Occupy Semantics

Businessman, author and financial commentator Peter Schiff wore a sign at OWS that read along the lines of: "I'm a part of the 1%. Let's talk". Schiff told a protester he pays half his income in taxes and how he has around 150 employees. He also asked a protester if she would like to be a part of the 1% and if she wanted more money. She didn't respond but I'm sure she wouldn't mind it. Then there are those, such as Piers Morgan, who try to paint Michael Moore as a hypocrite for being in the 1% yet protesting against corrupt corporations. Too bad Michael Moore constantly denies being a part of the 1% and often tries to change the subject; he should just own up to being in the top 1% and explain that not all 1%'ers are evil. Ron Paul said it best when he mentioned he isn't against capitalism, but he's against corporatism. I'm sure most people are against corporate corruption, but their political ideologies compel them to react a certain way; generally economic conservatives arguing against OWS and economic liberals arguing for it.  This has led people to argue past each other while they actually agree that corporate corruption needs to end. Instead, conservatives feel the need to defend free-market capitalism while liberals feel the need to decry it. Most agree capitalism is a good thing but differ in opinion on how it should be regulated. Many arguments are about the minitae of capitalism and turn into arguments of semantics.

People are also intent on blaming one or a few entities at the exclusion of others. Conservatives tend to blame 'the people' for acting irrationally. They also blame gov't regulations for impeding on the free market. Liberals tend to blame corporations for being greedy. The Tea Party and OWS have a similar goal of ending corporate corruption, but the Tea Party scapegoats the government while the OWS scapegoats corporations. Corporations, the government and 'the people' are all to blame in varying degrees with most of blame placed on corrupt corporations and gov't while the people are also to blame.

Not all 1%'ers are evil and greedy tax evaders and not all 99%'ers are do-gooders who diligently pay all their taxes. Dividing people into the 1% and 99% has led some to have an us against them mentality that looks down on their opponent. But that's the nature theories; they are intended to rough and condensed guides like a map. Unfortunately, many people have confused the map for the terrain and have taken the 99% versus the 1% greedy argument too literally. Often when a person demonizes the 1%, someone counters by mentioning the do-gooders of the 1% to demonstrate the benevolence of the 1%. Or when a person praises the 1%, someone will counter by mentioning the corrupt members of the 1%.