Thursday, May 03, 2012


So we had the 5 guys- described as ‘anarchists upset with corporate greed and the govt.’ who got caught trying to blow up a Cleveland bridge.

Yes- they had the fake plastic c-4 that the undercover FBI agent gave them.

They planted the stuff at the base of the bridge- and they entered the code that they thought would blow it up.

Nothing happened- and they got busted.

As I read the article [actually a couple] I found it interesting that these men did call themselves part of the Occupy Wall street group.

They held to the same beliefs [absent bridge bombing] and by all accounts were what you could reasonably describe as ‘Occupiers’.

Now- I know that all occupiers do not hold to these views.

But the article went on to state that part of the motivation of these men was the downright unwillingness for the ‘regular’ occupiers to engage in violence.


 Yes- not only were these 5 musketeers not ‘really’ occupiers- but part of their motivation to bomb the bridge was their frustration that the regular occupiers are so darn non violent!

I remember when the media covered the Tea Party crowd- you had accusations that they were Terrorists- even though they actually did not engage in bridge bombing.

When there was an accusation that one of them said ‘nigger’ or possibly spit on a Black man- did the media report that these offenders were not really Tea Partiers?

Did they say part of the motivation was the ‘downright unwillingness for regular tea partiers to engage in racial prejudice’.

No- even though the tea party made it clear that they did not hold these views- if you had anyone associated with the group engage in bad behavior- then the media simply reported it as tea party activity- which would be right.

When the crazy guy shot the Arizona congresswoman Gifford’s- the media spent a week debating whether or not the phrase ‘target’ used by Sarah Palin might have led to the shooting.

Now- we have had the president going around the country- making speech after speech about how the rich are not paying their fair share- how corporate big wigs are screwing everyone else.

You have the class warfare card that the president has been using- inciting real anger and frustration in people.

Do you think this language- this constant drumbeat- from the president himself- do you think it might have played a role in the general anger that you see in the occupiers?

Have we spent a week [or even 1 day] asking the nation ‘do you think this 99 versus 1 % language might have played a role’?

No- no questions like this are being asked.

Not only that- but the media have reported that one of the reasons for these bridge bombers anger- was the absolute non violence of the occupiers.

Yeah- if a guy who was a member of the tea party- who had tea party associations on Facebook- who held to all the views of a tea partier- yeah- if he lynched a Black guy- I’m sure the media would report ‘he lynched him because he was so upset with the true love that the real tea partiers have for Black people’.

Yeah- I’m sure that’s what they would say- aren’t you?

Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John. Don’t forget to ‘click’ the note App on my Facebook Profile- I have posted lots.

No comments:

Post a Comment