OWS: "You may be passionate but it is not enough to resolve the crisis"

Some dude from the UK put it best, and I think every American should be embarrassed of this.  Education is the best start to figuring out a solution, not just protesting with a vague list of demands.  The wealthy know that the middle class and poor are dumb about money and the economy (and it's true).  Once we figure this out, we can have an intelligent conversation about this and find solutions.  In the meantime, I'm getting back to work. 

This is taken from the comments section of the article "Here's What the Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About," in reference to a slew of charts depicting what the OWS are protesting (even though they don't really know it?) 

Jatin Luthia · Ealing, United Kingdom

Though the data is correct, the context of analysis is definitely incorrect. American labor has been winning compared to the rest of the world for a long time. The current disparity has largely risen from the fact that while capital has largely stayed in the US and labor has partially equalised over the rest of the world. Bear in mind though that wages in India and China are indeed less. With businesses getting more complex and global, CEOs are likely to get paid more (Though some amounts are obnoxious). It is businesses job to be competitive and make profits and it is labor's job to be competitive. If it is too costly to hire someone, economics will dictate that labor will move elsewhere. If wall street protests do make wall street dysfunctional, then capital will move away too and it will just be a double-whammy for labor as capital is a very competitive resource that US has especially as the Dollar holds out as a currency of choice. Such simplistic graphs and comments distort long-term economic realities and the result of years of trade and labour barriers followed by the developed world. Once the barriers started lifting, economic reality became different. I think more people need to understand economics than simply blame capital as capital has no direct social commitment. Its commitment to society is more indirect and derivative.

Reply ·  1 · Like · Follow Post · 15 hours ago

• Henry Harvey
  So what you're saying is that it's the job of business to be competitive and make profit, even if it means throwing out of work the people that live in the country where that business originated.
  
  
  The inherent unfairness in globalization is that a company can relocate whereas I can't realistically move my family to another country.
  
  
  I don't think one could be seen as opposed to capital per se if the wish is only to see a situation in which the people who manage corporations invest capital in the countries and the people who have helped them to get so rich and powerful.
  
  
  Much of the rage in the Occupy Wall Street movement comes from the realization that the multinational corporations and the financial institutions are selling us short, both literally and figuratively.
  Reply ·  1 · Like · 11 hours ago
  
  
  
• Jatin Luthia · Ealing, United Kingdom
  Henry Harvey Your comments are not economically driven. I am saying what incents each section of business. It is definitely the job of business to be competitive and make profits. Origination of business is very relative. Most American conglomerates earn more revenues overseas. How do you define "Origination"? Incorporation is not sufficient to define origination. You may be passionate but it is not enough to resolve the crisis. I think a matured response combining passion, economics and politics would be more useful. Otherwise, it may sound like irrational rabble-rousing and leave the US insular and lagging. The key to success of the US economy has been its adaptability.
  Reply · Like · 6 hours ago
  
  

Pillow Talk Boycott

This was too juicy to pass up. 

Although it addresses a very serious concern, you have to chuckle when you start to read about how easy it is for a woman, in a man's world, to find a way to frustrate him.  

The women's caucus in Kenya, in an attempt to call attention to the bitter relationship between the country's prime minister and president, urged women to withhold sex as a way of protest.   This has been particularly interesting because Kenya is considered a conservative country, and all this discussion of sex and pillow talk usually has been regarded as taboo.  The women fear that the prime minister and president's argument could open the door to more violence in the country, and so are finding a way to bring women into political concourse and influencing change.

Before the ban went into effect, there were conflicting reports as to how men would handle this ban:  One Martin Kamau insists that this would do nothing but embarrass him, especially since he was "being punished" and not the one causing the problem.  (I'd like to point out that political activism gets the better sound bites instead of political passivity, so Mr. Kamau, perhaps this will give you an especially delicious incentive to participate.)  Another man claims "seven days was nothing" and could "wait a year."

Even the prime minister's wife supported the campaign "100 percent" and hoped the campaign's publicity would be a success.  

It looks like it has.  One man (who I assume swallowed his pride for this one), after the week-long abstention was up, then filed a lawsuit against the activists and claims the following: 

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

*pause for a beat, then two *

Backaches and lack of sleep?  That's what supposed to happen when you are having sex, Mr. Kimondo.  *snickers*  

The retort from one the activists is even better:

'I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting,' said Ann Njogu, executive, director for Centers for Rights Education and Awareness.  'It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country.'

Ouch.  Hit 'em where it hurts, Ann!  

Apparently, the activists regard this as a victory as Njogu said that they are planning to meet with the prime minister and president.  

Perhaps one of the famous women in the United States' boycotting history is Rosa Parks, whose refusal to give up her seat to a white person on a bus sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s.  No doubt her act of civil disobedience at the time inspired a nation to follow a path of reform, acceptance and equality, and let's assume this:  The white man who was refused her seat was probably humiliated for being the target of a black woman's protest.  Prohibition in the United States was also influenced by the work of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who instead of promoting moderation of alcohol decided educating children with a "dry sentiment" was the best way to promote the movement. 

In any case, women have found a way - not always grand, mind you - to influence public opinion and participate in politics, even when they are most explicitly not welcome.  Perhaps it takes creativity to get the point across, but the irony of it all is that no matter how hard some men try to separate the political from the personal, we all find out it is much more related than they'd care to admit.  If political and personal matters were so separated, then the likes of John Edwards and Bill Clinton would have a different political history, indeed.