The Modern Approach

Times change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I remember President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational. Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners," ("first they came for ...") the "1%," the government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.

I return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who misunderstood his message.

I'm willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft, kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent – continues. They believed that this was what they could “do for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their actions – their own lives and the lives of others.

Whom did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right" on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on their behalf.

The protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights," some of which require much teasing from our founding documents – or may not even be there – usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).

And the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in the past. More important is what the law means. At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is right.

That's not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can." For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the rasher "because I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly, although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis. The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought – only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians (including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more important.

And that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines. And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.

There was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.

It's time to return government to those we've elected.






April 28, 2017

Uneven Playing Field

It's sad, but it's routine. There are times when context is omitted and only pretext remains. It may be intentional or it may be based on ignorance, but in either case it may lead to misleading conclusions.

For example there is much in the media on the topic that “Black Lives Matter.” But so do brown and white and any other lives. The latter, however, are not the concern of some groups who emphasize police “racism” – the killing of innocent black men by white police. But American society has been racist for hundreds of years and the police often reflect society's views – even if only in a minority of cases. It shouldn't happen at all. The numbers are small, but one is too many. Mention is rarely made however of the numerous killings of blacks by blacks, or of the killing of whites by blacks. And the assassination of the police doesn't usually last more than one news cycle. But the protests of the killing of blacks by white police is usually extended along with the riots (and associated deaths), even though such tragedies are not common.

Portions of the incidents are often recorded on cellular telephones by witnesses who are presumed to be unbiased, and whose evidence is conclusive. These videos are often circulated on social media and “go viral” before any police report is filed, and the officer convicted in the public's mind before he has a chance to say anything. Indeed, police regulations regarding the release of information related to ongoing investigations may prevent him (or her) from defending himself publicly. And when the eventual trial comes (if the officer isn't indicted the community will protest loudly to the press) the memory of the officer, and his report, are attacked as self-serving and not to be believed. The report came long after the incident and the officer was under stress during the confrontation. They cannot be taken seriously. Only the witnesses are reliable, and only the evidence they present can be trusted.

As a partial solution of the problem the New York City Police Department will, next week, be outfitting its officers with body cameras to record such incidents. (It is also possible that knowledge of the cameras will lessen the number of incidents because those few who aren't following the rules will know that they are being monitored.) This policy, however, has provoked further protests and there are demands that implementation be delayed. For example, the ACLU and others insist that there be no viewing of tape by the officer before a report is written, and memory aided by documentation shouldn't be allowed. The previous regulation was written when officers had only their memories on which to rely. The memories were challenged. And (often incomplete) community videos and testimony were given greater weight than the assertions of the police. Now that memory can be aided there is the possibility that the video and the report will correspond. Memory will be more accurate and lawyers will have less opportunity to question it or to find a discrepancy between the written report and the video. Those using their 'phones have no restrictions of this sort and can select what they choose to film, what they submit to lawyers, and what they put on the internet. And when they do so.

Early recording would be helpful because it may provide documentation of what happened before the home-made videos were turned on to record the “unjustified” police violence. There has never been great concern about the videos submitted by “uninvolved” bystanders – what they included and what they omitted. What they contain is sufficient to convict. What happened prior to their being turned on is obvious. Now that the police may have cameras it is self-evident that they should be turned on at the beginning of the incident so that nothing is missed, and if it isn't, the entire recording is suspect. The argument seems logical, even though there had been no concern by protesters about what may previously have been omitted in the videos of “witnesses.” And there is no concern that stopping to turn on a camera at the very beginning of an incident may result in its intensification or danger to those involved.

What results is a protest against what should help in the proper function of the justice system. Whom does that help? The protesters, and the lawyers seeking either conviction of the police or large monetary settlements. Perhaps they are justified, but limiting the opportunity to obtain unbiased evidence is not the way to accomplish legitimate goals. Both the public and the police are entitled to a fair system and a level playing field.

April 20. 2017

Various Revelations

I've mentioned before that I want my essays to stay a year in advance, to outlive me, but that limits me to writing only once a week, and, if I only add to the end, I can't deal with current problems about which I want to comment. I think I've already mentioned the anecdote about the potential columnist who feared that he wouldn't have enough to say in columns twice a week He was asked if there were two thing in the news each week that made him angry. He answered in the affirmative and was told he should write about them.

There are more than two things a week that anger me. So I have more than enough material to increase my output. It's going to wind up at twice or thrice weekly. I've been writing these essays for quite a while, so it's likely that some of them are going to be repetitious, but those are the breaks of the game. Chances are you won't read them all anyway. This one will consist of a few unrelated thoughts that crossed my mind.

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

Today is the first anniversary of my cancer surgery and, surprise of surprises, I'm still alive and feeling reasonably well. Perhaps I was better in the past, but I'll take what I have, considering what might have been. Chemotherapy and its side effects are annoying but, they go with the territory. I look forward to suffering them for many years to come.

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

I've said on many occasions that there are too many protests and marches that seem to be going on. Typically they're by liberals who invariably claim that they are working for a peaceable and mannerly society, as well as the promotion of American values which are threatened by everyone but them. For them the way to achieve a peaceable and mannerly society is by demonstrations, protests, and what is more an American value than the squelching of opposition. That's what they do in academia, where they stifle lectures by those with whom they disagree, and create “safe spaces” for those with the “right” views. Have you ever heard of conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker? Or,if they do, coming away from such an act unscathed?

Similarly, most protest marches are carried out by liberals protesting what they view as negative changes in society. And they do so in an angry way rather than by utilizing the civil behavior that they demand of others. The reason for the protest is not important. There seem to be a horde or people who will protest whatever is the cause du jour. As Eric Hoffer said (in The Passionate State of Mind), "In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued."

It's the mob action that counts -- and is far more satisfying and important to the discontented – than whatever they claim to want to protect.

Conservatives are accused of mob mentalities and mob action, but what I see in the papers doesn't seem to bear this out.

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

I keep hearing on the radio about an assortment of programs that will help get people off drugs. The implication is that the causative medications are those provided by physicians. At the same time more and more states are approving or considering the use of “medical” marijuana. Marijuana has been shown to be an “entry” drug for some addicts. It seems we have mixed views on the value to society of addiction. There are even states that approve “recreational” marijuana. It's very progressive, but it's hard to square such an approach with programs to cure addiction, or the fact that the government has provided funds for that purpose. I've written about drug legalization in the past and, I suppose it's time to do so again. I'll do it! But my essay won't be published until next year..

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

Radio ads recently have also included endless promises of relief – if I owe ten thousand dollars or more. It may be credit card debt or what is due in taxes. After all, it's what I “deserve.” And, of course, they'll get a cut or some other charge. They don't say it but I suspect they feel that that's what they deserve. There is never any mention that you owe money to the companies because you spent more than you have, putting off the day of reckoning. It's so easy to spend money if all you need is a pieceOver of plastic. Even easier if you use several. But overspending isn't your fault. You deserve to have your debts reduced or canceled.

And your taxes reduced. Even if you haven't been paying; even if you haven't bothered to file returns for many years; you're a good person. It's someone else's fault. You deserve help. And there are firms that offer it. One telephone call and all your problems will be solved. It must be true. They said it and they wouldn't mislead you. You do that well enough without help.

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

That's all of the unrelated thoughts for now. Maybe I'll do it again. It's easier than learning more about particular issues and formulating longer articles. We'll see.

The Loyal Opposition

I know I sound like a broken record (actually the record is fine but the changer doesn't work) however I don't see any improvement in the situation so I'll try again.

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

February (2017) is fast coming to a close. The presidential election occurred in early November, 2016. It's over. It's time to step back and take a deep breath.

Unfortunately there seem to be many – probably more than during the campaign itself – who won't “give up the ship.” Protest marches are rampant. The media continue to publish “revelations” about the new administration and its members. People in the public eye use their own “bully pulpits” to denigrate those responsible for leading the government – those elected according to the tenets of the Constitution.

The same Constitution guarantees all of these people the right to speak their minds as long as they choose, but common sense suggests that the efforts are counterproductive. Actually, that characterization is based on the assumption that the prime loyalty of those protesting is to the United States, and that may not be the case. The “Loyal Opposition” cannot always be assumed to have its country as the prime concern.

The term itself apparently arose in England during the eighteenth century, the same century in which we declared our independence from our mother country. Perhaps this was one of the British precepts that we rejected. Our own history often raises the question and that is certainly the case now. Protesters cannot be faulted for their passion. They have learned from the media, by osmosis if not a stated teaching, that criticism and bad news rule the day and should be encouraged.

What has resulted is a “devoted (or, if you prefer, “dedicated”) opposition,” one devoted and dedicated, however, to opposition itself, rather than to the country in which they live. The group is primarily private citizens, But the media and our politicians play a major role in its development: the media with their quest for Pulitzer Prizes and sales, and our “representatives” in search of party advantage and the defeat of any administration appointments irrespective of qualifications. With those as their primary motives, it is not surprising that private citizens follow suit, decrying all that they perceive as injustices, and marching in order to … I'm not sure what. If their views and voices haven't been heard yet it is likely they never will be. All they're likely to do is increase the determination of those in charge to carry out the plans they've developed. It's a challenge to administration leaders not to change, but to “double down.”

An example of this is immigration policy. The loyal opposition tells us that we are all immigrants and we shouldn't restrict immigration (though we have done so many times in the past) because “that's not who we are;” it's contrary to “American values.” At the same time, those who support proposed changes point out that we are “a nation of laws” and that those laws should be enforced. Those who are following the rules should be given preference over those who bypass them.

And those who favor free immigration believe that the “multiculturalism” associated with immigration will strengthen our country. Not E Pluribus Unum but E Pluribus Plus. Without a common culture though, we're likely to be Balkanized and divided rather than unified. A common culture and a common language are more likely to bring us together. People want to come to America for many reasons – economic and political are the most common – and they'll form the backbone of our future. But those who come from Mexico aren't doing so in the expectation of a “Mexico North,” and those from the Middle East aren't looking for a western version of the society they're fleeing.

Sadly, much of American protests reflect ideology rather than an attempt by the protesters to accomplish their stated goals. The primary aim seems to be the establishment of a record of fighting for “right” and not compromising with “the devil.” They want to divert the administration's attention and resources and be able to say “I told you so” during the next campaign. They want to provide material for negative ads then.

But the reality is that right now they'll lose (although that actually may be their hope) and they'll forfeit the opportunity to tone down what they consider ill-considered legislation. All they can do with an obstructionist outlook is slow the process and, if they succeed in doing so, they'll show, as we've already seen, that the government they tried to obstruct goes on, and does well in the face of legislative gridlock: that less government works well.

As I have said many times before, I did not vote for our current president but he won, and we owe him the chance to implement his policies. In 2020 we'll have the opportunity to indicate the degree to which we think they have been effective – with 20/20 hindsight.

American Democracy

A few months ago I wrote an essay about the protests over the President's election. As the days passed some of those protests turned into riots. It's my hope that by today, Inauguration Day, they will have abated, and we can return to the important job of healing the rifts both within our democracy and with the other countries of the world. The time for questions has passed and we need to address the answers.

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

America looks bad. The country that has promoted democracy as the ideal political system is beginning to look like a Third World republic. It is enduring protests at the results of a free election and the procedures of our Constitution. Our image in the world, which has been diminishing for the past few years, is being further tarnished. It is a self-inflicted wound.

There had been anxiety about riots by his supporters if Trump lost, but now that he has won there are riots in the streets by those who claim he is not their president. They once castigated him for not pledging to accept the election results but now won't do so themselves.

Is this the real America? Are we a country of whiners? I don't recall this happening in the past? Have we become a “democracy” in which the losers refuse to accept the results of an election? Should we anticipate the same reaction in state and local elections?

Admittedly the President-Elect didn't receive a majority of the votes, but neither did Secretary Clinton. She, Like Mr. Trump, would have wound up as a minority president. Had she declined to accept the results of the election like her supporters we would have faced a constitutional crisis, but she graciously conceded the election to Mr. Trump. Indeed, Barack Obama, the President and a large contributor to the Secretary's defeat, conceded the election and has begun transition procedures.

One of the causes of the unhappiness is the fact that it wasn't expected. Mrs. Clinton was a “shoe-in”in the minds of many voters. The polls and the media assured us that the only questions revolved around the makeup of the new Congress. The various minority groups and their supporters had little doubt that they would soon have the executive office and an improved position in the legislature. And they were confident that the new Supreme Court justice would favor the programs that they favored. And the boosters of Senator Sanders were certain that their new leader, President Clinton, would promote their agenda. But they were wrong. The polls were wrong, the media were wrong, and the expectations of many of the voters were wrong.

I didn't support Mr. Trump (nor Secretary Clinton, for that matter), but he's my president. The test of a democracy is our support for its institutions even when we disagree with the policies of our leaders and our representatives. There won't be a “do-over.” If they're still going on, it's time to stop the tantrums and to move on.

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

November 14, 2016

Nota Bene 2

 

A few weeks ago I admitted that there were subjects that I had wanted to cover but lacked time. The list is long and it's growing. At that time I solicited your help but (no surprise) didn't get any response. That, however, won't stop me. I intend to continue every month or so (or at any other time I feel like shortening my list) by describing the areas of interest. As I noted last time,^I  it may be in the form of fiction or non-fiction (actually it may be a question or comment, or there may be a longer description of the issue).  I explained then that the kind of format for its use was up to you.  I also requested that you let me know if you were using one of the ideas, and what I said then applies here. I won't bother you with it now.
 

In any event, here are some of the topics I don't have time to cover at the moment:

1. It's said that a child who learns a second language while his first is developing may become fluent in both, but his vocabulary in each of the two is likely to be smaller than it would have been if he had only learned one language. I don't know the specifics for three languages, but it seems likely that all three vocabularies will suffer. He'll be able to think in all three languages, but, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesisⁱⁱ is correct, his ideas will be somewhat limited in all of them. What are the other implications of multilingualism? Although Americans tend toward knowledge of a single language,ⁱⁱⁱ elsewhere in the world it is common for people to be multilingual. Do Americans think differently or more expansively than others?

2. If you believe that there are absolutes (as opposed to culturally defined standards) which you must follow, may you choose the lesser of evils?^iv Is it ethically possible to compromise between right and wrong?^v Is your Representative morally bound to do what you think right or what he does?^vi If an individual considers himself bound to follow particular paths and not deviate from them, is he obliged to establish a third (or fourth, or whatever) party when no one is expounding the idea that he considers “right?” Is voting itself an absolute?^vii

3. What are the limits of peaceful and lawful demonstration? For example, the Brooklyn Bridge was closed on December 4, 2014 by demonstrations protesting the decision of a grand jury not to indict a white policeman who had killed an unarmed black man with an “illegal” choke hold. Whether or not he should have been indicted, do demonstrators have the right to inconvenience others? Are there times when they have the obligation to do so? What should protestors do and what penalties should they (be prepared to) face? Should the penalties be different for “agitators,” especially those from elsewhere, and especially those who go from demonstration to demonstration around the country in order to lead any fight that is in the offing?

4. Suppose an archaeologist discovered a scroll that either supported or cast doubt on an existing religious narrative. How should/would the new information be treated by a supporter or opponent of (any or of a specific) religion. Clearly the “right” thing to do would be to disclose the information whatever it is, but suppose the archaeologist feared that this would do more harm than good. Suppose he feared, for example, that the information might provoke a religious war, or that it would be the cause of prejudice.

I noted last time, “I suspect that some readers may have considered some of these issues, however I don't know to what degree. I know that I don't have immediate answers to the questions they pose, although they trouble me and I wonder about them. Perhaps someone else can resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner.”

The topics are not new. They've been discussed innumerable times. But I still find them vexing. There are so many other issues, however, that I don't expect to have time to expand and expound on these for quite a while. And there will be more to come. Perhaps someone can spend some time on one or more of them.

Next episode:  "I Am What I Am" --Whatever that is.

I        Nota Bene, December 14, 2014.

ii        Look it up.

iii       Usually the language is English, but for some immigrants who have not learned English, and who never studied a second language in their country of origin, their only language may be that of their native land.

iv        Which is, of course, evil.

v        To do so means that you're willing to accept something that is not completely right, even if it is not completely wrong.

vi       Indeed, representing hundreds of thousands of people, how can he possibly support all of their positions?

vii      Is it better not to vote than to support an individual or an idea that is abhorrent to your principles?

Taxing And Voting

“The more things change …”

I think I've said that before. Not that it was original in the first place, but I think I'm repeating myself.ⁱ

The same is true of the subjects I choose to think about and to discuss. And one I can't get out of my mind, because the media talk about it every day, is the “Occupy Wall Street” protest in Zuccotti Park.ⁱⁱ In the past I've focused on its apparent lack of goals with the single exception of “Tax the rich,” which seems to have become their mantra. It's not clear whom they consider rich, although it seems to be everyone other than themselves. The rich are the “one percent” who, according to their ideology, are making out like bandits by stealing from the rest of us – the “ninety-nine percent.” They're not paying their fair share which is why we cannot pay our credit card bills, mortgage loans, health care costs, student loans, food costs, and the like.

I've noted in the past that raising the taxes on the “rich” wouldn't really solve our problem, and would not only attack the jackals we loathe, but those whom we love and lionizeⁱⁱⁱ (even if we do envy them a little). As a matter of fact, though I can't prove it, I suspect there are more people we love than those we hate on the one percent list. Most, of course, we've never heard of.^iv

But the real issue is us, not them, even though we focus on the others. It's easy to hate people we don't know – people whose names aren't even familiar. What we want is “equality” and they are depriving us of it. We're very different from our ancestors and, to a degree, we lack self-respect. If there is something wrong, someone else is to blame. We are being acted upon by forces greater than ourselves. We are impotent. If (read “when”) we don't succeed it's because of “them.”

But that is merely cover for our own greed, laziness, and failures. Thomas Edison is quoted as saying, “None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.”^v,vi That was then. Now we purchase lottery tickets in the hope that we can cut out the perspiration. We don't really expect to win, but hey, you never know. What we're really looking for is a handout. We call it an “entitlement” since we are all entitled to whatever we need. We shouldn't have debts no matter what we want. (If we cheat on our income taxes it's because everyone else does it, and besides, the “rich” should be paying them for all of us.) What we need is socialism.^vii We shouldn't lack anything, and the others should be no better off than we – even if they work harder.^viii The “Bell Curve” should be replaced by a golden spike: instead of a range of incomes, everyone should have the same earnings. That would obviate the need for tax differentials since we'd all be getting, and paying in taxes, the same amount. Differentials based on accomplishment, or for any other reason, encourage competition, and we all know how harmful that can be.

But putting aside the specifics – or the lack of specifics – what is happening is a mass movement, much like the civil rights movements of the late 1950's and early 1960's, the movement for educational “relevance” of the early 1960's, and the anti-Viet Nam movement later in that decade. And the participants are the current version of the “Moral Majority.” The mantra may be different, but the psychology is the same. It's the psychology discussed by Eric Hoffer in the early 1950's in his book, “The True Believer.” Belonging to a movement along with others validates our own views – indeed, it validates us. We are part of something bigger than ourselves, even if we don't fully understand what it is or what are its implications. And if we have no goals of our own – if we feel isolated – we can immerse ourselves in meaning.

Unfortunately, the result is protest for its own sake. We become part of a fellowship of protesters who may not be any more enlightened about the goals of protest than we. In fact the message of the movement is not especially important except insofar as it serves as the current battle cry. To a degree, the messages of the various movements are interchangeable. It is the process that is important – the chance to be part of something important. It is a rebellion against authority.^ix It is anarchy,^x and we can get away with it because there are so many others.

Who are those others? Who participates in these protests? It seems to be the same group irrespective of the stated aim. That group consists of white,^xi middle and upper-middle class Americans^xii who see injustice wherever they look. That is not to say that, in the great battle of Good against Evil, there is not such injustice. But looking at the call of the protesters may not be the best way to understand why the demonstration is occurring.

It is more interesting to note what Americans do about their disgruntlement. If the goal is to change America in a particular way, it would seem that the best approach would be to choose representatives who would institute the policies they demand – whatever they are. But that does not seem to be the goal, and the logical solution is not one that, by and large, they're willing to undertake. In 1962, when the entire House of Representatives stood for election, as well as one third of the Senate, 47.3% of the voting age population turned out.^xiii,xiv In 2010, with the same positions up for election, we were down to 37.8%. In presidential years the trend has been in the same direction: in 1960 the turnout was 63.1% while in 2008 it was 56.8%.^xv While I can't get national figures for 2011, I know that about 16% of the citizens in my town (“city”) voted for mayor this year. Even if we allow for those below voting age, it is a disappointing, but telling, percentage.

I don't know if the protests will still be going on a few weeks from now when this is published, but I suspect they will – at least in some of the locations where they're now taking place. Even if they have no interest in putting in the effort to solve the problems about which they complain, people enjoy the camaraderie which accompanies mass protests. And they'll rejoice in doing so even if the neighborhood in which they hold their event is trashed, and its economy destroyed.

Next episode: “Edison Was Wrong” -- Wherein I take exception with myself – well, sort of.

i     That's what happens as you get older.

ii    The movement has spread elsewhere as well. It is said to have originated based on the protests which have formed a large part of the “Arab Spring.” In those protests the participants were prepared to risk their lives for their goals.

iii    For example, entertainment stars like Oprah Winfrey and sports stars like C. C. Sabathia. And lots of others in the public eye who earn large salaries but are admired for it. (According to the web site of the Major League Baseball Players Association, the minimum salary for the 2011 season is $414,000. TV and movie stars often get more for each performance. And a percentage, which, in keeping with their rich status, is closer to one percent than ninety-nine.)

iv    Less than half of the group are CEO's and Wall Street financiers and bankers according to a study by Indiana University economists cited in the (Mount Vernon, New York) Journal News, November 14, 2001. The majority are medical professionals, lawyers, computer workers, mathematicians, engineers, technical workers, salesmen, workers in “blue-collar and miscellaneous service jobs,” people in real estate, business operations workers, entrepreneurs, professors, scientists and, of course, media and sports professionals. It's a diverse group with only their incomes as a common link.

v     According to Wikiquote, it is a “statement in a press conference (1929), as quoted in Uncommon Friends: Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James D. Newton, p. 24.”

vi    “One percent” and “ninety-nine percent.” That sounds familiar. Almost as if those who lack inspiration, whose livelihood, as it says in the Bible, depends on “the sweat of [their] brow[s]” – those whose wages depend on the work they do, are being treated unfairly.

vii    Of course we can't call it that. “Socialism” is a dirty word.

viii    And they'd be fools to work harder in a society that addresses all their needs irrespective of their effort.

ix     And especially our bosses. Perhaps also our parents and religion?

x     A poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland, in addition to demonstrating that more than half had participated in prior efforts at political action, states that 98% would support civil disobedience and 31% violence to achieve their goals.

xi    Baruch College researchers, business analyst Harrison Schultz and professor Hector R. Cordero-Guzman, state “Occupy Wall Street would qualify as stuff white people like. The sample of non-white people, ..., is too small to even analyze.”

xii     It's interesting that the poor – those with the most to gain by raising the taxes of the “rich” and increasing entitlements for themselves – are underrepresented. 13% were unemployed and 13% earned over $75,000 (information from the cited members of the faculty of Baruch College School of Public Affairs). Put differently, 87% are employed. The hard-core unemployed and the poor are not, for whatever reasons, the main participants in this cry for equity.

xiii   Infoplease.com. The source they cite is the Federal Election Commission.

xiv    I'll have a little more to say about voting in a future essay. And, possibly, more about taxes.

xv    Actually that was an improvement over 1996 when President William Clinton ran for reelection. The turnout was 49.1% and President Clinton received less than half of their votes.