Proposed Talking Points for OccupyWallStreet

After dropping by the Occupy Seattle non-camp ground yesterday I realized that the time has really come to begin coalescing this movement around a few basic efforts that more than the fringe can identify with.  I mean really, there might have been 100 people there, and they were all younger than 30, full of tats and dreds.  Not a middle class person amongst them.  The movement clearly needs a more inclusive theme other than nuke the banks or kill the capitalists.


This made me start thinking about what the theme might be, and today I had a great cab ride from my Client to SEATAC here in the People's republic of NorthWestia that really helped clarify my thoughts for what the talking points for the OWS movement should be.  I owe a debt of gratitude to my cabbie, an elderly gent from East Africa who spoke little English, but actively commented and drove home the points that I've been trying to clarify in my head for months now.


The conservative media has dehumanized and vilified them; most central in their message is that this is a rag tag group of discontents who have no platform to promote.  They acquaint OWS with the masked anarchists who have shown up at so many other anti-establishment protests.  And somehow they miss the point.


OWS today is an exciting example of Democracy in action.  It's gritty, unorganized.  A group of people with an enormous set of issues looking for a common direction that they can mobilize both themselves as well as a sizable chunk of the US around to make what they hope is real change.


Central to their complaints, I'll say central to OUR complaints are two themes that, if addressed would enable a democratic process to emerge in this great nation to address all the others.  I propose these as starting points to productively resolve our issues.  I think they'll both take Constitutional Amendments, but  with the power of social media and the internet certainly we can get sufficient energy around these to get them passed:


ISSUE ONE: CORRUPTION


Our current governmental system is corrupt and no longer can claim to legitimately represent us.  Our representatives are bought and paid for by wealthy individuals and corporations who, through campaign contributions buy access and action.  It's pure pay for play driven by greed, and the need to compete in dollars with other candidates.  At what point did we agree to let a dollar represent one's worth in society?  


PROPOSAL


Contributions to elected officials or candidates for public offices shall be limited to no more than one day's average wages for the bottom 20% of Americans.  It shall be a felony to give more than this amount to any elected official or candidate.  It shall be a felony to receive more than this.


PACS and other aggregators of funding shall be illegal and disbanded.  It shall be a felony to establish one, a felony to contribute to one.


ISSUE TWO:  PERSONHOOD


Last I checked our Constitution read "We the People of the United States" not "We the Businesses of the United States."  Corporations are not people, no matter what tortured legal thinking you apply to the issue.  


PROPOSAL


Corporations do not have the legal rights of persons.  Therefore they shall not be permitted to contribute or give money to any elected official or candidate for office.  A corporation found to be doing so shall have its license to do business in the jurisdiction the offense occurred REVOKED.  (If found giving money to a state official or candidate they shall be forbidden to do business in that state, if found giving money to a US Governmental official or candidate they shall have their right to do business in the US REVOKED.




By doing these two things we can take the money and power out of politics, and reintroduce a democratic process in our great nation.  We once more can have real elected representatives, not the charade of options presented by the two equally corrupt parties today.  Once we've done this we can address all the other issues the way a democracy is supposed to - by open dialog and debate.  It will be messy.  It will be contentious.  But at least it will happen, rather than being shoveled under the carpet the way it is today.

Rethinking Occupy Wall Street

So the interesting thing about Occupy Wall Street is that the protestors seem to be asking the government, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America thanks to the fiction of corporate personhood and the treasonous practice of campaign contributions, to increase regulation of the very corporations which own it. 


And then we're surprised that the police, the enforcement arm of this corrupt (and therefore I'd say illegitimate) government violate the civil rights of the protestors? This is the same government that, ignoring both our own and international laws, has been using extraordinary rendition to do away with foreign "terrorists". The same government that has executed US citizens without trial. And you're surprised?

No - it's time for a major shift in how we think about what legitimate representation is, what the role of government is in our society, and how we the people (the 99%) agree or not agree to engage in discourse or interaction with a corrupt and illegitimate government. I'd suggest a re-read of Voltaire and other Enlightenment philosophers about what a legitimate government looks like. Or even easier, re-read our own Declaration of Independence:


US Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

Dissent is Patriotic.

If you aren't pissed off then you haven't been paying attention

Once again I agree with Ron Paul - well sort of ...

Ron Paul is dead on in this piece on the need to define the sanctity of life in America, not the first time that I've agreed with him, much to my chagrin.   However, I'd guess where I'd part ways with him is on how we do this, and the implications for our domestic, economic and social policies.  I see no role for government telling a woman what to do here; having said that, I'm generally anti-abortion except in early stage pregnancies (say first trimester) and where the life of the mother is at stake.  I hear a lot of talk about incest, rape or other situations, but I think these can easily fit within that first trimester.


Ron Paul on Life

On a broader topic, that of life and the sanctity of it in general, and the need to have an agreement in place for our society to lay a moral compass for our actions - absolutely.  Having said that I'd move to two places - war and poverty.

On war - what is different between a late term abortion and sending one of our citizens to some hell hole and having them either kill or be killed?  Usually it's economics or some misguided principle of nationalism that we haven't fully though through.   I'd say it's incredibly hypocritical to be virulently anti-abortion and pro war simultaneously.

On poverty - if life is sacred, should we be focused on creating an environment where those alive can live a fulfilling, meaningful life without the pains of hunger, homelessness and sickness?  Shouldn't our public policies be maximizing the happiness of the maximum number of people we can?  How can we, the greatest nation and people ever to have existed, live with ourselves with 16% of the nation in extreme poverty, >25% of our children going hungry at night, and the degree of homelessness we have today?  I'm staggered by the evident hypocrisy of those who would try to impose their will on women through so called "pro-life" policies and dogma, yet allow this condition to perpetuate and grow worse.