.
Feedback

Freedom of Speech, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and Steve Jobs

Whether you agree with the purpose of the Occupy Wall Street crowd or not, I hope you see some of the irony in what they are doing.

To the founders, freedom of speech was deemed one of the most cherished freedoms of the new United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think whatever your political persuasion, we can all agree with the right to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the message, I like seeing that right exercised whether it is a Tea Party gathering, speaking out against big government, or a group of young adults protesting on Wall Street.

A couple years ago, Tea Party protesters were just average citizens upset with the government's out-of-control spending. The protesters dressed in patriotic colors, and wore tea bags symbolizing the revolt that took place at the Boston Tea Party centuries back. The young people protesting on Wall Street have spread to capitol grounds, courthouse yards and college campuses across America. They are dressed in trendy blue jeans and t-shirts, blogging and taking pictures with their iPhone or iPad.

Whether or not you agree with the purpose of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I hope you see some of the irony in what they are doing. The ironic part of this is that while they are protesting, they are wearing clothes created by big corporations and using devices created by companies like Apple to communicate their message and share photos. Apple’s stock trades for well over $400 a share on Wall Street, and the recently deceased visionary and multi-billionaire, Steve Jobs, was the kind of person they are protesting. Yet, like me, many of them probably were saddened by his passing. Jobs was corporate America, and Apple will continue to be a shining example of corporate America for years to come.

I blogged last week about success being a bad thing. Jobs is a prime example of someone who came from nothing. A boy who was given up for adoption, made his own way by having an idea and busting his tail to succeed. He saw failure and success becoming better after both.

I'm curious which side would Jobs be on - the side of the protesters who want to destroy the rich, or the side of big business that actually creates the jobs that allow these young people to work? These jobs allow them to buy their designer jeans and t-shirts, and Apple iPhones and iPads. It is hard to say, because Jobs was as much a protester and outsider as he was part of the establishment.

No doubt there are those on Wall Street who have taken advantage of government policies to create wealth for themselves at the cost of others. The few who have milked the system are not representative of the entire Republican Party. Yet the leaders on the Democrat side of the aisle and President Obama will play it off as if all Republicans are this way.

Most Americans realize that "hope & change" was just a tag line, and nothing more. Occupy Wall Street might very well be Obama’s new hope & change. He can’t run on his failed record and, like it or not, whatever you think of the previous eight years with George W. Bush in office, this is Obama’s economy. He too had a massive bailout program for Wall Street, extended the Bush tax cuts and put forth policies that these Occupy Wall Street protesters would be against. Since Obama can’t run for re-election on this, he will attempt to run as the outsider, the anti-Washington candidate, and the blue jean-wearing, iPhone carrying protesters will buy it. Just as I implied last week, class warfare, or success warfare, is a tool used by those on the left.  And apparently to those protesting, success is a bad thing. They blame those who have had success, those who have created jobs and helped create wealth for all of America. 

Poor Steve Jobs. I hope he isn’t rolling over in his grave.

john Iliff October 18, 2011 at 08:00 am
You miss the purpose of the protest, I think it is to protest the thieves on wall street, not just the success of those that have billions of money made from the poor and rich. I think they protest the lack of action in congress and the total partisan behavior of our elected clowns all over the country.
Chad Airhart October 18, 2011 at 09:24 am
I don't miss what the protesters are protesting at all. I was just pointing out the irony in what they are doing. But if you want to point the finger at Wall Streets thieves, lets not forget that this President brought in Wall Street to run his economy, Larry Summers, etc... He also got more $ from Wall Street than any other Presidential candidate in history. If these protesters have grievances, they ought to be protesting in Washington DC. They are the ones that created the environment for these thieves (Democrat & Republican). 64% of Americans blame Washington, not Wall Street.
john Iliff October 18, 2011 at 10:47 am
I think I agree with a lot of what you say and the fault is really in DC but as long as these people (politicians) make their own set of rules so they can live as a special class funded by the big dollars and no term limits this country will go down hill. Take away the power to pass rules that enhance their own lives (state & federal) and let the people vote on raises and benefits for the politicians could be a good start. Put them ALL back to regular citizenship before it is too late.
Mary Kreutz October 26, 2011 at 01:59 pm
Demonstrators aren't trying to destroy the rich. The rich aren't the problem. It's those that have been corrupted by the power that wealth has given them. They force out competition and small businesses and farms so that they can make more money. They use their power to hurt others. There are many wealthy people that are ethical and would never think that using a "cost/benefits" analysis in marketing products that could injure or even cause death to those using the product. The idea that a corporation would think that the payoff in a lawsuit would be less than the profit made is not moral. Now, these corporations have convinced us that there needs to be a cap put on lawsuits because most are unworthy. Many are, but that's not why they want the cap. Before the Civil War, Uncle Tom's Cabin spread a image of slavery that led to a growing distaste for that practice, even though the wealthy plantations argued for it and caused a war to defend their states rights to decide on the issue. Images of poverty during the Great Depression caused us to reflect and helped Roosevelt legislate laws that gave hope to the poor. The WPA and other laws provided a safety net to the hard working people and did help bring us out of the Depression. During the 1960's, media images of a war caused us to question our involvement in war. Today, social media is spreading a message for social justice for hard working Americans. Hopefully, the top 1% will stop, listen and do what's morally right for all.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Waukee Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Julia Ziesman June 12, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Could one of the reasons for the population loss in rural Iowa be the lack of decent paying jobs?Read More There are large portions of rural Iowa where there are minimum wage jobs without benefits. Wal-Mart has replaced many small businesses in rural counties. Many of their workers need welfare to survive. The welfare programs that Wal-Mart workers rely on include Medicaid, subsidized housing and food assistance. Meanwhile Wal-Mart and other corporations are setting records for corporate profits. A May 2013 report “The Low-Wage Drag on Our Economy: Wal-Mart’s Low Wages and Their Effect on Taxpayers and Economic Growth” shows how their business model exerts downward pressure on wages. Should we continue to support a created taxpayer-funded social welfare program by corporations? Raising the minimum wage could help alleviate those programs.
Maria Houser Conzemius June 13, 2013 at 11:14 am
Julia Ziesman, I boycott Walmart for the reasons you listed. American taxpayers subsidize Walmart'sRead More low wages and poor benefits with $2.1 billion a year. Collectively, Sam Walton's heirs contributed a whole $6,000 to charity. I looked up the three class-action lawsuits against Walmart that I knew about and found 71. Many lawsuits against Walmart are to try to make courts enforce their many rulings against Walmart. I was really upset when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow Walmart women workers' lawsuit against Walmart to proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit that shocked me the most was that of a 33-year-old handicapped woman in a wheelchair who wouldn't believe that Walmart had shaved her time card hours in order to pay her less than the pitiful hourly wage she should have earned. Her lawyers had to produce documents to prove to her that Walmart was really that unethical.