Notes From the Occupation: Black Friday Edition

So, can we be surprised by this:

When authority figures do this?

Let’s face it, people in authority legitimize behaviors when they engage in them.  Just as we learn behaviors through childhood by watching our parents and teachers (the authorities), as adults we tend to consider the actions of authority figures to be legitimate.  Therefore, when the authorities assault peaceful people who are in the way, it can be no surprise when regular people do the same.

Something about leading by example comes to mind…

Veteran’s Day 2011

So I thought a lot about what to write for Veteran’s Day.  It’s hard, as someone who did not serve in the armed forces, to have much of anything to say about it without sounding trite and manufactured.  I thought so long about it, actually, that my Veteran’s Day post did not make it up in time for Veteran’s Day, much to my chagrin.  But, without further introductory digression, here goes…

My daughter’s 5th grade class wrote letters to our service members in Afghanistan and Iraq this week.  Most had similar themes, all of which I would say are extremely important.  They wrote about our gratitude for the sacrifice of our men and women in combat, and how much we appreciate their service in defense of our nation’s security and our liberty.   They wrote about how they thought soldiers were admirable Americans who embodied many of our most cherished qualities.  Some wrote about how strongly they wished to see our soldiers home safe and sound.  Many wrote about how much they missed their own family members who were overseas in service to the United States.

And one little boy wrote, “I think you guys are awesome because you kill people.”

My kid was troubled by this, enough so that she felt it necessary to talk to me about it (and if you have kids in the pre-teen or teen years, you know how big a deal something has to be before they’ll talk to their, ugh, parents).  She didn’t feel that her classmate really appreciated the overall point of the exercise, sure, but more than that, she was bothered by the concept of someone being admired for taking the lives of others, and the idea that some soldiers might actually only be interested in that aspect of their service.

It bothered me a little, too.

But as we talked, a realization came to me.  Soldiers are people.  And just like any group of people, there is no complete homogeneity when it comes to motives.  There are soldiers who join because they genuinely desire to serve the nation, and to be a part of something greater than themselves.  Some join because it is a family tradition.  Some because it offers far greater opportunities than they would otherwise have access to.  Some because they want to see the world.  I’m pretty sure my brother’s main motivation for joining the Marines was because it was a great workout, and he wanted to prove he could hack it.

And there are probably those who join because they want to kill people.

After all, while the purpose of the military is to defend the nation (and our military is damned good at that, no question), the means by which they do it often require killing those who would otherwise do harm to the rest of us.  There’s a reason that, whatever their specialized training (flying planes, intelligence work, engineering, etc.), one thing that all American service people learn is how to kill people.  They’re better at it than anyone else in the world.  It’s not something that the vast majority of our military wants to do, mind you.  I’m not calling soldiers a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs, and I would never be so ignorant as to lump them all together like that.  But there are times when they have to kill, and there are those who enjoy it.  To say otherwise is to deny that they are human.

And here’s where I get to what I really want to say.

This Veteran’s Day, can we, who have not served in that capacity, finally stop fetishizing the military?  Our men and women in uniform are, by and large, remarkable people, possessed of great courage and exemplary character.  But at the end of the day they are people, and as a society we have turned them into the infallible heroes of ancient tales, immeasurably strong and completely above the failings of we mere mortals.  Many in our culture have taken the leap from admiration to worship, and it’s unhealthy for all involved.

Think about what it means when we think of our military in this way.

Is it fair for us to hold people to such a standard?  No question that the service they provide is noble, honorable, and definitely necessary.  But these are still people, with human failings and human frailties.  No matter how much we might like to think otherwise, our soldiers are not supermen.  And when we look at them in this way we are much more likely to be cavalier about putting them in harm’s way.  I’d say the job is probably hard enough without the rest of us thinking that they can handle anything and everything without any difficulty.  Maybe some of the sabre-rattling we hear would die down if our leaders didn’t just assume the military is full of ultimate weapons.  I suspect that both civilian and soldier alike would benefit from society being more apprehensive about going to war, don’t you?

When we view the uniform as a superhero’s costume, it becomes that much easier to say “suck it up and be a man (or woman, as the case may be).”  It gets that much easier to deny that there may be catastrophic events in their lives, from which they may never fully recover.  It’s that much easier to call PTSD sufferers weak and deny that they suffer at all.  It’s that much easier to tell a soldier, who served in combat and is now out on medical discharge, that he couldn’t hack it in the real man’s military.  It gets that much easier to deny benefits to veterans so that we can pay a fraction of a percent less in taxes.  Failing to provide proper equipment weighs on the conscience so much less when we all know Superman is bulletproof anyway, right?

Not every soldier suffers such trauma.  A great many look at their service as the experience that most positively affected their lives.  Many go through their entire military career without anything causing them much in the way of emotional stress.  Many look at their service as the very best time of their lives.  Others take immense pride in performing their duties to the very best of anyone’s ability, let alone their own.  Others are ashamed of having done it.  Still others would say it was the worst thing they ever did.  And some have been destroyed by it.

That’s the point.  All of our soldiers are people.  Beyond that, saying they are all anything is to deny them their humanity, and thus cease treating them like people.  We really should stop doing that.

______________________________________________________

*To all who have served in the uniform of the United States, I am grateful to you for your service.  In performing it, you honor all of us, and we honor you.  Most importantly, I respect you as people.  Happy Veteran’s Day.*

Notes From The Occupation: Introductory Edition

So Occupy Wall Street and its spinoffs have been going on for a couple of months now.  Here in Denver, it’s been about five weeks.  It seems mainstream media is paying more and more attention to the movement, but even with the increase in news stories about the Occupation, and even with more commentators discussing issues pertinent to the movement, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there regarding what the Occupation is about.  There’s a very good reason for this:  No one really knows, specifically, what the Occupation is really about.  In some respects, it’s partially because the media has no real vested interest in actually exploring, in depth, the root cause of the protest. There is also the fact that there are no real spokespeople to speak for the Occupiers, and therefore there’s no concrete message to point to.  And of course, there’s the fact that the Occupiers themselves can’t seem to agree on any definitions, and in fact seem genuinely opposed to having clearly defined goals.  But all that being the case, please allow me to give you a brief introduction to Occupy Denver, as I see it based on the people I meet.

Weekend Occupiers

I have a good job.  I’m lucky in that respect and I know it.  That being the case, I tend to only join the Occupiers on the weekend, when I have some free time between my responsibilities to my job and to my family.  On those weekends, there are a lot of people like me present.  These people are responsible, working adults.  Typically, they have enough education and experience to know how to work within the system, but because of their knowledge of the system, they are privy to its failings.  The weekend Occupier has a very clear view of the glass ceiling we all face in the business world, and they recognize how difficult it is to make it, even with gainful employment.  The weekend Occupiers haven’t been as victimized by the Great Recession as others, but they also know they could be, and they want to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Professional Occupiers

Professional Occupiers are the reason the Occupation has its name.  These folks have lost everything, or almost so.  They would love to have a job to go to every day that would take them away from Occupying Wall Street (or Lincoln Park, as the case may be in Denver).  The fact that they don’t, and that their prospects of getting one despite their qualifications are slim at best, coupled with the fact that their finances have been predated while their employment opportunities have been shipped overseas, leaves them with little else to do.  They would attend town hall meetings like the Tea Party did, but there are fewer and fewer town halls to attend, and many are now charging admission that the unemployed cannot afford.  And while I agree with the remarkably insightful and intelligent Jim Wright over on Stonekettle Station that voting is absolutely key, there is more to forcing change than the ballot.  Time and again we have seen politicians get elected based on one platform, and then immediately do an about-face to pursue something entirely different than what they were elected to do.  What, then, are people left with?  Whether you agree with them or not, they are making their voices heard in the only way they feel they can.

Opportunists

Not all opportunists are bad.  Some are simply homeless people who have seen a large concentration of free food, supplies, and company.  This is how many of the homeless have spent years of their lives, small wonder that they take the opportunity to avail themselves of such resources now.  And besides, of all the people victimized by institutionalized greed and the indifference of the “haves,” aren’t the homeless the group with the most significant grievance?  They belong there.  And they should be helped and aided by anyone who identifies with the 99% movement.  They are the first victims of class warfare.

But there are other opportunists.  Drug puchers.  Pimps.  Thieves.  Violent extremists and various other criminals.  While I admire the inclusiveness of the Occupation, there have to be limits.  When it comes to these people, the ones who give the movement a bad name (and frankly, whose behavior is opposite the non-violence the movement is trying to promote), the Occupiers need to make sure these assholes know that they will not be tolerated.  It needs to be crystal clear that if you’re hurting or exploiting people, you are not one of us.  You are everything we’re against.  You need to get the fuck out.  I have no patience for these people, and I have no problem excluding them from an otherwise very inclusive organization.  No one is better for being so open-minded as to tolerate that shit.

Anyway, that’s how Occupy Denver looks to me.  I’m actually traveling for business for a while, so it will be a couple weeks before I get back down to the Occupation.  But I’m optimistic that the Occupation will still be going strong when I get back.

Just When I Though I Had The Perfect Post…

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi beats me to it.  Oh, well.  You should read him anyway.  Pretty damned good stuff.

But there will be more about the Occupation in TWOP, coming very, very soon!

Personal Responsibility, or The Difference Between Can & Should

Anyone remember this quote from Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm character in Jurassic Park?  It was always one of my favorites.  Funny thing is, I’ve always looked at this line as extraordinarily relevant to what being an American is all about, and it exemplifies that “personal responsibility” that seems to be all the rage to talk about these days.  There are an awful lot of people out there, though, for whom Malcolm’s admonition never even becomes a factor.  Sarah Palin and her crosshairs represent one such example.  Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about Donovan McNabb are another.  And then there’s this line in a comment thread from some ignorant waste of space and her attacks on people in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests:

“I’m sure if they have no jobs then they must be living off the government getting unemployment, food and probably housing and healthcare interesting how we’re do quick to jump on the wealthy but what about the bottom feeders living off of the government just because they can….. Having 8 damn kids by 8 different guys, standing in line at Walmart in their cellulite ridden stretch pants…. But let me guess it’s the wealthy’s fault that they make so much right?? “

And when called out on the utter ignorance of her tirade:

“I am entitled to my own opinions like them or not, educated or not, I can say what i want when i want.”

Of course you can say what you want when you want.  I would never deny anyone the right to free speech.  Never mind the fact that calling this person ignorant is clearly more fact-based than her ridiculous stereotypes of protesters.  Evidently, she is allowed to say whatever she wants, while people protesting in the streets are just a bunch of rabble who should shut the fuck up and get a damn job.  And to call her on such bullshit is apparently an attack on her right to free speech.  But I digress (as I am wont to do).

Here’s the thing.  Just because you can say something doesn’t mean you should.  It’s the ability to discern the difference that made the nation’s founders comfortable with guaranteeing that right in our foundational documents.  When the first amendment was written, I somehow doubt that the intent was to protect the right of every self-righteous, moralistic, emotional thinker to go out and spew false accusations of moral turpitude at entire groups of people without ever taking the time or effort to find out if there is any basis to the accusation in the first place.  The amendment has that effect, yes. But there’s that personal responsibility thing again.

See, personal responsibility, as it pertains to speech, is a lot like journalistic integrity.  There is nothing specifically illegal about a headline like

OBAMA WANTS TO SELL AMERICA TO MARTIAN SOCIALISTS!

You see, there is nothing provably false in this accusation.  Since there are no martians, and even fewer martian socialists (the red planet loves its free markets), there is no way the President could sell our nation to them.  In addition, the President lacks the authority to sell the country anyway.  And finally, one can always claim editorial license when it comes to public figures.  After all, how do we know he doesn’t want to sell us all into bondage to our socialist martian overlords, where we will work the iron mines of Olympus Mons until we all die of the martian clap.  You can’t disprove it.  One could always argue that he would if he could.  Therefore, this would be protected speech under the first amendment. It’s an opinion and you have a right to it.

But running this headline would be a dozen different kinds of irresponsible, and so you don’t see that headline coming from any respected news source.  And even more importantly, people who care about credibility do research, so that people will believe them when they say something.  Some people care about whether or not what they say is true instead of just shouting whatever moronic drivel falls from their brain like a puppy pissing on the floor.  This is where should comes in over can.

I can claim that John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor probably spent the weekend performing a three-way around the world with Charles (or was it David) Koch, and that he paid them all in pennies that he made them bob for in a tub full of sweet, sweet crude.  That’s just my opinion.  I have a right to it.

Or, I could say that I think all the Occupiers in Denver are a bunch of drunken, spoiled trust-fund babies who are just living off their mommy and daddy’s money while they leech off society and waste resources that are better used helping people who really need it (like Citi).  Besides, they’re just picking on the rich because they’re jealous and they think they’re entitled to have everything for free.  They should just go out and get a job, duh!

I could say all those things.  But because I’m a responsible adult, I never would (well, except for the Boehner thing.  I’m pretty sure that may have actually happened).

That’s what personal responsibility is all about.  Of course you have a right to say what you want when you want to, so long as it doesn’t directly cause harm to someone (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.).  I have every right to spend the next 72 hours doing nothing but watching internet porn and drinking Thunderbird “wine” until I pass out with a slick, vaseline-covered hard-on in my living room.  I have every right to simply walk away from my job, bills, and family, and tell every single person I see for the rest of my life to eat shit and die.  But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

That’s what our nation’s framers were banking on when they guaranteed such rights in our Constitution.  They were taking a gamble that we would all be responsible adults who would think about what we said before saying it.  They bet that we wouldn’t spend our time deriding people we had never met and knew nothing about, because seriously, what kind of ignorant asshat even does  that?  They hoped beyond hope that we wouldn’t allow emotion to cloud our logic, that we’d learn relevant facts before making our judgements, and that reason and compassion would be the basis of everything we did.  They assumed that future generations would be able to tell the difference between can and should.

Poor bastards, they had no idea.