Pampered Protesters (Guest Voice)
Pampered Protesters
by Michael Reagan
The hordes of so-called “protesters” now polluting the streets of several U.S. cities, including New York, are sending confused messages about their grievances.
The unemployed among them complain that the jobs available to them are beneath them. I guess that cancels out the old concept of starting in the mailroom and advancing step-by-step to the boardroom. It used to be the norm that one started at the bottom and worked their way up. This bunch seems to be living under the delusion that simply by virtue of having been born they are entitled to immediate arrival at the boardroom level with appropriate compensation.
Viewing these unruly mob scenes, featuring numerous public sexual activities posing as protests, I am reminded of the manner in which my Dad dealt with such malcontents. If they were government employees he simply fired them. It worked. The remaining ones slinked back to work.
And I recall how he dealt with his son (me) back in 1965 when I dropped out of Arizona State University and thought that I was simply going home to live with — and off — either my Mom or Dad, who were then divorced. When I got home I found that their doors were locked to college dropouts.
Nancy, my ever-loving step-mom, was busy calling all branches of the military to let them know I was a college dropout and thus now eligible to be drafted.
When I finally was able to speak to my parents they simply told me to find another place to live and to get a job. I did both. I moved in with some friends and got a job working at Asbury Transportation Company in Los Angeles loading oil-well freight from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. That’s where I was working when my father was elected governor of California.
Did I complain that my lowly job was beneath my new station in life as the son of the governor of California? How could I? I was the one who set that bar low when I dropped out of college. So to all you spoiled brats marching and wanting better pay or bigger allowances, take a good, long look in the mirror, not at Wall Street, and if you want to blame something blame OBAMACARE! Your employers or parents have to spend the money you might have received in raises to pay for that socialist monstrosity.
I am still amazed that these kids can find time to congregate in city streets, which are in many cases far from their hometowns. Somebody has to be paying their way; in most cases their beleaguered parents are stuck with the bill for their latest adventure, which has nothing to do with education and a lot to do with left-wing politics and public lovemaking, if that’s what it’s called.
And the media willingly — indeed, eagerly — give the protesters lots of free publicity. Media outlets should start ignoring them and we’ll see how fast they disband and slink back home. They thrive on the publicity the media provide.
Finally, the long-suffering parents ought to close their pockets and deny their wayward brats the money that allows them to travel to the big city to make pests of themselves.
Go home. Now. But before you do, clean up the messes you have made.
Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). He is the founder and chairman of The Reagan Group and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his website at www.reagan.com, or e-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. ©2011 Mike Reagan His column is licensed to run on TMV in full.
15 Responses to “Pampered Protesters (Guest Voice)”
MR is living in a dreamworld. As usual.
“The unemployed among them complain that the jobs available to them are beneath them. I guess that cancels out the old concept of starting in the mailroom and advancing step-by-step to the boardroom.”
I agree that people starting out should take entry level jobs. However college students (or those newly graduated) are not the only ones protesting. What about the millions of unemployed who have worked years and cannot find work? What about those who did start at the bottom, work their way up, did not receive raises the last few years and are now laid off… by companies making profits, but looking to wring more out of their workers so these companies can return more to shareholders? There was a Reuters article a few days ago about Wells Fargo changing it’s healthcare options, making it more expensive for employees. The bank says it’s encouraging employees to spend less on healthcare. What that really means is that the costs will be born by employees who cannot afford preventative care or even allergy shots… imagine trying to work at your desk, not being ablr to breathe freely and not being able to afford the allergy shots which healthcare plans offered. (True story by someone I know who works at Wells.)
The article also said, “With unemployment now at 9.1 percent, however, companies don’t need to work as hard to keep workers happy.” So I’d like to know what you have to say about that mentality by the corporate executives. The same executives are those who are running their employees into the ground, giving no raises simply because they can take advantage of their employees in these tough times. But these corporate executives earn hundreds of times more than their employees and their earnings continue to go up. And these same executives who run their employees into the ground, and layoff employees are contributing to the unemployment problem.
So, Michael, I’d be very interested to hear you address these issues and complaints by ordinary American citizens who do not have money or power.
The link to the Reuters article I mentioned above.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/wellsfargo-health-idUSN1E79A1GO20111012?feedType=RSS&feedName=bondsNews&rpc=43
Mikey dropped out of reality a long time ago, and, he STILL makes his living off his family!
My initial reaction to the criticism of the Occupy Wall Street is the same as my reaction to the criticism of the Tea Party Movement, and that is that we should be careful not make sweeping generalizations of an entire movement based upon the words and actions of a handful of people in that movement.
I’ve heard quite a few things from Occupy Wall Street protesters that I disagree with. However, until I’ve actually attended an Occupy Wall Street protest and conversed with a large number of the protesters, I’m going to refrain from making broad generalizations.
As a side note, it is rather comical (though hardly suprising) to hear a number of conservatives and progressives adopting each other’s rhetoric with regards to each new protest movement that springs up. Apparently, making sweeping generalizations about an entire movement is a bad thing when a movement expresses views that one likes but is completely fine when the movement expresses views contrary to their own.
From a previous thread:
I guess the military let this one take time off. Another “dirty smelly hippie.”
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2011/10/ows_1055_pm_october_13th_1.html
I wonder if MR served in Vietnam, or if daddy pampered him?
Note: Repaeted to fix image size
Very Good Rudi! Thank You.
MR has served nothing but himself his whole life. His daddy made training films during WWII “For” the Army, on contract, not “IN” the Army, but let’s not be judgmental.
When the young are pushed out of the nest before they are ready they are lucky to survive. The reason they are not ready can only reflect upon the parents. Launch Failures are common in broken homes.
Nick—
-[Apparently, making sweeping generalizations about an entire movement is a bad thing when a movement expresses views that one likes but is completely fine when the movement expresses views contrary to their own]-
I tend to agree that we are all generally hypocrites. So since you have this pegged, would you mind providing us with the proper response? Or would that be to Politically Correct for ya?
Allen wrote:
The answer is rational, civilized discussion–which is to say discussion that is free of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and sweeping generalizations.
We all have disagreements that arise from honest differences of opinion. Some disagreements arise, however, because we assume things about our “opponents” that turn out to be untrue. Bias often triumphs over objectivity, emotion often triumphs over logic, and the desire to frame the debate often triumphs over the desire to communicate effectively.
If an individual professes to believe something that you find objectionable, then provide him/her with a sound argument that is likely to make him/her reconsider his/her viewpoint.
If an individual makes an assertion that you believe to be untrue, correct him/her, and provide him/her with the data or information that proves otherwise.
Rather than making ad hominem attacks about your opponent or making unfounded attacks on his/her motives, undermind his/her argument by pointing out that it rests upon logical fallacies, inconsistencies, and factual inaccuracies.
And finally, let all of us cease the utterly illogical tactic of making sweeping statement about an entire group of people based upon the actions of a handful of people in that group.
There is nothing novel or radical about any of these suggestions. These are simply the basic tenets of rational debate.
Michael Reagan makes some sweeping generalizations that are no doubt true of some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters but are not necessarily true of all (or even most) of these protesters. Such sweeping generalizations make me wonder whether Michael Reagan has actually attended an Occupy Wall Street protests and spoken to even a dozen of the protesters.
When I had questions and concerns about the Tea Party Movement, I didn’t come to conclusion about it by making assumptions or generalizations. I took the initiative to actually attend a couple Tea Party rallies and have political discussion with at least fifty of the people I met. I documented the first of these two experiences here at TMV (see here and here).
I try to avoid making logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and sweeping generalizations–not to be “politically correct”–but because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with rational discussion.
“The answer is rational, civilized discussion–which is to say discussion that is free of logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and sweeping generalizations.”
Since most of us are human, that would be a target rather than a realistic expectation. Fortunately, the truth doesn’t require antiseptic organization in order to be understood. In any case, MR has a long record of being in the bag for reactionary, anti-all-things-liberal “writing”. He is part of an echo chamber, not someone to take seriously.
I am surprised anyone even bothered to read past this one sentence. What a hack.
Barky, I didn’t.
I read past that sentence, thinking that maybe I’d get an account of Mr. Reagan’s visit to one of the protests, or his interaction with several protestors which led him to that conclusion, but such an account was nowhere to be found.
Like other pundits who have taken it upon themselves to belittle this movement, Reagan took what I’m guessing are second and third-hand accounts of bad behavior, mixed in his own virulent hatred of anything even remotely liberal, and proudly looked upon the straw man he’d erected before attacking it with all the disdain and contempt he could muster.
Reagan “marvels” that the “brats” who are protesting could manage to find the time and resources to go protest far from home, assuming of course that their parents are merely indulging them. I wonder if he had the same thoughts as the (much larger) Tea Party protests were happening?
Were all those people unemployed college drop-outs as well? Did he take them to task for avoiding obviously important menial jobs in order to travel to a rally far away?
Or is it possible that he praised the Tea Party folks for taking the time to stand up and let their voices be heard – because he agreed with their goals?
Maybe TMV would like to link us to a Reagan column expressing his opinions on the Tea Party protests?
I’m going to take a guess and say he didn’t call them “wayward brats.”
I understand where MR is coming from when he believes there are some college graduates who feel that it is beneath them to take lower, entry level jobs. They do exist. I also understand how MR was told to get a job by his parents who refused to support him when he dropped out of college. However I think it is very dangerous when people use their own life experiences as an example of how everyone else’s life is. I appreciate that MR worked hard and made something of himself. However I feel that his success today is due in part to his father being president and his connections. Having talent and working hard is part of success, and I like it that MR did work hard to make something of himself and he is not a “trust fund baby”. However luck and being in the right place at the right time (to meet people and make connections) is vital to success too.
I believe the political leaders in this country fail to realize that tens of millions of people in this country do not have access to wealth and power…. and connections. I know people who have worked hard and do very well at work, and have done so for decades, but are now without a job because companies want to maximize profits so these folks are laid off. These are people who don’t have high aspirations but work hard and want to do a good job so they can support their families and retire with a little money saved up. Unfortunately corporate greed has not only dashed the American Dream of those who do want to make a difference, but corporate greed has also ruined millions of lives of people who just want to do a good job and raise a family. The real threat to families these days isn’t the religious “moral” threat, but rather the threat that the never-ending drive for profits causes. People want to raise kids, but are so pessimistic (and can’t find employment) that they cannot afford to have children.
The group of protesters is a “mixed bag”. Generalizations won’t work here. It appears that there are some who have consumed some form of chemical recreation and are groving to the sound of bongos, but many I’ve heard have a legit gripe. Votes are being bought; Wall Street legalized gambling is out of control; and our Supreme Court helped make it so. I’m also pretty sure that Soros has some money in all of this, but what difference does that make? The message rings true.