The Illusion of Choice

   The majority of the world's economy is based on some form of capitalism.  The idea behind capitalism, especially in its laissez-faire form, is that competitive markets of privately owned industries work to increase the growth of our economy and act to control prices through competition and supply and demand.  The strength of such an economy lies in the diversity of its participants, just as diversity is the strength of an ecosystem.  Competition is incredibly important in promoting the health of the economy and, frequently, the people and environment.  Theoretically, as consumers, we can essentially choose between those producers based on their price, quality, and even behavior within society.  We vote with our dollars as to whom is going to succeed and who is going to fail.  The higher the number of competitors, the higher the impact of with whom we choose to spend as market share is spread in reasonable quantities amongst the products of that segment of the industry.  A problem arises, however, when the number of competitors decrease as our options of with whom to "vote with our dollars" has diminished impact.  Called an oligopoly, this kind of market can either create fierce competition or collusion.

Oligopolies have other effects beyond fierce competition and collusion.  In an oligopoly, a mere handful of companies control the market in which they participate.  This creates, in itself, very powerful entities with extreme economic power that create a barrier to entry for a new producer to join the market.  In a sense, it's like imagining a fight between a pit bull and a chihuahua.  Although there may be the unique instance where a chihuahua may win, most of the time the bigger dog is going to be successful.  In an oligopoly, a winning chihuahua is more likely to be acquired and absorbed into the larger competitor.  In fact, one of the most common and frequently used corporate strategies is acquisition.  Regardless of whether the acquired companies succeeds or fails post-acquisition, it still acts in the parent corporation's best interest by eliminating competition.   This is, essentially, the death of the "American Dream". 

My father was one of those dreamers.  In 1976 with a mere $10,000, he became a service station dealer.  By around 1999, his $10,000 investment had grown into a corporation that was valued at $32 million in capital assets.  According to one of Texaco's marketing representatives at the time, my father's sales constituted 50% of all gasoline sales west of the Willamette River and was the largest volume gasoline dealer in the entire Pacific Northwest.  Thinking back to the pit bull vs. chihuahua analogy, it's not surprising what happened to his business.  Just a year later, Texaco, his host brand, attempted to acquire his company for $30 million.  My father refused and for a variety of reasons, some of which Texaco itself had a large hand in, his company is no more.  No matter what tactic my father tried, Shell-Texaco's control of the gasoline market followed him until his business was no more.  I do not think that my father's own experience is something novel or unique.  Instead, it is simply par for the course and something that occurs in nearly every industry. 

To prove my theory that the power of oligopolies and their acquisition strategies have put a relatively unseen stranglehold on competition and an entry barrier, I did what anyone has to do on an at least once a week basis--I went grocery shopping.  I headed down to Safeway (yet another large corporate entity) and grabbed a cart.  My goal for my shopping trip wasn't simply to pick up the Throwback Pepsi that I adore.  It was to actually start looking at what was lining the shelves themselves.  As a mom, I can probably list off at least a hundred different food brands from Frito-Lay to Kraft Mac and Cheese to Progresso soups.  I have considered myself to be a fairly ethical consumer who tends to purchase the less commonly known brands in an effort to at least give what I perceive as "chihuahuas" a bit of chance for my economic "vote".   We don't eat Ball Park or Oscar Meyer hot dogs--we eat Hebrew National.  I only buy Oroweat because I know that Oroweat has bakeries in the area and I want to support my local community.   Just like I am more likely to buy a Reser's brand food item than say Mission because it is in support of my local economy.  Walking through a grocery store, we seemingly have at our disposal a veritable smorgasbord of brands to choose from.   It isn't true.

Starting in the produce section, who is selling what is really hard to glean but I am aware that a number of farms have been accumulated into super farms of a sort.  I'm not going to even try to figure out who grew the lettuce I bought yesterday.  It's simply too hard but the moment I started passing through the rest of the aisles and actually looking at labels on some of the foods randomly, I began seeing a common theme.  It became almost poignant in the cereal aisle where the mass majority of that particular aisle consisted of either three brands--Kellogg's, Post, or General Mills. Even what appeared to be small brand less familiar cereals generally fell under the blanket of one of those three.  It was with near desperation that I finally found a cereal that was not affiliated with one of those three companies--Barbara's cereal.  In the basket, it went alongside the two heads of lettuce probably grown on a super farm. 

From product to product as I, with increasing panic, examined labels of what I perceived to be various brands, I discovered that a massive percentage of the food stocking the shelves at Safeway and probably any other grocery store--even locally owned--ended up going to one of 4 major food industry producers--ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs, or Kraft.  My estimate is that at least 75% of the total shelf space within a grocery store is being utilized by one of these four companies.  I had always known on some level that many of our products lining our grocery store shelves probably were part of a larger corporation but I had never really considered just how extensive it was.  By the time I left the grocery store, I was in a state of shock.  It was far worse than I had ever imagined.  When I got home, I was frantically scouring the labels of the products that lined my own shelves.  ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs or Kraft--nearly everything my children and I eat was manufactured by one of these four companies.  Even my ethical choice, my beloved "Hebrew National" hotdogs were merely yet another brand owned by ConAgra.  My beloved Oroweat?  Well that turns out to be a brand under Bimbo Bakeries.  They are apparently one of the world's largest bakeries and also make Wonderbread.

When we walk into a grocery store, we think we have so much choice when it comes to who is going to be the recipient of our voting dollar.  Unless we want to make everything from scratch, what we face as we go through the aisles isn't really freedom of choice.  It's the illusion of choice.  It's sad and ironic that the only areas where there seemed to be more diversity of choice in Safeway was in the beer and wine departments and on the dog food shelves.  Some of you may not think that this is necessarily a bad thing but it's actually a breathtakingly, horrifying situation that we find ourselves in.  Thinking back upon what I have previously said in regards to the importance of diversity within a market to not only promote growth within the economy but also assure the health of both people and the environment, it is absolutely disturbing that the companies who are feeding us the majority of our foodstuffs are in fact an oligopoly.  We are talking about the sustenance of our lives.  That's chilling and no matter how hard you try to find an alternative, odds are what you are going to eat, what you're going to feed your children will most likely still go to those four companies. 

We wonder how the hell we got into this economic situation where economic wealth has been piling up towards the top 1%.  This is part of the reason how.  We think we have all these differing choices and, in actuality, it's all an illusion--magic trick of different product name and fine print.   Below are links to the product listings of ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg's and Kraft.  See for yourself the reality of your choice. 

ConAgra
General Mills
Kellogg's
Kraft

Under the Cover of Night

Part of being a School of Business and Administration student in a post-Enron world consists of a mandatory course in Business Ethics.  I, myself, took this a step further and chose to take a morality cluster as my senior capstone.  This included three additional courses in philosophy and I chose an introduction to philosophy course, an additional ethics course and environmental ethics.  I felt that these three courses would assist me in rounding out my worldviews before entering into a system that can seem to be frequently neglectful in both social and environmental ethics.  Of all the ethics tests that I was taught, however, there was one specific test of making an ethical choice that has been pervasive in my memory.  When confronted with an ethical dilemma and one is about to make a choice, one should ask themselves, "is this something that I wouldn't want my family, friends and neighbors to know about?".  To me, the reality of the impact of making a tough ethical choice is driven home with this question.  Who would know better than Bernie Madoff what it is like to see the impact of a choice and its often profound effect on one's loved ones?   For those who aren't familiar with the particulars of Bernie Madoff, he was the man who was a founder of NASDAQ and also of a monumental Ponzi Scheme, for which two of his own sons turned him in to the authorities for.  One of his sons killed himself just a few years ago.  Madoff's story illustrates the power of an unethical choice and its tragic effect.  Our choices impact our loved ones without question and asking the question, "would I want them to know?", forces the questioner to understand the choice and all of its ramifications that they are about to make. 

If we are attempting to hide our choice, does that mean that the choice that we have made is the wrong one?  In late September in New York City, peaceful protesters were attempting to march up to the New York Stock Exchange.  The New York Police Department blocked their way and began corralling them with orange nets.  Then, shockingly, a few of the members of the NYPD chose to, what I would unequivocally describe as, assault some of these protesters.  The now perhaps overplayed video clip of several young women being sprayed in the face by pepper spray was broadcast over a couple national news channels and went viral on Youtube.  The identity of the police inspector was revealed and he and his family promptly went into hiding due to the level and frequency of angry threats in response to  his actions. 

Call me strange, but over watching the events unfold over the course of the past month, I almost respect Inspector Bologna for making his choice so visible to the public.  Did he realize the impact of his actions?  Who is to say but, considering how many people have cellphones with video cameras on them, he had to at least know that perhaps someone would make a video.  He made no attempt to hide his actions, pepper spraying those young women in broad daylight.  He even went so far as to state that he felt that he had done nothing wrong.  While I could list out a dozen counters as to why I personally feel like what he did was inhumane and most definitely morally reprehensible, I can still afford him respect for letting his action occur in the light of day.  If only all of our police departments were so forthcoming and open about their own actions as Inspector Bologna.

  What has been taking place over the course of this last month has been nothing but actions taking place in the middle of the night or very early, dark morning hours.   Seattle, Oakland, Boston, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Austin, Richmond, Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington DC, St. Louis, Denver, and more have been sites of police actions that aren't taking place in broad daylight.  They take place at night between the hours of midnight and 5 am.   They take place in darkened streets where cell phones have difficulty filming what is taking place. On the night of the Oakland raid on the march in protest of what had occurred early that morning to the Occupy camp, the Oakland Police went so far as to turn off the streetlights as they threw tear gas into the crowd.   The action temporarily eliminated even the aerial view being streamed by a Fox news helicopter. 

Countless times, I have heard news media ordered away before riot police entered these camps.  Countless times, I've heard the cries of distressed outrage from protesters being arrested when they felt protected by the First Amendment.   Too many times, I have heard screams.  I have seen dark images of veterans being dragged to the ground and protesters being hit by batons.  Despite the cover of night, I have seen too much.  This cannot be my beloved country where such things are happening.  I often wonder if this is just a bad nightmare and wish that I'll wake up to the way things were before I saw and heard these things.  Unfortunately, this is no bad dream and this is my beloved country.  As such, I have no choice but to ask of our government officials and police departments, why in the cover of night? 

If you are going to make a choice, then make that choice in broad daylight.  Be confident of the choice that you make and all choices thereafter by making the choice in broad daylight.  Using the cover night, ordering media away--these are the actions of those who feel as if they have something to hide.  If one's choice is truly ethical and based on sound reasoning, then there would be no need for any of this.  Removal of camps and arrests of protesters would take place during the day where all can be witness to what has occurred.   It all returns back to that question that should be asked when confronted with an ethical dilemma--would I want my family, friends and neighbors to know what choice I have made?   What actions have I done? If the answer is that one doesn't want them to know, then the choice about to be made does not stand up to the light of day.  Just like for thieves and murders, those choices are made under the cover of night.

October 15th--15o

Pretty amazing video of just 62 of the around 800-900 cities that protested on October 15th, 2011.  Regardless of what I think, it's really neat to see so many people joining together for something.   I was watching some of this from livestreams on the day that it happened and had originally guessed that, based on what I saw and what was being reported locally, that there were probably around 2 million protesting worldwide.  I think it was a lot higher to be honest, lol.

62 Cities in 5 minutes

The Symbolism of Tents

The most common tune across all of the nation's Occupy movement since it's inception on September 17th  has been the tearing down of tents by municipal police departments.   Time and time again, protesters have attempted to defend their tents and kitchens located in the middle of cities from being ripped apart and tossed into garbage trucks.  There are no tents allowed at Wall Street.  Boston had theirs torn away as did Seattle and, most recently, in a flurry of tear gas, Oakland.  The municipal response has been varied as to the reasons as why, with excuses ranging from being unable to observe activities in a public place to simply being unsightly and unsanitary.

As I have previously mentioned, I have walked down to check out my own city's Occupy.  The first thing that I was taken aback by was the appearance.  Set in a tree lined park, it nearly escaped my notice until I was nearly upon it.  There it was in its stark grotesqueness, as if the park itself had sprouted up a case of versicolored pimples.  Crowded in tightly together with clear pathways making a partial X through the encampment, it was muddy.  It was dirty.The kitchen of the protest was thrown together by a variety of donated items, all hodge podge and uncoordinated.  The library boasted a tiny little ramshackle bookcase.  Rain soaked cardboard signs were everywhere and garbage bags filled with donated coats and blankets were piled against a tree.  It was all so unsavory with the backdrop of my beautiful and pristine city with its shining skyscrapers and tree lined parks.   A definite visual blight upon the eye.


As I stood there amidst it all, I felt a deep somberness overcome me.  I had seen this image before but not inside a city and only from afar in pictures. What I was seeing within my beloved city of Portland was a tent city but not the tent cities of the Occupy protest.  What I was seeing were the tent cities that we don't see.  Outside of almost every major city in the United States is a tent city, an occupation that has been on going for the last several years since the collapse of the housing market.  What these Occupy protesters have done by placing their own versions of these tent cities outside of city halls and within financial districts is brought the truth and harsh reality of our economic crisis and extreme disparity front and center.

We have been blind to the real tent cities outside of our cities.  Occupy brought them home so we could be confronted with the harsh reality of tent city life on a daily basis, just like those who live involuntarily in similar cities outside. The tents are symbolic and are an expression of free speech.  It's just so subtle that it seems to have escaped the notice of so many who simply see the dirty and disgusting appearance of it.   The Supreme Court, however, has long acknowledged that free speech isn't limited to voice, the written word, signs, or, most recently included, money.  Speech also includes the symbolic--the subtle.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court ruled that black armbands worn by students in protest of the Vietnam War were also to be considered free speech.  In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that burning the US flag was free speech.   The distinguishing factor for each of these cases is that these things were both symbolic expressions of opinion and an alternative to vocalization.  This symbolic expression does not have to be beautiful or pleasing to the eye.  As Justice Brennan wrote in his opinion on Texas v. Johnson, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."


With the tent cities within our cities, Justice Brennan's words hit home.  Yes, they are unsavory, disagreeable, distasteful, and unpleasant to behold but isn't truth frequently described as being ugly?  If the truth in this case were something pleasant to look upon, then why would the protesters even be protesting?  When reality is harsh, so is truth and all the ugliness it can bring through the symbolic illustration of it.  As I looked at a picture today of the protesters of Occupy Denver being covered by snow because tents have been forbidden, I worried deeply about their safety and health because winter is fast approaching.  Removing their tents, however, didn't simply put them in danger of exposure.  It put a gag on their voice and what the world must see--tent cities.

Note:  I still had the first image of a tent city on my monitor when my daughter came in the room and saw it.  She asked me, all wide eyed, "is that downtown?  is that Occupy?".  Made me kind of sad that I had to tell her no, that's a real tent city.  From the mouths of babes though, even a 9 year old caught the symbolism and import. 

The Freedom of Speech

James Madison, the author of the U. S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was not originally a fan of the idea of listing what, at the time, was considered to be a basic human right.   He worried that, through the recording of specific rights, that he would miss a right that perhaps was not apparent to him at the time but became apparent at some future date.  In this, he worried that the failure to have that right recorded could mean that the protection that would have otherwise been gained through its listing, would instead imply that that particular right could be subject to abuse.  This, in itself, was a primary reason why Madison was not initially agreeable to having rights being listed on parchment.  Madison, of course, was correct in his fears as we have seen with issues with privacy that have arisen concurrently with the rise of the internet.  The right to privacy is not directly expressed within our constitution but, thanks to James Madison's caution and broad wording, our courts can find various protections of privacy within our First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  What this clearly shows is that, to James Madison, rights were serious business.  On the same hand, he felt that the very populous nature of our form of government and its checks and balances would, in itself, protect human rights.  Within this belief, Madison felt that a "parchment barrier" to protect human rights was unneeded for the nature of the government, itself, would provide those protections.

In a sense, Madison was correct.  Time and time again when the question of human rights arises and the protections of the amendments have risen, it's not been due to any federal law that abuses one of these rights, but instead, the origination of the abuse of human rights has been within its people.  Even at the time, Madison did not see the villains of rights abuse being necessarily the federal government but occurring within our state and local communities.  In "The Question of a Bill of Rights", Madison wrote, "Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."  The Framers of our constitution were ever aware that majority factions of people could potentially result in the abuse of the respective minority.  

Although Madison felt that the source of rights abuse would be a majority of people,  he also acknowledged yet another possibility.  On this subject, he wrote, "Altho it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community."   It is not I that am calling the danger of oppression by government evil.  It is Madison's own words.   When a government, be it federal, state or municipal, oppresses the rights of the people, it is, quite plainly, evil. 

In the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, it is written that " This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."   As such, the Supremacy Clause can be seen as the very backbone that protects our Bill of Rights from abuses by state or local municipalities.   Our Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land.  This does not mean that state or municipal governments cannot make laws such as "no sleeping in a park".  The state or municipal government is completely within their own right to make such a law.  However, should that regulation impose itself and be used to oppress the defined rights of the people living within this country, the state or local municipality is going against the Law of the Land. 

It should be of no great surprise, especially in recent events, that the First Amendment is the amendment most likely to be subject to abuse.   Our capital may be the frequent site of protesters but, just as frequently, protesters can be found outside of private businesses, places of convention, and at our city halls. The responsible management of the latter does not lie with our federal government but instead, with our state and municipal governments.  The burden of any costs of a protest are also shouldered by our state and local governments as well.  Is it any wonder why, with the Occupy Movement,  it is not our military that we are seeing down on the streets of cities actively oppressing First Amendment rights, but, instead, is occurring through the actions of our mayors, governors, and police departments?  They are the ones who shoulder the responsibility.  

Even taking that into consideration, however, our state and municipal governments must always keep in mind that their local laws--state or municipal--do not trump our Constitutional laws. Our First Amendment expressly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  What has traditionally occurred when a state or local law infringes upon a Constitutional right is that the injury to those rights occurs and the state or local government, then, gets to look forward to possibly multiple courtroom battles over the breach and the distinct probability that they will lose due to the Supremacy Clause.  I find it ironic that mayors within the cities of these protests complain so much about the costs of replanting grass and the overtime hours paid for the police when the the costs of the latter is being utilized to breach the Law of the Land.  Every protester that they arrest, process and shelter becomes a cost.  This cost is not just the cost of paying for the associated services of their imprisonment but also the cost of the eventual courtroom battles ahead.  Our state and local municipalities are fools if they think that these battles will not happen. 

We, the people, do not take the infringement upon our Bill of Rights lightly and for just reason. Our Bill of Rights is the pride and joy of our nation.  It is our insurance that our governments--whether local, state or federal--cannot abuse these stated rights.  It is our protection from fascism and our protection when we must voice our discontent with the actions of our governments.  If a protester throws a molotov, then he or she may be arrested.  Violence is not protected free speech.  If a protester attempts to incite a riot through dangerous wording, then he or she may be arrested for violence is not protected free speech.  However, holding up a sign in a park in a sit in and demanding the redress of grievances from our governments, is precisely protected free speech as per James Madison, himself.  Our governments should not forget this.  Nor should they forget which law reigns supreme for it is not the law that prohibits sitting on a sidewalk, camping in park, or marching through the streets--it is our Constitutionals which reign supreme.

Who owns the media?

Over the last couple weeks of following the Occupy Protest, I have noted some very disheartening facts about the so-called "mainstream media".  We tend to think of media as being either slanted to the left or to the right.  However, we never really consider who precisely is behind our favorite websites.  Most people, when they think of massive control of news reporting outlets immediately think of Rupert Mordoch and News Corporation.  Yes, News Corporation has engaged in some of the most blatant offenses of biased reporting and, at times, outright misinformation but really, they aren't alone.  They're just the most obvious.  So let's take a look at the ever so tangled web that has been woven, some of which is so snarled that who exactly is in control of some of these news outlets is next to impossible to tell.

Let's start out with NBC. NBC turns out to be owned by General Electric.  GE owns the various NBCs, CNBC, and has a stake in MSNBC among a very long list of other media related holdings such as Oxygen, the History Channel, SyFy, and Bravo.  In the accounting industry, they also own the "world's greatest tax accounting firm" for being able to pull off such extreme tax avoidance strategies like last year's $14 billion in world wide net income and paying $0 in taxes. 

Everybody knows who Bill Gates is.  He's the former CEO and current chairman of Microsoft as well as being the second wealthiest man in the world.  He, too, has a stake in MSNBC but, to his credit, MSNBC has probably been the fairest mainstream news outlet in regards to the Occupy protest that I've seen so far.  Good on you, Bill!  That might be the only nice thing I say about you.

Sumner Redstone should possibly be as familiar a name as Rupert Murdoch.  Redstone has a decidedly majority hand in CBS, Viacom, and MTV networks through familial majority stock ownership and positions of the boards of these entities.  His net worth is $3.8 billion.  I think that makes him part of that 1% that Occupy is complaining about.
 
Now it's CNN's turn.  CNN, as a whole, is a subsidiary of Time-Warner (merger of Time Inc and Warner Bros).  CNN US is operated by Turner Broadcasting.  I couldn't find anything on who is on the board.  These guys aren't very transparent at all and, in fact, all you Fox haters should take a look at CNN's track record.  These guys have been subject to as much bias controversy and in a weird way.  Oddly enough, they rapidly go back and forth from a left bias to a right bias and have been a subject of studies.  Even Ted Turner has questioned what has happened to his old baby over the last few years.  When he's questioning it, we should.

ABC is owned by Disney.  Disney is an interesting company with their hands in a variety of areas.  They actually built a town in Florida called Celebration, which they tightly control.  It looks a little bit like a scene from the Stepford Wives.  Not creepy at all, Disney.

The connections action run pretty deep and pretty tangled. For instance,  the brother of Jon Stewart of The Daily Show happens to be the COO of the NYSE.   Then there's the Moynihan of New York Times and the Moynihan who is the CEO of Bank of America.  Are they related because "Moynihan" doesn't seem to be that common of a name.  I couldn't find a connection but it's kind of weird.   Even the so called "little guys" of news reporting have bizarre ties.  For instance, The New York Observer is owned by Jared Kushner, who is the son of Charles Kushner and married to Ivanka Trump, daughter of Donald Trump.

What we're looking at is our media being a potential tangled mess of ties with each other and what it always seems to come back to is very powerful and wealthy billionaires.  Is it really that surprising that we had a media blackout on the subject of the protests until something happened that could no longer be ignored?  Thousands of protesters backed by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Dr. Cornel West and more?  Nah, that's not a story though it definitely caught the attention of the Guardian--a British news company whose other claim to fame is the revealing of the News Corp International scandal.  Young girls getting maced in the face by NYPD for no apparent reason was enough of a story for MSNBC to start really looking at the protests.  The rest of them? It wasn't a story until over 20,000 people watched in horror as 700 US citizens were trapped and arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge.  And then, well, let's just pick the stupid and bizarre out of the crowds, why don't we? 

Who the hell are these "Occupy" people and what do they want?

     After two weeks of veritable mainstream media silence and only coverage through independent news sources,  the Occupy Wall Street and solidarity movements rapidly which are rapidly spreading across the United States finally reached a critical mass.   Last Saturday during one of their regular afternoon marches, the protest collectively decided to take the Brooklyn Bridge  through a march to a  park in Brooklyn in an effort of finding solidarity.   The intention of which, I hazard, was to bring more people from Brooklyn into the throng of protesters.    The end result was over 20,000 people from around the world  watching their livestream  of the march in horror as 700 people became trapped by police on the bridge,  a presumably 13 year old child get arrested, and word that a New York Times freelance reporter who was covering the march was arrested as well.   Heady stuff indeed. 

     Now that the movement has finally grasped the media's attention, questions have arisen as to what it is precisely that the protesters of these self-described "occupations" are protesting about.  Many news sources sight an overall ambiguity to the protesters' interests.  I would retort that the writing is virtually on the wall.  To comprehend the general discontents that drove these people, which at times numbers in the thousands, one merely needs to read their signs.  However, it would seem that the mainstream media has been more spurious as to what they are going to depict of the movement with frequent mentions of the couple of women who have removed their shirts  because "they cannot afford one" or the classic image of a bandana sporting hippy holding a pithy sign.   Part of the reason for these depictions is because we are discussing mainstream media.  They are, in fact, a business enterprise whose primary motivation is to interest readers and controversy sells.  What they are overlooking, whether intentionally or otherwise, is not the brilliantly colored haired 20-somethings but the rather large contingent of the middle aged speckled throughout the group.  This isn't simply a bunch of young rabble rousers.  This is a movement consisting of a large number of people from frequently diverse ages and backgrounds.  Yes, you have your hippies and tattooed strewn young people but you also have men and women in business attire down there as well. 

     Curious and concerned about the protests taking place on Wall Street, I, living all the way on the other side of the nation, decided to drop in on their IRC chat, which is available through  the movement's main website.   I stayed and conversed on their irc channel and on Portland's occupy channel to see just what the heck was going on.  If the media was going to be slow to report, I figured that this would be the best way to keep up to date and actively and directly seek out to learn what it is they were talking about.   I was actually very impressed by their channel.  The diversity of the crowd, which features a constant ebb and flow of 150-170 people, was impressive.   Nearly every viewpoint was represented although the moderators of the IRC channel were very quick to ban those whom they labeled "provocateurs"--individuals who were intent on promoting violence at the various protests.   Another discouraged subject of discussion was potential candidates for the 2012 presidential election.  The reason why this sort of discussion is being discouraged is plain.  The movement does not, as some might believe, simply consist of liberals and democrats, but also includes Libertarians, Republicans, and Tea Party.   

     Contrary to what Van Jones may think, the Occupy protests are not an one party movement.   Instead,  I consistently found diversity amongst  the participators of the IRC channel and many agreeing to the existence of a problem.   The source and what is the problem is a constant subject of debate  where, at times, text flies so quickly by on the screen that one scarcely has time to keep up.  Participants, instead, tend to engage in one on one public conversations by signifying precisely who they are talking to.  This tends to keep the conversation from turning into confused mayhem.   Mayhem still happens but the moderators of the channel are quick to bring it all back down to a reasonable level.  

      What is even more fascinating about both the protest on Wall Street and it's IRC chat channel is the diversity of educational and vocational backgrounds.  There may be a recently graduated and unemployed young person standing next to a  steel worker who is, in turn, standing next to a financial analyst.  The IRC channel exactly mirrors this.  I was quite surprised to see financial analysts,  a student working on his master's in Economics,  trade floor assistants and much, much more.  It is probably one of the brainiest IRC channels that I have ever seen.   Sure it gets the random violent provocateur or the extremely hostile raider who comes in and declares everyone present to be a "Commie" but  for the most part, the participants know their stuff and can very clearly argue as to what they think is the problem whilst backing it up with evidence.  Brainy indeed.  #occupywallst is more of a think tank than a internet chat room.

     Contrary to the random raider's beliefs that they are all communists, the majority of the visitors seem to agree that capitalism does indeed have its place.  The most frequent complaint that I have seen in my days there has been that "corporatism" has become too powerful within our government.  The reasons for how this came into being vary.  Many cite the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission ruling by the Supreme Court.  Others believe that it is the regulatory bodies of our federal government that is the source and yet others feel that it is the privatized Federal Reserve that is too blame.  Those in economics and accounting fields of study or vocation tend to cite the problem of "the revolving door". The list of sources for this "corporate corruption" of our government goes on and on  and the evidence is pretty heavy.   

 

      Another subject of frequent discussion is the public's role in "the problem" and a general awareness that we have been complicit in its formation.  We are, as a public, at fault for what we're faced with.  I believe it is this awareness that drives many of the participants in the IRC channel to come forward to discuss.  After all, if we make a mess, we should be the ones to clean it up as per our mothers.   The general feeling is that we cannot, as a nation, expect our government to clean itself up.  We must be the cleaners through peaceful but very vocal protest.  Anarchy is not the goal nor is Communism.  Although discussion of improved social services does frequently come up,  the desire to continue a capitalist democracy is fairly rampant.  

     If I had to sum up the movement's intention into one sentence, I would say that this diverse group of people  are saying  that "there is something wrong and we need to fix it".  What they want is your attention and your input--your voice--to join theirs to demand change from what could be a potentially corrupt system and restore it to its proper form of democracy.