Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Omelas Awaits

FUN FACT: “Occupy Wall Street” is difficult to explain.

Unless, of course, you take enough time to think about it. It’s too bad most people do not. In a political realm where soundbites are king and talking points reign supreme, most people are only interested in answers to difficult questions that end before their attention spans wane.

Over the past few weeks, the thousands of people who have descended on the streets of New York and other major cities have been accused by many in the media and political circuits of lacking a clear motive or objective.

This complaint is, frankly, illegitimate. Most of those who care enough to take the streets of New York, many of whom have traveled from across the country, know exactly what they’re protesting and the change they wish to affect. It just doesn’t fit neatly into the 2-3 minutes most news outlets have allotted to explain the protests, before they have to turn things over to a ten minute” Dancing With The Stars” recap.

Perhaps this is why the much smaller, even more poorly organized Tea Party protests are able to get so much coverage. When the crux of a movement seems to be based on silly costumes, poorly-spelled posters and race-based outrage directed at President Obama, their “protests” can be easily promoted, covered and dismissed in a manner of minutes.

So if we only have a few minutes to discuss a movement that threatens to expose and combat some of the worst excesses and abuses of the corporate sector, let’s use that time as wisely as we can – and read a story.

------------------

The story is “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” a short story written by Ursula K. Le Guin that won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974. In the interest of brevity I will provide only a summary, but I strongly suggest it be read in full – a free copy can be found online at http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt.

The story depicts the city of Omelas, a perfect utopia where every citizen is educated, intelligent, well-fed and blissful. There was no violence to speak of; even horses wore no harnesses, and every man, woman and child of Omelas lived in joyous harmony.

That is, save for just one child. Le Guin never explains how or why, but makes it clear that the good fortune of the city is contingent on the deliberate torture of a single child, who is kept in perpetual darkness and squalor and ceaselessly begs for mercy. The story’s narrator, a recent visitor to Omelas, emphasizes that “the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.

Even though the child is locked away inside a dark, dingy cell, its suffering is common knowledge. Every child in the city is told the story of the child’s anguish as they come of age, and while they are initially disgusted, most citizens of Omelas ultimately come to terms with the price this child pays for their happiness.

Not everyone, however, can come to terms with living so well at the expense of an innocent child’s purposeful destruction. The story ends as the narrator describes these citizens who renounce their citizenship and wander into the distance, presumably in search of a more noble existence. "The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."

------------------

Omelas may not actually exist, but it is certainly comparable to the world we occupy. Nearly everything comes at the expense of another’s toil in misery.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the labels on your clothing some time. Chances are they came from China, India, Bangladesh, or another nation that allows children to work as sweatshop seamstresses, making less in an entire day than the average St. Louis Community College employee makes in an hour.

Our clothing, food, and precious electronic devices are all made by people who live in conditions not unlike the suffering child of Omelas. Their shackles are economic. And because so many of them are forced to live in dingy conditions halfway around the world, they’re easy to forget.

Yet our society differs from the world of Omelas in one crucial way – no one can walk away. Every place on Earth plays by these rules, and there’s simply no place to go for those who don’t wish to profit off the backs of tortured children. Omelas spans the globe, and we have no choice but to justify the system if we wish to preserve our own happiness.

This is the crux of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The ones who line the New York streets in protest are those who wish they could walk away from Omelas, but can’t. With no other choice, they have marched right to the suffering child’s cell and demanded its freedom.

In this case, the cell lies at the heart of America’s financial sector, where billion-dollar, multi-national corporations have earned all but complete legal clemency for their illegal behavior that contributed to the fall of our economy, and the suffering of hard-working Americans who were left to foot the bill for the reckless carnage invoked on the rest of the world.

So if all the Occupy Wall Street movement lacks is a catch-phrase to win over a soundbite-driven media in a manner of seconds, they can look no further.

“I’m walking away from Omelas.”

Monday, September 19, 2011

Obama's debt reduction plan to call for tax increases

Polls have consistently shown that Americans back a tax hike on the plutocracy, and it looks like President Obama is again poised to seize the bully pulpit:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama unveiled a plan on Monday to cut the national debt by roughly $3 trillion over the next decade.

Obama's plan reflects his vision for how best to put the country on a more fiscally sustainable course, so it is different in nature than the kind of legislative compromise he was trying to broker this summer during thedebt-ceiling debate, a senior administration official said.

A driving principle behind the proposal is that high-income individuals and corporations should pay more in taxes than they do currently so that they will bear some of the burden of debt reduction going forward.

Indeed, in remarks on Monday morning, the president threatened to veto any debt-reduction legislation that cuts benefits and doesn't include higher taxes on the wealthy. "I will not support any plan that puts all the burden on ordinary Americans," he said.

Obama even introduced the "Buffett Rule" for millionaires -- named after investor Warren Buffett, who has frequently argued that the very rich are not taxed enough.

The president's debt reduction proposal is likely to placate -- at least a little -- those in his Democratic base who have been adamant that they want the rich to pay more and they don't want Medicare or Social Security benefits hit.

Many within Obama's base gave him flak for being unable to secure the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, which is how the President plans to raise more than half of the $1.5 trillion in new revenue to cut the deficit. But this time around, Republicans cannot block his efforts by threatening debt-ceiling inaction or withholding unemployment benefits. This time the GOP will have to argue that the haves should continue having at the expense of the have-nots without the aid of blackmail - and sadly, it's already begun:

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy “job creators” is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.

Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, “If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?” Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,” his profits “a mere fraction of that” — “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.”

How much could you buy with $400,000 in your pocket? If you're John Fleming, it would appear not nearly enough.

No to the Status Quo! News and Opinion Blogs

Blogger Widgets