The Tea Party is an organization that is dogmatically driven by ideological purity, over doctrine that is inconsistent.  It is the opposite of Occupy in that it has a narrow selection of ideas, and Ron Paul is on the cusp of being accepted.  I speak of what is now known as the Tea Party, not what was the Tea Party before Santelli's rant, which was mainly in the Ron Paul camp.   I say this, because Ron Paul polled like at 30% approval rate among Tea Party folks.  The remains of the Ron Paul campaign from 2008, got coopted by Dick Armey and others, and spun and positioned as the anti-Obama, at all costs, win of the GOP.  Had McCain won, you wouldn't of gotten the Tea Party as anything relevant. 

OWS, and the Occupy movement as a whole, is too wild for it to be part of any political party, and it is so open to anything, that it goes whatever way people come into it want, and will chase after about any shiny object a GA "mob" of folks can agree to.  So, they go protest anything and everything, have both people believing in big government, and no government, and so on.  It worked as a nice circus for the media to follow in 2011, with the camps as a hook.  No way that it is anything there.  Also, the movement, unlike the Tea Party now being mostly members of the Republican Party, consisted of Independents who aren't part of any political party.  They were also wary of getting coopted the way the GOP did to the Tea Party.

Here is a critique piece of TED itself:
http://www.alternet.org/media/155527/Why_TED_Is_a_Massive%2C_Money-Soaked_Orgy_of_Self-Congratulatory_Futurism/?page=1

The problem I have with that criqitue is that well... it completely takes the blog post i posted out of conxtext and ignores the fact that they've hosted more then one talk on economic inequality being bad.

If they hadn't covered it before, maybe he'd have a point.

I mean... shit

http://blog.ted.com/2012/05/17/playlist-the-roots-and-effects-of-income-equality/

TED and some of it's viewers do tend to think waaay to much of themselves and do tend to promote a fairly regular liberal agenda both socially and econonomically... which only does highlight the deficencies in the post.

Hell recently there was a release of a real eye raiser against typical TED dogma.  "The demise of guys"... by Phillip Zimbardo... which is hugely anti-intenret, which is a big no-no to the common TED though perspective.

Which as a side note I'm shocked is still allowed to keep his fucking job considering since he's had all of one valuable research expierment, the rest being awful correlation = causation even when the opposite seems just as likely.

And that one valuable research expierment was like one of the least fucking ethical studies in the history of Psychology.