Speaking on WOR radio Friday, Bloomberg said the city's labor unions - many of whom swelled demonstrator ranks earlier this week - depend on salaries that "come from the taxes paid by the people they're trying to vilify."He doesn't mention (because nobody mentions) that things were a lot better when the top marginal tax rate was about 75% higher than it is now.
Go on and try to scare us, Mister B. It's not as though jobs were growing steadily before the OWS protests began.
Naming names: Dare we bring up the age-old question of nomenclature? I don't like "Occupy Wall Street." It's unwieldy. Worse, it doesn't offer up a sharp and zingy identifier for the occupiers. I mean, are the protesters supposed to say "I'm an Occupy Wall Streeter"? Or "I'm a Wall Street Occupier"? Or "I'm an Occupier of Wall Street"? Or...what?Also, that phrase has kind of an unwelcome militaristic feel -- as in, Occupied Iraq, Occupied France, that sort of thing. It gives off kind of a Bushy vibe.
Maybe we can segue into another name?
"Ninety-nine percenter" is a little better, but it's still six syllables, and writers have to remember to spell out the number when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. And they won't remember to do that.
I like "The Rebellion." The rebels can call themselves The Rebels. Short and catchy, innit?
And they can adopt Alexander Hamilton as a mascot of sorts. He was a revolutionary in a tricorner hat, a bona fide founding father -- and he advocated protectionist "American jobs first" economic policies that would make modern conservatives just shit. (If they knew about those policies, which they probably do not and never will.)
If you have an alternative suggestion, I am all attention.
Frankly, the kids who put this OWS thing together are doing many things wrong. Wrong name, wrong methodology, (partially) wrong statement of grievances...wrong everything. Yet the movement is growing. You know why? Because the situation is desperate and people need something like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment