Entitled to Ease, Pt. 2

In my first post on the subject, Entitled to Ease, I addressed how the Occupy Wall Street movement has taken the country by storm. I argued that being comfortable can be a blessing and a curse in one, and that those without perspective are in real danger of harming themselves in the long run. I have enjoyed the unfolding events of the Occupy movement and have become even more convinced that the few who truly need help are being drowned out by the many who want help.

Well, Bill Whittle is at it again and has broken down the character traits - Imagination, Ambition, Skill, Work Ethic, & Perseverance - he believes the primarily young and listless crowd of protesters are lacking:




Now, I wouldn't say it's as easy as separating these problems into the five categories listed - issues are often complicated and black and white works in some areas better than others. But I do appreciate how he acknowledges that there are some with legitimate concerns (say, 1% of the Occupiers) and yet many more who are simply the current generation's version of ambulance chasers (the other 99% of Occupiers). They look for a fight or a cause, they look for a hand-out, and they do it with ulterior motives in the name of something that is actually worthwhile. As Whittle says, there are many who would join this fight against corporate greed and abuse of lower classes were it not for the assaults, rape, antisemitism, childish antics (yes, there are reports that an Occupier defecated on the steps of a bank), and "temper tantrum lawlessness" that typifies this movement. Yes, typifies - these are not the few, the down-side to this movement, but the mass of the movement. He even goes so far as to claim that the responsibility for this generation's sense of entitlement belongs to his generation. They've simply made things too easy for them.

But the argument still exists. It is no surprise that Hollywood's elite (anyone want to explain this one to me?) - people like Bill Mayer, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, etc.  - have jumped on the bandwagon to defend the spirit of the movement without the slightest idea of the movement's heart. At the heart? The Have's against the Have Not's. Pointing out the inevitable segregation that tends to "materialize out of nowhere" when people try to form a society, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has a humorous take on the Occupy Movement that is definitely worth the time to check out.

I am reminded of this when I get another e-mail about upcoming litigation against Macintosh or Microsoft or Walmart or Netflix... there have been others but I don't recall them offhand. Where do people get all the time to proceed with such costly and time-wasting litigation? Is it not the entitled, hope for a hand-out, scratch off a lottery ticket and hope for a pay-out mentality? It seems that there are more and more people who hope to receive something - anything - for nothing, and they will go to great lengths to acquire it. Imagine the possibilities if such energy was directed at hard, honest gain!

To show another, important side of this issue is to take a look at the anger over those who have less toward those who have more. Said like that, not many discerning people - American or otherwise - would have a problem saying "that's not reason enough to be angry." Sure, that's just greed of another sort, envy and covetousness about another's possessions. Cue my excitement when I saw this:




The graphs Bill mentions - showing the differences between the rich and poor of the nation - are worth showing again here and can be found on the website (and the findings in greater detail) for The Heritage Foundation: Leadership For America.

As Bill suggested, seeing the similarities are easier if you see them side by side - and if I had some image overlay software I would do that as well, but this will have to suffice:

It is altogether possible that seeing such things could make people very angry. I imagine it would make me angry too if my concern for my being comparatively poor was uncovered as the root for rallying against the rich. If the light is shown on me, there are only two categories of outcomes: 1) the wrong done to me will be found out or 2) the wrong I have done will be found out. And no one likes to admit they are wrong. Only on the other side, when we have been restored and can look back on our past circumstances, is it safe to say that we were wrong. But for someone to tell us we're in the very act of being wrong... well, that's just - no one likes a know-it-all.... you know?

Now, it's not my purpose to turn these verbal/statistical guns on the poor, pushing people's peniaphobia (think, poor-aphobia - you learn something new every day!) to new heights. I don't want to decrease anyone's giving to those who are in need. I also don't want anyone who is currently not giving to those in need to feel justified in their stinginess by reading my blog - who am I? I'm nobody. Don't use me, or anyone else, to be a miser and treat everything you have and acquire as yours by the sole sweat of your personal brow, with no help from anyone else. That kind of perspective is cancerous.

What I do endeavor to do here is encourage people to think of the direction of their compassion, and actually increase their giving with wisdom and thankfulness. Give to those in need in a way that is compassionate and helpful, not just easy. Giving money to a living, breathing person is easy, but you could be inadvertently be enabling more addictive behavior. Be compassionate enough to look deeply, see a need, and respond. Empower the poor around you. Give razors, clean clothes, food, personal cleaning and hygiene supplies, and so on - and that's only the people who are on the streets. For people in homes or apartments who struggle, the means of wisely practicing generosity only go up.

I admit, I continue to struggle with the "answer" to giving to others in need. I have been there, and it sucks. As I posted in the first Entitled to Ease, feeling like you can't provide for your family is horrible, so my previous experiences have created a compassion in me for those less fortunate. I want to help them, and yet I do also struggle with whether or not my compassion leads me fool-hardily into doing something that actually damages them in the long run. I want to help, not to enable; I want to serve, not to pacify. I want to feel good about blessing others, not to bless others so I'll feel good about myself. One argues it's not our job to discern thoughts or motives, just to give. Another argues we should be wise and gentle. I am trying to practice the balance of the latter, while the former seems more a technique to coerce blind giving. I believe we are called to be wise with the resources we are given, or they will quickly flee us and be given to others. I know saying so may be frowned upon, but giving to everyone who has need is not always good and sometimes people are not truly helped until they have been allowed to hit rock bottom.

However, we should still have concern for those who fall under the first category, those who have truly been wronged and desperately need assistance. These are the people who will work hard with you to get from their poverty to self-sufficiency for them and their family. The two may not always easily be distinguished, but their true colors will eventually show. If you teach someone how to fish, do they appreciate your effort to help them and consider the possibilities from there... or do they just want a fish?