Occupy Everything, Part Two

http://youtu.be/Ovs0fpFgeqw

I love Miley Cyrus' video, "Don't Give Up-It's a Liberty Walk," which she released on Thanksgiving.

At first glance, I thought, "Oh, I've seen a lot of this footage before, not another video of mass protests and an upbeat soundtrack." But I really appreciated seeing footage of events I had covered with fellow Between The Lines' crew – from the Oct. 1 Brooklyn Bridge arrests to the Oct. 15 Global Day of Action at Times Square – and other "viral videos" I had been posting on our Facebook page from Occupations around the world these past few months.

For the thousands who've been working quietly, out of the public eye, on socioeconomic issues for years – and even those who have taken part in this movement more recently – the video is a nice affirmation that after months or years of frustration, we're not alone!

However, one of my colleagues suggests that unless Miley Cyrus takes to the streets, she is exploiting the Occupy movement. She had not written her song to fit the movement, but rather, had remixed her "Liberty Walk" music video from an earlier release.

Whether or not she actually takes that "liberty walk" herself is not as important as the fact that her celebrity status raises awareness for a whole new generation that just may not pay attention to the likes of Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Cornel West, Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Jackson Browne and others, all of whom have actually spent an hour or more with Occupy Wall Street groups around the country. (Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges even got arrested at a march and rally in front of the Goldman Sachs building.) 

Anything that keeps the dialogue and awareness of what the movement is trying to do has got to be good in counteracting the unproductive stereotyping of "dirty hippies that should get a job and are defecating in public, leaving behind disgusting (you know what) when police clean up their encampments." (Many daily newspaper sites' comment boards are rife with such negative, persistent viewpoints from whom I think also need to get a useful job... how do they have so much time to waste and what problems are they trying not to solve? That in itself speaks volumes.)

I've been wondering why none of the highly paid pundits in commercial broadcast media, nor the  relentless "trolls" in online message boards and chatrooms will use the words "income inequality" or even acknowledge the many studies by credible sources. Are they simply not thinking? Or are they deliberately trying to keep people distracted from thinking about the true issues, such as the economic displacement of a vast number of middle-class workers who are losing or have lost jobs to technology, as well as those aspiring to be middle class – including those among the student population who may not have an economic future and standard of living as their parents?

It's just common sense to realize that advancing technology over the past 30 years alone is displacing millions of jobs that once supported local communities, and though productivity is soaring and profits are up, those funds are accumulating somewhere – at the very top of the wealthiest in the nation. (Millionaires don't make $20,000 a week one year just once; those salaries accumulating every year and their numbers are growing. The U.S. has the highest number of millionaires and billionaires.) People with a conscience ought to take these naysayers on:  " What jobs did your parents have? What do you think about advancing technology replacing people's jobs?  Are products getting cheaper? Is the cost of living going down? Are people working less because they 'want' to? Or are they actually working two low wage jobs? If someone's making more than a million or two a year, are they actually contributing products and services that cause dollars to circulate many times over in communities or are they just making money out of money and these dollars are being stashed away from others who can actually recirculate it for basic food, shelter and education? What do you think about income inequality?"

When I heard about how Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said to avoid legitimizing the Wall Street protests, and conservative pollster Frank Luntz, speaking at a recent Republican Governors Association conference, described how to talk about the protests, it all made sense.

Despite efforts to repress the Occupy/99 percent movement, and GOP House focus on austerity measures to reduce the deficit at a time when a job stimulus is sorely needed, I'm glad there's a whole lot of "Occupy Everything" ... not only from the many encampments, but from "occupy colleges" over crushing student loan debt;  "occupying banks" and promoting bank account transfers to nonprofit credit unions or trying to establish public credit unions in their communities; "occupy our homes" for those helping communities stricken by mass foreclosures; to those occupying economics, such as 300 economists who made a statement in favor of sustainable economies "for the people, for the planet and for the future."

Nexis' database shows  that the movement has influenced public discourse; about income inequality has been increased in from some 91 mentions in public media since Occupy Wall Street set up its encampment on Sept. 17, to over 500 by Nov. 11.

However, as the movement devolves into a "occupiers vs. police" polarization over dismantling encampments – there's still not enough media coverage and public awareness about the extreme level of corruption that went on about the banks that got bailed out; ie, repeat offender Citigroup, and the $7.7 trillion secret Federal Reserve Loan that Bloomberg News reported. Former attorney general Eliot Spitzer says there should be a congressional hearing with the bankers "about the actual negotiations, or lack thereof, that led to these loans; about the actual condition of each of the borrowing banks and whether that condition differed from the public statements made by the banks at the time."

And, there still needs to be a wider discussion about what people really want, which is I believe is a globally sustainable economy with an economic bill of rights. It's very important to try to move the dialogue into this discussion. And "sustainability" is not just about environment and renewable energy, but also ensuring the accessibility for everyone to meet basic human developmental needs: clean water, food, shelter, education, health care, as well as being able to contribute meaningfully to society: jobs to support one's self, family and community, and to secure one's retirement in dignity.

But the most important of all are the things that make participatory democracy possible, such as a free, independent press which can make public discourse more substantive, and protect civil liberties and the right to dissent.

It's time to occupy mainstream media and begin making sure the discussion is focused on what makes a truly globally sustainable economy, and life of peace and security, the kind we and our collective ancestors have longed for.

For the first time in our collective history, we finally have the technology to make it happen.