Protesters visited the homes of a few AIG executives and protested the condition of the executives’ homes, their incomes, their tax rates (which the protestors want to be even higher than already) and those AIG bonuses (which many have returned and which AIG explains were given to executives who were not involved in the damaging, earlier conditions but that’s irrelevant to many).
About the ethics involved, or, lack of ethics on various accounts
These same protesters were not outside the White House protesting Barack and Michelle Obama’s largese (“bonuses” taken from the American people without the American people’s express permission, which continues): the Kobi Beef and Martini Wednesday night parties with “celebrities” flown in and housed on the public dole for the amusement and disconnect of the Obamas, the flits here and there using Air Force One — (to the tune of $75,000.00 of taxpayer money PER HOUR for Air Force One) AND associated additional planes (add-on another round of similar costs per hour per additional plane, and there are several that accompany every AF One flight) — without regard for efficient use of the public resources, the trillion-dollar-plus payback “bonuses” Obama and Congressional Democrats have funneled to their lobbyists, donors and other pet associates, unions included. The AIG bonuses are a mere drop in the taxpayer bucket compared to the trillion dollars and more that Obama has tossed away on the public dole to various supporters (his, not the taxpayers’). But no protesters there, at the White House, about any of that.
No, being President (and the wife of one) does not excuse or inherently bestow any special right to greed or be greedy, wasteful, vain, self-indulgent, flippant or anything else. It’s a job, it has job requirements — all those perks that Obama has “added on” to his current spate in the White House are of his (and wife’s) own bad, wasteful and/or self-indulgent, reckless character. But no protesters there, at the White House, about any of that.
(AIG), in response to the protests, said all its employees were “working very hard to pay back the government and help the U.S. economy recover.”
“The people working at AIG today are part of the solution, not part of the problem,” company spokeswoman Christina Pretto said in an e-mailed statement.
Needs and the needy (those “protesters”): we are all the needy at recurring times in our lives and will be again, especially when comparing our individual lots in life with the lot of others who are more well-appointed — these are not conditions that change because the issue is comparison: when one compares what one has with what others have as any standard of being, there are always and will always be those with more material goods than others, and, we each will always have more material goods than some others accordingly. It’s not so much a case of “need” but of desire. For everyone, at any level of financial ability. And a case of envy when the situations and/or materials of others are what we desire.
When we base our understanding of who we are on what we have materially, we’re never satisfied because there are always more things, including more luxuries and excesses, that exist to be had and that can be imagined. We each always discover new tools we think we’re in need of while we discard as not-worthy that which we already have that just might work as well. “Used and not flashy” does not mean “broken and useless.” A “poor house” with food and a secure roof that is sanitary, basically functional, is still a useful house with sustainable goods and services available. It’s just not “high and mighty” but it just may still be useful, functional, sustaining and suit one’s needs for shelter and comforts accordingly (shelter is far more preferable to no shelter and once you’re sheltered, it’s just a case of improvements being made to increase the “luxury” of the conditions, not the functional purpose and capacity of shelter itself).
That is, when the material world is what we see and imagine as possible satisfaction to our desires and thus, if so, we are always, predictably, disappointed and fallen victim to envy and at its worst, jealousy of what others “have” that we don’t. It’s a desperately unhappy cycle, that definition of wealth or worth based upon what we own versus what others do, when we experience desire and lust for what someone else has — which apears to be the point these “AIG protesters” are making: they’re lusting for the property of others, they resent that someone else owns what they do not, they think the personal property of others “should” be redirected to the protesters, based upon personal desires and resentments.
“We think $165 million could be used in a more appropriate way to keep people in their homes, create more jobs and health care,” said Emeline Bravo-Blackport, a gardener.
She marveled at AIG executive James Haas’ colonial house, which has stunning views of a golf course and the Long Island Sound. The Fairfield house is “another part of the world” from her life in nearby Bridgeport, which flirted with bankruptcy in the 1990s and still struggles with foreclosures and unemployment.”
“Lord, I wonder what it’s like to live in a house that size,” she said…
Mary Huguley, of Hartford, said AIG executives should share their wealth with people like her sister, who is facing foreclosure.
“You ought to share it, and God will bless you for doing it,” she said.
Houses, large and small, the conditions of those houses, all of these materials, these are results of individuals working. When someone works as a housekeeper or other relatively easily performed “work,” (or they don’t want to work or can’t), living conditions then appropriately tailor to one’s ability to support onesself. Our overall society in general already provides a great deal of consideration and “unearned” reward as to those who are less skilled, unskilled or unable to work due to age or infirmity.
These “protesters” are exercising an embittered malignment upon the “worth” of others: it’s selfishness by the protesters, it’s envy, desire, lust, jealousy. But, politically, it’s class-warfare, it’s the essence of a Communist process aimed at removing the individual in relationship to ownership of individually-controlled personal property: “what you have you don’t deserve while you must give what you have to me and others like me because we want it” (or else) (that is, under threat of retaliation if there is no compliance).
When someone’s “working” as an executive managing billions of dollars (especially someone else’s money), they’re going to be rewarded at a higher rate than someone who empties wastebaskets — while both “works” are or can be honorable (no lesser or better-than point being made here by me as to the people involved, just as to the functions they fulfill in terms of renumeration), the issue of what one is paid is based upon how significant a function one provides to someone else — what value your function provides to someone else, how well it is “valued” by whoever it is is paying you money for whatever it is you do (the “worth” of what someone provides to someone else, and, how easily or uneasily they can be replaced if/as needed).
It’s relatively easy to replace someone who empties wastebaskets, it’s relatively difficult to replace someone who understands and manages well financials; it’s relatively simple to replace someone who washes dishes or parks cars while it’s a difficult and expensive task to replace someone who can pilot an F/A-22 Raptor; and, it’s easy to replace someone who mows a lawn or sews a pants leg while it’s a big challenge to replace (or even locate) someone who can perform neurosurgery, transplant human organs, treat a life-threatening injury. People are paid according to whatever their ‘worth’ is to employers, by how complex their skills are and how capably their deliver to an employer those skills.
What they do with the money they are paid, as to those with complex skills, is just as much their individual business (or, “right”) to exercise as it is what window-washers, wastebasket-emptiers, lawn-mowers and pants-leg-donners do with the money they’re paid. Just because someone is paid at a higher value than someone else does not therein mean they’re obligated to redirect their income to someone else who is paid less for other, less “valued” skills — “value” referring to financial worth, not to human preciousness or lack thereof.
So the protesters exercising embitterdly about an “AIG executive’s” house and property, chastising another for the fruits of their labors — they’re employed, they established employee conditions and requirements at the acceptance of their employment, they entered into a contract with an employer about that — is nothing short of jealousy by the protesters.
They claim that “God will bless you for (sharing or giving away their income)”.
But charity is not coerced nor is it charity if it is coerced. God asks us to be good shepherds of the resources He “blesses” us with. Charity is love, it’s a willing giving from what one has, it’s not a coerced, demand-by-protest resignation to surrender one’s income or other property.
When or if someone is pressured into “surrendering” personal property (wealth is property) — Communism/Socialism seizes personal assets and deems that “redirecting the wealth” — that’s not charity, and those who pressure for or demand such a seizure from others are involved in theft.
As to the “protesters”: God (also) judges jealousy, pride and envy. And theft.
“CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA ARE TO BLAME FOR AIG BONUSES” — No protesters there, either.