Thursday, October 13, 2011

"Featuring someone called Aghani-Heaney"

"Or two people called Kafir Aghani and Eleanor Heaney."  "Right, that's the one."

I'm fairly a-political, but in saying that I have to add that I'm also staunchly liberal.  (Contradiction!)

Still, I really hate extremes, and that's what I mean by being a-political.  I don't like the Tea Party, I don't understand Occupy Wall Street.  I would like to give the world a hug.

I've gotten in a few arguments discussions about politics with members of the other side.  I tend to be polite and try to find middle ground, hoping that the conversation will end sooner that way.  I don't think that I associate with evil people, so therefore I don't believe that the people I'm arguing discussing politics with who happen to have opposing views are {Satan, Hitler, Osama bin Laden}.  I figure we all want what's good for the country, but we just don't agree on what that is or how to go about achieving it.  Fair enough, right?

However, being "reasonable" usually makes the people I argue discuss with think that I'm not "really" a liberal or that I could be swayed to the dark other side.  They find out that I can't by my responding with this simple fact.  I've made my peace with the extreme liberals who have sit-ins and throw red paint on fur coats.  I will never make my peace with extreme conservatives who bomb abortion clinics.  So, that's a deal breaker there.  Not switching teams.

However, someone appears to have called my bluff!  I don't for the life of me understand this "sit-in" called Occupy Wall Street.  I know one side says they are just lazy people blaming others for their laziness in not having a job or money.  The other side says that they are protesting corporate influence on government.  (My question back to them:  is this really the best idea you had to do that?)

I hate to say it, but I think I don't understand the movement because it's an unorganized mess of people who don't know what they want.  Each side is right about SOME of the participants, but not all.  I can't really get on board with it because of that ambivalence.

But you know what I'm going to say next, right?  I still like 'em a hell of a lot more than the Tea Party.  So, not switching teams.

PS - Weight:  x+16, ridiculous ridiculousness.


  1. I agree with most of this except the part about the protest not being the best idea they could come up with. I'd be interested to hear if you have better ideas. (and please don't say "get a job!":) I do like that they're calling attention to the fact that the tea party doesn't own outrage over the financial mess. I also think it's funny that they're basically protesting the same thing, only when liberals started doing it, the tea party seemed to get really outraged. Though I guess if tea baggers started copying something I was doing, I'd seriously consider changing my views, so fair enough.

    Even though I don't think the Occupy Wall Streeters are going to convince rich people to share any of their money, they may at least convince politicians that they will be held accountable when they let money influence their decisions. And maybe someday someone'll finally be held accountable for this whole financial collapse thing.

  2. Assuming their goal is what I think it is - to eliminate corporate influence on government, which I'm still not completely sure is their goal - then, I'd say 1) figure out a concrete way to see your result enacted. (IE, is there a specific law that they want put in place that is being blocked by corporate influence on govt. Like campaign finance bills, etc.) 2) Work toward the concrete result. (IE, raise money, hire the most highly skilled lobbyists, lobby, lobby, lobby. Fight fire with fire.) 3) Achieve goal. (Win) 4) Celebrate achieving goal. (Brag)

    Think about the Mormon church and Prop 8. The Mormon church probably wants lots of things, abstract things, but they decided a tangible way to exert themselves was to fund/campaign against Prop 8. And it worked. And they celebrated. We should do that, only you know, for something we would like to happen.

    Hahaha, did you really think I'd say "get a job?" I will say that I think when you're protesting, you should be smart about what the counter-attacks are going to be. While they are getting a lot of media attention, appearing to 'sit around and not go to work' (whether they have jobs or not) is an easy criticism for the other side, fueling arguments like "why listen to these people who want to mooch on society, why don't they go get jobs at McDonalds instead of pooping on police cars." Now, that wasn't me saying that, it's what conservative media have said. But the point is that it CAN be said, and that's a flaw in the plan, if the plan is anything other than "fuel a debate about what we stand for and whether we have a right to be heard."

    At the end of the day, Colbert's Super Pac might be doing the best job of anything right now in exposing how campaign funding (which ties directly to corporate influence on govt) is able to be corrupted. Not entirely sure that's his goal, but if it is, maybe OWS and Stephen Colbert should have a strategy session.

  3. Well, I do think they have influenced society in a good way, even if they are pretty disorganized. Good point about making themselves an easy target, but I do wish there was more criticism of the easiest target of all. (Yes, I'm talking about the tea party.)