Occupy What Street?

"We are the 99%" a phrase that every American, even kids my age, recognize and associate with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although very familiar with the idea of these protests, I think a lot of students (including myself) don't know the details behind the movement. Why exactly was Occupy Wall Street started? Who composes the one percent?

The website OccupyWallStreet says that the point of the movement is to challenge "the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future." According to this CNN article, in 2009 if you had an average income of $343,927 or above, you were considered to be in this top 1%

I had always believed that it took a much higher income to make the 1%. My estimated number was closer to a million dollars. Knowing that the average income of Winnetka residents is well above $200,000, I now think that it is not unlikely that many families living in this area qualify for the top 1%.


My preconceived judgment shows the lack of knowledge there is about the Occupy movement among students. About something that has even begun to take place within a half hour of our homes. Occupy Chicago has been going on for a few months now. We should be more informed about these protests, being that they are occurring so close to us. How informed are you?


In order to help spread awareness, my friend is actually working on a documentary about Occupy Wall Street. Watch the preview and see footage of Occupy Chicago here! 

Protecting their Country or Protecting their Jobs?

In response to Mr. O'Connor's post Perilous-er and Perilous-er...

I'd like to believe that contacting the representatives and voicing my opinion would a very effective way to make the Senators reconsider their decision. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. It is clear that the Senators have made their decision to prioritize getting re-elected, rather than ensuring they are sticking to their political values.

The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization dedicated to protecting our civil rights. The ACLU even has a process of looking at politicians' voting records on civil liberty issues and then using this information to calculate a "score," which indicates how pro civil liberties each politician is. You can view this scorecard on the ACLU website here. After the most recent session of Congress, our own Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin received a score of 91%, placing him among some of the most pro civil liberties politicians on the list. This is why it is strange that he passed a bill that as Doc O'C mentioned in his post, is "the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face" according to Forbes magazine.

Why would a politician who is notably pro civil liberties pass such an act? Did he simply change his mind about our civil rights?

The most glaring explanation is that he was afraid of being labeled as a candidate who does not support the defense of our country, jeopardizing his chance of being re-elected in the upcoming election. Is this a justified fear? Would this be a justified label? Is this a proper excuse for passing this act?

Fighting for your Foe?

The other day in class we talked about Stockholm syndrome, a case in which hostages develop an attachment and positive feelings for their captor. While reading the Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass this weekend, I came across a statement that reminded me of this condition. 

On page 12 Douglass explains how slaves in America would sometimes fight with one another "each contending for the superior goodness of his own" master. This is certainly not a severe case of Stockholm's syndrome, but is similar enough for me to be reminded of it while reading. 

At first, the thought of this idea surprised me. Why would the slaves defend the people responsible for their pain and suffering? I thought maybe because the enslaved people had such little personal identity that they began to use their masters as a part of their own identification, feeling that the "greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves" (12). 

I soon realized that I really should not have been all that surprised with this form of identification. In fact, it is not so different from the way Americans identify themselves today. The things one belongs to whether it is a school, a town, a team...etc. becomes a big part of their identity. My peers like to take pride in and defend New Trier for an example, because it is what they belong to. Slaves will defend their masters, because they are who they belong to. Not that the Peculiar Institution and the Institution of New Trier is the most accurate comparison, but they are both used by a group of people to further identify themselves. Therefore, if one of them is being criticized, it is only natural to become defensive.