Letters from The Occupation

The image above will stand alone in this post for now, as it pretty much says it all.

Some Input for the Occupation Movement

Historically, the most effective movements focus on one, fundamental, principle change: in the United States, the founding fathers focused on independence from England; in the nineteenth century, the big movement focused on slavery's abolition; in the early twentieth century, there was women's sufferage and prohibition.

With their official list of grievances now posted, there is little doubt, anymore, that those "occupying" Wall Street have one thing on their mind--they are dissatisfied with corporate greed:  "We come to you at a time," they declare, "when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."  Very well.  With this single statement, they declare their cause.

Few could argue that many of their more specific claims are not prime examples of the behavior on the part of corporations that have contributed significantly, if not implicitly caused, the economic difficulties the United States, and indeed the world, now face.  Moreover, and as importantly, their claims touch a nerve in many people who may consider themelves victims of such corrupt behavior, as ever more register their support for the cause, in ever more locations in the U.S., as well as other countries.

However, though they have made it clear enough that the source of their discontent is corporate greed, they seem to fail to recognize that the government, which they effectively "run", is no less implicit in the corruption that greed fosters, and that the only real difference is what form the greed takes, in the collusion between corporations and government.  They mark their disgruntlement with entities that, among other things, have taken bailouts at taxpayers' expense, but fail to make accountable the politicians who authorized the bailouts, and thus squandered taxpayer funds.  Indeed, greed is the ultimate impetus in the collusion inherent in the corporatist structure, but while corporations are greedy for profits, we must not forget that the politicians that facilitate those profits are no less greedy for power.

With the attention that it is now getting, the Occupation movement that is now spreading has a grand opportunity to affect a great and radical change in this country, and to do that, all they need do is to address the one, fundamental issue that harbors at the core of the corruption that is now the source of so much disgruntlement.  But it is not greed.  Greed has forever been and will forever be something between a man and his God, if he has one.  It is a nasty side effect of all economic structures.  It is a moral issue, not a political issue, and if the history of the United States shows us anything, it is that a people, even unified in their intentions, can neither dictate nor legislate morality.

We have already discussed in these web pages what we believe to be the real and fundamental causes of the ever widening economic disparities facing the American people.  For what it's worth, consider this our input to the serious and important discussion that you have brought to the attention of the world.  As we explained in our last post here, we are with you in spirit, for we, too, consider ourselves part of the 99%.  But we cannot continue participation in a dicussion that remains blind to the realities of the world's Corporatocracies, and looks to government to solve the problems that government is complicit in creating in the first place.

America's Failing Corporatocracy

In May 2010, President Barack Obama paid a personal and well-publicized visit to a solar panel manufacturing company in California, called Solyndra.  In order to promote government "investment" in green technology, the Obama administration granted Solyndra a $535 billion loan guarantee.  The guarantee had been applied for and denied under the Bush administration, but the company's investors and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign.  They had also spent over a million dollars lobbying Congress on bills that would benefit companies in the business of clean energy production.  Thus, the administration fast-tracked the company's loan application.  But, in early September 2011, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is now not only under FBI investigation, but is also being sued by the 1,100 workers who were abruptly laid off.  Meanwhile, taxpayers are now liable for the $535 million, in order to cover Solyndra's defaulted loan.

We post this news neither to single out a failed corporation, nor to single out a poor economic decision on the part of a presidential administration.  Rather, we deliver this news so as to explain that the Solyndra affair now typefies what can happen when government crawls into bed with corporations.  And anymore, crawling into bed with corporations is what government does most effectively.  Political party affiliation matters not, for both Democratics and Republicans do it.  For better or for worse, the United States has become a full-fledged corporatocracy, and as the economy flails and wags and sinks, so does the government that marries it. 

Few could, or even would, argue that government does not benefit most those who contribute to it.  Politicians cater to campaign contributors, if only to get more contributions.  Meanwhile, government funds are proportioned (lately, under the guise of "stimulus" measures), loans are guaranteed, and regulations are legislated and subsequently enforced by newly created regulatory bodies, all to the benefit of specifically those entities that have contributed.  As those companies succeed, more is contributed to the politicians who perpetuate and propagate them; and when they fail, they're "bailed out."

Yet, though many may admit to America's corporatism, few seem to recognize that the ones who must ultimately pay for it is, well, everyone else who's not a member of the corporatist structure.  The taxpayer.  The voter.  Joe and Josephine Sixpack, who still naively believe that America is the land of opportunity, but can't start their own business because they're regulated and taxed out of the prospect, or because they lack the mountain of funds necessary to contribute to the campaigns of those politicians that would help them.  As a result, they must resign themselves to their workaday jobs in order to make enough money to buy their food from the corporations that process it, and to pay their taxes to the government that subsidizes and regulates the food processing corporations.

It is no wonder that the call is often heard for a "viable third party."  Yet, even members of prospective third parties are most likely to be co-opted into the corporatist structure.  Greens are absorbed by the Democrats; Libertarians are catered to by Republicans.  The only difference becomes what corporations would benefit from whomever is in power.  Such is in the nature of American politics, we suppose, and so it is even less wonder that so many are indifferent to the whole mess.  Yet, such is the state that the country currently finds itself in.

Media Marginalization

The Republicans held another debate last night in Orlando, Florida.  Sponsored and monitored by Fox News and Google, we here in this office were actually impressed with the format, and with the live polls and questions that were offered online, even while the candidates debated.  Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two current "frontrunners", so-called by the Establishment media had a very nice mudslinging match, while the more marginal candidates struggled for air time.

However, the most astonishing thing happened after the debate was over.  Fox News held an online poll, asking viewers who, in their opinion, "won" the debate.  The poll remained online for a few minutes, and as it did so, the numbers racked up for, of all people, Ron Paul.  Yet, before too much longer, Fox News removed the poll from its site, and before the evening was over, issued a separate declaration entitiled, "Experts: Mitt Romney wins debate ... again".

This is not the first time Congressman Paul's presidential campaign has been marginalized.  In fact, if there was a record for a candidate being most marginalized by the media, Ron Paul would be in Guiness, hands down.  In every poll this office has witnessed, asking who won a debate in which Mr. Paul was an option, he has won, sometimes by double digits.  In the Iowa straw poll, he lost out to Michelle Bachmann by a mere percent or two, yet while Bachmann was interviewed on all the networks, nothing was mentioned of Ron Paul.  Nothing.  More attention was given to Rick Santorum for withdrawing from the race. Such neglect of a candidate has been so obvious, Jon Stewart, in a Daily Show spot, asked, "why is everyone still ignoring Ron Paul?"

There is no doubt in this author's mind why Paul receives such disaffection:  as a former Libertarian, and as currently a Republican who still holds to his libertarian principles, he's far removed from being part of the Establishment.  As one who holds unswervingly to the principles of less government, more personal responsibility; who has written a book calling for the end of the Federal Reserve System; who has called and voted repeatedly to end United States militarism abroad, he's not just an outsider, he's an outsider to even the regular "outsiders."

Say and think what you will about Ron Paul, but we write about him today to provide a verbal snapshot of twenty-first century America, where the Establishment, i.e., the ruling political class and the colluding media, squelches the authentic voices of those they claim to protect and defend.  This Establishment is concerned not with voters, and not with the welfare of the populace, but only with their own interests, their own political agenda, their own income.  This Establishment is the very reason why the country is in the shape that it's in.  This Establishment is the reason why everything becomes more expensive, while ever fewer people can afford any of it.  And this Establishment is the reason why those not of the Establishment must resort to instruments such as the increasingly-hated Tea Party just to be heard.

Bad News All Around

Generally, single, significant current events are recorded in these posts, but in the search for the one significant event for today, we are at a loss.  Generally, it's all bad.  Thus, its general negativity is what makes it significant.

Here is a list, however brief, of the major news items today:

--Last night, Asian stock markets dropped: the Nikkei (Japan) lost 1.3 percent; the Shanghai Composite (China) lost 1.6 percent.

--Europes' major indexes tanked:  the Stoxx Europe dropped 4.8 percent; the DAX (Germany) dumped 5.8 percent.

--The Dow shed 419 points, losing another 3.7 percent.

--408,000 new unemployment claims were filed last week, up 9,000 from the week before, and 8,000 more than expected.

--The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation, was up .5 percent in July; Gas alone was up 4.7 percent.

--There are renewed fears of another global recession.

--A flash mob was formed in Germantown, Maryland to raid a local 7-Eleven.  It only took a few minutes, and they made off with hundreds of dollars of goods.  Police are at a loss as to what to do to prevent it from happening again.

--Dozens of Isrealis were either killed or injured in a series of roadside attacks near the Israeli-Egyptian border.

Although the list above is primarily econocentric, there just seems to be a sense, an intuition, if you will, that the future isn't looking so bright these days.  Even my girlfriend feels sad, for no apparent reason.  So much of the news today is ... so grim.

Those who studied U.S. History, might recall in those studies, how, weeks before the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, a number of people are recorded to have felt a strange sense of foreboding.  They intuited that something, some catastrophic event was about to take place, though they knew not what.  Those who experienced that foreboding could certainly attribute it to certain causes--Europe was already in the midst of another Great War, and many felt that it was only a matter of time before United States serviceman would be called and shipped east. 

Perhaps it is merely because the economic news is so bleak; or perhaps that news itself is rarely positive, and that we see more of that negativity since beginning to research more of it for the purposes of this blog; but whatever the cause, we can relate, today, to the generation that witnessed the attack on Pearl Harbor, and their odd sense of coming calamity.  We certainly hope nothing catastrophic is on the horizon, that this intuition is misconstrued, or that it is merely a passing phase of dread in the attempt to understand the causes of current tragic events.  Yet, if the sum of today's news is any indication of a bleak future, we would do well to prepare for it, however we can.