Hidden Design

http://rt.com/usa/news/police-occupy-oakland-olsen-831/

"Scott Olsen returned relatively unscathed to America last year after serving two tours of Iraq fighting a war he was opposed to. Now he lays in an Oakland, CA hospital in critical condition thanks to a projectile fired last night by police."

ALL movements are always propelled by some vested interest. For example, People Power 1 is not a "pedigreed" movement that is spontaneous, notwithstanding the historical revisionism. It was a simple power grab by people who felt that their plot to take over government had been discovered and they wanted the help of the people to react whatever countermeasures are being taken against THEIR interests. In short, Ramos, Enrile, Honasan et. al. were engaged in a coup and were only saving their skins, with a little help from the people.

The Tea Party movement is a largely republican movement that sees government as a problem while the Occupy Wall Street might be a democratic counter-movement that seeds government as part of the solution.

The point, to make a short story long (or is it to make a long story short?) is that People Power, Tea Party or OWS, these movements are propelled initially by narrow interests but supported by general dissatisfaction with the powers that be. Hence, to ascribe a purer pedigree to one or another is, to me (my opinion, as a watcher of political developments), missing the forest for the trees and detracts from the object of the focus of such movements as they developed into more popular movements from their narrow-interest beginnings.

Just in passing. I cannot help but be suspicious of so-called movements. Like any "good revolution" (and just like any "good crisis"), Occupy Wall Street seems to have been hatched in a small room by politically motivated people.

The clue is in the acronym. OWS. Why not PAWS as in Protest Against Wall Street. "Get your PAWS off our lives" has a nice ring to it. It seems OWS expressly starts with "O" as in Obama.

This calls to mind NAMFREL, which stands for National Movement for Free Election, but any conspiracy theorist (who isn't?) can see NAM stood for Ninoy Aquino Movement.

And why "Occupy?" The Tea Party Movement has a better pedigree. Just like the original in Boston, the contemporary one stemmed from dissatisfaction with too much government. Get the government off our lives. To occupy is not only to set aside any social contract, but also to assert a sense of entitlement, both undue and unearned.

Revolutions are either for better or for worse. My indifference is based on the suspect manipulation of current events.