever seen in one group in my life.

You are what you allow people to say in representation of  you and more and more, it seems that Occupy has been hijacked by the lunatic fringe, the ill-informed and the tragically self-righteous. Sadly it is becoming even clearer that Occupy lacks the leadership, the sense of purpose and the discipline to do anything about it.

It's almost impossible to imagine Gandhi, in his fight for human rights and India's independence tweeting, "You guys are assholes!" It's just as hard to imagine Martin Luther King shouting, "We don't change the world by talking or thinking."

These were serious people who understood the issues they were confronting and who put forward solutions to right the injustice they saw. They didn't simply march against something, they protested in support of something better. They knew the struggle would be long and difficult and they understood the need to bring people together to achieve a positive outcome. In their darkest moments, they never lost their direction or their sense of humour .They didn't just chatter, they thought and they discussed and they inspired. They were leaders and ultimately, their causes were successful and not just because they were just causes but because of the unity of purpose and message they were able to maintain.

OWS started with a simple idea, occupy a small patch of ground in the financial district of New York and draw attention to the cause by their mere presence. There wasn't the rabble babble then that is going on now. Their silence was almost deafening. They were heard more clearly than all the chatter that is now cluttering and confusing that original purpose.

Martin Luther King said, "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but molder of consensus." He was right and not merely about human leadership. It applies to organizations and movements that would bring people together in a common cause. Occupy asks continually for support (when the lunatic fringe isn't bragging about how big the movement is) and many of us have stepped up and given that support but it has been squandered. Occupy has allowed itself to be overrun by mediocrity and foolish rhetoric. Where once it used occupation of a public area to quietly draw attention to its cause, now it applauds stupid actions like a move to occupy museums. Museums? Now there is an enclave of corporate greed for you.

Too many within Occupy have become drunk on their small successes and have lost sight of the fact that they are not exclusively the 99%. If you total all of the participants in the Occupy movement worldwide, they wouldn't come to 1% of the 99% they claim to represent. They fail to grasp that they only represent the overwhelming majority that is the 99% if we allow them too. Otherwise, they speak only for themselves and increasingly, not very intelligently. We didn't offer our initial support to indulge fools who shout mindless slogans or who think occuping museums will bring about change for the better.

I don't question for a moment the sincerity or commitment of the small group who started this movement nor of those who have worked tirelessly to help it grow. It is the rabble they have been unable or unwilling to control or weed out that are responsible for the disenchantment with Occupy and which will ultimately be its undoing.

For that reason, I question both the viability and the credibility of Occupy tonight.

People followed Gandhi because he gave them a sense of purpose and a direction to take in achieving their common goals. They followed Martin Luther King because he built consensus and unity around key issues and therein developed the strength of the movement. They inspired and their causes became inspirational. Occupy does not inspire, in cities around the world it holds constant General Assemblies that border on the pointless, cannot control its own official channels of communication and has lost control of its own message.

If I had just arrived from another planet and had only what I have been reading online to define Occupy, I would be hard pressed to understand much more than it was an organization without clear purpose that seems to need more sleeping bags.

It's true that Occupy has been receiving more attention lately as the celebrities drop by and the media come in to do a couple of interviews but none of that is lasting. Who remembers the people that interviewed Gandhi or King. Who remembers the celebrities that stopped by for a photo op? The lasting impression of a movement is what it says and does. In Occupy's case, it has allowed too many who have nothing to say to speak for it and too many who believe they have the right to interfere in the lives of others to represent it. Those do not grow a movement, they kill it.

For me, it is more than disappointing, it is disillusioning. I had some faith that OWS would grow into something worthwhile and that it would help to effect real change. But as the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is nothing new in Occupy as it is today. It is just more of the same empty rhetoric and sloganeering offered up by politicians during an election. It's pointless and it achieves nothing of value.

This recent tweet broadcast from the Occupy America account pretty much captures what Occupy has allowed to happen to itself,  "everyone has his own reasons for being @ Occupy, and it's, more or less opportunistic."  Occupy has allowed itself to be hijacked by the opportunistic rather than the committed. They are quickly becoming just one more large group of malcontents and those who are excited to dance around the fire at night. There have been countless movements like this in the past and nobody remembers them because they accomplished nothing. We only remember those who protected what they believed in with the same passion that they brought to the protest.

...And that my friends is always the beginning of the long goodbye for any organization or movement. It's a shame really because with a little discipline and a bit of backbone, it just didn't have to happen here.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others.

Occupy Is Not Exclusively The 99%

I was delayed picking Maggie up after work today because traffic was abysmal. This is not unusual although traffic has been moving fairly well in recent weeks now that the construction season is coming to a close. There is always that little window in the fall and spring between winter and the summer construction season that gives us back our roads and allows us a few days of not sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. You have to count your blessings where you find them and those days are some of life's little blessings.

Unfortunately one of those days was taken from Maggie and I tonight, not by bad weather, not by construction, not even by an accident. Nope! It was Occupy Ottawa who decided that occupying to make a statement would not be as much fun as marching in the middle of rush hour on the city's busiest main street.

What made it all the more frustrating is that Maggie had an appointment and this protest march interfered with getting there on time.

Here's the thing. Maggie and I have been somewhat supportive of the Occupy Movement. I've written about it and posted what I have written on Facebook and various other sites to help spread awareness. But even if we weren't sympathetic to the movement, the fact is that Maggie and I, like most of the other people sitting in their cars because of the protesters, are part of the 99%. We're supposed to be on the same bloody side!

We're not part of the 1% that Occupy is protesting, we're part of the rest of us, part of the larger group that are lied to and over-taxed. Disrupting our lives isn't a very productive strategy. It attacks the wrong people. Nobody in the 1% was affected by this little demonstration, just fellow 99%ers. Because of that stupidity, it begins to undermine support for the purpose of the movement by using the same disruptive tactics of other self-indulgent groups who feel they have the right to impose themselves into the lives of every day people.

Up to now, Occupy has given me reason to admire them for their commitment and their approach. I have defended the movement on various social media sites from those who claimed Occupy was nothing more than a bunch of lazy, unemployed radicals and students. Tactics like this will cause me and countless others to start rethinking if maybe it was us, not the people who originally attacked Occupy, who got it wrong.

Isn't it amazing how only a small, stupid group of people can so negatively impact something so large and with so much potential to affect change?

I wrote yesterday warning Occupy that reading its own press clippings could lead to its downfall. This is an example of what I meant. When a group gets a bit of momentum and begins to believe that they can do whatever they want to whomever they want, they are no better than those they protest. I wrote about the fact that Occupy was going to have decide if it had the will and the discipline to bring itself together into something better organized and with a more defined purpose. If it didn't, it would lose the support of the very people it was trying to rally.

If it doesn't find that discipline and focus, the 1% will win because Occupy will lose credibility with most of the rest of the 99%. It lost some credibility with Maggie and I tonight.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others.

Occupy and Negative Externalities

 “Hold corporations accountable for negative externalities”

                                              - sign at Occupy Toronto protest

 I had no clue what the quote at the top of the page meant or what a negative externality actually was so I was forced to look it up. I didn't really believe there was such a term but I was wrong (as difficult as that is to believe). There are both positive and negative externalties apparently but let's deal with the negative because it is what was quoted. A negative externality is something that costs the producer nothing but which is costly to the general society. It would appear then that this particular Occupy protester was not only economically literate but that he was protesting what he perceives as corporate greed that generates personal wealth at the expense of others. It's an understandable concern although not much of a slogan to stir the troops and get a good chant going down Bay or Wall streets.

Back in the'60s we used less complicated slogans like "Make love not war" and "The whole world is watching". They were easier to pronounce and remember although probably no more effective.

My interest in the Occupy movement is less about what it stands for than it is about what it represents. The global protest has been criticized frequently by media commentators and the intelligentsia for it's lack of central themes, solutions to specific issues and apparent lack of organization and leadership. Those commentators miss the point.

Occupy is something between a mob and a revolution. It might better have been called The Disenfranchised because that is what Occupy is all about.

Occupy is not a collection of union members or anarchists or middle class folks worried about taxation or students worried about being saddled with high debt after graduating. It isn't the homeless or the poor or members of the environmental movement or people who no longer vote because they feel voting has become meaningless. It isn't the tragically curious or those who will show up at anything so that they can claim  they were a part of it. And it isn't the young,  the middle aged or the elderly. Occupy is all of them and much more. It is a wide swath of unrelated parts of society that are connected by the feeling, that our system is broken. Many do not fully understand how or why and even more have no solutions to offer but they're tired of feeling disenfranchised by the privileged few who seem to make the rules for their own benefit.

This doesn't make Occupy illegitimate or a waste of time. In fact, it legitimizes it.

People don't have to have the answers to understand that something is broken or wrong. When our hot water heater stopped working, I had no idea why or how to fix it (although I didn't admit that to my wife). Not knowing what was wrong didn't make me less aware that something wasn't working nor prevent me from doing something to get it fixed. That is what Occupy is about, an attempt to draw attention to a broken system and get those who can do something about it to fix it.

Too many critics of Occupy fail to understand that simple premise.

Nowhere is criticism more strident or more biased than in the mainstream media. Pardon me folks, but your biases, lazy opinions and lack of objective analysis are betraying you.

Too many media colunmists and commentators have been quick to comment on the lack of leadership, the lack of a cohesive messaging and the lack of organization behind Occupy. They use this to justify the position that Occupy is pointless and self-indulgent yammering by the terminally lazy, the unemployed, anarchists, malcontents and the ill-informed. It would be more productive if those same media bypes were to put their opinions aside, quit talking only to each other and get out and down on the street where the people are protesting. They need to quit looking at what is happening the way they look at too much else, as only the issue of the day to be commented on before moving along to the next issue. They need to actually do a little homework and research (byeond talking to each other) to try and place what is happening in a broader context.

As an example, one columnist recently tweeted on Twitter that the modern day Occupy movement was like Occupy Judea might have been in protest of the Romans bringing ordered government, viaducts and indoor plumbing to Jewish society. It was a satrical comment trying to point out how ill conceived the Occupy movement is. It was a clever tweet but terribly misinformed both about ancient Judea and modern-day Occupy.

Along with some infrastructure refinements, the Romans brought tyranny and an approach to government that stifled any form of dissent. The punishment for most infractions was death, usually by crucifixion, a slow and agonizing way to die. After initially allowing religious freedom, Rome declared its emperor divine and moved to enforce that religion on Jews who defended their God and their faith with their lives. Later it was Christians who were thrown to the lions and murdered in the thousands.

A viaduct and indoor plumbing don't actually compensate much for that level of oppression as the people at Masada proved. They died to oppose Roman tyranny, not by acts of violence, but by occupying the mountain fortress of Masada in protest and when all else failed, took their own lives. Every man, woman and child died that day in protest of what a newspaper columnist considered good government. It was good government but only if you were a Roman.

Perhaps the modern-day Occupy movement isn't quite as noble as Masada or quite that committed but it is just as discontent and not without reasons.

Politicians hold elections in which they make promises they don't keep once elected. The intelligentsia then blame the disenfranchised for turning away from the election process rather than those who disenfranchised the electorate with their lack of integrity.

Corporate greed is out of control. According to a recent study released by the New York State Comptroller's Office on the\securities industry, the average salary paid to executives working in the financial sector is more than five times higher than the average salary of all other private sector employees. (thirty years ago it was only a two to one ratio). .

This has caused a widening gap both in terms of social priorities and wealth. Fully 33% of the total wealth of the United States is owned by 1% of the population (In Canada, apparently, the gap is even higher) and it is that 1% who successfully coerce government in their fight to prevent increased bank and securities regulations or higher taxes on the wealthy and the corporations they own. It is this same 1% that receive bailouts for their mismanagment and greed from government and pay themselves obsene bonuses for failing at the same time that government has neither the will nor the ability to come to the aid of citizens losing their jobs and their homes.

It isn't just the poor that feel disenfranchised although there is something wrong with a society that feels it is more important to fund sports teams, unproductive and hugely expensive summits, handouts to special interest groups and ongoing protection of the privileged rather than establish solid programs to end poverty, have fair taxation policies and policies that treat all citizens equally. 

Greed breeds corruption and corruption breeds discontent. When there is enough discontent it breeds anger and anger breeds revolt. Revolt can lead to revolution and while the end result of many revolutions can be positive, they are messy things and don't always end positively. Sometimes they only replace one tyranny with another,.

Occupy is not a revolution and it may fizzle and die out as winter gets closer. Nobody wants to protest in 20 below weather after all (where is global warming when you need it most?) But the seeds of discontent have been sown and taken root and not just in the U.S. and Canada. It has become global. It follows no particular political ideology and we're seeing discontent in democracies and monarchies and dictatorships all around the world. There is a message there that goes far beyond the trivial commentary of many in the mainstream media. It is discontent with the privileged who have run the world like it is theirs alone. It is not a revolution yet but is revolutionary in its fervor and it is connected by the web in a way never seen before.

A well-known and successful Canadian business woman recently tweeted a question on Twitter. She asked if the wealthy had the privilege of being honest. Wrong question. She should have asked if the wealthy have the responsibility to be honest.

The answer is yes and they also have the responsibility for much more but until they realize that, the gap between the haves and the have-nots will continue to widen. It is a strange dichotomy that those who have the most wealth are those who have the least understanding of what a society really is or what is happening in that society.

Occupy may not understand economics or politics but the people who are Occupy understand that young or old, poor or middle class, citizens of a democracy or a tyranny, the world belongs to all of us, not just a privileged few. It was a lesson Marie Antoinette never understood even after it was too late. Like the fellow who recently tweeted that if it came to a shootout between the rich and Occupy, he'd put his money on the rich,  she never understood a simple fact. The mob can be more than just a mob, sometimes it is "the people" and when they are angry enough they always have more power than all the privileged in the world. We can continue to deny it, continue to pretend it isn't true but there have been too many revolutions by the people over the centuries that prove otherwise. We've seen it before and we're seeing it today in Libya, in Yemen, in Egypt and in Occupy.

It is a lesson that many in the so-called 1% and the wannabes, might consider trying to learn, if not to be socially responsible, to at the least, protect their own future self-interest.

© 2011 Maggie's Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie's Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others.