Occupy Wall Street: “Aus jeder nach seiner Bereitschaft zu arbeiten, jedem nach seinem Willen zu nehmen.”

Thanks to Sharon, I found this one:


Occupy Group Faults Church, a Onetime Ally

By Matt Flegenheimer
Published: December 16, 2011

For months, they were the best of neighbors: the slapdash champions of economic equality, putting down stakes in an outdoor plaza, and the venerable Episcopal parish next door, whose munificence helped sustain the growing protest.

But in the weeks since Occupy Wall Street was evicted from Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, relations between the demonstrators and Trinity Wall Street, a church barely one block from the New York Stock Exchange, have reached a crossroads.

The displaced occupiers had asked the church, one of the city’s largest landholders, to hand over a gravel lot, near Canal Street and Avenue of the Americas, for use as an alternate campsite and organizing hub. The church declined, calling the proposed encampment “wrong, unsafe, unhealthy and potentially injurious.”

And now the Occupy movement, after weeks of targeting big banks and large corporations, has chosen Trinity, one of the nation’s most prominent Episcopal parishes, as its latest antagonist.

“We need more; you have more,” one protester, Amin Husain, 36, told a Trinity official on Thursday, during an impromptu sidewalk exchange between clergy members and demonstrators. “We are coming to you for sanctuary.”

Much more at the link. But Mr Husain’s comment in the final quoted paragraph, “We need more; you have more,” pretty much describes the entire Occupy movement: if someone has more, he is obligated to give it to those who have less. Or, as Karl Marx put it, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”1 Mr Husain is arguing that Trinity Church just flat owes them.

Trinity’s rector, the Rev. James H. Cooper, noted that the church had provided the Occupy protesters with all sorts of assistance, from meeting rooms to “resting areas, pastoral services, electricity, bathrooms, even blankets and hot chocolate.” But the church parking lot had no services, would be an unsafe and eventually unsanitary area for the Occupy campers. What I found telling in the story was the comment of the Rev. Milind Sojwal, the rector of All Angels Church, an Episcopal parish on the Upper West Side.

Trinity Church had a fantastic opportunity to be a Christlike presence by openings its doors to the protesters, and I believe Trinity blew it.

Of course, the Occupiers aren’t really interested in camping out at a church on the Upper West Side; All Angels Church is located at 251 West 80th Street, while Trinity Wall Street, between Trinity Place and Broadway on Wall Street, is right where the great unwashed wish to encamp.2 It’s easy to say that someone else’s church “blew it,” when you know that your facility wouldn’t be the next one to house the dirt and the lice and the stench and the crime; it’s easy enough to say that someone else should be physically charitable, in having to provide utilities, food, electricity, bathrooms and the like, and clean up after the protesters, when you know that the most you will have to do is contribute money, and that you are the arbiter of just how much money you can or will contribute.

The Occupy protesters have truly developed a welfare state of mind. The Rev Cooper and his church, in the spirit of Christian charity, helped provide for the Occupiers when they were camped out in Zuccotti Park,3 but, rather than being grateful for the charity received, the Occupiers have developed a sense of entitlement: now Trinity Wall Street owes them charity.

Herr Marx’ expression, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen,”, has been replaced among the Occupiers with “Aus jeder nach seiner Bereitschaft zu arbeiten, jedem nach seinem Willen zu nehmen.4

_____________________________

  1. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Critique of the Gotha Program Part 1 Herr Marx argued that:

    But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only — for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

  2. To give you some perspective, West 80th Street is slightly less than half way up the length of Central Park, to the west side of the park.
  3. Zuccotti Park is also private property.
  4. From each according to his willingness to work, to each according to his desire to take.

44 Comments

  1. A full result of growing up in the “Age of Entitlements” They’re practicing well “What’s your’s is mine, and what’s mine is mine.” They are just practicing Socialism that they learned in their early years.

  2. Rude, crude, ill-kempt, irresponsible, disorganized, disruptive, destructive, misguided, hands always out, obscene and puppet-like soldiers in the Obama-inspired class warfare, the grimy trespassers have metamorphosed from objects of pity to objects of ridicule.

    Barack Obama has told the occupiers they are the reason he ran for office. That should not be a surprise to anyone who has read Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. The occupiers are being good soldiers in Obama’s war on society.

    Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model provides an understanding of the roots of the current administration’s effort to subject America to a wholesale transformation by looking at the work of one of the President’s heroes—radical Chicago “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. The guru of Sixties radicals, Alinsky urged his followers to be flexible and opportunistic and say anything to get power, which they can then use to destroy the existing society and its economic system. Alinsky died in 1972, but left behind an organization in Chicago dedicated to his malicious ideas. This team hired Barack Obama in 1986 when he was 23 and taught him how to organize for radical transformation.

    In this insightful new booklet, Horowitz discusses Alinsky’s work in the 60s—and his advice to radicals to seize any weapon to advance their cause.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/25/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model-by-david-horowitz/

    Humorously, though, some of Obama’s class warfare soldiers are in mutiny against the man who claims he ran for the presidency because of them and their cause. Several of those who said they were once Obama’s supporters have been disappointed by his inability to lead. Occupy Obama’s Campaign Headquarters has been the result of that disappointment.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/occupy-activists-stake-camp-obama-office-15180128

    Poor Obama! He was hoping he could count on those derelict dissidents. I just hope their turning on him doesn’t ruin his vacation in Hawaii.

  3. G:
    Poor Obama! He was hoping he could count on those derelict dissidents. I just hope their turning on him doesn’t ruin his vacation in Hawaii.

    Contrast BO’s and Bush’s “Vacations”

    Bush chopped wood and worked on the ranch.

    BO will hit the golf ball with the Woods, on what was probably a ranch.

  4. “Much more at the link. But Mr Husain’s comment in the final quoted paragraph, “We need more; you have more,” pretty much describes the entire Occupy movement: if someone has more, he is obligated to give it to those who have less. Or, as Karl Marx put it, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!”1 Mr Husain is arguing that Trinity Church just flat owes them.”

    Just like you, Mr. Editor, to attempt to characterize an entire movement by the comments of one individual, or even a few individuals, when in fact it takes a certain amount of courage and fortitude to take to the streets in protest, and worse, to spend a few nights, never knowing when some criminal element may seek to take advantage, especially of women, and up against police whose next move could well be violence. And here is another example of the same mindset:

    “Rude, crude, ill-kempt, irresponsible, disorganized, disruptive, destructive, misguided, hands always out, obscene and puppet-like soldiers in the Obama-inspired class warfare, the grimy trespassers have metamorphosed from objects of pity to objects of ridicule.”

    I think you were wise, Gretchen, to back out of being an author and administrator on BtG; for that I give you credit. But for what you just wrote, I give you no credit, because I do not think you have yet internalized the extreme discrepancy between the rich and the middle and poor which has developed in our country, and the ramifications which have befallen people’s lives because of it, through no fault of their own, because what has happened is out to their control, rather, within the control of the wealthy elite who control our government and our major businesses. I understand that you folks don’t want to hear this repeated over and over, but I feel compelled to do so. Sorry!

    “Barack Obama has told the occupiers they are the reason he ran for office.”

    Since I do not really believe that President Obama said that, I would appreciate your furnishing the exact quote with a cite so I can also see the context if he did say it as you assert.

    And then you cite the Horowitz book, which is most telling indeed.

    Finally, your cynical mocking of our President is hardly impressive, since you have picked an author/Professor who is, in my view, most acerbic and hyperbolic spokesman of the radical right. Quote David Horowitz:

    “When you take a hard look at what Barack Obama already has done and plans to do, you quickly realize he is not Jimmy Carter. He is not even Bill Clinton. That’s because Barack Obama, working in concert with the ultra-liberal socialists that run the Democrat party, is radically transforming America.”

    Do you and Yorkshire actually subscribe to this extremist rhetoric, Gretchen?

    “Poor Obama! He was hoping he could count on those derelict dissidents. I just hope their turning on him doesn’t ruin his vacation in Hawaii.”

    Like I said earlier, Gretchen, I didn’t think you had it in you. I was wrong!

  5. WW writes

    Just like you, Mr. Editor, to attempt to characterize an entire movement by the comments of one individual, or even a few individuals, when in fact it takes a certain amount of courage and fortitude to take to the streets in protest, and worse, to spend a few nights, never knowing when some criminal element may seek to take advantage, especially of women, and up against police whose next move could well be violence.

    Thanks for the belly laugh, WW For I recall, during my in-depth readings through CSPT, you and your radical leftist friends doing precisely the same thing to those involved in the tea parties.

    What is the penchant you have for not ascribing the same standards to everyone? And you laughingly whined about “fairness” in another thread in here, I saw?

  6. WW:
    And then you cite the Horowitz book, which is most telling indeed.

    WW, it’s very obvious you know NOTHING about Horowitz. 30 years ago he may have been WagonWheel, but saw the light. A little understanding of the person you are disecting would help you, that is if you dare to read it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

    David Horowitz
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and policy advocate. David Horowitz is a founder and current president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, edits FrontPage Magazine, and also writes for Christopher Ruddy’s NewsMax.[2] Horowitz has also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom, whose stated goal is combatting leftist indoctrination in academia.

    Horowitz was raised by parents who were both members of the American Communist Party. Between 1956 and 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left before rejecting Marxism completely. Horowitz has recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospectives, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.

    Family
    Horowitz was born to a Secular Jewish family in Forest Hills, New York City. His parents, Phil and Blanche Horowitz, were high school teachers. Phil taught English and Blanche taught stenography.[3] Horowitz majored in English and received a BA from Columbia University in 1959 and a master’s degree in English literature at University of California, Berkeley.

    Phil and Blanche Horowitz were long-standing members of the American Communist Party.[4][5]

    According to Horowitz,

    “Underneath the ordinary surfaces of their lives, my parents and their friends thought of themselves as secret agents. The mission they had undertaken, and about which they could not speak freely except with each other, was not just an idea to them. It was more important to their sense of themselves than anything else they did. Nor were its tasks of a kind they could attend or ignore, depending on their moods. They were more like the obligations of a religious faith. Except that their faith was secular, and the millennium they awaited was being instituted, at that moment, in the very country that had become America’s enemy. It was this fact that made their ordinary lives precarious and their secrecy necessary. If they lived under a cloud of suspicion, it was the result of more than just their political passions. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had created a terror in the minds of ordinary people. Newspapers reported on American spy rings working to steal atomic secrets for the Soviet state. When people read these stories, they inevitably thought of progressives like us. And so did we ourselves. Even if we never encountered a Soviet agent or engaged in a single illegal act, each of us knew that our commitment to socialism implied the obligation to commit treason, too.”[6]

    After the death of Joseph Stalin on March 5, 1953, Phil Horowitz commented on how the many titles which the dictator had held were divided among his successors. Phil Horowitz told his son, “You see what a genius Stalin was. It took five men to replace him.”[7]

    More at the Link

  7. I highly recommend Horowitz’s book, Radical Son.

    And is that Wagonwheel questioning a source? There he goes again, applying standards to everyone that never apply to HIM.

    Wow.

  8. Koolo says:
    December 18, 2011 at 18:43 (Edit)

    Gretchen — aren’t you just beside yourself with regret that you have disappointed Wagonwheel? Whatever will you DO??

    WW might recommend:

  9. I have seen the light! I’m going to shut down my business and starting tomorrow, I’m going to go hang out on sidewalks, spitting at cops, leaving litter, begging for food and then telling those who fall for my pleas I want lobster and steak, not stinkin’ pizza. When people drive by in cars that are newer and nicer than mine, I’m going to shake my fist at them and shout that it’s not fair that they have more than I.

    Thank you, WW. I had no idea it was such a noble thing to be so filled with envy of what others have and self pity that whining and moaning about my lot in life would inspire such respect from you and others like you.

  10. You don’t need to be religious to understand -and embrace- the ideal that “Whatsoever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” But the 1%, in their blind greed and schemes, have forgotten and closed their eyes to what the word “society” should really mean. Because of Occupy Wall Street, we are finally talking less about CUTS and more about BLEEDING. Instead of demanding m-o-r-e budget cuts -to be borne by the middle class and poor- we are FINALLY focusing on the shameful bleeding that the poor and middle class has endured for all too long. Instead of talking about even m-o-r-e cuts in the taxes of millionaires….we are now talking about fairness and justice – about an economy and a political system that is increasingly run for the rich, and by the rich. Instead of talking about LESS government, we are talking about a government that WORKS FOR ALL OF US, not just a favored few. Thank you OWS, for reminding us that people -ordinary working people- really DO matter, and for helping open our eyes to what’s really going on in this country. Trinity Church should look deep into its collective soul, and at its ultimate mission. It should do the right thing, and help OWS. For I would bet my life, that if He were physically with us today…as He was 2000 years ago, He himself would be the FIRST to climb those fences, and occupy Trinity’s Duarte Square. Of this I am certain.

  11. You are aware, Stan, that GOVERNMENT is who’s responsible for allowing Wall Street, et. al. to do what they do. It is in BED with them. But you want MORE government.

    In other words, you make no sense.

  12. I never believed in the 99%ers vs. the 1%ers. I see it more like the 53%ers vs the 47%ers. The OWS crowd has no representations of my views. I see the non-tax-paying 47%ers as having no stake in the government except being on the side of the largesse taken from the 53%ers. The vote buying by Progressives, Socialists, and/or Liberals is we will give the 47%ers more and more to maintain their perpetual seat in Congress. Just look at the wreckage left behind by Barney Frank. If you want a stake in government, all must pay their “Fair Share” and not have an income tax liability of $300 only to receive a “refund” of $1100. That’s pure 100% BOVINE FECES.

  13. It is amusing that the “poor people” who are camping out in parks in their top of the line tents and sleeping bags are communicating with their fellow occupiers via Twitter and Facebook, using their iPhones and iPads. There is even a special Skype function to keep all those “poor” occupiers in touch with each other–in-between shouting obscenities and anti-Semitic rants and in-between destroying property and frightening young children on their way to school.

    The People’s Skype tries to put speed and clarity in this process by having anyone with a mobile device – smart and feature phone agnostic – call into a line connected through a Tropo application programming interface (API). The crowd is, in essence, on a one-way conference call. People in the area can gather around a phone and listen in individual groups, or perform the out loud repetition depending on the size of the crowd. Conference holders can post polls through Skype, which users can participate in by entering a passcode and a 1 or 2 for yes and no responses.

    http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/12/occupy-wall-street-ustream-skype/

    I disagree with Stan, who suggests that “He himself” would approve of the tactics of the occupiers to raise havoc and created chaos all in the name of their own avarice.

  14. This is the breakdown of taxpayers for Stan’s enjoyment.
    Who Pays Income Taxes?
    Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?
    Tax Year 2009

    Percentiles Ranked by AGI
    AGI Threshold on Percentiles
    Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

    Top 1% $343,927 36.73%
    Top 5% $154,643 58.66%
    Top 10% $112,124 70.47%
    Top 25% $66,193 87.30%
    Top 50% $32,396 97.75%
    Bottom 50% < $32,396 2.25%

    Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
    Source: Internal Revenue Service

    The one thing BO has done with his useful idiots of the 1% is not point out income differences, but these stooges are doing the work of the grand agitator in chief as learned by his teachers of being a Community Agitator of the school of Saul Alinsky is to create class warfare by making the alleged have nots blame the alleged haves for all their problems in life. And it’s interesting to see Stan step in that briar patch of class warfare. All I see with OWS is their story of the 99% are held down by the MAN. Unfortunately, the MAN pays 37% of all Income taxes. So 1% of 300,000,000 is 3,000,000 who pay 37% of the country’s BILLS. Have a nice Class Warfare Acolyte for the Vacationer in chief.

  15. “You are aware, Stan, that GOVERNMENT is who’s responsible for allowing Wall Street, et. al. to do what they do.”

    That’s a first for me, koolo, your blaming the government for the criminal misbehavior of the Wall Streeters. The logical extension of your statement is that we need bigger government, more regulation, not something to be expected from a conservative like you seem to be. Moreover, what about personal ethics and morals? You imply that some Wall Streeters are seriously lacking. On that, I would agree! I am patiently awaiting the prosecution of these alleged criminals who have committed fraud, at least. We are fairly diligent in going after blue color crime, like drugs and theft, but what about white collar crime, I ask? On that, we need to do lots more, and more quickly.

  16. “I see the non-tax-paying 47%ers as having no stake in the government except being on the side of the largesse taken from the 53%ers.”

    This is ridiculous, Yorkshire! Did you ever stop to think that the reason the 47% pay no federal taxes is because they have lost so much ground in being rewarded for their productivity by executives who steal take to large a piece of the pie. Productivity has been rising continuously for decades, but does the employee get rewarded properly for his part of this. I think not.

    And for the umpteenth time on here, Yorkshire, I must remind you again that the 47% do pay taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, property taxes, …. So the proper way to look at it is to look at the total tax burden, not just the federal tax part. Why do you not retain this fact, Yorkshire, or are you clouded by your ideological mish-mash?

    And one more thing, the class warfare mantra belongs in the laps of the conservatives who vote against federal tax increases and vote for tax cuts which favor the wealthy. So let us try harder to keep this class warfare charge aimed at the correct party.

  17. “It is amusing that the “poor people” who are camping out in parks in their top of the line tents and sleeping bags are communicating with their fellow occupiers via Twitter and Facebook, using their iPhones and iPads. There is even a special Skype function to keep all those “poor” occupiers in touch with each other–in-between shouting obscenities and anti-Semitic rants and in-between destroying property and frightening young children on their way to school.”

    I see, Gretchen, that you are continuing to mock those who chose to protest. You also chose several anecdotal events and paint the entire protest movement with a broad brush associated with these misbehaving folks. For the most part, the violence I’ve seen has been instigated by the police armed with sticks and protected with body armor.

    As I implied earlier, I personally have a high regard for those who take to the streets in protest, because it takes courage and conviction. I am suggesting that you, Gretchen, do not stop to think what is involved in getting out to protest something, perhaps because you have never done so, and perhaps because I have. Have you, Gretchen, ever?

    Had it not been for peaceful protesters, we would not have seen women’s suffrage ended, or our schools and lunch counters integrated, just to pick a couple of the many advances which began as street protests. We should honor these people who put themselves out there for causes in which they believe and for which they are willing to go all in.

  18. WW:
    This is ridiculous, Yorkshire! Did you ever stop to think that the reason the 47% pay no federal taxes is because they have lost so much ground in being rewarded for their productivity by executives who steal take to large a piece of the pie. Productivity has been rising continuously for decades, but does the employee get rewarded properly for his part of this. I think not.

    Meet a 47%er

    http://www.journal14.com/2011/12/02/410/

    The Country Owes Her A Living – NOT
    Posted byYorkshire on 2 December 2011, 9:13 pm

    I’m hoping this is the “Exception” rather than a norm. But I don’t have high hopes. Those hopes were dashed pretty much during all the OWS squatting’s. There is a new thought in town where America OWES a living to some (a lot it seems) without a reciprocal amount of effort. I heard this first [...]

  19. Well, Stan, I like to think of what Jesus actually did during his time on earth. He assisted many people, through his miracles, the ones listed being the curing of incurable conditions: blindness, deafness, a withered hand, leprosy and paralysis. What the Occupiers want is to recreate the miracle of the loaves and fishes, to have an ever-refilling begging bowl, rater than the assistance they need to get off their mats and help themselves.

    For I would bet my life, that if He were physically with us today…as He was 2000 years ago, He himself would be the FIRST to climb those fences, and occupy Trinity’s Duarte Square. Of this I am certain.

    And many of his followers on earth thought that he had come for the purposes of political revolution, to overthrow the established political order, as the Occupiers would like to do.

    The Occupiers are among the more privileged members of our society, young people who were able to go to college rather than have to work right out of high school, yet they are whining that they haven’t been given even more. The Occupiers are, for the most part, perfectly healthy physically, and are able to work, if they will just actually work. “Indeed, when we were with you we used to lay down the rule that anyone who would not work should not eat.” — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

    Fairness and justice? To me, that means people ought to have what they work for and earn, and have no claim on what others earn.

  20. WW wrote:

    Had it not been for peaceful protesters, we would not have seen women’s suffrage ended, or our schools and lunch counters integrated, just to pick a couple of the many advances which began as street protests. We should honor these people who put themselves out there for causes in which they believe and for which they are willing to go all in.

    Every one of those things were struggles for individual rights, for rights which belonged to the individual solely. What the Occupiers want to do is violate the individual right to property, and claim that what one person owns should be stolen to give to someone else because that second person doesn’t earn as much.

    Your rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not obligate me to do anything: I do not have to listen to you nor do I have to join your faith, or lack thereof. All I have to do is not try to use the power of government to stifle your freedom of speech or religion. What the communists Occupiers want is to do is to stick their hands in other people’s pockets; it is not a matter of leaving other people alone, but of obligating some people to support others.

    As I noted in footnote #1, Karl Marx was very explicit: equal rights were not for him. Rather, he thought that rights had to be unequal between people, to achieve the goals of the communist state.

  21. “Every one of those things were struggles for individual rights, for rights which belonged to the individual solely. What the Occupiers want to do is violate the individual right to property, and claim that what one person owns should be stolen to give to someone else because that second person doesn’t earn as much.”

    The message I get from the OWS movement relates to jobs and fair compensation, not to “taking from others” as you see it. These mostly young people have seen jobs go overseas, their college educations underutilized, their parents facing hardship and losing houses, the big salaries going to the top people only, and massive corruption of the government. This is what I believe the protest movement is all about, and it is similar to the suffragettes and the civil rights marchers, “for rights that belong to the individual solely”. These protesters see a quality of life being taken away from them, and they are willing to take to the streets to right these wrongs. I admire them, as you and Gretchen and Yorkshire and koolo demonize and scorn them. What ails you people?

    I find your interpretation of OWS to be the typical nastiness and cynicism of folks who wish to dominate others, which is what Wall Streeters and their corporate ilk have done by practically taking over our government and our courts. These are the folks who are taking from the middle and the poor, Mr. Editor, not the reverse as you mistakenly put it. And finally, I find your attempt to attach Karl Marx and the Communist label to the movement, to be very disturbing, as when Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to do the exact same thing you are doing here! For shame!!!

  22. WW writes

    That’s a first for me, koolo, your blaming the government for the criminal misbehavior of the Wall Streeters. The logical extension of your statement is that we need bigger government, more regulation, not something to be expected from a conservative like you seem to be.

    I am not blaming government for the behavior of Wall Street; however, government policies and crony capitalism has enabled Wall Street to do what it does. And guess who’s been the biggest beneficiary of Wall St. money over the last few years? Barack Obama. So, again, with corrupt Washington engaged in crony capitalism — the one entity that has MORE power than corporations and banks and to whom we’ve entrusted to regulate and watch over those two — IT clearly is what should be protested, not Wall St. and whomever else.

    And wrong — the logical extension of my statement does NOT mean we need bigger government. This is what radical leftists always desire, so it’s no surprise you think that. (It’s like that with taxes with you people — instead of demanding more efficient use of taxpayer monies you simply want MORE monies … which is a sad joke considering the preposterous waste government typically engages in.) We need BETTER and more EFFICIENT government. These are not synonymous with “bigger.” Not by any means.

  23. stan chaz writes:

    “You don’t need to be religious to understand -and embrace- the ideal that “Whatsoever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” But the 1%, in their blind greed and schemes, have forgotten and closed their eyes to what the word “society” should really mean. Because of Occupy Wall Street, we are finally talking less about CUTS and more about BLEEDING. Instead of demanding m-o-r-e budget cuts -to be borne by the middle class and poor- we are FINALLY focusing on the shameful bleeding that the poor and middle class has endured for all too long. Instead of talking about even m-o-r-e cuts in the taxes of millionaires….we are now talking about fairness and justice – about an economy and a political system that is increasingly run for the rich, and by the rich. Instead of talking about LESS government, we are talking about a government that WORKS FOR ALL OF US, not just a favored few. Thank you OWS, for reminding us that people -ordinary working people- really DO matter, and for helping open our eyes to what’s really going on in this country. Trinity Church should look deep into its collective soul, and at its ultimate mission. It should do the right thing, and help OWS. For I would bet my life, that if He were physically with us today…as He was 2000 years ago, He himself would be the FIRST to climb those fences, and occupy Trinity’s Duarte Square. Of this I am certain.”

    Very well put, actually a beautiful and compassionate piece. It is noteworthy how some Conservatives on here misconstrue the movement, then feel compelled to demonize it by pulling out anecdotes then using them to mischaracterize the protest movement which has now grown into a worldwide phenomenon. And then to attempt to make it out to be a Marxist/Communist movement — too, too much!

  24. WW writes

    I admire them, as you and Gretchen and Yorkshire and koolo demonize and scorn them. What ails you people?

    I don’t know … what ailed you about the tea party people, WW?

  25. WW hypocritically writes

    It is noteworthy how some Conservatives on here misconstrue the movement, then feel compelled to demonize it by pulling out anecdotes then using them to mischaracterize the protest movement

    It is also noteworthy how WW once again applies standards to others which never apply to himself or others who believe as he does.

  26. WW writes

    And then to attempt to make it out to be a Marxist/Communist movement — too, too much!

    Then why did you and so many others portray the tea party protests as “racist?” Yes, there were a few — VERY few — instances where some moron was holding up a racist picket or sign, but these, again were extremely rare. However, in the case of the Occupy movement, Marxist/Communist, anarchist and socialist signs, literature, shirts, etc. were widespread.

  27. “… the one entity that has MORE power than corporations and banks and to whom we’ve entrusted to regulate and watch over those two — IT clearly is what should be protested, not Wall St. and whomever else.”

    Your thinking seems muddled to me, koolo. Clearly you are once again exonerating the bad-acting Wall Streeters and condemning the government regulators and overseers. And even worse, you conservatives strive to eliminate the regulators and overseers, making matters worse.

    For these Wall Streeters to behave as they did and still do is a mark of dishonor on them, driven by their greed to extract everything they can whether lawful or unlawful, whether honorable or dishonorable. This is The Class Warfare! It is for this reason that we need government regulators and overseers. Moreover, focusing on the perps, it is a sad state of affairs when certain powerful individuals forget those who have helped make them successful and powerful. Their ethics are out of whack, and their influence is significant enough to be able to drag down the economic health of our entire nation by causing our nation’s wealth to move increasingly into the upper 1% category. This situation is unsustainable, which is one reason we are beginning to see people taking to the streets in protest.

  28. “However, in the case of the Occupy movement, Marxist/Communist, anarchist and socialist signs, literature, shirts, etc. were widespread.”

    Yeah right, koolo, they were wide spread because that is how the Fox News folks chose to characterize them. Instead of demonizing people, we ought to be focusing on the problems which are causing our fellow citizens to take to the streets. Certainly you are not denying that we have serious problems, are you?

  29. WW writes

    Your thinking seems muddled to me, koolo. Clearly you are once again exonerating the bad-acting Wall Streeters and condemning the government regulators and overseers. And even worse, you conservatives strive to eliminate the regulators and overseers, making matters worse.

    To the contrary — what is muddled is your reading and/or comprehension ability. Please reread what I wrote. Several times, if necessary. For I did NOT exonerate Wall Street; what I did was place ultimate blame on Washington for 1) setting up the situation which allowed the shenanigans, and 2) not doing its job with oversight. And you’re wrong about conservatives and regulations — conservatives want SENSIBLE regulations, and clearly those which oversee financial institutions and markets are sensible and NEEDED.

    You can cry about Wall Street all you wish, WW, but the biggest dishonorable folk are the politicians. Only THEY have more power than Wall Street and corporations — and they FAILED in their duty. THEIR ethics are out of whack, as evidenced by their exempting themselves from insider trading while you or I would go to jail for the same offense. This is why the Occupy movement and those who sympathize with them are misguided, ultimately. They should be protesting Washington, first and foremost.

  30. WW writes

    Yeah right, koolo, they were wide spread because that is how the Fox News folks chose to characterize them.

    As opposed to every other network dissecting tea party crowds for the one racist sign, right? Hahaha…

  31. “I don’t know … what ailed you about the tea party people, WW?”

    You are a master of diversion, koolo. There was plenty that bothered me about the Tea Party, but aren’t we talking about the OWS movement at the moment.

  32. “As opposed to every other network dissecting tea party crowds for the one racist sign, right? Hahaha…”

    More diversion, as koolo disdains discussing the issue at hand here. Useless!

  33. WW writes

    You are a master of diversion, koolo. There was plenty that bothered me about the Tea Party, but aren’t we talking about the OWS movement at the moment.

    What is clearly relevant — and obvious — is your penchant for applying standards for which you do not abide. This makes your criticisms completely worthless.

  34. Which sort of makes sense, WW — as a fan of big government and blaming Wall Street ahead of government, you’re just like them: applying standards to others which do not apply to you!

  35. “To the contrary — what is muddled is your reading and/or comprehension ability. Please reread what I wrote. Several times, if necessary. For I did NOT exonerate Wall Street; what I did was place ultimate blame on Washington for 1) setting up the situation which allowed the shenanigans, and 2) not doing its job with oversight. And you’re wrong about conservatives and regulations — conservatives want SENSIBLE regulations, and clearly those which oversee financial institutions and markets are sensible and NEEDED.”

    I quoted you twice and responded to your words, koolo, so do be careful of what you write, if what you rite is not what you mean. You continue to place the major blame for the “shenanigans” on Washington, which is in effect exonerating the real perps. That said, though, I do agree with you about the need for sensible regulations. I have not seen any Republican leaders calling for “sensible regulations”. Instead they call for the “free market”, meaning free from governmental regulations. You might want to ask our Editor on here about that.

    “You can cry about Wall Street all you wish, WW, but the biggest dishonorable folk are the politicians. Only THEY have more power than Wall Street and corporations — and they FAILED in their duty. THEIR ethics are out of whack, as evidenced by their exempting themselves from insider trading while you or I would go to jail for the same offense. This is why the Occupy movement and those who sympathize with them are misguided, ultimately. They should be protesting Washington, first and foremost.”

    Actually, we’re pretty much in agreement on this issue. I would only add that it has come to be that for all intents and purposes, Wall Street is Washington is Wall Street. And that, koolo, is the crux of the problem! And this is part of what the OWS movement is all about, with people, mostly young people who are greatly impacted, taking to the streets.

  36. “What is clearly relevant — and obvious — is your penchant for applying standards for which you do not abide. This makes your criticisms completely worthless.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about, koolo, but obviously this discussion is over because it becomes a waste of time when it has descended to this level!

  37. WW writes

    I have no idea what you are talking about, koolo

    Of course you don’t. Because to admit that you do means that you must admit your double standards. If it’ll help (which I doubt), 1) you do not want to apply the standards to the Occupy movement that you applied to the tea party. 2) You do not want to apply the standards to congressional/Senate Democrats that you apply to the GOP. That’s just for starters.

    Hope that helps.

  38. This famous comment of little Karl, is of course that supposedly elusive fragrance ” the essence of socialism”

    What it reveals is that the essence of socialism is not “equality”, nor the direct return of value to the producer of value, but rather an organized hive life based on a principle little Karl called mans’ species being.

    In other words because all humans need someone, and no one can live long term without anyone, you in particular are obligated to everyone. See how collectivist logic works?

    From all whose talents obligate them to produce, to those whose desires grant them the privilege of consuming. It’s called socialist balance.

  39. “stan chaz says:
    December 18, 2011 at 20:18

    You don’t need to be religious to understand -and embrace- the ideal that “Whatsoever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” ”

    Well Stan, I would say that in fact you do: Since human brotherhood of a very particular kind is envisioned by the principle you quote. I think that I am historically accurate in saying that orthodox Christian doctrine traditionally teaches that men are brothers through their son-ship relations with “The Father”.

    Now lacking that supernaturalistic predicate, some persons will be found more congenial as natural associates, and others less, and some not at all. And on a materialistic and nominalistic basis, there is no overarching reason reason for the responsible and comfortable to go out of their way to accommodate or grant inclusion at their cost to the annoying and dysfunctional.

    In fact it may not be in their long term self-interest to unqualifiedly do so.

    Certainly there may be some – on the atheistic assumption – who would still make a useful addition to “the community”, and whose inclusion would not undermine or redound negatively on what any given founder population has built up or accumulated, but as some kind of secular categorical imperative the brotherhood categorical is simply nonsense when melded with the assumptions held by most secularists.

    This doesn’t stop them from waving the predicate around though when they think it may serve some rhetorical advantage.

  40. Thanks to Ed Morrissey, I found this video:

    Here’s the story:

    The city of Los Angeles offered the Occupy movement one of its most comfortable venues. Not only did Occupiers get to bask in warm weather, unlike camps in New York City and Washington DC, they got a nice lawn on which to pitch their tents and a city administration that offered plenty of sympathy. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa even offered them some farmland and 10,000 square feet of office space in trade for the City Hall lawn space, an offer that the Occupiers might regret not taking, in retrospect.

    The city will also have its regrets as well. The local CBS affiliate reported on Wednesday that the bill has come due for the costs associated with the Occupy protests, and taxpayers may be on the hook for millions of dollars.

    The City of Los Angeles reportedly faces millions of dollars in expenses brought about by the Occupy LA movement. …

    Repairs to City Hall’s lawn where the Occupy group set up camp on Oct. 1 will require an estimated $400,000. The police action to clear out the encampment on Nov. 30 cost more than $700,000.

    Additional expenses are attributed to hauling away debris from the camp, and cleaning up graffiti that defaced City Hall marble walls and trees.

    In the ultimate irony, Villaraigosa told the media that the only way LA can pay for the damage is to cut spending elsewhere, presumably since they can’t afford to hike taxes on businesses any more than they have already. The net result will probably be reduced services to Angelenos, which is of course the opposite of what the Occupiers claimed to demand in their incoherent protests.

    If the occupiers could somehow double their IQs, they might make it all the way to idiots.

  41. This obviously does not speak well of some of the LA occupiers. But it is quite telling how Righties like Morrissey, and those who cut and paste, don’t also highlight the societal conditions that cause folks to protest. The latter always appears to be secondary, if not gone completely from the conversation, a conversation about 1 in 2 Americans living in or almost in poverty, and that 1% of our population owns 40% of our nation’s wealth. No mention from Morrissey about these problems! For shame!!!

Comments are closed.