Competing Agendas

You have probably seen images of various cities where the Occupiers are brandishing signs "Sorry for the Inconvenience, We are trying to Change the World."    This is a weak attempt to diminish the rage many of the other 99% are feeling when the protests cause traffic gridlock,  making them late for work, or shut-down their workplace, or ruin their plans for a day in the city.

Don't shoot the messenger shoot the bankers!

The arrogant attitude of the Occupiers is clear:  OUR AGENDA is more important than your agenda.  If you don't want the world to be changed, then, you are wrong.  If you think it is a crime to block traffic and interfere with other people's rights, then you are the enemy.

Think about it:  this is pretty much the same rationale embraced by terrorists, who believe that THEIR AGENDA trumps your right to not be blown to smithereens just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is only a few bus stops on the same trolly line from Occupy to Suicide-Bomber.  It is only a matter of the degree of chaos you are willing to inflict on the innocent bystander.  The mentality is the same:  We are so right that we claim the authority to override your rights. Another parallel to terrorism: The targets of the protest suffer the least, rather it is the innocent bystander who is most inconvenienced, or maimed.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not being critical of the message. Some of the points are well justified.  I just don't like the method.  We are still a free society and I don't believe that  trampling of other people's freedoms is justified by your agenda, however righteous.

On the other hand, I recognize that revolutions are messy, and I will not be surprised to see some political heads rolling.  Because terrorism has proven to be an effective way to get attention.