OWS: This Food is for the Privileged! UPDATED

Perhaps the people who want to keep on receiving the more upscale meals could (wait for it) pay for them. That would serve the dual purpose of recompensing the chefs for their time and effort and making sure that only the “deserving”, who are willing to sacrifice to maintain the occupation, get the yummy food.

Sheesh.

(((It’s not a judgment. It’s just the world, as it really is.)))

There was a begger outside our church and long story short, after mass while looking him in the eyes, I started preaching to him that if he wanted some food, we were told that he should knock on the church door and all the food he needed would be given to him.

I hear ya! You’re off topic again.

Sorry!

Forgive U>S (usual sinners) Father for we know not what we do.

Peace

So, if I follow your logic, such as it is, anyone who would object to the kind of inequalities in wealth we have between the richest of the rich and everyone else is, ipso facto, a socialist. That’s the only way the claim that this is a “living experiment in socialism” makes any sense (along with the scattered and repeated claims that OWS participants are (apparently necessarily) socialists). Therefore, Blessed John Paul II was himself, according to your logic, a socialist.

Of course, that’s probably more likely than that OWS isn’t a living experiment in any one thing, that you can’t really pin it down with one or two catchy or controversial labels, right? After all, “the world as it really is” is either one thing or the other, right? Either you’re a full-blooded, unregulated free-marketeering capitalist or a red-blooded, Internationale-singing socialist. Any regulation of the economic system is creeping socialism. Any admission that free markets are very useful ordering devices, given certain conditions, entails total commitment to Robber Baronism.

I think we can, and should, agree that we can civilly and respectfully and fraternally disagree about what the right combination of economic regulation and deregulation is and why that may be the case. But when we become so totalizing that we consider anyone not with us on political or social questions to be ipso facto wholly against us (and, therefore, wrong, of course), perhaps we should take some quiet time to examine whether our first priority should be the humbling of our own hearts first.

In all the above, I have assumed, consistent with the canons of charitable interpretation, that you’re not willfully missing the point, though the “update” to this post makes me question my assumption. After all, the very story linked to notes: “Knowing a teaching opportunity when they see one, the parents Ms. Olen interviewed talked about using the protest as a chance to talk about income equality, the right to protest and the joy of being part of a large movement committed to social change.” So apparently spending time with your kids, trying to teach them values, and generally, you know, parenting, is cause for you sneering at those parents, because they frankly admit that, for whatever reasons, they didn’t want to hire a babysitter, so they just used the protests as a parental teaching moment. But let’s pick out one quote, assume what their motivations really are, and then smear them for it….

["Either you’re a full-blooded, unregulated free-marketeering capitalist or a red-blooded, Internationale-singing socialist." Well, I'm not either of those things. I just had a long and excellent exchange with an "anarchist communist" on twitter that probably would surprise you. But I won't bore you with it. You've already made up your mind simply because I choose to find ironic humor in some of this. I found some in the tea party, too. admin]

Anonsters, following your own line of thinking, is everyone who points out some of the things suspect things the OWS movement has done (the hypocrisy over the food service, the anti-semetic slogans, the clashes with police, etc.) simply doing it because they adore capitalism, the free market?

Is any reportage on the OWS that shows its members as anything less than angelic idealists somehow wrong? Are we simply supposed to parrot, “Yah, yah, yah, they’re all just honest idealists, protesting. . . (Um, what exactly? No one seems to be sure. A lot of them don’t like capitalism, and seem to like socialism—an unworkable economic system. They’re not happy with the way things are now—but who is? And constantly blaming “The Rich” and “Wall Street” smacks to me of envy, and ignorance. The government, and too many people in too many high places bear some responsibility for the current economic woes, as well as the voters themselves, who helped put them into office. And rioting? That’s just trying to rule by thugocracy.)

There is absolutely nothing in common between the OWC and the Tea Party. Zero. The Tea Party from day one was a movement with very clearly defined goals. Small government, less spending. It ignited when the new administration seemed to be spending as if there was no end, no limit and with the influx of things that would take away the rights outlined in the Constitution.

OWS seems to have one message. We hate the rich and this country should take away what they have and give it to us. The OWS message was quickly supported by the US communist party and people like Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore who is against the rich except when it is his money. There he sues to get more of it. I also find it interesting when someone points out that the way some are framing the debate that they are taking socialist positions, there is great angst. What happens in every socialist takeover in history? The government moves in to take over everything and set up government controls with those in power and associated with the government doing very well and everyone else, including the poor, doing very poorly. Those who want to get everyone mad and organized set up targets such as the rich, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, banks, wall street, company CEO’s, and anyone else who has worked hard and been successful. The fools think that if they join this new mob, their life will get better and it never does but they only find this out later because few of them bother to learn history.

Now we learn that Soros is at it again using his money to stir up hatred and venom to try to bring about revolution and he has his Acorn haters and agitators on the payroll to stir up this mess. and of course we have the COIC (Community Organizer in Charge) backing the mob because that is all he ever learned to do as witnessed by his total inablity to lead.

bob c., nice way to hijack the thread, by going on and on about the Koch brothers, and Roger (whoever he is) Aisles.

(The Anchoress doesn’t know them. However, I call them every morning, and given them their marching orders—just so you know. I also write Limbaugh’s scripts.)

You do know who George Soros is, right?

By the way, Greta, good post.

OWS is such an inspiration to this “talented young artist”. Interesting that there is not much comment in the US MSM about this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053904/Occupy-Wall-Street-inspired-artist-hangs-banker-dummy-telephone-wire.html#ixzz1bwZ6la00

Thanks for the post anchoress. There are many more ironic things happening with this crowd-semoething new every day.
Great discription of what is going on behind the scenes Greta.

Ya found me out, Doc!

Valleys, George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Gore and various and sundry Hollywood stars and pundits are extremely rich—and yet you never hear anyone on the left criticizing them for their machinations, and manipulation of events; Soros has meddled in various foreign economies, but you never hear a peep from the Left about him. He’s on the right side, you see. Nor have I heard any leftwing criticism of ACORN, and the unions, who have, reportedly been orchestrating many of the events at OWS.

(And, yes, many of the actions and attitudes of the OWS folks, such as spouting anti-semetism, jeering at ordinary people going to work, calling for those they don’t like to be beheaded and fighting with the cops are pretty distasteful. Yes, I know—I’m just judgmental that way.)

And please, please, please, pretty please with a great big heaping slab of sugar on top, please stop trying to get us “Hate” bankers, or the Koch brothers (who are, probably, rather hateful—but, then, so are Moore and Soros)—or get us to “hate” any group! Selecting an enemy, and telling people they’re the ones responsible for all their woes, be they Jews, Bankers, Capitalists, Counter-revolutionaries, neo-liberals, Kulaks, etc. is, pure and simple, Marxist Agit-prop. It’s an appeal to the base emotion of envy, and the even baser politics of class warfare, which is supposed to make us blindly support our “saviors” who going to rescue us from these evil beings and support them, and their political agendas, without question. After all, if we don’t, we’re just supporting “Evil Bankers,” right?

When the banks started collapsing, partly due to the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and giving out home loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, the rockbound conservatives and heartless Republicans were pretty much in favor of letting them fail, and letting the free market run its course. We were told that the banks were too big to fail. The heartless conservatives said bailing them out wasn’t a good idea, and that in an economy such as ours, no one is too big to fail. The heartless conservatives were told they were heartless, the banks were bailed out, stimulus money was thrown out left and right, we were told prosperity was just around the corner, because the banks had been saved!

Somehow, it didn’t work out that way. Now the banks are the bad guys.

Wall Street, and the banks, have been some of the biggest backers, and contributors, to President Obama, by the way. This is not a revolution we’re seeing, on Wall Street; revolutions are against governments, but OWS has received support from President Obama himself, as well as Pelosi, and other polticos (not to mention the various mayors and city officials who’ve let them camp out in public spaces for weeks on end—something we ordinary citizens would never be allowed to do.)

Myself, I wonder why so many people flare up at the slightest criticism of OWS? It’s as if we’re supposed to see them as angels, perfectly pure and idealistic. Anyone who doesn’t like them has been, supposedly, brainwashed by the nefarious Koch brothers, or loves those evil bankers; there couldn’t be any other reason for not liking them, right?

I don’t like bankers, per se. But I also don’t like the politicians who are also responsible for the current mess, or the American people who’ve supported many of the policies that helped bring it about.

There’s plenty of blame to go around.

I was in the middle of writing a quite lengthly response when I accidentally hit the X button. I suppose I’ll be back to say pretty much the exact same things another time though!