Recently, several of my readers accused me of missing the point of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
If they’re right, I can at least say that I’m not alone. Apparently some people who are directly involved with the movement seem to be missing at least one point of the movement themselves.
Part of the concern of the Occupy participants is the concept of “financial inequality.” I haven’t heard an Occupier actually claim to have declared “war” on it, but I’m sure someone has. And just like the “war on terror,” the fight is against a faceless enemy that is very difficult to pin down.
After all, what is financial justice, exactly? Everyone from CEOs to McDonald’s cashiers making the same wage? Everyone, from the very rich to the very poor with exactly the same size yard and same size home? Or the same size 401K, no matter what they’ve earned and for how long?
Good luck making any of that happen.
There’s no way to define such things, because there’s no reasonable way to define what the limits are in a way that satisfies everyone: what’s fair to some isn’t close to fairness to others.
Some will always see the homeless as lazy. Most of the more vocal who feel that way, it seems, happen to be on the right side of the political spectrum. The more vocal on the left seem to be more likely to suggest that the majority of homeless, even those who’ve been homeless for a while, are victims of a savage system that doesn’t care about people as long as a profit is to be made.
At least, it seemed that way.
This week, I read that kitchen staffers at Occupy Wall Street have pitched a hissy fit over “professional homeless” and ex-cons who they say are showing up to take advantage of the free eats being handed out to Occupiers.
Suddenly, in one of the biggest double standards of the year, these Occupiers seem to have completely lost their compassion for their fellow man, those who have — for one reason or another — been unable to have a place to call home. I’d be willing to bet you that these angry servers haven’t bothered to ask the people they don’t want to feed why they’re in the situation they’re in, or why they feel they’re in need of a handout.
Instead, assuming that they didn’t hit “rock bottom” for the same reason the rest of the country is feeling such a bad economic condition, which according to Occupiers, is that the super-rich isn’t willing to share the wealth with those less fortunate, it’s now the Occupiers themselves who don’t want to share.
What’s “professional homelessness,” anyway? I’d say those who don’t have jobs — and especially for those who’ve called off their search for one to camp out in this protest which has gone on for weeks now — are starting to resemble what could be called the “professional homeless.”
The cooks reportedly feel “underworked and underappreciated.” Weren’t they already feeling that way? Isn’t that why they’re there? And for those who support the Occupiers and who also like to quote those scriptures about taking care of the “least of these,” none of those scriptures mention the importance of being recognized for efforts to help those in need.
So we’re left with the unlikely scenario that Occupy cooks seem to be of the opinion that allowing “undesirables” to take their hard-earned food is unfair and unacceptable. Much like the super-rich with whom they seem to have such a problem.
Isn’t that ironic?