perceiving a movement through possible positions of a minority is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to tar the group You'll note that I did say "at least s

perceiving a movement through possible positions of a minority is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to tar the group You'll note that I did say "at least some of these protesters". With those qualifiers, you'd be right. I'm not trying to tar the whole ... event (I hesitate to call it a "movement", since I haven't seen any cohesive set of ideals coming forth) ... but some portion, of indeterminate size, of the group. consider that the GM/Chrysler bailouts almost included a gutting of the UAW... The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. First, it's my understanding that the settlement that UAW got in the GM bankruptcy was pretty clearly outside of the way bankruptcy laws specify that the debts are to be discharged. They got a big-time sweetheart deal -- not a one-time "temporary" pile of money, but a good-sized ownership stake. In any case, I'm sure that the banks who were bailed out would say something similar: "it's just this once, and bailing us out really benefited the economy of the whole country". The thing is, this is (a) self-serving, and (b) pretty impossible for them to say objectively, given the complexity of the economy.