There's a difference between an outburst of spontaneous anger, which doesn't have a political objective, and a more measured response that we saw in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
When terrorism strikes, divisive anger is a natural response.
Anger is a transient hatred; or at least very like it.
What if you threw a protest and no one showed up? The lack of angst and anger and emotion is a big positive.
Anger, if not restrained, is frequently more hurtful to us than the injury that provokes it.
I have a lot of sympathy with the ideas and frustration of the Occupy movement. I absolutely agree with the sense that Wall Street has brought an economic calamity to the middle class and that no one has been held accountable.
I share the anger, but, ultimately, to govern this country, it takes more than anger. It takes experience. It takes positions that reflect the best values of the American people.
It is only with burning anger that we can speak of this attack by counter-revolutionary reactionary elements against the capital of our country, against our people's democratic order and the power of the working class.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
What you're seeing with Occupy Wall Street and the others are people who are unhappy and they're directing their unhappiness now toward Wall Street and toward those they think are doing too well in our society.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tactics of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it's easy to understand the inspiration for its anger as well as its impatience.