The Occupy movement has caused a number of thinking people to scratch their heads and ask, “What is this all about?”   There are tons of easy answers out there, most of which miss the mark.

The Occupy movement is a part of a much larger, global action that didn’t begin in 2011 with the economic stresses on Americans.   It is actually a  graphic image of what has been growing on a number of fronts which can be identified as anti-institutionalism.  That is to say, there is a growing amount of activity in many parts of the world which has as its primary purpose  a demonstration of lack of faith in institutions.   Not just political institutions, but economic, religious, educational, and a variety of other social and governmental institutions.

Some of the movement has been subtle and other aspects of it are highly visible and well-known:

• More and more people declare themselves to be “spiritual but not religious.”   What they are saying is that they have faith, sometimes even deep, profound faith.  But the religious institutions available to them do not adequately demonstrate that faith, and sometimes even fight against it.
• An increasing number of young people choose not to go on to higher education despite the fact that they have the finances to afford it and the grades to support it.  They see educational institutions as failures in providing the kind of intellectual and practical tools necessary to function in this complex world they are inheriting.
• Government is more and more suspect as an agency capable of leading a nation or other political entity in the ways of providing security, progress, economic safety, etc.
• Political parties are increasingly under fire for failing to represent the political, moral, ethical and constitutional needs of voters.   The growth of the independent movement is no longer incidental; it is massive.
• Skepticism, cynicism and outright rejection are commonly cited as the “mood of the voters” of a particular entity.
• Economic institutions are seen as morally corrupt and incapable of guaranteeing economic security for investors.
• Faith in hospitals, insurance companies, and medical schools to provide for the health needs of a population is at an all-time low.

As Jefferson Bethke , an artist from Tacoma, Washington, stipulates in his recently-released video, “Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus,”

“…This seems to be a moment when many people–in religion, economics and politics–are disgusted by current institutions, but then are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them….”

Bethke’s video commentary was the springboard for an op-ed piece in Friday’s New York Times by David  Brooks.   Brooks points out the potential legitimacy of the anti-institutional movement, but makes the point that it falls short by not having alternative suggestions to make to replace the existing institutions.

“Bethke’s passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days… This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual….rebellion without rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm.”*

If this issue were simply about the Occupy movement, or Bethke’s video Mr. Brooks might be correct.   But the vastness and diversity of anti-institutionalism is far more complex.  In some cases, the alternative is expressed, as in the spiritual community.   Individualism, as expressed by devotion to Eastern religious practices, meditation, contemplation, and other forms of non-traditional spiritual practices is an alternative to organized religion which is common.  People who have chosen to express their faith by participation in social causes is hardly a minimalist experience.  Their abandonment of traditional faith communities is rampant.  Euphemisms such as “non-practicing Roman Catholics,” “Recovering Episcopalians,” and “Secular Jews” are common.

This is a time in history when we could easily lose an opportunity to grow by rejecting or ignoring the messages being given by those who have lost faith in traditional institutions.  A knee-jerk reaction of abandoning all institutions is not called for, but a careful ear and a tolerance for diverse opinion would be welcome, as would a willingness to accept and participate in the reform needed to regain the trust of those who have lost it.  That’s a lot to hope for.  But the alternative is not acceptable.

Photo Credit:  John Manchillo (AP)

*NYT( 2/3/2012, p. A23)

I drew some commentary (not all in written comment) this week about Tim Tebow and his public prayer life.   It’s good to have dialogue on such topics.   Having said that, here’s posting #2 which, again, is not meant to be the ranting of a contrarian.   These are subjects about which people are talking, and which deserve some input.  My hope is that my words are helpful in promoting the debate.

In nearby Cranston, Rhode Island, a very articulate young woman who considers herself to be an atheist, has objected to a poster which has been on the wall in the school auditorium for a number of years.  It is a prayer to “Our Heavenly Father” for many commendable issues a student might face during the school day.   However, to someone like Jessica Ahlquist the prayer is jarring.   It is as if the school had posted a banner which began, “Since there is no God, let us….”   There would be a great cry and beating of breasts by those who believe in God.  And it would be equally deserving of the attention this existing banner has received.

The point of the argument which has ensued is not whether one believes in God or not.  Jessica’s point is that the public display in West Cranston High School assumes that everyone does.  They don’t.  There are some (at least one who has spoken out) who do not want to be included in that assumption.  The law says that there is supposed to be a boundary between public institutions which are sponsored by the government and institutions of faith.  They are both allowed to exist and there is even a hope that they both will flourish.   But they are not to be mixed.  The hanging of a theistic banner in a public high school is against the law, and the courts this past week agreed with Jessica. They say the banner must come down.  At the present time it is covered by paper, awaiting a decision as to whether the court finding will be challenged.

The response has been a cry of outrage.  Jessica has been publicly scorned (even by the Mayor and religious leaders) and there have been overt threats against her.   The outcry against her is reminiscent of the Salem, Massachusetts, witch fiasco of he 18th century.  Some, including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, have come to her defense in terms of the diatribes against her, even though they might disagree with her point.  That’s what thinking adults do.  But her classmates and others have been brutal in attacking her action.

When I was in High School I was a pretty straightforward member of a mainline church.     I was part of a group who thought it would be good to begin the school day with a prayer over the loudspeaker.  My Principal, a devout Presbyterian, sat with me and clarified why we couldn’t do it.  He explained why it was important not to mix religious practices with public institutions of education.  It made sense and my friends and I agreed.  So I am not immune to the thinking of those who are angered by Jessica’s very articulate opposition to the presence of the banner in her High School’s auditorium where she is required to sit regularly.  I don’t happen to agree with them, but I understand what inspires their anger.

This is one of those wonderful teaching moments when “light overcomes heat.”   There are a couple of things which can happen to help the controversy to come to a good conclusion:

1. Recognize, first of all, that this prayer is not a “Christian prayer” as it is being depicted by many in the public.   It is theistic.  If a student is a member of the First Lutheran Church (his) church is not being attacked by the objection.  This helps to de-personalize the matter to some degree, allowing for a more restrained response.
2. It’s a great time for classes to spend time on the constitutional issue involved while it is still such a close matter.    Teachers should jump on this moment, the kind of which doesn’t happen all that often.
3. It’s also a good moment for teaching about “bullying.”  Jessica has been bullied repeatedly this past week, sometimes by people who are seen as upstanding citizens.
4. Alternative methods of exposing the prayer, such as bookmarks, could be employed.  But the banner must be removed (and not just covered up.)
5. What a great moment for a teaching about religious belief, including atheism and its legitimate place in American society.  That can happen in a public school when the topic is historical and sociological, not religious.
6. What a great moment for the religious institutions in Cranston and the area to embrace the topics of theism and atheism in a positive manner, not accusative.

In the meantime, I hope the negativity toward Jessica Ahlquist will cease.  She should be seen as an academic hero for championing her understanding of American jurisprudence.   If I were the Dean of a Law School in the area, I would be offering a scholarship for future study.

Photo Credit: WPRO news

The dialogue/argument about the nature of corporations has picked up steam in the last few weeks as those involved in politics articulate their affection for or displeasure with the Supreme Court’s approval of SuperPac funding.  In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 decision, the Courts indicated that non-affiliated groups could collect and dispense money, with no limits, related to a political campaign.  Candidates could have no visible engagement with the SuperPac being created.

The result has been the proliferation of massive, multi-million dollar funds which have run havoc in the current election season with the protection of law and the ability to change the direction of the campaigns.   In the Iowa caucus it was clear that millions of SuperPac dollars were spent to disrupt and destroy the campaign of former Speaker Newt Gingrich.  While it is clear that the SuperPac has a clear connection to the campaign of Mitt Romney, there is no paper or visual trail to prove the point.  In the current South Carolina primary it would seem that a reversal has taken place, with a SuperPac supportive of Gingrich taking on Romney without restraint.

At the base of the dialogue about this unfortunate and devious methodology is the question of the nature of corporations.  The Supreme Court decision appears to provide that a corporation has all the qualities of personhood and is, therefore granted protection under the U.S. Constitution in matters of speech.

Those supporting the right of corporations to possess the freedoms attributed to individual persons have taken full advantage of the decision, enjoying the ability of anonymous donors to the SuperPacs to say anything they want about a candidate without restraint or legal recourse.  Lies, insinuations, mis-quotes, statements taken out of context … they are all fair game under this interpretation of law.  The results have been one of the nastiest, most inappropriate seasons of campaign voters have experienced.

Those opposed to the concept of corporations as persons argue that the rights protecting speech by individuals are not attributable to business organizations, whose complex components make them substantially different from persons.   Under the existing interpretation by the Supreme Court, corporations have been able to act in vicious, unbridled manner without the donors being identified and without being identified as being a part of a specific candidate’s campaign.  There is no transparency.

If an action is to be evaluated by its visible and measurable qualities, it is clear that this interpretation of the nature of corporation is a failure.   While the ads being purchased by the SuperPacs have been effective in destroying the momentum of a campaign, the method and the morality of the advertising is corrupt and immoral.  Outright lies and exaggerations have been prolific.   Photo and word adjustment is a common practice.  In one case Governor Romney’s words in a familiar and highly-viewed speech are lifted  and blatantly displayed as if he was saying something completely different.

Proponents of the SuperPac practices say “all is fair” in political campaigns.  I’m not sure where that understanding came from, but it is not the will of the American voter to have such immoral practices employed.  The glee shown in destroying the reputation of a candidate is nauseating.  The amount of money (millions of dollars) being spent on advertising, much of which is doctored and lacking in valid information, is obscene.

Corporations are exactly what they say they are:  corporations.   They are businesses created around organizational principles, with specific purposes, and they are populated with individuals who are invested with the charge to make the corporation successful.  To ascribe human characteristics to them, apart from descriptive metaphors, is utterly ridiculous.  To provide them with the protection of the U.S. Constitution in their immoral behavior is outrageous.   The Justices who supported the decision in Citizens United should be ashamed of their lack of scholarship and moral behavior.  It turns out to have been a Frankenstinian  decision.  Investors in the companies and corporations expending millions of dollars in this practice should similarly be enraged and should demand that their corporate leadership cease and desist in the nefarious practices they have undertaken and return to the practice of making the corporations successful.  Their money is being poorly spent.

Photo Credit: The New Deal

Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouses has come under fire for bowing to pressure from The Florida Family Association (FFA), a conservative organization which complained that Lowe’s was sponsoring a terrorist-enhancing program on TLC network.   The program, All American Muslim, came to the air on TLC network in an attempt to show the softer side of Islamic life as found in Dearborn, Michigan, a city near Detroit which is overwhelmingly Muslim.

The Florida Family Association declared that Muslims embrace “terrorism that is a way of life for some folks.”  Lowe’s pulled their advertising in the face of this criticism, thus jeopardizing the continued airing of the reality series.  It is reported that several other companies have withdrawn sponsorship of the show, as well, but Lowe’s is the only one to acknowledge it.

The response from around the country has been that Lowe’s has taken their action in response to blatant bigotry, the expression of intolerance for the Muslim faith and way of life.

Having lived near Dearborn at one point my memory of the city, the home of Ford Motor Corporation, is that of a busy industrial city with grocery stores and clothing stores which populate the business area of downtown.   It was fascinating to see Muslim clothing displayed in the windows of department stores at a time when Muslim presence was first being experienced in the United States.  My contact with those who lived in Dearborn was similar to any other interaction I had in my life.   The people were concerned about the effectiveness of schools, the price of houses, and the cost of operating a city that was experiencing the same economic issues as any other industrial city.  Families had children to clothe and feed, pets needing veterinary care, cars needing servicing, and houses and apartments needing less expensive heating.  This is the side of Muslim life the reality show was attempting to highlight in its production.

Bigotry such as that expressed by the Florida Family Association is based upon fear which is kindled by lack of exposure to the reality of Muslim life in America … the very topic of the television show.   Obsession with statistics that claim that 99% of all Muslims ascribe to Sharia law and seek to impose it on America fuels ignorance and undermines the significant impact that Muslims have made on American government, education, health care, business and entertainment.   The growth of Muslim presence in America is frightening to such groups as the FFA which appears to see others who are “different” in their life styles as dangerous to “American family values.”

It is unfortunate that companies like Lowe’s have folded under pressure from such groups and, thereby, assisted in undermining the ability of Muslim Americans to demonstrate the normality of their lives and the ability of people of Islamic heritage to add to the diverse and colorful makeup of American society.   It is reminiscent of the bigotry faced historically by Irish, Polish, German, Italian, black, Jewish, Asian, Roman Catholic, homosexual, disabled, American Indian and Mormon people.  They, too, were seen as “different” and embracing customs and practices which were not familiar/comfortable to some Americans.

This is a crucial moment for Lowe’s, who can either stay by their support of bigotry or renounce their withdrawal of support for All American Muslim and be a part of educating the American viewer as to the benefit of having Muslim presence in this country.

Photo Credit: AP

Definition Credit: Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

It seems as if there has been an epidemic of allegations over the past several weeks which were aimed at high-profile personalities.   It seemed like a good time to look at the word allegation so we can be clear about the legal ramifications of the word.   Many people confuse it with other legal jargon, such as “charged, indicted, or arrested for.”  It means none of those things.

If an allegation is made against a personality it means that someone has suggested or reported that a violation of some kind has taken place.   It can be as simple as an accusation made in a conversation, a report submitted to authorities, or a comment made in an interview.   But the main point is that an allegation does not mean that formal charges have been brought against someone, or that someone has been arrested.  To the contrary, it is just a comment that has been heard and reported to the public.

Starting with such programs as Perry Mason, and then exploding into such crime shows as  Judge Judy, CSI, and other blood and guts shows we all can name, the American public has devoured the intrigue of crime, crime fighting, and court room drama.   Many articles have been written about the expectations of the public when it comes to an incident in their lives.   Fed by the information, some of which is dramatized well beyond the reality of police investigation and criminal punishment, Americans have adopted legal language into their personal lexicon and all of the fictional applications of it they can remember from late-night re-runs.  Attorneys, police  and judges spend an inordinate amount of time having to winnow such language from witness accounts in order to get to the truth as perceived by a spectator or victim.

If an allegation is brought against someone it has to pass a fairly simple litmus test prior to becoming a formal charge, perhaps leading to an arrest.  The investigator has to determine if the allegation is credible and that the person making the allegation is competent to be believed.  Corroborating information has to be sought before formal legal action is appropriate.

There are some categories, however, in which an allegation is taken seriously immediately.  For instance, if a person reports that they have been raped, the standard procedure is to believe that allegation and proceed full speed in the investigation.  The common understanding is that someone does not make such a painful charge without there being truth  in it.   As we have seen, that is not always the case, and sometimes the allegation is disputed or dismissed if it becomes clear that the “victim” is lying.  But it has been better to be cautious at first, assuming that the allegation is accurate.*

High profile allegations receive high profile exposure.  It is important, therefore, to recognize them for what they are: assertions made with little or no proof.   While it may be entertaining to jump to conclusions based upon an allegation, it is inappropriate.  Patience and reason are required to assure the validity of the allegation.   Judgment of guilt or innocence can only be determined if the allegation is shown to be credible, charges are filed, an alleged perpetrator is arraigned, and a legitimate investigation and trial are held.  Even then, the law provides for appeal and close scrutiny of the legal procedure.

Unfortunately, we live in a society and an age which is quick to jump to conclusions.  Instant media feeds the rush to judgment.  And, it is clear, economic gain is frequently the source of allegations.

* As I have commented in other blog postings, the malice in this protocol is that the “victim” is not named to protect the name and reputation of someone who has been raped.  However, the name of the person against whom an allegation has been lodged is disclosed immediately.  If the allegation proves to be inaccurate or false, the person identified can be damaged without effective methods of clearing (his) reputation.

Photo: ABC News

Of all the heavy eaters in history, certainly Henry VIII, King of England, is regarded as the most flagrant.   If there is anyone who demonstrated the principle of Hedonism, it was he. His banquets … or even his daily meals … were sumptuous, making those at The Outback look tiny by comparison.   It is said that his “dinner” meal began in the mid-afternoon and lasted well into the night, included numerous “main dishes” and a stock of wine that would surpass the entire wine racks of most people today.

Henry VIII was all about pleasure.

To be fair about Hedonism, however, one has to reflect upon the principles attributed to Epicurus, who, in the third century, B.C., espoused the idea that the achieving of pleasure was the greatest endeavor.  He especially stipulated that the overcoming of pain at any cost was primary.   Thus, pleasure was not limited to such factors as food and drink, but included mental, spiritual, and social pleasure in his repertoire of desired life patterns.

There are libraries of material on classic Hedonism which you can find on the internet just as easily as I can.   So I’ll leave that study for those who are intrigued by the concept enough to research it.  My focus in writing today is the tendency toward Hedonism in contemporary life.  The seeking after pleasure at the expense of sacrifice and discomfort (no matter how minimal) is prominent in the thinking of many people and demonstrates itself in fairly recognizable patterns of contemporary life.

It has been common in the dialogue surrounding the American economy, for instance, to reject any plan which calls for sacrifice on the part of citizens.   The elimination of tax loopholes, the increase of taxes, and the paring down of pensions and retirement benefits for high-end earners are seen as anathema.  The discomfort of experiencing a diminishing of one’s sturdy income is characterized as a punishment, bringing pain to the upper 1% of Americans.   When you read the statistics regarding the total incomes of most Members of Congress it becomes clear why this might be of concern to them.

About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members of Congress, are millionaires, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics of lawmakers’ personal financial disclosure forms covering calendar year 2010. The Center’s analysis is based on the median values of lawmakers’ disclosed assets and liabilities.

Whether it is a primary motivating force or not, the perception of the average citizen is that Members of Congress are bent on protecting their cushy lifestyles, even when challenged to enact legislation which would minimally benefit the poorest among us.  I know for a fact that this perception is flawed, and that some of the wealthiest Members of Congress are in the forefront of proposals to adjust the contributions of the wealthiest Americans and boost the benefits to the poorest.   But it is the perception of Hedonism that prevails, not the factual data.

The vocal conservative legislators and their “base” assist in the perpetuation of this criticism of Hedonism on the part of Congress.   Their vehement answer of “no” to any legislation that promotes the increase of revenue, coupled with their strongly-worded proposals to trim benefits (especially in the social welfare categories) further adds to the perception of hedonistic preferences.

Contemporary Hedonism is frequently characterized by ownership of private planes, yachts, expensive homes, and the granting of exorbitant salaries, benefit packages, and even massive severance packages to executives (many of whom have failed in their leadership of corporations.)   For those who are unemployed, facing foreclosure on their homes, and who are unable to afford educational opportunities for their children, such wallowing in wealth is beyond distasteful.

Henry VIII set a standard for sumptuous living and disregard for the needs of those around him (especially his many wives.)  It is, in many ways, a romanticized picture of the King, but it serves well as an example for those who are angry about the current explosion of wealth at the top levels of the economic ladder.   Accusations of “class warfare” are raised whenever this topic is broached.  There may be some truth to the accusation, but the real question is  “from where is the stimulation for such tension found?”  Perception, perception, perception.

Cartoon Credit: evilburgers

Tomorrow morning (Sunday) at 2:00 we in the Eastern Time Zone are asked to turn our clocks and watches BACK one hour to 1:00 a.m. as the continent switches from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time.  You don’t have to worry about your computer clock or your cell phone.   It will change automatically.

It is the result of our having turned our clocks forward on March 11, creating a longer period of daylight.  In the mid-1800′s that seemed like a good idea which would assist the railroads in stabilizing departure times across the continent.   It established the four time zones and standardized the practice of adjusting the amount of daylight from which we benefited.   In a primarily-agricultural culture at that time, it gave farmers an advantage.

It seems like an archaic practice to me, this being an age when the railroads have technological capabilities of adjusting to times in their diminished role in North America, and when agriculture is no longer the primary form of enterprise for Americans.   Granted, it does affect the amount of natural light available for kids getting a school bus in the morning, but it also means that they may be coming home from school  in the dark.

When we lived in Michigan, a state on the far western end of the Eastern Time Zone, it was amazing how light and darkness were experienced so differently from our years in New England.  It was really, really dark when you got up and went to work or school in the morning, but it was much lighter in the late afternoon.  It took some getting used to.

As recently as 2007 the U.S. government affirmed the importance of  being a subscriber to UTC, Coordinated Universal Time, which standardizes the time belts throughout the world.   That makes sense.   It means that travel, commerce, and other factors which are time-sensitive can depend upon the assigned time for any place in the world.  It is, then, no longer a matter of an individual nation setting its own time on a whim.

However, in the United States, for instance, there are eight states that refuse to make the twice-annually adjustment between Daylight Savings Time and Standard Time.  So the standardization is lost.  And Europe did not select the same date for switching as did the US and Canada, so we have just gone through a period of some confusion for those involved in international travel and commerce. Given the Energy Policy Act of 2005 an adjustment was made in the U.S. to extend DST for the purpose of energy savings.   The results, however, showed that the reduction of energy used for electric lighting and heat was surpassed by the energy used for air conditioning, the net result being an increase in cost to the consumer.

There has been a suggestion floating around for some time that we re-imagine the whole concept of time change, the most prominent suggestion being that we select Daylight Savings Time as the standard and stay with it permanently.  It gives what seems to be a better balance of light and darkness for industry, schools, agriculture, and other time-sensitive institutions.

I have to admit to being partial to the suggestion, recognizing that technology allows us to adapt to daylight and darkness with more ease than in the mid-19th century when the issue arose.   Living in a part of the country where winter and reduced daylight have a significant affect on the mindset  of huge numbers of people, it would seem beneficial to maximize the amount of sunlight available.   The thought of it being dark at 4:00 in the afternoon for several months when it is already cold and there is a snow cover is depressing.   That extra hour of daylight could make a huge difference in the emotions of people already struggling to cope with the normal  symptoms of a northern climate.

Photo Credit:  newperspectiveradioshow

It is early in the 2012 elections calendar for people to have selected their candidate.  The issues are swirling around pretty fast and are dripping with rhetoric and hyperbole that is common in the primary season.   The candidates are sucking up to their bases and will say almost anything to get the smile they are seeking.   By the time we get to the national race with selected candidates the themes change and we can get a little bit more serious about analyzing the platforms of specific candidates.

It will be then that I will be asking for answers to one of the most significant, yet overlooked, issues before us in a presidential election.  The Supreme Court.  I kept raising the issue in the past four presidential elections and was greeted with yawns and superficial responses.   People were more tied into issues which looked more interesting and could raise the sweat on the brow of their debaters.

But the issue of the Supreme Court, while hidden from view for many voters, is at the center of the criteria I think we should be considering when electing a new president.   It is clear in this election that at least two, maybe three seats on the Supreme Court could be vacant during the term of the 45th President, who will bear the responsibility of nominating the next seat-holder.     The current make-up of the Court is tilted in favor of  conservatives by a 5-4 margin.   Under most circumstances we can pretty well assume the outcome of a judicial vote, given that tilt.   There have been times when it was tilted in the other direction, and there were times when it was not as clear about the leanings of the justices.

The Supreme Court has been faced with huge issues over the past several decades which were dependent upon the ideologies of the various justices.   I stand with others who believe that in one case the Supreme Court chose to act on a case in which the President of the United States was elected as a result of their vote.  Issues of women’s rights and immigration law are only two of the matters which will be faced by the Supreme Court in the next couple of years.   It matters deeply who is sitting on that Court.

But it would be wrong to support a candidate who says that (he) will only consider appointing someone with similar ideology to (his) own.  That is not a healthy way to promote justice in this country.   Rather, the President of the United States should be a person capable of making a healthy selection based upon criteria which assure intelligence, fairness and clarity of purpose on the part of potential justices.  The justices need a well-schooled understanding of constitutional law and an awareness of the implications of law in the lives and safety of the people of the United States.

Consequently, the selection of the President of the United States should be made with a concern for the President’s intelligence and ability to translate that intelligence into the selection of those required to articulate the law of the land.  It should be less of a political appointment than one of concern for the upholding of the institution of the Supreme Court and its role in judging the constitutionality of law.  Cronyism and political favor have no place in that decision-making.    Litmus tests of political preferences destroy the integrity of the Court.  Appointments based upon such criteria as ethnicity, gender, orientation, or class will turn out to be limitations that undermine the ability of the Court to function without inappropriate restraint.

It always bothers me when a potential appointment is said to “have earned” the seat on the Supreme Court by holding an extended tenure in the court system.  To the contrary, some of the appointments who have never sat as a judge have turned out to have been the sources of wisdom and intelligence which have led the Supreme Court in making history-changing decisions.  Justices who are clear-thinking and hard-working are far more valuable than those whose careers have been limited and single-issue focused.

This is not the last time I will raise this topic over the next several months.  When we are clear as to who the selected candidates are, it will be time to ask tough questions.  My hope is that this question of process in selecting Supreme Court justices will be one of those questions.

Photo Credit: dailyrecord.com

The Occupy Wall Street movement is several weeks old now, and it has spread from a New York City beginning to cities and communities all over the country and into foreign countries as well.   The attempt to characterize it has baffled even the most articulate reporters who seek language from past experiences such as the protests against the Vietnam War for images.   But it isn’t quite the same.

To begin with, the Occupy movement is not quite as focused as was the protest against the Vietnam War, which had one, primary goal:  to end the war and bring the troops home.  It was later to prove to have other motives, however, such as the identification and indictment of those responsible for the beginning of the war.  There was a similar response to the war in Iraq, but it lacked the strength of the Vietnam experience.   It is commonly believed by many experts that the Vietnam protests led directly to the decision to end the war and pull out of Vietnam.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a response to a festering anger in the United States (and abroad) at the inappropriately powerful role that big money plays in the decisions of the government.   Unemployment, foreclosures on property and the increasing disparity between the middle class and the wealthy has grown to previously unimaginable contrasts and those who are in the metaphoric 99% of Americans are angry.   They see Wall Street’s growing financial success and their own rapidly-diminishing resources and aren’t happy with the picture.

“Wall Street” has become another metaphor, signifying more than the money managers in lower Manhattan.  For purposes of the protest, they are the metaphoric focus, but the anger is more displaced than that.   Big business, whether in New York or Seattle, is thriving, and it feels like that is happening at the expense of those outside the big business realm.  People have moved from shock and discouragement to anger.  So far the mood of the huge crowds in the Occupy movement has been vocal and restrained.   But it is only a matter of time before that restraint fails and the mood turns ugly.  Already there are instances of police intervention to move the occupiers from public property.   The municipalities are becoming tired of the noise, the confusion, and the disruption of municipal routines.

For the most part, the media has been generous to the Occupy movement and that generosity has fueled growth.   The massive effect of social media has  fostered growth beyond expectations.  The entry of organized labor and veterans’ groups has broadened the demographic of the movement.  Indeed, the demographic is widespread, ranging from college students to elderly citizens and encompassing people of all ethnic and racial groups.   At first the government took a watch and see attitude; of late the government has begun to realize that it has to step up in some way to define its response to the vocal protest.

The problem many see with the Occupy movement is its generic focus.   One of its qualities is the broad spectrum of individuals and groups who identify with the protest.   One of the weaknesses of the the movement is the failure to identify the specific changes being sought by Wall Street and the government in order to appease the crowds.  By nature the movement is without structure, relying upon spontaneous leadership groups to manage the physical settings.  But there is no recognized spokesperson or leadership group that has permission to identify the specific goal of Occupy.  Until that happens the ability to appease the crowds is vaporous.   Only the oncoming winter has any possibility of dispersing the crowds, although the message of the movement will not be lost when the crowds have to retreat from the harsh winter weather.

The question is whether the Occupy movement will be capable of sustaining attention and respect in a way that has a direct impact on legislators and members of the corporate boards.   It is time for a recognized spokesperson and attending leadership to be identified so the process can articulate and support the changes required to diminish the rapidly-growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Photo Credit:  Hans Pennink

It appears that pensions were first established in Europe in the seventeenth century, the first in the United States showing up as benefits to widows of Revolutionary War veterans.  The primary incentive seems to have been recognition of one’s service to the country which interrupted one’s life and employment  and the modest situation in which widows of those persons found themselves.   It was, therefore, more of a death benefit than a retirement package.

However, over the years the  pension concept emerged as part of the “great American dream” of retirement, a time upon leaving active employment, during which one’s older years are guaranteed some form of financial assistance…maybe even stability.  As people began to live longer and the standard of living increased, the expectation of spending a number of years away from the workforce enjoying a time of greater ease began to grow. Consequently, in recent years the idea of retirement has become a norm, and the expectation of pension compensation an accompanying norm.   In most cases, the employee and the employer jointly contribute to the fund from which the pension will be paid.

During the 30′s the Roosevelt administration took the idea to another level by creating Social Security, meant to be a supplement to one’s retirement income, hoping to include people on the lower end of the economic spectrum in “the great American dream” of  a time of greater leisure following a career of employment.   As I have said in an earlier blog, the concept of Social Security was never intended to be a sole form of economic support for someone; it was a supplement.  Unfortunately, Social Security has emerged in the lives of many Americans as their only form of late-stage income, creating an massive expansion of the class of people who are near-poverty.

As with any large program, in this case one which affects millions of people, retirement pensions, particularly in the realm of retired public employees, has been affected by abuse of the system.   Public employees seek ways to “double dip,” for instance, retiring at the earliest possible age from one job to collect a retirement benefit, and then taking on another public position.  The result is a double pension.

In some communities where regulation and supervision of the system has been weak, pension provisions have been excessive, some public employees retiring from bureaucratic positions with six-figure retirement packages, many of which include full health benefits for the remainder of their life and that of their spouse.   In many communities retirement packages have been approved for employees without any attempt to fund them.  With the onset of the “baby boomer” population, those packages have, literally, bankrupted some communities.

Consequently, we live in a decade where pension reform is a hot item in the political agenda.  Knee-jerk reactions calling for the abolition of  promised pensions have created panic among legitimate pension-holders.  Union-negotiated employment packages with hefty pensions and health benefits are at odds with those in municipalities responsible for the budget.   Tensions are rising all over the country, and threats to diminish public social programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare have created great anxieties and fears.

The danger, obviously, is to toss the baby out with the bathwater.   What is called for is pension and health care reform in which abuses of the existing programs are taken seriously and overcome.   It is believed that billions of dollars (with a “b”) can be saved by appropriate reform without trashing the entire system upon which so many people depend legitimately.

There is no easy answer to such reform.  There will be sacrifices required in order to properly reform the system.  But it must be done with cool heads, intelligence instead of drama, and compassion for those for whom the programs were intended.   And, in some cases, there must be punishment for those who intentionally rob the system, thereby jeopardizing the program for those who depend upon it.

Pension reform will not take place prior to the 2012 Presidential election.  However, the staging of the reform should begin immediately.  There are already some aspects of the reform in place and functioning, but a larger, more extensive reform is going to be necessary. It will not be popular, and the political ramifications are monstrous.   However, the results can become impressive and the savings attained can be seen as a benefit to the struggling economic picture in this country, especially at the more local level.

Photo Credit: Ed Mendel