Bite-sized goodness from around the web.
Me: I'm going to McDonald's. I'll be back in a bit.
Her: Ooh, that sounds good bring me a McFlurry.
Me: You're going to get out of the warm bed at midnight just to eat cold ice cream?
Her: No. I'm not getting out of bed.
This week on the podcast, Charlie Gilkey, the creator of the popular life and business strategies blog Productive Flourishing, made an appearance on the show.
I really enjoyed this episode of ProductiVardy. You should check it out.
So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.
(via Instapaper)
The UC Davis' policeman's actions are a huge gift to the Chinese government, because this gives the Chinese government added ammunition to build a moral equivalency argument between itself and the US (not to the world but to it's own people.) I only speak from experience in China, but I'm sure in many countries, the reaction will be the same. Just another aspect in which this horrible event is a tragedy.
This show's not for everyone but it's one of my favorites.
If you decide to invest the time, do yousrelf a favor. Watch all of season one then stop watching season two after Laura's killer is revealed. It kind of loses focus after that.
Typically, Someone will express disgust at the violence taking place against against Occupy Protesters.
Then Someone Else pipes up defending the intent of the Police action, if not always the severity. You see, Occupiers should know that being on private property, or even some public spaces under the right conditions, is a violation and Occupiers do not have the right to break the law.
Someone mentions the civil rights movement of the 60s and the fact that Black People were occupying spaces they'd been banned from. Someone's point is that Black People had to break the law in order to prove their point.
Someone Else acknowledges the truth of that situation. But, today is different. The Students at UC Davis weren't occupying in the same way the Black People took on the Lunch Counter Owners in the South. They occupied those counters in direct violation of an unjust law. That's a different principal entirely.
I'd like to ask Someone Else if he sees the same injustices that today's Occupiers see. I do. But there is no law we as Occupiers can break that demonstrates how unjust the current American System is. We've been put in a position of subservience to the System's interests.
All we can do is raise awareness and get people talking and that's what all this chatter is about. It's all we can do and I hope it proves to be enough.
It's almost like today's Power Brokers learned from the mistakes of the Lunch Counter Owners and devised the System to destroy the Occupier's power.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
