OK, so there probably wasn't a tent city there last week, but I've been surprised at how viral the whole thing has been. (The viral aspect---made possible entirely by BIG business.) When it went global within days, it truly amazed me.
Having been an active part of the protest generation, in this case, oddly, I find myself with no strong feelings about it.
I'm glad that people still have faith in the power of citizenry united. Three years ago, the buzzword was "hope." I guess, when that ain't happenin', the buzz word naturally becomes "faith," if you're still hangin' in the game, that is.
The most interesting thing is that the impatience and disgust isn't directed at a party, but at goverment(s) en toto. Bipartisanship through collective anger?
There will always be other components to any movements, but this is predominantly econmic protest, the 99%/1% thing.
1960's activism had focused and, by comparison, rather simple goals--end the war, stop racism, stop sexism. The much wider and broader topic of Save-The-Earth, as a sustainable movement, (sorry for the pun) came a little later.
This time, I have difficulty understanding exactly what the 99% want to see happen, or more importantly, how do they expect to affect change.
When Steve Tyler sang, "Eat the Rich," he was the owner of a lear jet.
I did see, among the footage, a very witty and well exectued full-sized American flag with all the stars replaced by American corporate logos.
The point has been made, then what?
The new iPhone is moving a million units a day. (Apple was one of the logos on that flag.) How many protesters had to break camp to get in line at midnight at the Apple store?
Evreyone of those logos on that American flag got huge enough to be included there, because WE put them there.
So, though I admire your chutzpah, I bleat out once more, not "What do you want," but rather, "How do you want it?"
