AOW 8

Wall Stree Whiners

The 'Occupy' movement is made up of a lot of losers

An editorial from The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/18/the-wall-street-whiners/ 

Started in 1982, the paper is now known for its politically and socially conservative views. It was initially created to contrast the only major newspaper previously prevalent in Washington, the relatively liberal Washington Post. A huge contributor is previous Republican President George Bush’s speech writer, and the paper has been accused of misquoting or representing liberal speakers or movement in the past.

Summary:

            
Wall Street, and the world, has erupted over the past several months in protests. The arguments are primarily against institutions such as banks that are sucking money from the “99%” and giving it to rich people, who are subsequently getting richer. The publicity they are getting is enormous, and almost entirely positive. But this editorial argues the perspective that has been portrayed as “evil”. He calls these protesters “whiners” and “crybabies” and claims that most of their problems are self-inflicted and cannot be blamed on companies. He says that left wing institutions have begun to realize that degrees in “useless fields don’t deliver instant wealth”, and that these people are victims of supply and demand. Instead of complaining, he thinks these people should just work hard and earn a living, and a lack of discipline within the government is what is causing such a huge problem, not failed institutions.

Analysis:

             This editorial was meant to speak for/represent the outraged conservative audience that it addresses. The publicity that Occupy Wall Street is getting is almost entirely one sided. The protesters shout allegations towards large corporations and institutions. However, many of these CEO’s are conservatives who are taking the heat. This purpose of this editorial was to show that they have nothing to support their argument. The writer flat out insults the protestors, calling them ridiculous names and claiming that their statements are baseless. Most of his argument takes the form of a refutation. He first states the claim that protestors are making, such “In massive debt because of that once ‘dream degree.’ ”, and argues that 1) this has nothing to do with Wall Street, and 2) that is the fault of increasing tuition rates, which is the fault of the universities themselves. Among the audience being reached, he establishes a sense of ethos with parallel ideals, and finishes with ethos by stating the American mentality to “Work hard, sacrifice and don’t expect something for nothing”. I do believe that his argument is impossible for the wrong audience, but for those that are conservative and do agree with these ideals the editorial raises a sense of patriotism, then places the protesters as the threat to our nation.