Advice, n.  The smallest current coin.

“The man was in such deep distress,”
Said Tom, “that I could do no less
Than give him good advice.”  Said Jim:
“If less could have been done for him
I know you well enough, my son,
To know that’s what you would have done.”

………— From The Devil’s Dictionary

I wrote a little earlier about the “Occupy” movement, but it was only a snapshot of what I seemed to be seeing at the time.  Don’t take it too seriously.  I haven’t participated enough to be comfortable saying much about it.

…but you know I’ll say something anyway, right?

First, words fail me in trying to express approval.  None of the usual words are good enough.  I tried mixing a few metaphors and could only come up with:

“a canyonful of laurels”
“bro fist of an angry god”
“a shout out for making a magic mark”

Nope, not gonna work.


“Occupy” seems to be the best thing going right now in the way of a mass movement that might actually accomplish something.  In another time, I’d be there, pretty often, doing whatever I could for it.


Nowadays, I’m mostly a language quibbler.  Be patient.

Early on, OWS came up with this: and it’s a nice document, for a list of complaints that doesn’t try to propose solutions.  Having said that, there’s a bad language habit that I need to point out.  It’s far from unique to “Occupy”.  I’ve done it myself,  as have all kinds of lefties and “progressives” since time immemorial.  It’s that “corporation” thing.

<language rant>

When Newton defined “force” as “mass times acceleration”, he didn’t care that this had nothing to do with dozens of other meanings that the word “force” had up until then.  He was taking a word with a vaguely suggestive meaning, and giving it a very specific definition for his purpose.  The same with the definition of “intelligence quotient” as “typical age of grade placement in the French public school system divided by chronological age”.  Many evils can be attributed to confusing vague meanings of words with specialized

Enter “corporation”.

First, three things that might surprise some of my readers:

(1)  Many of the biggest, nastiest agglomerations of wealth, including the infamous Koch brothers, are not corporations: and

(2)  Many corporations are non-profits doing completely non-political, good
service to the community.  See:

(3)  From:

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures

The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and
expenditures by certain individuals and organizations.
The following are prohibited from making contributions
or expenditures to influence federal elections:

Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals.

(They have ways around this, obviously, but that involves far more than I feel like writing, or you feel like reading right now.)


A couple of things that the above mean right off:

(1)  A constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood wouldn’t do diddly to keep the Koch brothers from doing what they’re doing.

(2)  When Greens say “We don’t accept campaign contributions from corporations.”, we’re only saying that we comply with the law, where federal elections are concerned.  There’s more to it, of course, but that’s for another time.


Clearly, “corporate” and “corporation” have a meaning in our culture, probably quite a few meanings, that have nothing to do with any legal definition.  Legal definitions also vary a great deal with the jurisdiction and the particular corporate charter.  If you want to know more about this, read the IRS, FEC, and FPPC web sites just for a start.  “Corporation” seems to have a different definition in each law.

For a long time we’ve been using “corporate” and “corporations” as shorthand for “Big money, which sometimes, not always, makes use of the special privileges granted corporations to do its nefarious deeds.”  It’s something that really needed some shorthand, too. OWS took a step forward by simply branding “the 1%” as the source of evil. It’s a big improvement over what we often did before.

I would suggest expanding on that theme and finding some more phrases that mean “the ridiculously rich, in all their guises, with all their pathologies”, and save “corporation” for when we’re really talking about something’s legal status.  To always say “the 1%” can get old with too much repetition.

.</language rant>

Should I turn this into a contest, maybe?  Who can come up with the best variation on “the 1%”?  Winner gets… uh…. special recognition in these pages?  Maybe I can dig up some
old mathom to send.

Entries will be judged by:

●   brevity
●   easy comprehension by the average American (eighth grade reading level)
●   honesty and accuracy in what it tries to describe

Commence comments.

This entry was posted in communication, organizing, politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Ron Rodarte says:

    Definition of the verb: “1%”
    v. “one-per-cent” – The 1% is an action undertaken in protest to indicate the presence of a certain population of acutely misinformed and non-empathic persons by tossing a penny into the path;
    2. the action of 1%-ing another is to toss a penny in the path of another to mock the perceived ignorance and greed of that person.
    2. to mock the selfishness of a class of extremely wealthy, non-empathic individuals.

  2. Ron Rodarte says:

    The 1% is a descriptive noun indicating a profound ignorance of the world and peoples outside of a small enclave of filthy-rich individuals, of recent in use in the English language and presumed to originate from the Piraha tribe of Brazil, a tribe with no concept of number beyond 1, 2 and many.
    This descriptive noun is inclusive of a Global Corporate Media acting in a manner that disallows freedom of information to inhibit free-thought in any population that may disrupt the comfort and entitlement of the entirety of the 1% and their supportive minions.
    In example, a quote from “Archimedes Laboratory”;

    “When it comes to counting, a remote Amazonian tribespeople have been found to be lost for words. In fact, researchers discovered that Pirahã tribe of Brazil, with a population of 200, have no words beyond ONE, two and many.
    The word for “one” can also mean “a few”, while “two” can also be used to refer to “not many”… (But is there any case where not having words for something doesn’t allow you to think about it?)” Source BBC
    – from the Archimedes Laboratory

  3. Ron Rodarte says:

    1% = One Purse Sent.
    1. The incredibly fallible notion of an incredibly wealthy population that passes forward a fair share of funding (a “purse”) in respect of those who maintain the source of the incredible income.
    2, To send “one purse of coin” in figurative speech, to the commonwealth population in recognition of the ongoing effort to maintain the source of income of the incredibly wealthy board of directors or owner entity.

    Converse: “General Strike”.

  4. I don’t like the picture of the starving man (nor the fact of the starving man), but hey, that’s just me.

  5. Don’t we have a bad, bad habit of lumping things into one word definitions. It’s our scientific upbringing (gone wild) of classification. Just look at the blogs; classifications, tags, etc. Everything has to be put into a box and to be sure, a perfect square.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s