http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...d-crush-a-tea-party-rebellion/?partner=obtech
As the title implies, the writer examines two authors who have written about a theoretical scenario in which Tea Party militias instigate an armed uprising.
The writer explains that the authors try to grasp how feasible this scenario is and whether or not a government reaction would make things better or worse.
I did not bring this up to discuss rebellion or tactics of this nature. I bring this to your attention because I find it to be an unbelievably irresponsible piece of so-called "journalism". I've only read Forbes a few times for articles I've found relating to my line of work, but I honestly cannot believe this adolescent tripe is even considered worthy, let alone allowed in print.
Maybe this is an aspect of American journalism I'm not aware of. I realize the freedom of speech issues here, and I'm not aware of Forbes political leanings enough.
Your thoughts?
As the title implies, the writer examines two authors who have written about a theoretical scenario in which Tea Party militias instigate an armed uprising.
The writer explains that the authors try to grasp how feasible this scenario is and whether or not a government reaction would make things better or worse.
I did not bring this up to discuss rebellion or tactics of this nature. I bring this to your attention because I find it to be an unbelievably irresponsible piece of so-called "journalism". I've only read Forbes a few times for articles I've found relating to my line of work, but I honestly cannot believe this adolescent tripe is even considered worthy, let alone allowed in print.
Maybe this is an aspect of American journalism I'm not aware of. I realize the freedom of speech issues here, and I'm not aware of Forbes political leanings enough.
Your thoughts?