An article from the Montreal Gazette states that the popular narrative of the United States is “thickly populated with unscrupulous corporate titans, greedy bankers and insidertrading hedge-fund managers.” It then goes on to say that the Occupy Wall Street movement “ignores the fact that many of the wealthy are sports stars and entertainers, and that their ranks include professionals such as doctors, lawyers, consultants and even some of our favourite progressive economists. In other words, the rich today are more likely to be working than idle.” This article bothers me to no end because the author is clearly quite ignorant about what Occupy Wall Street is actually protesting. I would challenge the author to read an article on an alternative media website or even go to a demonstration and talk to the protesters to see what they really want. One protester even stated they do not oppose the rich. They don’t oppose extravagant lifestyles because it is none of their business what you spend your money on. If you’re a rich person who worked hard for their money and bought a yacht just because you want one, good for you! Give me a ride! However, if you are a corporate moneyed CEO, and you are stealing money from people, you DO NOT deserve to be rich. And you definitely do not deserve a yacht.
This article goes on to become even more annoying by saying that “something other than plutocrat-friendly policies is largely responsible for the growing [income] inequality. That something is education and skills… To acknowledge the fact that the broken educational and skillsbuilding system is responsible for much of the growing inquality that ordinary people experience would, however, detract from the larger populist agenda of rallying the masses against the very rich. It has the inconvenient implication that the poor have a role in pulling themselves out of the morass.” My first reaction to this paragraph is that the author is really digging deep to find a reason to hate Occupy Wall Street. But that’s just me. Taking a look at how the author argues that the broken education system is the reason for inequality, my response to this is that he has the whole issue twisted. If there was less inequality, then more money might be able to go to funding for education. The 99% would pay less taxes, struggle less with money, not have to take out loans to get an education. Maybe the high school drop-out rate would be less if money was more spread out and used for education reform. Maybe the college dropout rate would be lower if students were better prepared during high school and got the support and fulfillment that they need.
Furthermore, the author takes a stab at the “poor” and ultimately insinuates that they are lazy by saying that “it has the inconvenient implication that the poor have a role in pulling themselves out of the morass.” Let’s see, does the author really think that the “poor” who camped out in Zuccotti parked really enjoyed sleeping in the cold, not having hot water, not being able to sleep on a mattress, etc? Occupy Wall Street has evolved out of necessity. It is the last resort for the “poor.” These people are not lazy. The “poor” did not create this situation for themselves. Many of the 99% are struggling due to the oppressive nature of our “democracy.” In conclusion, I would ask the author to reevaluate his position on Occupy Wall Street after researching more about this movement through alternative media sources and direct interaction with those in support of and involved with the movement.
