I agree that the protests aren't getting enough attention, but for different reasons. I'm concerned with the lack of attention given to the apparent violent nature of these protests. In reports I've read, 30% of suveyed protestors have advocated the use of violence against police.
There are numerous accounts of anti-semitic rants and signs at OWS
They have been given support by not only the Communist party of America but also the American Nazi party and anarchist groups.
In videos of the Oakland riots images of police officers being surounded and compacted by hundreds of screaming and angry people identify the protesters as the victims.
There have also been demands of compleatly distroying the system we have with no clear plan what comes after that.
All these factors together combine to create a very bleak future.
All of these allegations are obviously beyond false as they lack precise evidence.
A lot of "antisemitic" behavior are not from the actual 99% protesters but from opportunists trying to make names for themselves only.
Sorry but most of what you've presented are just rumors from the far-right (or some Libertarian website but this is even less likely) so that they could paint the protesters as "jobless hippies" in attempt to deflect criticism of the wealthy 1%, while ignoring the fact that a military veteran was shot in the forehead with a tear gas cannister.
I'm sorry, but I'm still new to commenting and I've never actually posted links before and I don't know how .
As for the opportunists, in the videos I've seen they are quite vocal in their opinions and are not confronted nor told off by any other protesters. If I am mistaken please show me something to asuage my fears.
Also I think you may have been a bit quick to throw away everything I said. You don't deny the presence of people making anti-jewish tirades, nor have you shown they are in anyway an oranized or peaceful movement. So far all you have done is said that I'm wrong and referenced a single tragic accident to support the protesters and demonize the police. I still would give the benifit of the doubt to the police that they didn't intend to hurt him, only to make the crowd disperce.
That aso brings up another point. These occupy protests have been very violent in their actions as time goes on. One can certianly be upset and angry at all the wrongs in the world but that does NOT give one the justification for acting violently to your fellow man, be he rich or poor. Even if the violence is caused by a minority of participants it is still occuring. In contrast look at the Tea Party. They were labled for the most part racists, bigots, and just want to see the system distroyed. Nancy Pelosi said she feared the violence that could come from them(violence that never came mind you) but to the rioting Occupyers she has given her full support. To be fair I believe she gave her support before most of the violence started so I would like to know if this has changed her stance.
Look the point I'm trying to make is that alot of things are not being reported. If they are false then at least have clames invstigated to disprove their legitimacy. These are dark times we're entering so I think any potentially distabilizing force should be treated seriously.
It's only hard to "confront" them because you don't see them.
The intention of the police is irrelevant. They still did something they shouldn't have done.
The Tea Party ARE racists and bigots no matter what anyone says about them, whether they were violent or not is irrelevant, although they brought guns and OWS was completely unarmed. They are racist because of their actions. The Tea Party only aims to keep the same system that got us into the recession.
Wait, so what you're saying is the people who have been accused of racisim and being violent are worse than the people who have caused actual violence? How does that work? If some one is armed with a gun and is practicing responcible gun safty, he's doing nothing wrong. Besides you don't need guns to be violent. The protesters caused plenty of damage with molotovs, trash cans, and the always classic, rocks. Actions speak louder than words.
Also intention does in fact matter. If the cop fired the gas grenade with the intent of hitting the protester in the skull, he is indeed guilty and a bad person and should be punished to the full extent of the law. If it is as I believe an accident, then he'd only be guilty of wrongdoing if he was opperating the launcher improperly. It's the same difference as between murder(intentional) and manslaughter(accidental). Since neither of us is involved with the case nor do we possess psychic abilities(again if I assume incorectly you can tell me), we can't conclude on the motives on those involved.
Neither the Occupy Wall Street movement nor the Tea Party have caused any violence overall. I will tell you though that there are right-wing violent fanatics that murder doctors over "abortion" which would contradict their pro-life views and a Democratic congressman who was shot up by another possible right-winger. I don't know if they were Tea Party supporters or not, but either way, there is right-wing violence. Do you even know that the government protects the Tea Party more than the OWS movement? It's because the Tea Party is obviously right-wing and very supportive of the same system that ruined the economy while the OWS opposes the status quo, and it's rather obvious that corporations don't like criticism.
The fact that the officer even fired that canister at all just shows his bad conduct. It doesn't matter whether he did it on purpose or not, he shouldn't have done it in the first place either way. He's guilty of firing the shot either way.
... Have you seen the videos of the Oakland riots? Have you even searched for any videos or articles at all? There is indeed solid evidence and documentation of violence at these Occupy protests.
Also I never said there was no violence on the right-wing. What I said was that it is insaine that the non-violent protests are called hateful and violent while Occupy protests are given a free pass.
There are crazy people on both sides of the aisle. The problem is when the crazy people make up a significant portion of a crowd. They don't even have to make up the majority of the crowd to cause problems. I would guess that 80% of protest goers are just average people who feel there is injustice in our financial institutions. But that remaining 20% that wants to either compleatly distroy the system or just want to see the world burn is what causes so much distruction. They can even influence people in the otherwise peaceful majority to join the violence through mob mentality.
Also the Tea Party's main goal is not keeping the status quo but to reform the government. They believe the federal government should be more responcible with their budgets and should cut back on spending money we don't have. Besides, the whole crisis started back in the 90's when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two federally funded banks, started buying sub-prime mortgagues from other banks. This created a system where banks could make money by giving loans to people who may not be able to pay them back and then selling those loans, mitigating their own risk.
The idea was that homes would be more widly given and any defaults could be paid off with taxpayer money.(the govt. has a record of very poor business sence) With all this in place people naturally began to squeeze every penny they could out of it. Since the search for more money is the primary goal of any business I put more blame on the govt. for creating the oppertunity in the first place.
Finnally, the use of tear gas is a commonly used tactic for non-violently dispercing crowds and riots. Since Occupy Oakland was ordered by the city to disperce this is my abridged interpritation of what happened. (police) "You have been ordered to disperce." (protesters) "No!" "Leave the area immediately." "Make Us!" "...Ok"(launch tear gas) If the above is aproximately the exchange that took place, the officer was given the ok to use tear gas, and he followed proper procedure in the use of said gas, then he is not in the wrong and the whole situation was a tragic accident.
No. The Tea Party does not want to reform the government. They just want to keep everything the way it was. They want to keep the very system that took us into this mess in the first place. They always have been far-right and pro-system. They only care about having a Republican president like Herman Cain or any other far-right Republican. The only Republican they wouldn't support is Ron Paul. I'm no RP supporter, but not even he buys into this "Socialism is bad" mantra. Not that he is a Socialist, but rather, he's just not a typical Republican nutjob. The only thing I like about the guy is the fact that he would legalize Marijuana and dismantle all overseas military bases.
You have to understand that the Police are not your friends. They are not the good guys just for having a badge. The only reason they make the protesters disperse is because they hate criticism and they will gobble up everything the system tells them. Leftists like myself will tell you that they unknowingly protect the rich 1% at the top so that the 99% could struggle and treat everyone like peasants. Adam Kokesh-esque Libertarians will tell you that they only protect the system so that they can keep this state in a police state so that the government could control our lives and force us to swallow everything they spew out.
This isn't directed at you so much as deviantART, but I notice there's a trend of pro-occupy wall street deviations getting featured in DD. I'd love to see one which either criticized this protest or celebrated the tea party. But I'm not holding my breath for DA to pick one from that point of view.
I think the message of OWS resonates better with the younger generation that frequents dA, whereas Tea Partiers tend to skew older. It's kinda like going to Bingo Night at the Moose lodge and wondering why there aren't more Lady Gaga fans.
LOL! Good point! I think an art institution, or at least a site which represents itself as an art institution, ought not to celebrate art from just one viewpoint, or be afraid to feature multiple viewpoints. If owned an art gallery, I wouldn't mind a bit showing work by artists whose politics disagreed with mine, so long as the art was good. I also think it'd ease some of the flame wars that happen whenever a politically-themed art work shows up. If only one side ever seems to show up, it's frustrating, but if multiple views are shown, some people would feel less need to fume. (I say some, most people on the internet just love to scream at stuff regardless.)
Well, dA isn't curated. It's completely user-based. If you're not seeing a lot of popular piece expousing your point of view, then it's entirely possible the majority of folks who frequent this site don't share that point of view. I mean, they could probably give an anti-OWS piece a daily deviation, but doing something like that for the sake of "balance" and not the merits of the art itself would be kind of foolish for a site that's geared toward art, not politics. But that's just my opinion.
Thanks for being so chill about this. Most folks who disagree about this kinda stuff tend to be jerks about it. I really appreciate that you don't fall into that category. ^_^
I have friends like this, is the sad thing. "OWS... who cares. DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS NEW GAME COMING OUT?!"
... and to the people who are trying to call the protestors Tea Partiers / Democrats / Liberals, you're looking at this the wrong way.
They're not only against big business for its mistakes and greed, but also against government for its mistakes and greed. A good number of the people at OWS don't like our former president, but just as much don't like our current one.
Don't try to split the protest down the middle because you don't want to investigate and see it for being not divided by party lines.
Not gonna lie. It's pretty upsetting that I post a comic strip that doesn't attack conservatives in any way, beyond talking about an event you don't agree with, and I get a dozen of you leaving these rude, antagonizing comments.
And I thought liberals were smug and condescending. Guess there's enough of it to go around. Makes me very sad.
Kevin is anything but a hippie. You know nothing about him. So knock off the hate. By the way, I'm not liberal in any way either, but would never say the things about them the way that you have. Way to go to further the reputation of your beliefs and political stance.
I'm sorry but honestly I found this pretty offensive, especially paired with the title. Assuming that "our generation" (even though the guy at the computer and the girl seem to be around the same age) doesn't care about the world even though we're the most politically active and politically AWARE generation in ages...yeah, that gets on my bad side fast. Besides, it treats video game and computer fans as if we don't care for anything but those things, but that's patently false as well.
Implying the politically correct thing to do isn't to immediately assume America is the worst country in the world and fuels its imperial war machines with refined baby fat from fetuses that it forces women to have when they want abortions.
It's about time the upstanding people of the United States stood up for themselves and took the fight to the enemy's HQ. I only wish he were still alive so he could see this happening. Who is "he", you ask? The same man who said this. [link]
I commend you for creating this inspiring and witty comic, good sir.