$ and the 99%

("Hollywood on Wall Street")

Is there no difference between Warren Buffett and Rupert Murdoch? The Michael Moores, Susan Sarandons and Alec Baldwins, by virtue of their wealth, should not be disqualified from being vocal advocates for Occupy Wall Street. Mr. Bruni's conclusion that "protesters would be wise to keep all that glitters...at arm's length" is fundamentally wrong.

The protests are a call to expose greed and corruption, to make it politically uncomfortable for people to run roughshod over the disadvantaged , to make it harder for those who would choose to ignore the human consequences of their selfish actions. When those in the 1% like Mr. Buffett or Mr. Baldwin champion the cause of the 99%, both with their money and with their words, it is not hypocrisy but passion that motivates them. The 1% are not all blind, or deaf or evil.

It is not inherently wrong to be wealthy. It is only inherently wrong to have no compassion for the plight of your fellow human beings. That, Mr. Bruni, is the difference between Mr. Buffett and Mr. Murdoch, between right and wrong and between those that stand with the 99% and those who don't. And money has nothing to do with it.