Well I've decided to write about it again because I just can't stand it anymore and I need to talk about it or I will end up just screaming at people in the street.
I'm going to take my two least-favorite letters to the editor from last week's paper and discuss them here. The first is by one Bryan Faulk. Faulk writes about how The Occupy Wall Street movement "lacks direction." I was going to post a link to this letter but it doesn't appear that The Scroll's web site posts letters to the editor. I'll just quote parts of it and do my best to keep it all in context.
Faulk opens with:
"As disorganized as the Occupy Wall Street movement is, it's safe to say that their underlying sentiment is thus: greedy industrialists + corrupt politicians = trouble. With that, I couldn't agree more, but all Occupy has done is identify the problem."
Umm, what? You started by accusing the movement of being disorganized, but apparently they're not so disorganized that they don't have an "underlying sentiment." I would completely disagree that their message is about "greedy industrialists" (remember that their movement is about occupying WALL STREET. Wall Street is typically associated with the FINANCIAL SECTOR...) But okay, fine. I'll address this later. Moving on.
"Until the movement officially publishes a list of analyzable policy demands they're nothing more than a throng of crybabies."
Wait, so people protesting wage inequality, lack of jobs, and lack of government oversight in the financial sector in America are "crybabies." Why? Because they haven't "officially" published a list of "analyzable policy demands"? It's not enough if people actually are publishing lists of demands online and in newspapers and blogs, what we need is an "official" list. Occupy Wall Street is a movement spread by word of mouth and online networking. There is obviously no "official" spokesman for this movement, much like the Tea Party protests have no "official" head or office. Why should they have to publish an official list of analyzable policy demands? They want to make this country aware that there is gross inequality in wages and that 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. Why are they crybabies for wanting to voice their outrage and dismay?
"Though the Occupy movement has yet to take an official stance, it appears that many of the protesters support government restrictions to control the greed of big business. With that, I couldn't Disagree [sic] more. They blame capitalism as the problem and government as the answer, when in reality it's the other way around!"
There are so many logical holes in this that it makes my head spin even trying to start. Faulk states that the movement "has yet to take an official stance" (there's that word again). He then goes on, in the very same sentence, to (incorrectly) outline what the movement is supposedly about!! How can he do this when he has already stated that the movement is "disorganized," "lacks direction," all they've done "is identify the problem" and has "yet to take [a stance]" on anything?! It's as if he's stumbling over himself in his eagerness to discredit these protesters, but he discredits himself in the process. If the protesters do not have any kind of clearly defined agenda, as he says, then how can he then turn around and explain what their agenda is? On the other hand, if the protesters really DO have a clear agenda, how in the world can he say that their agenda is about taking down capitalism? It's like his only information about the protesters comes from Fox News and talk radio. The man has never actually read anything about what these protesters are trying get across.
He then goes on to describe how big government is the problem, how big government "decides who can produce how much of whatever" and that this leads to lobbyists bribing Congress "to ensure that legislation will favor their industry."
"You want to keep corporate money out of politics? Take away the magnet!"
"Occupy protests have brought to light a problem that needs fixing, but yelling at buildings won't solve anything."
"I've proposed a solution and am open to hearing others. Occupy, it's your turn."
I can guarantee that Tea Party protesters were never called crybabies by this guy, even though their demands amounted to "lower taxes, less government." I can also guarantee that this guy has never ridiculed Tea Party protesters for "yelling at buildings."
My biggest problem with Bryan Faulk is not his condescending tone, his ridiculing, or even his many logical fallacies. No, my problem is the way he characterizes the protests as something they are not. He has no clue what this movement is upset about, or if he does then he is deliberately mischaracterizing their arguments because he knows their arguments are stronger than his.
Yes, there are probably a lot of hippies and stupid pot-smoker types that take place in these kinds of protests. They are (justifiably) angry that they are unemployed or making minimum wage while others are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year for not providing any real goods or services to society. It’s not all young hooligans, though. There are those who believe that the financial industry is what caused the meltdown of America’s economy and so far they have not been held accountable for that in the least bit. They believe that the massive deregulation of the financial industry that took place in the latter part 20th century led directly to the current crisis we are in, and that governmental regulation at the cost of insane profit is part of the solution. They also believe the wealthy ought to have their tax rates increased to pre-George-Bush levels.
So Faulk off, Bryan Faulk, Economics major. His solution to “keep corporate money out of politics” is to “take away the magnet.” So basically he wants to keep corporate money out of politics by removing government from politics. That is akin to killing someone in order to cure them of the flu.
***
The second letter under consideration today is entitled “’Man up’ and be chivalrous” by one Dean Deveraux. I started reading this letter with optimism but it quickly turned into disgust/anger.
He begins: “The word ‘chivalry’ is most often synonymous with knights. An honorable knight should be a benchmark for us men on how we treat our ladies.”
Okay, simple enough. Sure, the “our ladies” is a little corny, but whatever. He continues: “Modern-day chivalry can go a long way with the ladies you court or marry. The lack thereof can also make that trip very short. Luckily I married a woman that rightly expects her man to treat her like the lady she is.”
Ugh. Why do I suddenly feel like simultaneously vomiting whilst punching this dude in the face? He lost me at “treat her like the lady she is.” What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That the rest of us married women who expect to be treated like dirty little sluts? But okay, okay. Maybe this guy’s got a point. Maybe he’s going to talk about how men treat their wives discourteously or something. I’m still open to what he has to say.
“Why do I speak of chivalry? Simply because I’m disappointed in a recent trend I’ve noticed in which girls drive men around.”
“I am not chauvinistic, I simply feel that men are getting lazy. I have heard many explanations on why the ladies drive their fellas around like ‘she hates my driving’ or ‘I get tired of driving’ but I haven’t been convinced yet.”
Okay, a couple of points I’d like to make. First, the dictionary definition of chauvinism is “Excessive loyalty to or belief in the superiority of one’s own kind of cause, and prejudice against others.” If Deveraux counts his bizarre version of chivalry as his cause, then he is, in fact, chauvinistic. Second, please don’t refer to the ladies’ “fellas” ever again. We don’t live in 1930s Mississippi. Also, was there something so wrong with just “fellows”? And how has he heard “many” explanations about this phenomenon? Does he go around pestering married couples as to why the man is woman is driving when there’s a perfectly capable man right there to take over?
“If your lady is in the car, why would you drive like a maniac? Tired of driving? What are you, a trucker? Suck it up and drive your queen around.”
I wish he would stop referring to my wife as my “lady.” Yes, she is a lady, but I don’t refer to her that way and she doesn’t identify herself as my lady. When we were dating she was my “girlfriend,” then “fiancé,” and now she’s my “wife” or “spouse.” All of these terms are respectful and acceptable. Consider using them. She’s not my queen, unless you mean that she's the queen and I'm the king of our household. But I'm not her subject. We consider one another equals and peers.
Also, this guy gives completely contradictory messages in these lines. First he tells men to drive safely when our "lady" is in the car, then he tells us that being tired isn't a good enough excuse to let your wife take over. Couldn't being tired of driving be considered a safety issue, you stupid moron?
"What's worse is I see the men sitting passenger while making their ladies get out to get a movie at Redbox or get the mail in the parking lot."
Uh... What if "my lady" wants to choose the movie at the Redbox herself? Who rents movies from that horrible place anyway?
"C'mon fellas, man up."
Again with the "fellas." Enough already. It doesn't make you sound folksy or wise. Just douchey.
I, for one, am so happy that I married a woman who doesn't give a crap about who's driving and who doesn't place her self-worth on whether or not I let her drive. A woman who expects to be treated like the lady-queen she is and never takes the wheel is most definitely not the kind of woman I want to spend eternity with. Why does this guy feel the need to tell us all that we're wrong? We just don't give a crap about who drives!! Is that so morally wrong? There are lots of young couples who date in Rexburg. Not all men have their own cars. Are you telling these men that they ought to be commandeering vehicles from their girlfriends? What if the girl enjoys driving her own car? Does this make her less of a lady? I'm glad I don't ever have to ride in a car with your wife. She sounds like a judgmental bitch.
0 comments:
Post a Comment