Hearst’s Mansion in Beverly Hills = $165 million
After all, why would I defend such a group, unless I too had a stake and would one day join it, if not already be on my way? Right?
...Like when a potentially targeted nerd at school continually bolsters the "cool" guys reputation, while only in the company of his other nerd friends; as if that might somehow (magically) help him avoid the likely wedgie tomorrow from the "cool" crowd. :-)
Such insecurities, and lame attempts at self-preservation, have been around all our lives; they just now appear to whimsically "mature" into goofy, editorialized commentators; and the sad, sidewalk, wan-a-be, interviewees within big city crowds. Not to say that is any more appealing or admirable than becoming a rebellious, modern day, hippie; I just like to be mindful of both, intriguing areas of temptations when possible.
Then again, if the 1%-ers are seemingly the martyrs; as these events continue to "irresponsibly, and "abusively" drag on; that must also make for some interesting / entertaining toast within their own elite social groups at the moment. No? :-)
I just wouldn't know; I am decidedly, NOT a part of the 1%.
In other words: Often seems just as odd perhaps; during such perceived, unfounded, methods of protesting; to blindly follow or side with either issue; or, unduly respect either position, touted on one sides of a coin or another.
"Occupy Wall Street" protesters:
Such blind positioning or touted faith, is no more appealing or sensible, than those guilty of radical rejections, or simple reacting and flailing directed at the status quo. To be on either side of ANY issue without truly studying both sides plights, advantages, challenges, naivete or problems more closely is reckless. And to do so without offering "real" solutions to (unbeknownst to either side,) real problems should be an embarrassment for the group you have chosen to align with.
US Bureau of the Census, Historical Income Tables
Fact is, any lack or understanding the facts, and/or lack of a solution, will likely go "unnoticed" by either side. After all, one started reacting out of pain and therefor scarcely had time to devise a sensible "out"; the other doesn't want solutions discussed in the first place, for fear of potential costly transitions and losses. So the "Status Quo" is very likely to be perfectly safe, for the moment. :-)
In summary (sort of), or at least, conclusion:
I'm just offering thoughts towards this odd tendency so many have found comfort in lately to defend the 1%. (As if they need it.) Don't they realize they will still be likely to receive a wedgie while innocently roaming the halls tomorrow? :-) Such phenomena, or futile (and insecure) goals of self-preservation, are even more surprising to me than those camped out within a cold park tonight in protest.
And regardless of the motivation either group has to be on either "side" (while neither is likely to be truly classified as a "1%-er"), they each are SO likely to lack in numerous crucial facts. So how can either be well respected or blindly trusted at the moment?
I personally think any methods taken within a democracy or republic such as ours, which can ultimately gain the attention of the public and / or thereby insight reasonable discussions, (probably outside of the arena of the protest itself,) is a wonderful and interesting example of our freedoms. Truly synonymous of the historic actions which most often tend to do the more profound shaping of our nation.
So it is somewhat easy to see whom I think are the actual insecure cowards in this, and who I think are the few and the brave. (Albeit I don't deny, each group may very well be mislead at the moment.) What does remains to be rather confusing, is whom our media will convince us tomorrow (and the day after) are the actual martyrs in all of this? After-all, most of us must wait for a cable news network's droning in order to know how we feel and who we will defend.