Doddering Democracy: Expediency and Idealism in the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement
A funny thing happened on the way to the General Assembly. It was the first time I had attended such a meeting at “Occupy Portland, Oregon,” the local protest corresponding to the “Occupy Wall Street” protests in New York City. The protests had already been going on for a couple of weeks and it was the first opportunity I had to spend any time at one. I attended principally because I was interested to learn more about the concerns of local protesters and how the protest was being organized. As someone interested primarily in listening, I didn’t speak, and I learned more than I imagined I would, on an unexpected subject—democracy, and how it differs in application when utilized as an organizational tool, as opposed to idealized as a panacea. Two encounters in particular at this meeting have given me much to consider on this subject, and have shaped my thoughts concerning the nationwide “Occupy” movement as a whole.
A Humble Proposition
A Humble Proposition
for preventing the unemployed in the United States of America, from being a burden on their country, and for making them beneficial to the public
It is a melancholy object to those, who walk though the great city of New York, or travel to nearly any other city in this great nation, when they see the parks crowded with unemployed youth, veterans of combat, and aging drug users, granola crunchers, and brassiereless females, all in soiled, malodorous clothing and harassing every passerby (Roberts et al.). These people instead of working for their honest livelihood are content to employ all their time complaining about the accomplishments of others and beg for debt relief while they thieve and rape for want of work and love (Lomax), or they may indeed leave their dear native country, to fight as terrorists against civilized society (Vermillion).

