imho, there is more value/honesty in the protests and actions of these "adoloscent" activists than the impotent organizations populated with the more "pragmatic", "mature" adults, that stand for the left in the USA. it is not a matter of chance that successful protests and changes, in other nations, were instigated and propelled by student movements. --
Absolutely... However, as Theodore Rozak, and others have pointed out, media saturation has played a big role in how the events are reflected back to the "youthful participants", as well as the general public, through "...the funhouse mirror of the media."(Rozak), which allows for certain easy and inevitable co-optations.
Not the least of which is... "growing up..."
Leigh
On Sunday, July 10, 2005 9:07 AM [PDT], Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/07/1751653_comment.php#1751978
> Spoiled brats in their SF playpen
> by Rastro 27 Sunday, Jul. 10, 2005 at 1:26 AM
>
> Running up and down Mission Street breaking the windows at Kentucky
> Fried Chicken is a "movement?" A bowel movement, more like. Only the
> fact that most of you guys are semi-permanently drug-damaged explains
> how you could even begin to take yourself or your snotty, spoiled
> suburban white kid antics seriously.
>
> What you seem to forget is that you're only able to have these asinine
> "protests" and window-breaking episodes because San Francisco is run
> and policed by a bunch of ineffectual old hippies who are willing to
> tolerate a higher degree of sociopathy than any sane community would.
Does this guy live in SF? The cops are "big city prick". Surely he's channeling the berkley vibes...
> If this were even a remotely repressive state, the first few dorks to
> walk out in the street and start breaking things would either have the
> shit beaten out of them or be shot. The rest of you would be running
> back to your mummies and daddies and re-enrolling in college so fast
> it would make our collective heads spin, and your so-called
> "revolution" would be instant history.
>
> P.S. For anyone comparing a couple dozen pseudo-anarchist pyschoes to
> the civil rights and/or black power movement, get a grip. Those
> movements actually had some mass support to back up their actions. Oh,
> and they also had a cause that was somewhat greater than a handful of
> jerks working out their adolescent and post-adolescent rage at their
> parents by breaking a few windows.
>
Federal special legislation on terrorism insurance, and upped deductibles due to broken windows will keep the insurance industry on the gravy train while the rest of the American economy (except perhap the military industrial complex, which is un-American anyway) crashes and burns.
That's right... It just reinforces my belief that the actuaries are behind it all... even now... blackmail... terrorism, they'll stop at nothing in their quest for....
What DO actuaries and insurers/reinsurers quest for?
Zero risk, while pumping up the percieved risk to maximize yields?
July 10, 2005 Who Bears the Risks of Terror? By EDMUND L. ANDREWS WASHINGTON http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/business/yourmoney/10view.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1121011423-dhExWfP3nGzRT1pvg6v/hg&pagewanted=print IF nothing else, the synchronized bombings and bloodshed in London on Thursday will stifle any creeping complacency about the risks of terrorist attacks.
The London bombings dovetail with a major political battle, just starting in Washington, about how to deal with that risk. Specifically, should the federal government continue to be the main provider of terrorism risk insurance?
At issue is the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which was enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and is set to expire at the end of this year.
The law obligates the government to reimburse insurance companies for most of their insured losses - up to $100 billion a year - that arise from terrorism. <...>
Leigh http://www.leighm.net