This reminds me of how journalists covered Occupy. They had this really, overly literal refrain of, 'But what do you want!?
' that totally missed the point. Protests speak complex
truths that can't be spoken. Occupy spoke the truth of Wall St sequestration of resources
and all of the sudden we were talking about CEO salaries, tax breaks and
income inequality. As such occupy gave Obama the platform to beat Romney. The tech bus protest and anti-eviction movement doesn't neatly distill down into a simple news story or review of activism that can be read in the time it takes to eat a burrito. Which is exactly the kind of snarky, nit picky reductionist degeneration into literalness this article represents. Protests, like earthquakes, are small surface expressions of much greater truths and forces in our society that often elude the perceptive capacities of journalists, who then get their undies in a wad about 'well, what's this really about,' when they themselves are just too simple and literal minded to understand. Protests give people hope and community both in the present, and in the future, as people look back on past actions. Patholigizing people who see the potential of protest, who refuse to bury their head in the sand, or dismiss the messiness of the mess we're in as 'anxiety over change' isn't worthy of the printed word, or the higher human reasoning. Corporate Shuttle Roadkill