Whether we’re talking the Occupiers, Van Jones’ “Rebuild the Dream”, or any of the others who created the easily recited “We are the 99%”, they’ve determined who are the good and who are the bad. The good are anyone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck and the bad are those who “make more money than they need”.
The “bad” are those on Wall Street, those who wear suits to work, and those who expend little physical energy and come home with obscene bonus checks. They are the ones who drive fancy, foreign gas-guzzlers, send their kids to fancy private schools, eat at swank uptown restaurants, live in gated McMansions, hire minority landscapers to tend their enormous lawns, and proudly leave behind carbon footprints the size of Kansas.
They’re called the “evil rich” and publicly demonized accordingly.
Occupiers and union thugs publish their addresses online and organize annoyingly-loud protests in their driveways. Their workplaces are picketed. Their vehicles are vandalized and children shouted at going to elementary school (this is called free speech and assembly).
But there are other rich folk who’ve escaped the wrath of the motivated left.
Lawyers
Have you noticed how few lawyers have been targeted by the Occupiers? Lawyers DO make a lot of money. We’ve all heard the stories of some being paid (in some cases) hundreds of dollars per hour. Some are even paid this amount by our government to sue private citizens or keep politicians out of trouble, if not jail.
Lawyers have been consistently celebrated for decades with the amount of primetime television programs and movies devoted to their many exploits.
Where’s the outrage?
Granted, the American Bar Association has a rather consistent track record when it comes to support of the Democrat Party, liberal politicians and positions, but if we’re to be consistent, some of these lawyers make much more money than the average Occupier would think they need.
Must be that pro-bono work certain lawyers do on behalf of liberal causes that keep them out of the activist cross-hairs.
Celebrities
One of the benefits of having a largely liberal media is the lack of scrutiny celebrity anchors and journalists receive. Granted, this is one of the few arenas where free-market inflated-salary haggling is seldom criticized by progressives, but can anyone explain to me how Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, or almost any “face” on CNN or MSNBC is worth the million-dollar salaries they receive for reading a teleprompter?
When was the last time any of you recall seeing the “99%” protesting the obscene profits some of these news celebs receive? Personally, I can’t name one instance where a busload of protesters bull-horned in front of Chelsea Handler’s home (and given her ratings, maybe they should).
Many of you know I am an avid sports fan, and I respect the amount of work professional athletes put in to master their craft, but c’mon: using the left’s criteria on people making more money than they’re worth in comparison to “the little guy”, is Drew Brees really worth a 5-year, $100 million contract, with no less than $60 million in guaranteed money? Is Occupy New Orleans going to squat in front of the Louisiana Superdome and protest until they receive an assurance that he’s going to pay his “fair share” of taxes?
When was the last time you heard the president be specific when he talked about “millionaires and billionaires” and “corporate jet owners”? Professional athletes like LeBron James and entertainers like Jay-Z and George Clooney don’t fly coach. Now while very few own their own limousines and aircraft, many wealth-flaunting celebrities use them with little public objection from the “99%” and their leaders.
It all comes down to who’s given certain rich people a pass.
I don’t begrudge anyone for making the money they’re worth to an organization and the public at-large. If an actor can command $20 million for a movie, fine. If a reality star can command thousands of dollars just to send out a Tweet, more power to him or her. If an athlete can dictate how much they should be compensated even if they don’t perform well (or at all: injury), he or she has a great agent.
But when you look up the dictionary definition of “
rich”, it’s not broken down into distinct categories. It’s not compartmentalized by type of employment or political affiliation. I doesn’t depend on who seeks you out for campaign donations or who drops by for your protests.
If the ordinary trader on Wall Street can be targeted for scorn, multi-millionaire Michael Moore shouldn’t have been welcomed with open arms at Zuccotti Park either. If a wealthy CEO’s neighborhood can be fair game for disruption, then so should be Alec Baldwin’s or Michael Jordan’s.
Obviously, liberals aren’t the poster children for consistency, but when you decide you’re going to make it your mission to humiliate others, maybe a little consistency should at least be considered…?
