Ironic Protest, Part II

So, I was talking about the whole Wall Street protest thing with the Other Half, and she made a very good point. I don't remember her phrasing, so I won't even try to quote her (except that the final line here is hers), but here's the gist of it, with my verbose expansion.

True political protests have potential to make a change. Why? Because they're about political change. Public policy. Law. War or the cessation thereof. Politicians want your vote when it's reelection time. So, if you make enough noise, and convince them that enough voters are behind your cause, they take note and make changes so that they can keep their jobs.

The problem with the Wall Street protests is twofold. For one, it's just that: protestS. Plural. There's no cohesive, specific unifying message. Just "We don't like that you make too much money".  The other problem is that these executives don't have to answer to the protestors for anything. The protestors are already ensuring the executives' continued employment, because they keep buying the products and services. If they want to make a difference, they need to suck it up and organize boycotts. If that means not using ATMs so that banks lose revenues from the fees, so be it. If that means cancelling cell service or internet service, not buying computers, etc., so be it. That's how you get to a CEO: affect the bottom line. Make a difference in the P&L report.



Vote with your wallet.

Ironic Protest

Anybody else find it funny that these people protesting in New York are tweeting and facebooking about it? I mean, they're using smart phones and laptops and cell service ALL purchased from publicly traded companies. They're paying money -directly to- the companies they're accusing of making too much money. Kind of like protesting lack of health insurance by exposing yourself to a disease...

To truly protest a thing, you kind of have to not use it or risk being called a hypocrite. For example, if I'm going to protest that liquor companies get rich off an addictive substance, it would sort of be wrong for me to camp outside a brewery with a case of beer and a few bottles of whiskey and drink the whole time, eh? I'd need to get sober first. The protesters in the 60s didn't have social networking, but they did what they felt needed to be done, and they were able to make themselves heard.

Why criticize those who make money when you're one of those who paid them? The gain was the incentive for creating. If it weren't for the potential gain, people wouldn't quit their jobs and live on Cheetos for a year while inventing the next generation computer/motorcycle/cell phone/gizmo for us to enjoy. They'd stick with punching their time clock and getting a nice, safe, guaranteed, hourly wage, and we'd still be writing letters with fountain pens, using rotary phones (the operator would have to dial long distance for us), and listening to radio shows instead of watching 300 cable channels. 

This isn't so much a statement for or against the protestors or their cause, as it is a snarky observation of the irony of the situation and their methods.

Labor Day

Ah, Labor Day, the most ironic of our national holidays. It's a day named for and intended to celebrate laborers and the Labor Force. Yet, the people least likely to have the day off are laborers. Management will get the day off, with pay even. Government workers will get the day off, paid, too. Most retail employees will either get today off with pay, or will have an extra day off at some point in the week. Some laborers and tradesmen will get the day off, but for most of them, it's a day without pay, so if they have the option, they'll go to work. Just. Like. Every. Monday. While everybody else "celebrates" Labor by not laboring and not giving a second thought to those who do.

"Labor", ironically, seems to have the least reason to celebrate Labor Day.