Occupied

Unfortunately, they need to be asking
themselves the above question.

I am all for the Occupy movements, as I think we should all be.  Regardless of your political views, your economic views, or your moral views, the fact that we are witnesses to real American citizens exercising their right to free speech is exciting.  For over two centuries now, our military has fought for and defended that right across this world.  I think it is awesome to see it happening.

There is part of me that is interested in going down to the local rally to see what it is all about.  Personally, I am not invested in the message like the people demonstrating are, so I haven’t chosen to spend my time that way, but I applaud them just the same.

I have visited a political rally like this before, although in different circumstances.  During 2003, when I was living in London, President George W. Bush visited the UK.  Being Americans, we took an interest in our President coming to visit.  While the welcome Bush received from the government officials was nice I am sure, the welcome he would have received had he stepped into Trafalgar Square was not.

The day started with a parade, which stretched for miles through the streets of London.  The parade route ran nearby our flat, so I packed my bag and ventured out, hoping to see a little political activism of the British variety.  I threaded my way through the crowds, most of whom were young, and found a spot to stand and watch the parade right against the railing blocking off the route.  I was amazed to see who all were represented.  There were traditional Bush haters, straight-forward anti-Americans, anti-Globalists, anti-capitalists, socialists, communists, GLBT groups, anarchists, anti-Tony Blair groups, peace activists, global warming advocates, and anyone else you might imagine would make an appearance in a parade like this.

After watching for a while I decided to get some lunch.  I reached for the back of my bag to grab my iPod only to find that it had been stolen while I was watching.  How ironic that I would be watching a parade against most things America stands for, and my iPod would be stolen.  It was as if it was part of the show.

The parade eventually vomited its revelers into Trafalgar Square, sort of like London’s equivalent to Times Square in NYC, where they hung about for the rest of the day.  Massive stages had been erected on which people would deliver speeches decrying Bush and American war policies.  In one portion of the square, a giant effigy of Bush had been erected.  That night they burnt the effigy.

Passing through Trafalgar Square was only a small detour on my way to the theater from the flat, so I stopped by.  The mood was a little too excited and Bacchanal for this American, and while I was never spoken to, stopped, or even noticed, I still felt uncomfortable being there.  Needless to say, I didn’t hang about.

I still think about the parade and rally when I see demonstrations on TV.  Nowadays, it seems like peaceful rallies like this (with the exception of the burning of the Bush effigy) are always infiltrated with a few violent, dysfunctional people whose sole agenda is causing chaos.  No longer does it seem that a demonstration can simply be that, instead turning quickly from peaceful movement to riot.

I am glad to see that most of the Occupy movements have managed to maintain their peaceful nature for the most part.  The recent escalation of violence between protestors and police is a disappointing development in this truly American movement.  I hope that Occupy has not transitioned to Occupied as so many other demonstrations and rallies around the world have.

My hope is that these disenfranchised people, regardless of their individual messages, will be able to solidify and provide an agenda to present to the public.  Only through doing that will they free themselves from the infiltration of chaotic elements.  Only then will a true discussion emerge instead of today’s extremely fragmented and unguided conversation.

For those of you who disagree with the general message around which the Occupy movements are organized, I hope you can find a place in your heart to respect their right to do so.  As Voltaire is credited with saying: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

While I certainly do not wish it to come to any sort of defending to the death, I stand behind the Occupy movement in principal and hope it can manifest the order it needs to expel all negative and violent intentions as it develops its unified voice.

Greed is Good

Greed is good.  These are the famous words spoken by Gordon Gekko, Michael Douglas’ character from the movies Wall Street, and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.  Gekko is a stock trader, driven by the investment game, always on the prowl for the trade that will make him more wealthy and famous.  For Gekko, greed is the driving factor.  He is owned by both his material possessions and by the opinions others have of him.  Without them, he is nothing.

For many of us, greed seems like a game only the wealthy can play.  We associate greed with only the wealthy, refraining to consider that we ourselves could be greedy.  In my last blog - Aiming Higher - I discussed the drives that push each of us.  I used myself, my wife, and a local school as  examples of people who were striving towards success.  Do we live up to the Gordon Gekko model?  Are we greedy?

First, lets analyze what greed is.  Webster defines greed as a selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed.  This definition seems to be extremely broad considering the way greed is bandied about today.  Typically we associate greed with money and power.  The current Wall Street protest #OccupyWallStreet is centered around the idea that the powerful and wealthy are driving down our future through their hoarding of money.  If they were less concerned with their own wealth, then the future of the country and the global economy would be much brighter than it seems to be today.

Is this true?  Milton Friedman, a conservative economist from whom Reaganomics originated, has a well known youtube video in which he discusses greed on Phil Donahue’s show. 

Friedman argues that all successful societies in the history of man have been centered around a free market economy fueled by greedy individuals.  Further, he declares that even in socialist and communist societies, greed still exists, though the market to exploit greedy drives is absent.  

I agree with Mr. Friedman.  Greed is prevalent in all societies.  The brilliance of capitalism lies in society’s ability to harness the powers of greed to better the lives of its citizens.  The United States of America would not be where it is today without the shrewd businessmen of the past who have driven our industry and economy to the peak of human wealth.

Unfortunately, after every peak there is a descent (read The Long Ride to see how this applies to life in general).  There seems to be a point in a free market economy where the have’s seem to have it all.  We are not at that point yet, but the fact that 10% of our population owns 90% of our wealth would suggest that the United States is close.  Factor in the current economic conditions, news stories highlighting CEOs earning massive bonuses while losing their companies money, and the plight of the unemployed and poor, and it is easy to see why #OccupyWallStreet has its sights set on financial district of New York City.

Back to my examples from Aiming Higher.  I freely admitted that one of my goals as a drill writer and marching arranger is to make money.  I enjoy the work and appreciate seeing the work of my mind produced and carried out in real time, as well, but I love to get the checks in the mail.  Does this make me greedy?  I don’t think it does.

I believe that the drive to be successful is separate from the drives associated with greed.  The drive towards success can be corrupted and lead towards greed, but I do not think the two are intimately intertwined.

Where is the point where they separate and consideration of individual success becomes something negative?  To me, that point lies in the choice to pursue something that serves your interest at the acknowledged destruction of others.  Enron is one of the best modern examples of corporate greed.  The drive to succeed, which in this case was evidenced by a rising stock price, was corrupted into a drive to make money.  Executives fabricated earnings reports, causing the stock price to artificially inflate.  When the scheme was discovered, the stock collapsed, leaving those who had trusted their financial welfare to Enron’s stock value crushed.

Greed lies in the purpose, the intent behind the action.  Samantha is driven towards owning a successful Mary Kay business by the opportunities it affords her as an individual and a woman, and the financial opportunities it offers our family.  If she allows those drives to corrupt her integrity to the point where she is taking advantage of other people and consciously causing others harm for her own benefit, then her drive to succeed has become greedy.

The Oak Ridge High School Band (donate here) seeks funding to offer its students the opportunity to experience something unique in the Macy’s Parade.  If the director’s somehow had their only welfare in mind when applying for, accepting, and promoting the parade, then they could be called greedy.  But, as long as their motivations take into consideration the wellbeing of others, they are not.

Greed is less of an action and more of a mind set.  Gordon Gekko’s actions pushed past the edge of a reasonable drive towards success, leading him to believe that greed is good.  While I agree with him to a point, too much greed can be a very bad thing.