PDA

View Full Version : Why the Media Loves the Violence of Protesters...



DiabloViejo
02-26-2012, 03:33 AM
Why the Media Loves the Violence of Protesters and Not of Banks
The grand thieves invented ever more ingenious methods to crush the hopes and livelihoods of the many. This is the terrible violence that Occupy was formed to oppose.
February 21, 2012

When you fall in love, it’s all about what you have in common, and you can hardly imagine that there are differences, let alone that you will quarrel over them, or weep about them, or be torn apart by them -- or if all goes well, struggle, learn, and bond more strongly because of, rather than despite, them. The Occupy movement had its glorious honeymoon when old and young, liberal and radical, comfortable and desperate, homeless and tenured all found that what they had in common was so compelling the differences hardly seemed to matter.

Until they did.

Revolutions are always like this: at first all men are brothers and anything is possible, and then, if you’re lucky, the romance of that heady moment ripens into a relationship, instead of a breakup, an abusive marriage, or a murder-suicide. Occupy had its golden age, when those who never before imagined living side-by-side with homeless people found themselves in adjoining tents in public squares.

All sorts of other equalizing forces were present, not least the police brutality that battered the privileged the way that inner-city kids are used to being battered all the time. Part of what we had in common was what we were against: the current economy and the principle of insatiable greed that made it run, as well as the emotional and economic privatization that accompanied it.

This is a system that damages people, and its devastation was on display as never before in the early months of Occupy and related phenomena like the “We are the 99%” website. When it was people facing foreclosure, or who’d lost their jobs, or were thrashing around under avalanches of college or medical debt, they weren’t hard to accept as us, and not them.

And then came the people who’d been damaged far more, the psychologically fragile, the marginal, and the homeless -- some of them endlessly needy and with a huge capacity for disruption. People who had come to fight the power found themselves staying on to figure out available mental-health resources, while others who had wanted to experience a democratic society on a grand scale found themselves trying to solve sanitation problems.

And then there was the violence.

The Faces of Violence

Read the rest here (article is long, but worth reading):
Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/154235/why_the_media_loves_the_violence_of_protesters_and _not_of_banks)

eg8r
02-27-2012, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the terrible violence that Occupy was formed to oppose.
</div></div>Obama elected POTUS and did it with more Wall St money than any other politician in the history of Wall St. Isn't it a shame when a good cause is formed just a little too late. LOL, maybe the dems did that on purpose.

You know, they can act like they are against Wall St money but let's do it after we get our Wall St boy in the WH. Kind of like Obama being against foreign corporate money, sorry I mean superPAC money, being used to buy the White House but then agreeing that it is OK if his counterpart is doing it.

eg8r

LWW
02-27-2012, 12:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the terrible violence that Occupy was formed to oppose.
</div></div>Obama elected POTUS and did it with more Wall St money than any other politician in the history of Wall St. Isn't it a shame when a good cause is formed just a little too late. LOL, maybe the dems did that on purpose.

You know, they can act like they are against Wall St money but let's do it after we get our Wall St boy in the WH. Kind of like Obama being against foreign corporate money, sorry I mean superPAC money, being used to buy the White House but then agreeing that it is OK if his counterpart is doing it.

eg8r </div></div>

And let's not forget the foreign money that funded both he and Hillary in 2008 ... and Billy Jeff both times.