It was sure as salvation that the Occupy Wall Street was doomed to fail and it did. This blog is written proof that I had foreseen its failure from its very beginning. For one thing, it started in autumn and winters are wet and cold in New York latitude. You cannot camp out in summer tents as they probably saw on TV how the Tel Aviv protesters were having a great time in Rothschild Boulevar. Apart from the physical impossibilty of holding a long term outing in wintertime, American protesters decided from the start to suffer no leaders nor organization. They had adopted the Cultural Revolution's equalitarianism and would not allow anyone to put himself above the masses. But, I pray, anthropoids as we are, can we do without leaders, sidekicks, enforcers - roles and rules? Even a symphonic orchestra made up by trained specialists needs a dictator with a baton. Third failure was the unfocused nature of the protest. What was the goal? What they wanted to accomplish? How did they measure their progress? By the number of photos in the Wall Street Journal or in Time's cover?
May be the real goal of the protest was to occupy Time Magazine's cover and that, by Jove, they did. If so, they may have confused media with reality. On the other hand, it may well be that in their social environment the media is the real thing and the rest just background and context. Conclusion: None.
5 comments:
You're right, they weren't using "summer tents." Americans don't have the concept of "summer tents" that aren't waterproof, because for them it rains in the summer. So when they go to buy a tent, they buy a rain tarp with it, and as long as they set it up correctly, it's pretty well waterproof.
Ibn, Theoretically you are right but look at the pic: what do you see? The brown tent is a typical light non-water proof summer tent. I have one. The protesters must be freezing inside. The fact is that they didnt endure long.
Warmth comes from sleeping bags, not tents.
But anyway, no one reads Time magazine anymore. My children don't even know what it is. It might as well be called "Behind the Time Magazine". In the internet age, a magazine that contains stories printed a week ago and written two weeks ago is so far behind the news cycle as to be worthless. In place of news, they were supposed to switch to analysis, but their analysis is so hopelessly tainted by their socialism as to be worthless.
K
In the internet age, a magazine that contains stories printed a week ago and written two weeks ago is so far behind the news cycle as to be worthless.
Yeah, I once met a guy at a party who was a columnist for Newsweek. We talked for a while, and when I asked him about his career, he said that the fundamental challenge in rebranding Newsweek was that the concepts "news" and "week" are now fundamentally irrelevant and unrelated to one another. "Behind the Time" magazine: same thing.
On the other hand, "The Iliad" is still current.
Anon.
Post a Comment