Re: <nettime> Debt Campaign Launch

[Newmedia@aol.com]

Sascha:
 
Exactly!  You can't OCCUPY the *moral* high-ground when your own  personal 
"morals" are dubious to idiotic to plain-and-simple selfish.
 
Furthermore, the CAUSES of income-and-rights inequality are not being  
examined in any depth, so the INTELLIGENCE high-ground isn't being *occupied*  
either.  Obviously "capitalism" (which is as meaningless a term as  
"communism") isn't an answer that anyone with a high-school education would take  
seriously.
 
There is no reason for the OWS movement to agree on "demands" or to channel 
 themselves into "elections" -- which are, in fact, a big part of the 
"problem"  -- but if there isn't a sense of moral and intellectual honesty, 
clarity and  purpose, then there is ZERO chance that this will have any lasting 
social  impact.
 
 
NO morals + NO intelligence = NO IMPACT!

 
I marched against the Vietnam WAR and got clubbed-and-gassed when it all  
went sideways and even joined SDS and got involved in the movement and some 
of  its plans.  And, yes, I've been to Zuccotti park in search of an "honest  
man."
 
What is happening now is just STUPID.  How can you expect a *stupid*  
"system" to improve when you even dumber about what caused this situation than  
those who you criticizing?
 
Mark Stahlman
Brooklyn NY
 
 
In a message dated 11/21/2011 8:02:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
sascha@sascha.com writes:


I'm  sorry, but this is ridiculous--and offensive.

I agree that income  inequality is a huge issue in our country. I also
agree that the cost of  private college/university tuition is (too)
high. And certainly one can  make a cogent argument that schools (such
as NYU, Harvard, etc.) with  endowments in the billions, could do more
to offset the cost of education  with some of that banked money.

But if one opted to go to an expensive  school over, let's say,
a lower cost state school--and one agreed at the  outset to the
contract involving loans because you believed it was worth  it--I
don't have a lot of sympathy for a movement to arbitrarily not  pay
back that debt. That money may seem outrageous to the debtor  but
it's also connected to the broader economics of our society.  The
consequences of not paying it are more than just less-debt-for-you  and
stiffing-the-rich-school-you-went-to. The school, after all,  already
got paid. Much of that debt is subsidized by the taxpayers, the  99%,
through lenders who (yes) make money off that subsidy.

This is  where my sympathy for the Occupy [you name it] goes down the
drain. Plenty  of people in the 99% were looking for free money when
they took out  mortgage and other loans they *knew* they couldn't
afford to pay back. Are  the banks guilty of predatory practices?
Sure. But that doesn't excuse  individual people from poor (or greedy)
decision-making.

So, I'm  sorry but "Occupy Student Debt" just proves the worst things
about  right-wing perspectives on this whole series of movements:
that it's not  about the 99% taking some responsibility for the mess
they're in, but  instead trying to explain why they should claim no
responsibility for  anything.

Sascha


Sascha D. Freudenheim
Doubt is  humanity's best  friend.
http://www.thetruthasiseeit.com/
http://www.sascha.com/

On  11/20/11 9:59 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:

> Occupy Student  Debt!
> National Campaign Launch
>  www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org
 <...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org