My favorite part of articles -- like the Forbes OWS mentioned above -- is how the contributors have these bios that are written to imply a level of competence and knowledge. Todd Essig can't be incorrect! He's a fucking psychoanalyst, which implies a high level of post-graduate education and a bunch of certifications on his wall!! He must know what he's talking about.
I fail to see how he is any more qualified to write about this topic than a first semester poly-sci major who just completed his/her first term paper on modern political movements. In fact, I would argue that he's no more competent to write an article on OWS vs. Tea Party than anyone who is capable of forming an opinion and typing written English language.
The truly ironic part of his dog-shit-esque article is how he tries to segment the two movements based upon inclusion and exclusion. What a remarkably subjective form of categorization. An argument could very well be made that OWS is even more exclusionary than the tea-party movement; they dislike EVERYONE who earns over a certain amount of income, and they dislike EVERYONE who works in certain fields/occupations. In my humble opinion, that notion reeks of exclusion.
Furthermore, it always amazes me how biased "writers/contributors" always seem to over-generalize the bad aspects of the side they don't like, while portraying the side they do favor as being cut/dry in a good way. Not everyone in the tea-party movement believes that government is a wholly foul and evil establishment. Of course, if you knew nothing about either movement, and read Essig's pile of shit, you would probably believe that the Tea Party movement was composed of rabid dogs, foaming at the mouths for government blood. Really, Essig? Really? Most people who align themselves with the Tea Party don't want to destroy the government, kill immigrants, or shutout foreign trade partners. Rather, they want to reduce the impact of government and establish controls for immigration. In the same sense, I do not believe that most OWS believers want to burn down the banks, hang the millionaires, and sing kuhmbayah aftterwards.
Lastly, does it bother anyone else how pretentious, intellectual-douchebags like this Essig fellow always fall back on the argument of "wellllllllll.... if we incrase taxes on super-millionaires, will invention and entrepreneurial drive die overnight??? lol, no.."? Indeed, I agree that the answer is No. Entrepreneurial drive and innovation will not die overnight. They will however be neutered over the course of the next 10-200 years. Broad societal changes -- for better, or worse -- don't occur overnight.
|