Let me start off with a verbal cartoon, for you: An elephant is standing on a rug in someone's living room; it is also standing on the homeowner's toes--which are also on said rug. It hurts, it's inconvenient, and the elephant really shouldn't be in that house in the first place. But in all fairness, it hasn't broken anyone's foot (yet) and, well, elephants do need to stand somewhere, don't they? Oh yes, something about personal rights, too.
Now let me shift to another scene: With most of the Occupy Wall Street apes (Maurice, “apes” is a double entendre) “graciously” conceding to remove their tents, toilets, and trash—to say nothing of the rest of their delinquent debris from publicly-owned property throughout the land, we can finally get on with life. It seems that the anarchists in Los Angeles are now some of the few protest groups defying the law. But, hey, what else can you expect from California?
If you missed the analogy, it is as follows: The elephant represents the professional squatters, the homeowner represents the civic leaders; the house, of course, is a co-op, owned by the rest of the people. Pushing, pleading, and prodding will not get the elephant off toes. A tranquilizer here, an enticing bucket of slop over there, or something of that sort, should do the trick—if ever proffered.
In the meantime, one hopes the elephant wouldn't do anything as thoughtless as sitting down and making itself at home in someone else's house. No, only human protesters are that, well, animal-like.
A movement that possibly had a smidgen of integrity at its inception has blossomed into full-fledged acts of vandalism, perversion, and lawlessness. I know for a fact that if my family tried the same trick—ie., freeloading on public property, and creating a mess while at it—I would be thrown into jail sooner than I could sing “this land is my land.”
As alarmed as I have been at how easy it has been for these goons set up their mobile ghettoes throughout North America, it has been equally disturbing to see how inept and powerless the law has been in removing them—no matter how much they have pushed, pleaded, and prodded.
On the one hand, eviction notices, public opinion, and the spirit of the law have meant diddly-squat with these people. The other thing I wonder about is just exactly who are they? Do they not have jobs and lives of their own? Where do they live? Do they really believe in the cause, or are they just looking for a way to vent their petulance?
On the other hand, I am thinking that, in a civil society where law and order is to be maintained, nihilism should be dealt with swiftly and judiciously. There should be no room for negotiation or plea bargaining. I don't recall those options when I have been stopped for speeding. Maybe we should try that approach to shoplifting and vandalism, and see how far we get.
So why the double standard when it comes to civil disobedience?
The irony here, as I have stated in a previous column (as well as in today's column), is that there may be—and I repeat—a “smidgen of integrity at its inception.” In other words, a very small percentage of these squatters may have a faint reason for their actions. The rascals in big business and big banks and big government need to be far, far more accountable. There is no question there needs to be far more transparency and openness at every level, from the top down.
But we do need businesses, banks, and government (noticed I dropped the word “big”) to provide a sane infrastructure for a healthily, robust economy. And we do need the ability to choose, protest, and appeal when these big three are off-kilter. Such disagreements should take the form of letters to the editor, voting with all the facts, ads in newspapers, and peaceful, public demonstrations that can be timed with a watch (not a calendar)—for starters Disagreement with said institutions should never take the form of public indecency, defiance, and lawlessness.
If not handled correctly, next time—to carry through with my analogy—the elephant may just may choose to sit down on the wrong spot. And that could get the homeowner and his friends really mad.. And then that could produce quite a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment