Un-Occupied

It appears that the “Occupied” movement is losing momentum. Canadian cities were the first to give Occupiers the heave-ho, and American cities are beginning to follow suit.

Some of the so-called protesters are lamenting the revocation of their rights to free speech. I must say that this baffles me.

First of all, I fail to see how setting up a shanty village in a public park conveyed any sense of their concerns.

When I see legitimate protesters walking a picket line carrying signs and chanting slogans, I can usually get a sense of what the protest is about.

Not so looking at some makeshift tent village.

Frankly, even seeing the protesters walking the street and waving their signs, I wasn’t sure what their message was.

Watching and reading the news hasn’t helped. It seems every other Occupier that is interviewed has a different explanation for why they are protesting.

Some are complaining about the environment, while others bemoaning the unequal distribution of wealth. One group in Ohio was joining the fight against anti-union legislation.

This morning I watched an interview with one Occupier who admitted that there were some homeless and radical elements that inserted themselves into the scene of the Occupation in his city, which not only distracted from their own message – whatever that was – but caused many of the original Occupiers to become discouraged and give up.

Unlike James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, the Occupiers seemed to be rebels with too many causes. There was certainly nothing coherent about the Occupy movement as it spread.

Most of the tent villages have now been dismantled, although some of the die-hard Occupiers say they are looking for alternative sites on which to rebuild.

Watching video of some of the evictions taking place one gets the sense that this really wasn’t a “movement” at all. If these were ever cohesive groups with a common purpose they certainly became less so as time went on.

While part of one group was peaceably standing by watching authorities tag and dismantle the “village,” others were creating human chains, linking themselves together with zip ties. Still others were making spectacles of themselves for the media: one fellow was waving his arms and shouting, “We would have taken them down ourselves,” despite obviously not having done so by the imposed deadline.

I watched as one woman was literally picked up by six police officers and carried away, screaming as though they were ripping her limb-from-limb.

A later scene showed her walking away from the police station after having been charged with trespassing, telling reporters “That was really scary,” between sobs.

As we near the end of this movement, we are left to ponder its significance.

Many who posted comments on various internet discussion boards decried the protesters as “lazy, uneducated, unemployed, spoiled brats.”

Interestingly, I read several rebuttals to these statements from those who claim to whole-heartedly support the Occupiers. These supporters claim to not be “lazy, uneducated, unemployed, spoiled brats” themselves, and often cited their educational and employment backgrounds.

The thing is, there “support” for the occupiers was moral, in nature. They did not join them on the front lines, as it were.

There were occasional comments from people claiming to be Occupiers, and refuting the derogatory accusation some were making.

Who knows for sure? It does seem odd, though, that people who claim to represent the “99 percent” would have the time to go and live in a makeshift tent village in some downtown park.

I guess I do, to a point, understand what their motivation was. In fact, it’s easy to point an accusatory finger at those who are, or appear to be, hoarding the world’s wealth. One must ask, however, what they believe the solution might be?

Should we just divide the equally amongst everyone, regardless of their role in society? Can we eliminate poverty, unemployment, and under-employment simply by handing out cash to everyone who wants some?

Many of those making derogatory comments about the protesters were angry, and perhaps justifiably so. They are the hard-working middle class, who toil for their wages, make do with what they have, often sacrificing personal luxuries so that they can give their children more than they had when they were younger.

These are people who recognize that life may not fair, but get up and go to work anyway, because that’s what you have to do to survive.

These are the people who pay taxes, who help provide the social safety net that benefits the “99 percent.”

Many of these people are the ones who will have to go and clean up the parks that had been “occupied.”

Life is what we make of it.

Yes, many of us dream of having the lifestyle of a millionaire – or more likely these days, a billionaire. Lottery tickets are selling like hot cakes.

I can’t help wondering if we shouldn’t just be satisfied with what we have.

Oh, sure, there’s nothing wrong with working hard and trying to better your situation. But don’t forget to appreciate what you already have.

Some of the happiest people I know will never be millionaires (nor billionaires). They don’t have humungous homes and a driveway full of expensive vehicles. They don’t take vacations and cruises on a whim.

They have mortgages and car loans and credit card bills. They are “getting by.” Some are just “making ends meet.”

They lead fairly simple lives, going to work – and, from time to time, looking for work – and coming home to spend time with their families.

And what’s wrong with that?

For myself, while I do from time to time complain (don’t we all?) I accept that things really aren’t so bad.

Yes, they could be better. Yes, changing careers several times over the past 20-30 years hasn’t really provided me with a stable outlook on retirement.

However, my happiness is not dependent on others.

Similarly, if I have any reason to be unhappy, it is not anyone’s fault but my own.

Nothing anyone can do, or not do, determines whether or not I am happy.

That is my decision.

But… that’s just my opinion.