Reader: Editor's column may only be about '1 percent' accurate

In response to Mr. Miele’s Nov. 12 “Editor’s 2 Cents” column:

Let me be immediately clear about a few things: I am not writing in an attempt to attack Mr. Miele nor because I disagree with his political stance. I am not writing in support of, nor in opposition to, the Occupy Wall Street movement or any movement, for that matter. I am writing simply because Mr. Miele’s article was misinformed and factually inaccurate and therefore, I believe, did a disservice to the readers of his paper.

To begin with: Mr. Miele, you are not a member of the 1 percent. This is not a matter of opinion, this is fact. The “1 percent” does not refer to those who believe in capitalism, to those who are more “American” than others, or to those who believe in a free economy. The “1 percent” refers to the wealthiest 1 percent of  Americans who control around 42 percent of the nation’s wealth. By your own admission and the description of your current financial status, this is not you. It isn’t me either. In fact, it isn’t most of us, 99 percent of the nation, to be exact. This is not a partisan spin or a liberal slant, this is not something that you can argue, this is simply the truth.

Secondly, your article fundamentally misrepresents and misunderstands the purpose behind the Occupy Wall Street movement. You say that you stand with the 1 percent as someone who believes in every American’s right to be as successful as they can, to earn as much as they are able. You depict the OWS movement as standing in opposition to this right and resenting the wealthy, but, Mr. Miele, this is not the case.

Those at OWS (and similar movements around the country) are not telling the rich that they cannot be rich. They are not telling you that you can’t be rich. The wealthy are not being attacked or blamed for being wealthy. The movement, rather, is criticizing what they see as the inequality of how those in different financial brackets are treated by the government, the fact that taxes for the rich are seemingly grossly unequal to those for the poor and middle class, the fact that banks and powerful financial institutions are capable of taking advantage of the less fortunate.

This movement is not about the right to wealth, Mr. Miele, although wealth and income are certainly inextricably bound to the issue; it is about government and, as you have said, what some perceive as injustice. Again, I am not writing as a supporter of this movement; I am simply stating the facts.

Of course, there are probably those within the movement who do have a stance different and more radical than that which I described. There probably are those who resent the wealthy. But there are also those in the movement who are wealthy. The point is that you cannot hold single, radical members of the movement responsible for the movement’s directive as a whole. Just as many became upset when the Tea Party was accused of being a racist movement because of the actions and protest signs of a few lone members, I was appalled to find you taking the views of a few (and some questionable signs) as an indication that the OWS movement is somehow an anti-Semitic movement. This is, to be honest, perfectly absurd, if not downright insulting.

Not only did you draw on the opinions of a few to represent the many involved, but your assumptions were, for the most part, outlandish and contrived. In particular, I was disturbed by your reference to the sign held by the man dressed as Jesus, referring to kicking the money-lenders out of the temple, as being anti-Semitic. This is not only a dangerously ignorant misreading but simply poor biblical scholarship. I cannot speak to that man’s intent, but I’m inclined to interpret that sign as protesting the corruption of wealth and greed in our society, as Jesus protested the same elements in the temple. To draw the connection between the fact that those changing money in the temple may have been Jewish and this sign is an extreme stretch and a clear misreading of the point.

I take particular issue with your bizarre accusation of anti-Semitism within the movement because it indicates the greater failings, and dangers, of your article: making broad, uninformed generalizations and accusations and passing them off as fact. (I’m not even going to address the implications and condescension of your claim that standing with the 1 percent equates to standing with “the Jews.”) Throughout your article you muddy the issue with meaningless rhetoric, continually drawing in abstract concepts that are simply not the issue at hand. You are welcome to your opinion, but at least be diligent in your understanding of the matter and truthful in your analysis.

To say that this is somehow an America vs. communism issue is scare-mongering and misinformation, as are your assertions about the movement’s intent to attack the wealthy and the alleged anti-Semitic elements. Again, I am not writing because I disagree with your opinion or because I support one cause over another, but because there is fact and there is opinion and I hoped that, as a newspaper editor, you would have the integrity to serve the one truthfully and represent the other as such.

Brenneman, a resident of Kalispell, is currently a student in New York City.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Miele stands by his column as a statement of opinion and is saddened to learn he is not a member of the 1 percent after all.)