It’s pretty clear at this point that the Occupy folks are all for wealth redistribution to them but not wealth redistribtion from them.
I don’t think that’s clear at all. But knowing they have a gourmet food tent is just disheartening. And if there really were complaints that the kitchen changed to easier to prepare fare for a few days, I’d be even more disappointed.
Not really. Did you read The Atlantic article?
But, frankly, I don’t expect protesters to feed the homeless. I suspect many of these folks either don’t have a paycheck or are sacrificing a good chunk of their paycheck to participate in this protest. Are we going to fault them for not ending Malaria in Africa next?
But that assumes that’s what they’re about. Surely this is only hypocritical behavior if you believe that the 99%ers are all about wanting handouts, rather than wanting some (currently rather loosely-defined) form of accountability in the financial sector.
As Alessan has already said, this is a protest, not a charity. They’re not there to complain that there are poor and homeless people, but rather that those with lots of money are actively gaming the system and screwing those with less. I think the OP would have a more valid complaint if the protesters were going down to the already-existing soup kitchens and eating there, thus depriving the homeless of their meals. Bonus hypocrisy points if they claim they deserve the food because it’s their tax money paying for it. Are they doing that?
Organic chicken? I’ve been missing out.
But they’re protesting the lack of charity from the 1%. Like Rand Rover said, they’re for receiving handouts, not giving them.
It’s obvious that the 99%ers are all about wanting handouts and not about wanting some accountability in the financial sector. What they want is for the 1% to have less and the 99% to have more. That’s where the name comes from. Their mantra is “Rich guys bad, poor guys good,” and now it’s “Rich guys bad, kinda poor guys good, really poor guys also bad.”
You keep saying it, but that don’t make it so.
Financial regulations and taxes aren’t charity.
If this is truly the crux of what you take away from what is going on in this country, then you are blind, and either intentionally or ignorantly ignoring some glaring truths.
Then they should be welcoming the homeless who needs jobs that the financial sector has destroyed over the last few years more than anybody.
I’m pretty much a left liberal blah blah blah, but these OWS protestors have rubbed the wrong way from the start. And this just makes them seem worse.
I think they’re objecting to the career homeless and drug addict types - you know, like squeegee men or the guy who holds open your door at a Mickey D’s so you’ll give him a dollar.
That Post article is an utterly shameless load of complete horseshit. It does not have a single direct quote from any named protester or kitchen volunteer stating that they are switching to the more pedestrian menu for the reasons that you ascribe to them. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting it, and anyone who posts in this thread with the intent to impugn the motives of the OWS kitchen staff without first reading the Atlantic link posted by Dewey (which features such fancy journalistic affectations as named sources) should feel the same.
It is probably just jealousy. Squeegee men have at least one job skill after all.
It is laughable to think that these “protesters” are accomplishing anything other than just annoying people on the periphery. They are mainly just making themselves look really dumb and entitled which works for me just fine but I don’t think that is what they have in mind. I like camping, talking real big, and hanging out too. The difference is that me and my friends usually do it away from public places and don’t expect a medal for it.
What makes you think the protesters don’t have job skills?
I’m not a particular fan of their approach and I really doubt they’re going to accomplish anything meaningful in this way, at least not until they get some commonality of goals, but I’m not seeing the “we’re in this to get a medal” attitude. They want the system to work better and fairer. What they’re doing is unlikely to make this happen, but it’s hardly just a few days’ fun urban camping.
In terms of sourcing and supporting the author’s thesis, the Post story is garbage. The general tone of tabloid stories is always “Who do they think they are?” - which is frequently entertaining. The problem is that that’s always going to be their tone no matter what. Sometimes the material justifies the take (Bernie Madoff, for example) and sometimes it doesn’t. Reading the article I saw the same thing black rabbit did: the author makes a lot of assertions about what the protestors are saying and none of the protestors say anything that supports it directly. Quotes are supposed to be the backbone of a story and an indication that people are saying/doing what the journalist is reporting. They’re not supposed to be a jumping off point for speculation.
The crux of the Post story is that the Occupy Wall Street people are cutting most of the good stuff out of their menu so homeless people and criminals will stop eating their food. Nobody in the story says anything like this. In fact there are no quotes at all until pretty far down, which is less than ideal and I think that’s an indication they know the quotes are weak. Here are all the quotes:
The volunteer says they need to cut down on their food for now, but the ‘why’ comes from the journalist, not the source.
And that would be understandable because I’m sure they are feeding a lot of people, but it says nothing about the homeless issue one way or another.
Which may be true, but does not establish that that’s why the menu is being changed.
I thought the point was that the homeless and ex-cons aren’t ‘members of the community’ and aren’t involved in the politics, they’re just there for the food. Does this relate to the kitchen issue?
I can believe that, and if so, it’s a shitty thing that people are being peer-pressured into keeping quiet about unacceptable behavior and harrassment. But that’s a separate issue from the food dispute.
The first three of those quotes are partial, and this is also a reason journalists aren’t supposed to overuse partial quotes. People wonder how the rest of the quote goes and if the writer is putting words in the speaker’s mouth, and that sure looks like it happened repeatedly here.
If the Occupy Wall Street people are really a bunch of spoiled selfish people who hate homeless people and struggling ex-cons and such, that article does a terrible job of making the case.
Well, you can play word games if that tickles your pickle, but the point remains that many of the OWS people apparently want wealth to be re-distributed downward, but only until it gets to them.
Look up ‘charity’ in the dictionary, look up ‘taxes’ in the dictionary, and look up ‘regulation’ in the dictionary, and then come back and say again who’s playing word games.
In Detroit the homeless are part of the mission. The Occupy Det grouproit has a tent set up , manned by nurses and sometimes doctors, who give physical exams. They provide clothes and have a barber giving haircuts. They also feed any and all who want to be fed.
Churches in the area are bringing in food .
Some of the homeless are a bit crazy. But so far none has proven to be dangerous.
It’s certainly apparent to you.
That said, I’m sure that most of the OWS people would be happy for the effects of financial regulation and taxes to “trickle down” to the homeless too, even if their own tax money is included in that. What they’re not asking is for the 1% to directly hand money and goods over to them personally, which is what you’re excoriating them for not doing for the homeless. And thus your attempt to conflate the two propositions fails.
well, the thread originated in MPSIMS and was not intended as “thesis” or “debate”. More of an exercise in subverting the sacred discourse which always works better with the use of concrete recent events instead of general types.
That being said, I do need to polish my style. Practice makes perfect.