Tuesday, November 15, 2011

"Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out?" Part 3

Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out? [Pt.1] http://bit.ly/vq6OcL 
Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out? [Pt. 2] http://bit.ly/vJDoSb

Welcome To Part 3 :  "Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out"

Many now have come to consider that maybe the "Occupy People" have made their point. It's being suggested it's time for them to give it up as others want their parks back and feel even their livelihoods are being affected. Have Occupy people become extreme and unreasonable or if I could use a hippie pun, "far out" that is far out in left field? Mayors of various cities are contemplating taking action against them if the Occupiers persist in stating they're committed to holding out. Might there be however a new way of thinking they'd consider?  Why should holding out in parks, 24 hours a day be considered the only exclusive way to effect change?

I'd respectfully appeal to the reasoning of the good Occupy folk--please consider the following. There is what's referred to as, "The Law Of Diminishing Returns" simply put, adding more of the same to a particular way of doing a thing many times won't produce an increased yield of results. In fact continuing on with the same can indeed serve to be counterproductive, or as the saying goes, ''one step forward, two step backwards.''  Did those becoming "Occupiers" actually yield positive results?   I'd say so. Wouldn't it be a shame however to see their positive results diminished and  the impact they've created reduced by not appreciating it's time as a movement to morph, evolve and maybe adopt a new approach?

Currently I see various cities taking action forcibly removing the Occupy people or at least their tents from the parks. Authorities are citing sanitation  reasons.  Some mayors are still going to allow Occupiers back into the parks but are veering away from allowing tents to be once again erected. Could it be that they're really doing the Occupiers a favour? Were many of them truly tired of the tent concept anyway and now they can, without losing face, takes steps in a different direction , letting their voice continually to be heard, but in a new and different way? At least now the Occupiers can claim the right was taken away  without them, of their own choice having left the parks. Thinking out of the box, being creative, and trying new things---aren't they the elements that even a successful sports team uses?

What would one think of a team who only employed one play, or one means to achieve a goal? I believe it's safe to say they'd be thought of as short-sighted not seeing the bigger picture of potentially what it takes to wisely go to the next level.  Might "Occupiers" who have nice warm beds staying in a house or home, getting a good night sleep, being well rested---doesn't it make sense it'd  be more to their advantage?  Periodically, they still could, even a couple of times a week, allow their voice to be peaceably heard in front of some government building,  not spending the night outside in the cold but wisely taking shelter, avoiding hyperthermia, which the winter can bring----what better way to keep their cause alive? Occupiers please listen...99%  of the population may not agree with me but could the number  be as high as ninety who do? Should giving  up the tents be considered a surrender? If I was an occupier why shouldn't I consider that  a blessing!  What are tents after all except just one means to achieve an end?

The End Of This Series :-)

No comments:

Post a Comment