Occupy Wall Street(OWS) is a protest movement which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in the financial district of Wall Street, New York City. It was first initialized by the Canadian Activist Group: ?Adbusters?.

So, what is OWS?s point? To ?protest corporate influence on democracy, a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis? or actually to camp outside in a park for a few weeks, inspire a couple of copycats from all over the world to do the same, and get some sympathy from Wall Street? Apparently the latter of the two.

It is impossible for us to argue about the general public?s perception of what a successful protest may consist of, yet, we certainly hope it is not too arduous to believe that it should consist of demonstrators that are clothed. We find it difficult, to find a connection with the financial industry and public nudity. Perhaps these half-naked demonstrators realize not that they are aiding in making OWS an easy target for mimicry, but actually aiding in the act of protestation. Furthermore, noting that only the very young demonstrators have a practical grumble; whereby they compete for jobs in which one in five actually acquire the job. Unfortunately, this is grounds for frustration, not outrage or wide spread demonstration or disrupting the public, so such a widespread degree. Even more so, considering the fact that New York City is one of the busiest cities in the world, or the fact that it generates more money for America than anywhere else, we quickly realize that the chaos cause is nowhere near the mere chaos at sight.

One will find that upon light inspection of this group, that this group lacks organization and leadership to an extensive extent. One may find irony, upon realization of the level of disruption or damage this unorganized lot has achieved, therefore attracting media attention, further implementing the idea of gathering public sympathy. The lack of leaderships is of such degree it seems to be in the array of:

Random Protester: ?Let?s go protest against the CEO of Chase!?

Protest Crowd: ?Yea let?s do that!?

?

This event of protesting against this particle CEO took place on October 12, 2011.

We can?t blame them for protesting against the rich, right? That?s their whole fundamental belief, right? Well the strange thing here is that, J.P. Morgan Chase didn’t take on excessive mortgage risk before the crisis, therefore didn’t need Troubled Asset Relief Program?money (although it was force into taking the money). The demonstrators also picketed the home of hedge fund mogul John Paulson, who, if the protesters had leaders who did their research, they might have realized that he made his fortune bidding against the housing bubble, and did not aid the inflation of the housing market. Perhaps they are not people protesting, yet skilled anarchist with nothing better to do? That seems much more likely.

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli issued a report in late 2011 predicting that Wall Street and other financial industry in New York will most likely lose 10,000 more jobs by the end of 2012. This does not include the 4,100 jobs lost in this same industry since mid-year of 2011, or the 22,000+ jobs lost since 2008. If one takes the time to do the math?which in the case of the demonstrators, the have no time, they are just too busy sitting on their hands in park benches, or? destroying public property? they will find that this industry are hurting badly, for it has declined by 8.9% in revenue generating since late 2006. To this day, the financial giant Goldman Sachs is still planning layoffs. Point here? Wall Street is hurting, and they are not sitting on money watch everyone suffer.

So much for the clich?, that whole dilemma of Wall Street vs. Main Street, the greedy ?1%? vs. the hardworking-overworked-underpaid- ?99%?. The fundamental belief of OWS ?or do they have no fundamental belief due to the disunity and lack of leadership?has just been disproved?! How shocking it must be to find that such an ?effective protest? as the media so says, was so easily disproven?? Considering that it most likely will be a slogan used in both presidential campaigns in 2012, the effect of disproving it has a rather of a large vicinity of effect.

Yet, that is still not convincing enough. Still, there are protesters screaming for some real reasons why they can?t find a job. Well? here it is a reason that is intellectual, crafted from logic. Consider what the White House did during the financial downfall. They decided to make a joke out of the financial industry (which consists of nearly 7% if US?s GDP, ~700 billion), the energy industry (nearly 8% of the US?s GDP, ~1 trillion), and private individuals who have accumulated wealth over a couple of million (these particular individuals paid 20+% of all the federal income taxes, not considering other taxes they sustenance). And don’t forget the Administration’s periphrastic cascades against individual companies like Anthem Blue Cross, AIG and Bank of America, or against bondholders, or various other alleged ?scoundrels of wealth?.

Now move from mere statistics to actions. Here is one that is shovel-ready. The Administration has spent three years sitting on the Keystone XL pipeline project that has the potentials to create 13,000 jobs and 118,000 part-time jobs. A State Department environmental review says ?The project poses no threat to the environment?, yet this Administration’s eco-friends are influencing the Administration from going forward with it?

Then there are the jobs the Administration and its allies in Congress are actively killing. In June, American Electric Power announced it would have to shutter five coal-fired power plants, at a cost of 600 jobs per plant, in order to comply with new EPA rules. Those same rules may soon force the utility to shutter another 25 plants. Bank of America’s decision last month to lay off 30,000 employees is a direct consequence of various Congressional edicts limiting how much the bank can charge merchants or how it can handle delinquent borrowers.

What more can the protesters ask for as a justification? Is this not straightforward?

No, of course not, they will whine about anything if they can do less work whining.

They might say, ?The rich do not contribute to anything?. This is evidently falsified due to the previous statistic about how much of the federal taxes the 1%? hold up on their end. Yet, this can be further disproven by the example of Charles Feeney. He?s a very rich guy. He co-founded Duty Free Shoppers Group in the early 1960s, and sold his stake in the company to LVMH Moet Hennessy-Louis Vuitton for $2.47 billion in 1996. At the time, The Times noted Feeney’s “net worth far exceeds the $975 million estimated by Forbes magazine.” After the sale, The Times reported estimated that the proceeds, paired with other funds Feeney turned over to the foundation “left the charity with $3.5 billion, even after the $610 million that has already been distributed to charities.” At that point, he donated anonymously to almost every charity, giving thousands and millions of dollars. He gave Cornell University a $350 million donation to construct a new technology-based satellite campus on Roosevelt Island in New York City. Officials at The Atlantic Philanthropies, the foundation started by Feeney in 1982, confirmed that he was the one who made the gift for the project, which is expected to generate an extra $1.4 billion in tax revenue for the city, plus 20,000 construction jobs and as many as 30,000 new jobs once the facility is up and running. Contributing nothing at all, eh? Charles is one of the millions of 1% who contribute majorities of their wealth to the public, education, or charity. Take Bill Gates for another example. He is the richest person alive today. His commitment of 97% of his total wealth will go to charities and education. Again, this is all minute amounts in the eyes of the demonstrators. We wonder the awkwardness if one asks one of the protesters to donate 32.3% of their wealth to charity. (note 32.3% would be proportional to the amount of donation 1% vs. 99% makes, therefore rendering it to be a fair amount)

Is this enough?

No? they continue.

They might say, ?Obama is doing a good job? (Or anything about Obama in general, since he is their great champion). Counterargument, once again is straightforward and simple: ?It?s not class warfare, it?s simple math!? That?s how President Obama defended the tax-the-rich foundation of his so-called American Jobs Act.? The President?s rhetoric was, of course, overreaching, as it so often is when he is in campaign mode, and none other than the Associated Press took him to task for his overzealous, inaccurate generalization that the rich are not paying their ?fair share.? He also said, ?It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million? Middle-class families shouldn?t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That?s pretty straightforward. It?s hard to argue against that.? Well they aren?t. As the AP pointed out, the rich, are (Mr. Buffett, apparently, notwithstanding), in fact, paying the highest marginal tax rates, as they should. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government according to AP?s Stephen Ohlemacher.? The ten percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They contribute over 70 percent of federal income tax revenue, says the Congressional Budget Office. When President Obama assumed office he quickly surrounded himself with Keynesian economic advisers, and vigorously, pursued a spending spree (they called it a stimulus program) which quickly soared to more than a trillion dollars of extra deficit spending. This was designed to rein in unemployment before it reached 8.0%, which, at the time, was at 7.8%. The result? Nearly three years later, unemployment is at 9.1%.? What we have learned is that the President?s program to reduce unemployment simply failed.? It?s? simple math. Not calculus, not linear algebra, SIMPLE MATH! Unfortunately, it poses to be extremely difficult in this case.

Most of the Occupiers won?t realize that their cause would be better served in Washington, D.C., where they can be arrested and jailed with charges of ?attempting to disrupt Congress?. Then again, most of America’s jobless also won’t recognize their values or interests in the warmed-over anti-capitalism being served up in lower Manhattan. Obama has been in power for 3 years, yet this Administration had only been successful in making most Americans think Wall Street is the cause.

The protests are so to be said to be against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations?particularly from the financial services sector?on government. Yet, evidently this is not what they are doing. There is no question that Americans are suffering from tough economic times. The unemployment rate under the President Obama continues to remain high at 9 percent while the federal government is considering the raise of taxes, in order to finance more government spending. Americans have a right to be frustrated and worried, but violence is not the answer. The strength of words can be equal to the sharpest swords in one?s arsenal.

Disregarding all of that?OWS protesters have also presented their true colors by both their actions and affiliations. The image that comes to mind when they are brought up is one of increasing violence in conjunction with extremist affiliations that is used to depict the emotionally charged views of ?The 99%?. This extremism is to such an extent, that a 78-year-old woman who was merely attempting to go around an ongoing OWS protest in Washington D.C was knocked down stairs; note the protests were borderline peaceful. This unfortunate elderly women wound severely in the regio facialis. Other instances of such violence often elicit Police officers to use an equivalent force of violence harming innocent bystanders. Such unnecessary force caused by the protestors harmed a former U.S. Marine and Iraq war veteran, who suffered from a fractured skull and internal brain injuries in October after being hit by a ricocheting tear gas canister or rubber bullet reportedly fired by Oakland police. At the University of California-Berkeley, campus police also are under investigation for allegedly assaulting students and faculty at an Occupy rally earlier this month. And in Seattle this week, an 84-year-old community activist, a priest and a pregnant teenager were pepper-sprayed.

Is this their commitment? To not work, disrupt, and harm the one who have? To the extent, harming those who were willing to do the ultimate sacrifice for their country?

Wait, it gets better.

Beginning in mid-September, OWS has cost New York City over 10 million dollars within two months of its continuation. It’s unclear what the OWS protests have actually accomplished of course, not considering the damages they have done, economically or otherwise, or maybe not? Perhaps OWS should be kept, because they are actually generating some sort of revenues? Indeed, police have received a windfall from the fines they collect of overtime. GREAT!

Oh wait? no?

80% or more of these fines never get paid for. Law enforcement agencies are tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camp, thus compromising the security of our state due to the fact only an acute number of officers left on the task to patrol the city and keep an eye out for terror threats. They become overworked as their funds get drained from cuts in defense spending, resulting in security measures grow exponentially thinner. Aside from being a security and economic drain, the local businesses have also been victimized by its presence. In fact, within two months of its start local businesses have lost revenues totaling to greater than half a million, per business! This does not include other expenses or long term adjournments! These protestors fight for economic equality amongst other things, yet turn a blind eye to their own detrimental effects on New York City, and their egregious waste of the money of the American people. The Occupy movement has intentionally never clarified its policy objectives, relying instead on a broad message opposing corporate excess and income inequality, and hoping for a change to occur which we all know is not in the impending future.

We do not disagree that there are many out there today, suffering due to this economy, yet, on the issue of OWS, we are against it. OWS is a failure fundamentally, for it not only fails to address the issue they are protesting, but as well as their internal issues. It is not only ineffective in conveying their message, but creates pandemonium. We are not only a mere civilization, but we are the Americans, perhaps the greatest of the civilization. We should need not de-grade ourselves to such animalistic behaviors to convey a point. We are in a financial crisis, and we need not more disruptions. What we need is unity among our people, to work together, and finding solutions instead of arguments. Easily put, OWS was inability at its best.

— Yiliang Chen

Special Thanks to My AP English 1% Group Members