Here’s a link to The Gateway Pundit on the direction the protests have taken at Berkeley: trying to use bystanders as human shields, blocking Amtrak trains and potentially sabotaging their safety equipment.
Look, I remember the riot in LA after the Rodney King verdict, though I’m far too young to remember the riots in the 60s (though, from history, I know that in Detroit, this was hardly an impetus to urban renewal, but merely accelerated white flight).
I also recall the anti-war protests after we went into Iraq.
In the former, massive amounts of property damage. In the latter case, not so much.
But this tactic of substantial disruption of people’s lives — what for? What will it accomplish? Do the protesters actually believe it will rally people to their cause? So far as I can tell, it’s an indicator that the protestors don’t really have an agenda, a set of solutions, a plan, other than just “we want to show everyone how mad we are about this,” coupled with opportunistic “I’ve always wanted to have a way to get away with looting and destroying things.”
Instapundit.com quotes an Obama interview in the Washington Examiner: the “country’s conscience sometimes has to be triggered by some inconvenience.”
No.
I have neither the time nor the resources to research this, but I would be rather surprised if “some inconvience” (let alone rioting) has a history of “triggering consciences.”
But, then again, I suppose the shut down of freeways is no different than what happens during Obama’s trips to LA to fundraise.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In