At Counterpunch.org there is an interesting article about “The 99 Percent Spring,” a new Occupy-offshoot movement from which we’ll probably be hearing much this spring. (After all, the weather is much warmer now.)
Titled “99 Percent Spring: The Latest MoveOn Front for the Democratic Party,” the article shows some fine research work in tying the Occupy movement, or at least perhaps a co-opted Occupy movement, to the highly political and professionally organized protest organization MoveOn.org.
The next time someone tells you that the 99 Percent is a grassroots movement, please point them to this article on Counterpunch.org.
Although many have called it an “anti-business” organization (among them Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who characterizes it as such in the second paragraph of the Introduction to his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”), I have been reluctant to categorize Greenpeace in this way. I have been reluctant to do so, that is, until today.
The reason for my reluctance is I haven’t actually seen a statement from them saying that they are anti-business. Yes, many have intimated that Greenpeace is anti-business, but that’s their opinion. (And if you follow Greenpeace’s actions, you’d be hard pressed to regard them as pro-business.) If you read this blog regularly, or have read any of my books, you know that I prefer to have a lot more foundation for my conclusions than just the opinions of others. I saw that foundation today.
In an October 19, 2011 Greenpeace blog post titled “Greenpeace Supports Occupy Wall Street Peaceful Protests,” by Mr. Phil Radford, the executive director of Greenpeace USA, he states that his organization stands behind the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Although OWS has no stated objectives, it seems clear that the OWS is clearly anti-business or anti-corporate and, perhaps in a larger sense, even anti-capitalist. In fact in his post Mr. Radford says:
What I hear are people – first Americans and now across the globe – saying to multinational corporations: “You’re paying out bonuses while jobs are an endangered species. You’ve taken the American Dream – for the first time in generations might leave our kids a worse life and a worse world to live in. You own the courts and have corrupted our Congress, so we’re here at your doorstep.”
Let’s set aside that the paragraph is poorly written as well as the fact that his assertions are a matter of opinion and therefore debatable. He offers no facts. Still it’s clear that the sentiments he expresses in that paragraph are anti-business, and they set the theme for his entire post.
But I thought Greenpeace was supposed to be an environmental organization. Why are they weakening their position as “environmental experts” and throwing in with the anti-business crowd?
Is this a “Duh?” moment? Are you thinking me “slow on the uptake.” No, it’s not a “Duh” moment. Yes, there was gambling going on at Rick’s Café Americain.
Of course I’ve suspected that Greenpeace are “anti-business wolves in environmentalist sheeps clothing,” but before saying so, I wanted to wait until they admitted it.
Now, they have.
Regarding the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, according to an article titled “Adbusters Sparks Wall Street Protest” appearing in The Vancouver Courier:
The ongoing protests in the heart of New York City’s financial district, which first began on September 17 (2011), are partly the work of the Vancouver-based Adbusters Media Foundation, an anti-consumerist group best known for its award-winning, advertisement-free magazine Adbusters. Frustrated by a growing disparity in wealth and the absence of legal repercussions for the bankers behind the recent global financial crisis, it suggested readers take to the streets to demand change.
As I’ve written before, although we don’t know the objectives of the OWS protest we do know, because we have been told many times by the media generally and the above referenced article specifically, that the movement has been directed against the financial industry, thus its concentration on Wall Street.
We also know that the “We Are the 99%” movement arose as an offshoot of OWS, and that the idea behind the 1% was to portray it as individuals in the financial industry against which the OWS movement has formed. (It’s that old “evil banker” meme resurrected.)
But, the 1% isn’t the 1% you think it is. It’s not made up of the “evil banker.”
In “It’s the Inequality, Stupid,” published on MotherJones.com, the 1% is shown to be employed as follows:
31.0% of the top 1% of U.S. income earners are non-finance managers, executives, and supervisors
15.7% are in the medical field
13.9% are in the financial industry
8.4% are lawyers
4.6% are in computers, engineering, or technology
4.3% are not working or are deceased
4.2% are in sales
3.8% are blue collar or in an unclassified service industry
3.2% are in real estate
3.0% are in non-financial business operations
2.3% are entrepreneurs
1.8% are professors or scientists
1.6% are in the arts, media, or sports
0.9% are marked as “unknown”
0.8% are in government, are teachers, or are in social services
0.5% are farmers or ranchers
0.2% are pilots
(Note: The above totals only 97%. I’m not sure of what the remaining 3% is comprised.)
If you read this blog regularly, you’ll know that for my writing I dig through sources and footnotes to verify that about which I write. My question on the sourcing of the above numbers was no exception. Fortunately, the MotherJones.com article was well-referenced. I found that the above numbers used in the MotherJones.com article came from an academic study titled “Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data.” As you also know from reading this blog, I consider academically based sources, along with government sources, to be about as reliable as sources can be. This article meets both those qualifications.
Published on the Williams College Web site, the information for the MotherJones.com article is drawn from a table that appears on page 51 of the PDF version of the Williams College paper. The information used in the table is derived from
Continue reading The 1% Isn’t the 1%
Last week, while a lot of us were distracted by watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, the anti-capitalist movement decided to try to cash in on all the publicity. Clever.
As first reported by CNN Money yesterday, and per U.S. Trademark Office filings, Occupy Wall Street, AKA Friends of Liberty Park, an unincorporated association located at 10 Spring Street, Suite 1, in New York, New York, filed for a federal trademark on the words “Occupy Wall Street.” (And, by the way, the trademark application says “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Wall Street’ apart from the mark as shown,” i.e. Occupy Wall Street. Gee, thanks.)
To search for the trademark application yourself just click here and enter “Occupy Wall Street” in the search box. When you do, you’ll see that there are two applications. One from the “movement,” whoever that actually may be, and one from what is apparently an unrelated party.
The movement, the Friends of Liberty Park, according to the CNN Money article filed the trademark application on October 24, 2011 at 3:54 PM while the other party filed on the same day at 6:41 PM (both Eastern time, I presume). The rule is that the first filer, generally, gets the trademark. Thus, the movement had the idea, first, to exploit the trademark. Exploitation = capitalism. Way to go, comrades.
And they’ll probably get the mark, too. Although, I’m not sure how a mark is awarded to an unincorporated entity (and I thought this was supposed to be a loose, “grassroots movement,” anyway), but we’ll let the lawyers sort that one out. Capitalism, yes. This is further evidenced by the fact that the trademark application says that the mark is to be used on periodicals, newsletters, gym bags, tote bags, t-shirts, sweatshirts, headgear, jackets for children, and in entertainment services. How chic. I can’t wait for the OWS logo to show up on bags at my gym, or to see it emblazoned on purses making their way up Park Avenue. All in all, this whole move seems like good old fashioned, naked, “I can’t wait to sell out,” American capitalism.
I wish them the best of luck in their merchandising efforts and since the ticker symbol “OWS” is available, I just hope that they’ll give me a shout before they go public.
Yesterday here on Telofski.com, I wrote about how Occupy Wall Street will fail. It must fail because it has no stated objective. Without a stated objective it cannot succeed. By definition.
But let’s just throw out that little semantical problem. Let’s just imagine that they succeed with some sort of abolishment of capitalism which I gather is the overall message of the crowd. What then?
I’m certain that those currently engaged in the protest would be immersed in some sort of nirvana given such imaginings. But what about the rest of us?
What about jobs?
What about the income taxes from jobs? The taxes that keep the governments running?
What about food?
What about clothing?
What about shelter?
All of these things, at least the versions that are worth having, come from capitalism.
Ask yourself how all these things would affect your children should Occupy Wall Street not fail.
Ask the Chinese how well that communist thing worked out for them and why now at least half of their economic system is based on capitalism.
Ask the Russians . . . well, you know where I’m heading.
Disorganization and a chaotic system are two things that characterize Occupy Wall Street. And if they were somehow able to succeed and bring these characteristics to society-at-large, well then, we’d need a lot more help than we do now.
Is the Occupy Wall Street movement actually one big temper tantrum?
If you believe the thoughts of Noreen Malone, an assistant editor of New York Magazine, given today in a Daily Ticker video interview at Yahoo! Finance, then you may conclude that it is.
Now, Noreen doesn’t actually say that the movement is a temper tantrum. But the way she characterizes the movement leads me to believe that it is.
Below is the interview video.
At about minute 2:20, Noreen says that she believes the OWS demonstrators are showing discontent because in growing up they “checked all the boxes,” went to college, and expected a “good, solid job” to be available to them when they graduated.
Huh?
If that’s the truth, and of course this is only Noreen’s opinion, then what we are really seeing is one big, media-fed, crowd-sourced temper tantrum. And if this is true, then the OWS demonstrators need to get over themselves. I offer that advice from personal experience.
After graduating college, in an economic period that was much worse than the one we now experience, I had a similar attitude. I thought the world owed me a good job. I maintained that attitude for about my first five post-college years, until I met a woman who “smacked it out of me.” She reached me with the message that the world doesn’t owe me, or anyone else, a good job, a living, food, shelter, health care, or anything else.
Through a series of “discussions” with her, I finally realized, perhaps late in life but better late than never, that my life is what I make it. My life would be what I would make it based on my ability to deal with the conditions and situations I would encounter in life.
Perhaps if colleges started impressing this fact upon students and taught them how to make “lemonade out of lemons,” everyone, including the demonstrators themselves, would be a lot better off.
|
|
