I downloaded that document, but only got as far as this sentence:
("Violence" was a term consistently applied to the breaking of windows, a questionable way of characterizing property crimes.)
At that point, I had seen enough. I knew where this was going. Just in case, I scanned ahead. Yep. This is propaganda. What's worse, it's
propaganda, and impossible to read if you have the slightest shred of a clue.
How would I know? I was there. As fate would have it, I was in Seattle for the WTO protests. I got to see for myself, in person, on scene, some of the
events this document seeks to misrepresent. I can still smell the teargas, still see the burning dumpsters, the broken windows, the trash on the
streets, the Anarchist A's spraypainted everywhere.
A document that questions the idea that breaking windows is violent (yes, it IS violent behavior, by definition) has already played its hand. The
authors don't even bother to mask their agenda. Children half their age could display greater subtlety. What's more, instead of a coherent format,
they use a barrage of disjointed anecdotes. This is not scholarship, it's an op-ed masquerading as a study. Disgraceful.
Problematically, the use of "media hype" is worth calling attention to, including its use in the context of political protests. Unfortunately, by
choosing to mislead the reader, rather than examine the facts analytically, the authors of this documnent have recused themselves from reasonable
People are free to pollute their minds as they see fit. Thankfully, we are also free to reject mental pollution such as this, as well.
My Rating of That Document: Garbage.