Jeffrey Lord - 10.25.11
Why was the frequently outspoken actress Daryl Hannah suddenly so shy when talking to Sean Hannity?
Why was the always outspoken actress Roseanne Barr suddenly so angry with a celebrity financial website?
And why was the never shy Alec Baldwin twittering cagily in non-denial denial mode?
What could possibly make these three famous activist actors so respectively reticent, furious and coy?
The Occupy Wall Street Movement has received cheers from President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, with the President’s union and media allies swarming to support the protest.
What is the question that, according to Occupy Wall Street supporter and Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs, is driving the movement? Simply put, Sachs sums up the driving force as “economic justice.” It is this that has caused liberals to rally, conservatives to be appalled. The issue is thus joined, and goes precisely to the heart of what kind of a country America will be.
Since “economic justice” is the demand here, let’s explore why liberal actors and Occupy Wall Street enthusiasts Hannah, Baldwin and Barr would suddenly exhibit the behavior they have so publicly displayed. What specifically is the history behind this demand for economic justice, or the division, as it is currently phrased, between the “1%” and the “99%”? How did previous supporters seek to bring “economic justice” for the “99%” to reality? Is there something in the history of this issue that is affecting the behavior of Hannah, Barr and Baldwin, while posing considerable risk to Democrats in the 2012 presidential election?
In 1789 the rumblings of an earlier version of Occupy Wall Street were already in evidence. By 1792 King Louis XVI was under arrest and France was launched on the first serious modern movement dedicated to what is now called “economic justice.” It became known, of course, as the French Revolution.
Tags: French Revolution