Occupy Wall Street: high-minded revolution or ignorant, aimless gathering of hippies?

Some would have you believe this is the U.S. version of Arab Spring, a glorious revolt against a minority in power that, through equally devious devices -- if less blunt and draconian while being more complex and nebulous -- control a vast share of a nation's wealth.

Some would also have you believe that these are nothing but worthless dregs of society, people whose lack of knowledge on the topic can only be topped by their inability to contribute anything meaningful to society.

In other words, business as usual in discussion of American politics. So pick one and prepare to be vilified.

To be completely honest, when I hear about protests in the U.S., I have an impulsively negative reaction. I just intrinsically don't like them. I know, an American who disdains protesting and yet pretends to basically understand and support democracy? And a JOURNALIST, no less? (For what it's worth, I also can't stand peanut butter, so I pretty obviously hate freedom and puppies.)

But the reason is that while I respect and will defend to the bitter end their right to protest, I am irritated, to a somewhat unwarranted degree, when people stand up and yell at other people without knowing what they are talking about, or while purposely taking a narrow-minded view; I presume them to be the kid with a D in the class that yet argues with the teacher the loudest. Readers know I prefer to recognize nuance and gray area. Proteters don't hold signs saying "Abortion may or may not be murder but still I think it's kinda wrong and I'm pretty sure God isn't a huge fan." The signs are usually much shorter.

And I'll reiterate; I know my cringe at protest -- aside from making DC an awkward place to live -- is an irrational aversion, like an awkward scene in a television show that you know is necessary to the plot and even kind of funny, but that still just makes you feel uncomfortable for the characters.

The point is my instinct is to sympathize -- even agree with -- with people that initially dismiss the protesters. And sure enough, most protesters don't have a clue what they are talking about. I wouldn't trust their judgement running a Dairy Queen, much less the U.S. economy. The Banks, just like the Politicians, while deserving of at least a good share of blame, are still somewhat easy scapegoats. Especially for the unemployed college graduate with a double-major in history and pot-smoking his parents paid six-figures for him to attain. I have lots of friends that have worked hard and found ways to make themselves valuable enough to someone to get jobs, and many of those friends are hardly sympathetic to a group without the self-awareness or knowledge to understand what they are even fighting against. In addition, the below picture pretty much sums up an incredibly fair view. And considering the sympathy for the movement you may rightfully perceive that I am about to put forth, the below photo should remind you that personal responsibility should not be thrown out the window, as it remains poignantly relevant criticism for probably more than a few protesters:

But of course it's not that simple. Most (UPDATE: probably should have said many here....see comments below) people, much less protesters, don't know what they are talking about in this arena. The "make up an archetype, find a few examples that confirm, and blast an entire crowd with it" is lazy. And it completely ignores the legitimacy behind the beef. Whether they can articulate the beef in a 15-page research paper is irrelevant; if a person uses a taser on a dog to make it do tricks, the dog doesn't have to be able to explain how electricity works to know that his master is a crappy person.

Also, lots of very intelligent people who could be contributing members to society AREN'T working.  (Such as more than a few ex-Wall-Streeters.) And even those with a less profound grasp of their situation don't inherently deserve to suffer economically, and their anger at some of the proximate causes doesn't deserve to be dismissed on the technicality that they are part right but don't know how to say it.

As I've said before, banks were (maybe still are) out of control. In many cases they made loans they had good reason to believe wouldn't be paid back. They didn't care because they were selling those loans, and the way they were bundled confused some very stupid ratings agencies enough for them to rate them as safe. Suddenly some very large yet effectively illusory assets are floating around, home prices shoot up causing more crazy loans, and it basically blows up in everyone's faces. Despite the mistakes, government made the lenders whole out of either fear of economic collapse or corruption (at some very friendly interest rates -- if the government just rips them with some punitive rates the taxpayer gets a nice payday and banks get incentives not to do it again); debtors had to deal with the consequences of their mistakes. By the way, at this point we've long left the realm of rational free market economy, ultra-conservatives.

Corporations, especially in the banking sector, pay top executives tens of millions in severance packages after acting illegally or running the company into the ground. That's right, utter failure, abuse of power and illicit activity nets these people what would take a family earning a median household income 200 to 400 years to earn. So the whole "don't hate people because they're successful; it's MEAN" thing kind of misses the point. Mainly because it implies that the rich got that way through producing a benefit to society. Sure, many do. Many don't. And even for the ones that do, when is enough reward enough? Raising the issue isn't class warfare, it's a legitimate political/societal/moral/philosophical debate.

A major criticism is that the movement has no plan. And it says it doesn't want one. Fine. The downside to these groups, be it Tea Party or Wall Street, is that once you get powerful enough, someone is going to try to co-opt the movement for their own ends; they end up writing a plan once the movement has reached critical mass anyway, and a goal not to have one keeps the movement partially protected from that. But just because some unions join in doesn't negate the original premise. We still have to look at the core issue; can something be done in an economy leaving many behind and many others embarrassingly -- at times inexplicably -- wealthy.

In this Daily Show segment, Jon Stewart aptly points out that many of the critics of the protesters have missed the point: sure, many protesters don't have solutions to the problems for which they halt traffic. But neither do the politicians (can't pass any budget, much less one that decreases the deficit). Neither do pundits (yell and scream for ratings, generally avoiding to commit actual journalism). Neither do corporations (which despite surging profits, won't hire because of economic uncertainty stemming from the fact that too few people have jobs/disposable income). So ripping them for not having a solution, plan, or cohesive agenda seems like asking the kid how to fix the problem when his dad bought the fancy car and house that bankrupted him so that now he's feeding his family Cup-o-Noodles in the fancy new China bowls.

(In addition, the segment points out that many on Fox News praised the Tea Partiers for the same exact reasons they bashed the OWS movement. Also, a Tea Partier complains that OWS are breaking laws such as camping in places where its not allowed, something a Tea Partier -- named such for the "most celebrated act of destruction of property and vandalism in our country's history -- would never do. Oh, and Steve Doocy literally complains that he couldn't get to his steak dinner fast enough because of the people protesting income inequality. Priceless.)

Like the Tea Party, this movement's best hope of political movement actually to get co-opted by some people actually in power. Problem is, with a concrete message they actually have to articulate something, the specifics of which could cost them supporters, and on top of that the co-opting group could twist the message for their own end to the extent that it is no longer recognizable to it's original proponents (See: Ron Paul, much of the Tea Party).

But really, it's best hope of general success is to force us to have this conversation. Maybe, as we recognize blaming "Wall Street" is somewhat righteous but an oversimplification of the problem, we look closer at some underlying fundamental issues. Maybe more people will read articles like this, where both sides are forced to confront some basic realities they might find unpleasant. Yes, the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, and yes, the taxation system is still somewhat progressive. And yes, the distribution of wealth has become more skewed, and in a consumer economy that poses serious problems, not to mention raises questions about whether a large number of people can really be worth a couple hundred times more than an average person, or whether they've found a way to game the system.

I'm not saying we should do exactly what these people suggest; that would be insane. I have no problem with some people being very rich (I'd prefer to know they produced something valuable to get that way, but baby steps). But as we argue over taxation and fixing the budget, it's important to think about "the one percent," what they do, and what is fair to ask of them. Do we throw the book at them and take it all? Of course not. But we have to recognize that we have the largest post-depression levels of income and wealth inequality right  now (a path we've been on for decades; no fair blaming one administration), and that issue deserves some attention.

Nah, let's stick with the narrative where we argue whether they are Revolutionaries or Hippies; That'll get more people to watch.