But of course, in advocating just this sort of behavior, she de facto approves of it being used against her and her ilk.

Anger, anger, anger, anger. She uses the words multiple times. She is like the sorcerers apprentice, calling for targeted anger with no consideration of the apoplectic fury already held against her and her like by millions of normal and decent, and um…. growingly activist and dare I say, well-armed, Americans.

Sure you wanna play this game, baby? You have taught us all that disruption, disobedience, and direct-action are the way to go. How ’bout some of that “direct-action” headed right at your own hate-filled noggin’? Morally speaking, why the hell not? YOU sure have no argument against it. Frankly, the only thing keeping it from happening is that the right just doesn’t roll that way, nor does it want to. You would do well to keep it that way, toots.

I’m sure Piven et al consider Mario Savio, founder of the UC Berkley ‘Free Speech’ movement in 1964, somewhat of a hero. He said something interesting once –

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all”.

Piven et al in the end are pro-machine. That’s all they have to offer to make their fantasies work. You really wanna rile up a genuine “rage against the machine”?

Playin’ with fire, baby, playin’ with fire. And too damn stupidly intellectual, or intellectually stupid, to know it.