On Saturday, a group of 700 protestors clogged traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge to, according to an Associated Press article “...[demonstrate] against corporate greed, global warming and social inequality, among other grievances...”
There are some serious inconsistencies here. Corporate "greed" is the catalyst for millions of American paychecks. Global warming (the anthropogenic kind) has been thoroughly debunked and "social inequality" is just another way to say "social justice," which is just another wealth redistribution scam.
One of the protestors, Erin Larkins, explained why she and her boyfriend attended the rally on the bridge:
I don't think we're asking for much, just to wake up every morning not worrying whether we can pay the rent, or whether our next meal will be rice and beans again.
You know who else worries about that? Every single person in America! But the majority of them don't think the answer is blocking traffic between two boroughs of the busiest city in America. The majority of Americans think the answer to paying the rent is finding a way to pay the rent. The answer is getting a job, or starting a small business.
And what is wrong with beans and rice? Is "Occupy Wall Street" also anti-Cuban? But I digress.
Larkins' comments are simply preposterous when you learn that she is a graduate student at Columbia University (although certainly not surprising; veteran talk show host Dennis Prager routinely asks callers who make particularly foolish comments what graduate school they attended). Although Larkin’s course of studies is unknown, if Larkins were enrolled in the School of Journalism, for example, her tuition would be $43,527 per year.
How is it possible that Larkins is worried about how to pay the rent, when she now attends Columbia's graduate program? What could she possibly be majoring in that wouldn't allow her the ability to pay her rent, or eat more than beans and rice? If her major can't pay the rent, then isn’t the problem her choice in major? Larkins also mentioned that she has, "...significant student loan debt." She could have gone to Arizona State University for half the money, never mind the savings on winter coats.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd (OWS), and their followers, are delusional. Organizing protests to block traffic* will not bring you jobs. Organizing job fairs and inviting business owners from throughout the community to meet qualified applicants might bring you jobs. Those attending the OWS protests would have more of a chance to find a job if they changed their location from the Brooklyn Bridge to the front of a Home Depot - where odd jobs and occasional employment are sometimes found. The only people hiring on the Brooklyn Bridge are street guys, and the job is that of a "weight" when no cement blocks are available. (As a side note, being a "weight" is a bad profession. No one ever gets hired twice, and the benefits are lousy!)
But OWS isn't interested in finding jobs, they are interested in jobs being given to them. Unfortunately for them, jobs are never given; they are created. The group assembled in NY, and in other cities, don't understand the basics of economics, and are vehemently (and ignorantly) opposed to Free Markets. According to one website, which published a "working draft" of their "Principles of Solidarity," it states clearly:
On September 17, 2011, people from all across the United States of America and the world...rose up against political disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice. We spoke out, resisted, and successfully occupied Wall Street...as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love.
The group also claims to, "...(Empower) one another against all forms of oppression." Yet, mutual "...respect, acceptance and love" can not exist when one group's vision of empowerment is to take from another group of people. (And, one must ask, how do they plan to take from the other group?)
The protests have been peaceful as of this posting, and websites reiterate their non-violent approach. Yet, OWS have attracted some bedfellows who are not vocalizing the same peaceful meme. Michael Moore and Van Jones are interested in violent revolution. Moore has stated that the "rich" should, "...deal with it nonviolently now, through the political system, than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see." He also advocates for civil disobedience by these OWS protesters. Outed communist, and divisive community organizer Jones, has called for the "American Autumn," a US version of the Arab Spring. For the record, those uprising were not peaceful from either side. Even former TV star and now reality punch line Roseanne Barr has waded into the violent rhetoric in a recent interview, advocating for a need for the return to the guillotine, and re-education camps for those who won't share the wealth.
The OWS know that their elected leadership - from President Obama to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner, so-called civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the rest of the Progressive leadership have let them down. They have failed to create the Statist Utopian dream - and the OWS crowd is angry. They have taken to the streets to express their anger, and good for them for availing themselves of their First Amendment rights. Jones and Moore, however, are stoking this anger. They are calling for violent uprisings in major cities across the nation.
The Tea Party is also unhappy with America's leadership. Their answer was to precinct walk, phone bank, hold rallies, vet candidates, show up to town halls, start blogs, start radio shows, create videos, create music, call their representatives, vote....and then do it all again after the blowout victories across the nation in 2010.
OWS has the wrong idea on jobs, the economy and the concept of justice. And while one may disagree with them, their right to peacefully assemble should be upheld. Moore and Jones are trying to manipulate these protestors. Their message is one of violence, and one must hope that these protests don't become a precursor to Moore's and Jones' violent dreams.
(*Reports have come out that the plan was not to disrupt traffic, but was rather precipitated by the NYPD who invited the protestors to march in the street, and then used the opportunity to arrest people. However, when you have 700 unorganized people marching on the Brooklyn Bridge, it is not out of the realm of possibility that stopping traffic could be on someone's mind.)