Here at Life Flipping, I frequently write about living deliberately. Most of the time, by “living deliberately,” I am referring to the importance of really thinking about our values and goals and inspirations - the elements in our lives that can bring us joy and peace - and continually actively making changes that will allow their realization. Living deliberately involves discipline. Often, it has to do with recognizing when our natural tendencies and intuitive ways of thinking are holding us back from living more freely. Then, instead of telling ourselves, “I know, but…” and continuing along in the same rut, being deliberate means actually finding ways to choose different thoughts, behaviors and paths.
Sometimes, though, approaching life in a mindful, assertive, deliberate manner is not merely about considering the things that could use some tweaking to bring about greater personal vibrancy. Sometimes living deliberately is no more extravagant than simply keeping your life from falling apart.
But more about that in a moment.
But more about that in a moment.
The Occupy Wall Street movement of late has at times been criticized for having a seemingly scattered stance because the cause means different things to different activists. However, I don’t think that the movement's breadth compromises its value. What matters is that, because of the movement, Americans are starting to engage in a real dialogue about the extent to which our individual rights are at risk (for sale?) in the face of the ever-increasing social and political status of corporations. And hauling an issue out into the open is always better than just hoping that it won’t get too out of control. When, in the name of larger profits, individuals and their rights are carelessly treated as optional and dispensable, we had certainly better start talking, if not marching.
 |
the corporation's 2008 $700 billion taxpayer bailout |
For example, when a banking corporation, whether due to greed or its own gross and negligent mismanagement of information, can wrongfully claim a family’s home without having to prove a causative basis, and does so over and over again, people get upset. Some of those people may march for their rights. People riot. Thank Goddess they do; throughout history, filling the streets has often been the only way to enact real change. Because U.S. citizens have gotten on their feet and raised their voices and refused to back down or take no for answer, women can now own property and vote, systematic discrimination and murder on the basis of race or sex in is no longer legal or acceptable, and men and women with contrasting skin pigmentation can marry, to name just a few points of progress in relatively recent years. Hopefully, because of current protests, someday it will also be illegal for a corporation to deceptively appropriate American tax dollars, use them to fund their conspirators' economic hedonism and then, to sustain similar excesses, proceed to buy as many American citizen's mortgages as possible, fabricate as many said mortgages as possible as not having been paid in full, then steal these citizens’ properties.
I am grateful there are those committed enough to taking action that this conversation is taking place. I will be more grateful when stories like Kelly's (below) will blow people’s minds instead of sounding all too familiar. Remember when I said that sometimes living deliberately is simply about trying to keep your life from falling apart? Because of Bank of America, recently that is all that Kelly has been doing:
Part One: How I’m Part of the 99%
Part Two: 99% Redux
- Sarah
6 comments:
I want to email or call someone on her behalf. I went through the same kind of frustrating crap when my bank sent my Oct payment twice.
I don't agree with the bailouts. I don't think any business is "too big to fail." I do believe that people have a choice to do business with banks or corporations or a choice not to. I don't agree with the movement because if it really is about the taking from the richest one percent, then how is that any different from taking from the rest of us? I don't think aligning this movement with those in Egypt or Tunisia is accurate either.
Unfortunately, several people across this country have been hurt, for lack of a better term, because of bad business practices. However, we shouldn't ignore that many of those practices came from government directives in forms of subprime loans and the like. (Again...a way of making something "affordable" for those that really can't afford it...maybe a way of "equalizing" the housing for them and those who can.) In the end, it seems to hurt those who couldn't afford it to begin with. The domino effect, however, is hurting more of us than that. Those that have been paying responsibly and not purposely foreclosing are hurt by those that haven't. Those that are trying to sell have trouble because of the market.
Looking at the occupy wall street, it's interesting to see that they blame the evil corporations and many that I've seen interviewed don't blame the evil government. This current administration has several ties to the top 1% and Wall Street, yet I don't think the average occupier would hesitate twice about re-electing Obama.
If I was occupying wall street for several months, I don't know how I'd be able to afford an iPhone bill. However, the occupiers seem to use social media quite a bit and from the looks of it, aren't hurting enough to not have the technology out there to support this cause. Nevermind that by doing so, they are supporting an evil corporation. I wonder how many occupiers are being paid to be there. (As I wonder with almost any protest these days.)
I feel sorry for those that live around them and have to put up with the smells that come from such a group, the litter, and the noise. I would be upset if I was a person who was just as frustrated, but lived deliberately enough to go out and look for a job each day rather than camp out on the street. Or lived deliberately by maintaining the career or job he/she has had.
I hope that more parents wake up and try to teach their children to be responsible for their actions and consider others whether they grow up to be a corporative executive, an investment banker, an occupier and activist, The President, a plumber, an office administrator, or a caregiver, etc.
I encourage you to look into who these people really are when you have a chance:
Rahm Emanuel, George Soros, Cass Sunstein, Richard Andrew Cloward, Frances Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky
and how closely they are tied with Obama, how much money they really have (and organizations and corporations its also hidden in), and the ideologies behind the way they are deliberately living their lives.
It's very disheartening, in my opinion.
Wife to One, I don’t think you read Kelly’s blog. Which is okay except that most of the issues you mentioned do not apply to her example. However, I will respond to your points:
WTO: “I do believe that people have a choice to do business with banks or corporations or a choice not to. “
My Response: This issue was addressed in Kelly’s story. Kelly did not choose to bank with Bank of America. BofA purchased the home loan from her original lender.
WTO: “I don't agree with the movement because if it really is about the taking from the richest one percent, then how is that any different from taking from the rest of us?”
My Response: The movement isn’t about “taking from the richest one percent.” It is about making sure that society’s wealthiest and most powerful are not in a position to receive legal exceptions that allow them to unethically profit off of society’s more vulnerable members. It is about analyzing wealth and power from a systemic perspective, addressing policy problems, and finding solutions.
(Responses continued)
WTO: “Those that have been paying responsibly and not purposely foreclosing are hurt by those that haven't. “
My Response: Kelly’s story is about being forced to foreclose on her home, regardless of consistently paying responsibly, because Bank of America incorrectly added additional mortgage insurance (that she already owned through another company) to her monthly mortgage payment.
WTO: “Looking at the occupy wall street, it's interesting to see that they blame the evil corporations and many that I've seen interviewed don't blame the evil government. This current administration has several ties to the top 1% and Wall Street, yet I don't think the average occupier would hesitate twice about re-electing Obama.”
My Response: I am not sure where the word “evil” came from in this context. I did not use it in my post. I don’t think that corporations are evil. I believe that some basic regulations need to be in place to ensure that corporate rights do not infringe on personal liberties. The current administration has proposed legislation that would do so.
WTO: “If I was occupying wall street for several months, I don't know how I'd be able to afford an iPhone bill. However, the occupiers seem to use social media quite a bit and from the looks of it, aren't hurting enough to not have the technology out there to support this cause.”
My Response: The cause means different things to different people, and has attracted protesters from various walks of life. Some are activists who can afford phones.
WTO: “I feel sorry for those that live around them and have to put up with the smells that come from such a group, the litter, and the noise…”
My Response: Seriously? Shouldn't the value of a cause be considered independently from its convenience? Like I mentioned, some of our country’s most important progress, like equal rights for women and ethnic minorities, came about only as the result of similar protests. If a cause is important, there are bigger things at stake than “smell[iness]” and the like. Conversely, if a cause were somehow inappropriate, it would be so even if its advocates smelled, say, lovely, wouldn’t it?
WTO: “I would be upset if I was a person who was just as frustrated, but lived deliberately enough to go out and look for a job each day rather than camp out on the street or lived deliberately by maintaining the career or job he/she has had.”
My Response: Kelly, whose story was the point of my post, is a local school principal who has been employed full-time for seventeen years and has never missed a mortgage payment on her home, but whose home is being foreclosed upon by Bank of America due to a BofA error. The consumer complaint link I provided in my post explains that, far from being an isolated incident, similar situations have befallen thousands of homeowners all across the country. So I posted about my support of protests of these practices. Bank of America/Merrill Lynch received billions of dollars in taxpayer money and subsequently provided billions of dollars in benefits to their executives instead of using these taxpayer dollars in a socially responsible manner, like preventing foreclosures, for example.
WTO: “I hope that more parents wake up and try to teach their children to be responsible for their actions…”
My Response: I, too, hope that most parents teach their children to be responsible for their actions.
- Sarah
Hi! I'm having trouble remembering all the comments I made in the response I sent the other day, but I'll try to conjure up the thoughts I had and be a bit more concise. (Always seems to be an issue.)
I thought you were focused more on the OWS Movement, which interestingly enough has taken some interesting turns over the last week...but, life is full of turns. So...rambling again, sorry. So, I will comment more on Kelly's situation, since you meant that to be the focus.
My points were:
YES! B of A sucks! I had the unpleasant situation of dealing with them for a couple years when I got married and that's who my husband banked with. It took me a long time to convince him to close there and just stick with my credit union. They are full of it and fool many-a-people everyday. I just kept pointing out all the ridiculous things they did that I didn't have to deal with at the credit union and not soon enough, we finally closed that account. BLAH!
As for her, I think it's B.S. that she's being penalized for something that was their mistake and she can even prove the homeowner's insurance. Hopefully lucky for her, they picked the wrong customer to do this to. But I feel bad for those that don't have Kelly's platform.
Let's see...I had also written something about how I swear they give you the run around and transfer you with almost any customer phone service because they are banking (no pun intended) on you giving up the battle because you don't have time to deal with it AND most oftentimes, they really don't know how to solve your problems. On top of that, if they make a mistake, there's no telling the reprecutions.
Also, in a round about way, this illustrates how those that were given loans they really shouldn't have qualified for and those that purposely foreclosed on their properties have hurt those that haven't done these two things. Indirectly, BofA is looking for money that they can get from anyone, anywhere and they will go after it because they have lost money elsewhere. So, they go after her in the case...someone who was responsible. I'm not at all saying they aren't to blame though, so please don't get that impression.
And, I can't remember what else I may have written in the forever lost comment.
Post a Comment