In our modern day mystery play, the first large group of mostly young people congregated in a very small park in New York City about one block long and a half block wide. They are confined to this small space in which to live and are not allowed to even pitch a small tent against the elements. They are not permitted to have a loudspeaker in order to give information to the large numbers of people that often congregate there to talk, exchange ideas, plan demonstrations and explain how the present economic policies affect their lives now and in the future.
At first the groups was badly used and abused, not because they were violent (because they were not) but just because they were there in large numbers.
And the rich wonder, "What does this mean?" They give many answers: Glenn Beck said that the protesters were going to attack the rich and kill them. Kevin O'Leary blanched white (see below). Eric Canter stated it was setting Americans against Americans. No kidding! Mayor Bloomberg thinks the protesters are taking away jobs. What? Lloyd Blankfein cancelled a talk when he thought OWS might be close by. All the rich people are petrified and OWS hasn't done anything but march around, sing, say slogans and carry signs! What drama! What mystery!
Put any rich person's name into google with Occupy Wall Street and a lot of interesting things can come up.
In allegorical terms, the small space allowed to OWS is the amount of wealth that they can aspire to--very small, silenced and uncomfortable indeed. They are ringed by police (not necessarily for their own protection) and some of the police have been paid by the Wall Street banks (recently, JP Morgan Chase gave $4.6 million to the NYPD!). The confined nature and the spontaneous committment of the people who call themselves Occupy Wall Street could be seen as a present-day mystery drama which will change as time goes on. So the 99% of people have 1% of the wealth as represented by the space they occupy in the economic wealth of the nation. While the 1% have 40% of the wealth and space beyond measure and comprehension. This is the stage being set for the opening of the play.
Occupy Wall Street is dramatic in its non-violent desires and its patience while the transformation of the drama continues to emerge. Now all one has to do is look at the reactions of folks and you get the idea of what this drama is all about.
For example, on the CBC (which is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and supposedly represents the taxpayers' best interests) we have had two interviews which show the fear and loathing of the rich and the strength and power of the OWS.
The first interview comes from the Lang and O'Leary Exchange, a business program that also interviews people making business news. It, too, has its misplaced drama. This week (on October 6, 2011) another co-host and Kevin O'Leary interviewed Chris Hedges about the Occupy Wall Street movement. You can also see the transcript here.
What is astonishing is the vileness of the host's response to a guest who was giving his honest opinion about OWS. What stands out in my mind is the chalk-white face of astonishment and anger of O'Leary as he challenged his right to be a billionaire, a billionaire without conscience or sympathy.
The second egregious example of unfair play takes place when both O'Leary and Lang attack the author, Linda McQuaig, for her ideas in a book she wrote called "The Trouble With Billionaires." She was trying to explain why inequality in wealth is detrimental to most people. The hosts, Amanda Lang and O'Leary took turns calling Linda insane, dangerous, evil (O'Leary's favorite word) and that she had lost her mind. Oh, Amanda, we have lost you!
And where, oh, where is Goldman Sachs in all this brouhaha? Well, both Chris Hedges and the Exchange mention Goldman Sachs who, we know is really the Epitome of Economic Greed as you can see from all the hundreds of posted entries on this blog.