"Useful Idiot" has a point.

I see the various 'Occupy (fill in the blank)' protest going on, and at first feel to agree with Ann Coulter about them.
Then my left of libertarian sister gets after me for being narrow minded and insulting for calling these protesters 'useful idiots.'

I am not a real good talker. I can express myself better in writings, than conversation. So I could not get my sister to the point that I perceive that these protesters are being directed by others, thus making them 'useful idiots' to those others.

I heard one of these protesters talking to the host of one program about how they were going to be meeting in the protest to discuss just what they are wanting to do. Why assemble without first having a point?
I see others from the current progressive (read 'Marxist' or maybe 'Socialist' or just 'collectivist'?) cast of characters going to these protest to give speeches and rousing the rabble, ultimately seeking to incite to riot.

I recognize that these protesters want to protest the amorality, greed, and bad policy that has held increasing sway of the financial sector of the economy since the baby boomers first realized that they needed to get real jobs. BUT if they really want to accomplish something, I think the first characters to go after are the law-WRITERS and regulation-WRITERS and then The Congress-critters that passed said laws and then set about enacting them. Then go after the individuals in the corporations who complied with them and profited thereby. I might also go after those in the media, who's job was to report on what these regulations and policies and laws would do, for not doing their job. And also go after those other Congress-critters who saw this, knew what it would do, and then did not cry 'foul'; them I would give at least a dope-slap to.

Who compelled the banks to write all those toxic mortgages and other financial things? Hmm, could it be, The Government - both the Elected and the Bureaucrats; those who have a left-of-center ideology which tells them that people can't take care of themselves, so the state needs to do it for them?
If I were going to name names, I would start with Barney Frank, and all on his committee. Then go to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on to Goldman Sachs, and continue through the rest of the whole intertwined web proverbially burning out all who have sought to prove the capitalist-free market system does not work, because it does not intrinsically provide for an equal outcome for everybody.

Here's a big clue about that: the capitalist-free market system allows you to choose what you will do and to work or not at it, and thereby to risk failure and gain greater success. All other systems that have some kind of compulsion to them, seek to remove the risk of failure, and thereby commensurately diminish the amount of success possible.

The next names I would name are those members of the Baby Boom Generation who rejected the classical morals of Good vs. Evil, and Right vs. Wrong, etc. which their parents tried to instill in them. Then carry on to the children who were not taught these classical morals, and subsequent generations.
Further I would go to those instructors and union thugs and media personalities who's ideology has been collectivism, and taught these kids to reject their parents instructions, and to reject individual merit for the collective bargaining of the group.

To my title, and to wrap this up: The protesters have a point. There is too much amorality, greed, bad policy, bad behavior and so forth going on.

But to leave the government out of the mix, and more so to try to say this is an ideologically right wing problem is to miss the mark. To allow these protests to be shaped by those whose stated and historic agenda's have been to collapse the American system and replace it, that spells bad news to me.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO RELIVE THE SUMMER OF 1968 AGAIN?