Twitter Twitizens in #Occupywallstreet

When social change happens or people are in the midst of systematic upheaval, there's usually a leader to point out, "that person did it!". These individuals are usually the brunt of unflattering scapegoating.

These high profile people may not be the original initiators of change movements, but, somehow or other, they wind up being the king pins.. Also, they're, sometimes, picked off by the enemies of the change they initiate.

It's not so easy to label Twitter-Twitizens.

This is problematic with those trying their best to vilify the Occupy Wall Street momentum. Whether or not this protest against corporate greed is a viable social movement, as professed, or another profound example about how quickly the world can respond to real time change agents, are still concepts waiting to be tested.

Nonetheless, what's real is the fact that enemies of change cannot attack Twitter Twitizens, because they're motivated to "dent the universe" (Thank you Steve Jobs, may you rest in peace!)

For example, on the morning's WCSH6 TV Portland ME,  a rightwingextremist (RWE-RWE) pundit was allowed time to put an inappropriate label on the #occupywallstreet demonstrators.  This RWE-RWE (nameless because they sound rhetorically alike) said the anti-greed movement is simply a way to get President Obama re-elected.  "There you go - labeling again!" (Thank you President Ronald Reagan).  This particular pundit RWE-RWE is not an original thinker, cannot come up with a "label" to vilify who the #occupywallstreet enemy might be and, therefore, invents a scapegoat.

Shame on WCSH6 for allowing such name calling on a respectable television interview without a challenge.  "Why do you think this movement is a way to re-elect President Oabma?" is the appropriate follow up question.

Instead, the commentator let the tangential comment stand.  Not good journalism; but, television measures rare opportunities to challenge what's said; which is why, what's "said", is often taken as fact, without proof, just because...

In our tumultuous human history, there are often tragic consequences for people who initiate social change.  In my lifetime, President John F. Kennedy passed the Civil Rights Amendment - he suffered merciless vilification.  Recently, we saw the terrible end of life for beautiful Benazir Bhutu. Both leaders were hated by their mirror opposite opponents.  President Kennedy was mistrusted because he was a Roman Catholic and a supporter of Civil Rights for American Negroes.  Benazir Bhutu was marginalized, mostly because she was an iconic Muslim woman leader. There's dozens of other names, some of them nobel people, others with evil intentions, but most of them share the distinction of being dead before their time, often by nefarious means.

Not so with Twitter Twitizens. Enemies of #occupywallstreet can do their best to vilify the movement, but  inappropriate labels scapegoating an entire group, just because you oppose with their message, is a cowardly way to disagree with people. 

Even the T-Party, the mirror opposite of #occupywallstreet, did not receive the same public vilification by liberals in the mainstream media as the RWE-RWEs are not attributing to this more liberal momentum.  Suppose the RWE-RWEs agreed with #occupywallstreet?  Hypocritical loyalties to not foster trust.

But, to be hones, the T-Party had a "real person" leader, named Sarah Palin, who, by my analysis, did a terrific job standing up to (or looking down on) her detractors.  Although I don't agree with Sarah Palin, she's a good leader of the T-Party movement. What she needs, to move forward, is a group of Twitter Twitizens to back her up.

So, I cheer - "You Go Twitter Twitizens!".  By your flash ability to mobilize change, perhaps you'll be able to "dent in the universe", a tribute to Steve Jobs, and protect the change agents who too often become the victims of scapegoating.