Prior to the passing of Obamacare, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had infamously claimed that Congress must “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Do the protestors occupying Wall Street know what they want, or has positively-intended actions without first exercising rationale thought become a trademark of those who fall left of center?
From New York City to Sacramento, hundreds of protestors are occupying public parks or places against what seems to be an underlying theme of corporate greed in a movement coined OccupyNow. It is clear what this leaderless, peaceful occupation is against; but it is downright confusing about what should be the main ingredient- what they stand for.
A younger cousin of mine, in eighth grade, has recently learned what it is to be a critic. Any movie, music, food, or object possible he can find a million problems with it. I asked him the other day what he likes.
“I don't know,” he said.
It is much easier to voice harsh criticism than to take a stand for something. Understandably, times are tough, but if you insist on tearing down the current establishment, is too much to ask for a plan on how to rebuild it?
With no shortage of communicative mediums, or media coverage, there should be no excuse to have a lack of clear goals or specific reason articulated in either the media or by the protestors themselves- unless you don't have one. Rather than being a group that represents 99% of Americans that are not high income earners, OccupyNow is a byproduct of a harsh economic reality.
OccupyNow is made up mostly of an ad hoc group of unemployed college-graduates, laid off workers, labor unions, the homeless and poor. Unfortunately the percentage of this group has grown and although they believe they are acting in the interest of the commons, there are other groups such as the Tea Party that would vehemently disagree with the root of America's problem and on how to fix them.
Just because you genuinely believe you are acting in the best interests of the majority, does not mean you are nor does it mean that everyone feels the same way you do.
Occupy Wall-street are not the protests of the civil rights movement that they are being compared to. Corporations, nor the government, are restricting the individual rights or wrongly discriminating against any group of individuals that are a part of the movement.
It has been asserted by protestors that corporations unfairly disregards the interests of the American people, but rather act in selfishness to expand profits and answer only to their shareholders. I would ask, however, is it not unfair to ask corporations to act like what they are not?
If a corporation can make money better somewhere else- then it had better do it. It has to worry about making bottom lines, investing in the future for its survival and yes, answering to its owners. If we chain and limit corporations based in America by strict regulatory measures or high tax rates, then we slowly suffocate them by giving their competitors distinct advantages.
Instead of trying to change the nature of corporations to act contrary to its interests, why not promote an environment that gives corporations incentives to manufacture and keep jobs in America?
A younger cousin of mine, in eighth grade, has recently learned what it is to be a critic. Any movie, music, food, or object possible he can find a million problems with it. I asked him the other day what he likes.
“I don't know,” he said.
It is much easier to voice harsh criticism than to take a stand for something. Understandably, times are tough, but if you insist on tearing down the current establishment, is too much to ask for a plan on how to rebuild it?
With no shortage of communicative mediums, or media coverage, there should be no excuse to have a lack of clear goals or specific reason articulated in either the media or by the protestors themselves- unless you don't have one. Rather than being a group that represents 99% of Americans that are not high income earners, OccupyNow is a byproduct of a harsh economic reality.
OccupyNow is made up mostly of an ad hoc group of unemployed college-graduates, laid off workers, labor unions, the homeless and poor. Unfortunately the percentage of this group has grown and although they believe they are acting in the interest of the commons, there are other groups such as the Tea Party that would vehemently disagree with the root of America's problem and on how to fix them.
Just because you genuinely believe you are acting in the best interests of the majority, does not mean you are nor does it mean that everyone feels the same way you do.
Occupy Wall-street are not the protests of the civil rights movement that they are being compared to. Corporations, nor the government, are restricting the individual rights or wrongly discriminating against any group of individuals that are a part of the movement.
It has been asserted by protestors that corporations unfairly disregards the interests of the American people, but rather act in selfishness to expand profits and answer only to their shareholders. I would ask, however, is it not unfair to ask corporations to act like what they are not?
If a corporation can make money better somewhere else- then it had better do it. It has to worry about making bottom lines, investing in the future for its survival and yes, answering to its owners. If we chain and limit corporations based in America by strict regulatory measures or high tax rates, then we slowly suffocate them by giving their competitors distinct advantages.
Instead of trying to change the nature of corporations to act contrary to its interests, why not promote an environment that gives corporations incentives to manufacture and keep jobs in America?
Interesting analysis... Might we assume the author would agree with presidential candidate Mitt Romney that corporations are people, too?
ReplyDeleteThe writer shows conviction and writes with authority. A little more background on what's going on - and/or the Tea Party to explain it - would be helpful.
Still, good piece. Easy to read.