Slashdot Mirror


Conflict Between Occupy Wall Street Protestors and NYPD Escalating

phx_zs writes "Today marks the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of Manhattan, specifically the financial district. ... Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people. Many photos and videos have surfaced of NYPD officers slamming protesters on the ground or into parked cars, and in one well-covered incident a NYPD officer (with pending police brutality charges from 2004) maced innocent female protesters point blank for no apparent reason. Many eyewitnesses and several news articles report that the NYPD specifically targeted photographers and media teams streaming the event live on the internet." Do any Slashdotters have eyewitness reports to share? There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply.

679 of 961 comments (clear)

  1. Policy City-State by trolman · · Score: 2, Troll

    I will share this; The natural evolution to a police city-state is complete. The government has put up rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life. There are secret police units aka terrorist units. A lot of people like this type of society. Those coming from outside the city get a bit of a shock, no pun intended, when introduced to the lifestyle of a city-state.

    1. Re:Policy City-State by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      It is not an evolution, but a pendulum. I think it is starting to swing back as more people say "no" to an unreasonable TSA and so on.

    2. Re:Policy City-State by cavreader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spoken like someone who has never really been to or experienced living in a real police city-state. It seems the protests today are more about seeing how far you can push the authorities attempting to keep things civil before you get your head bashed in. The actually reason or target of the protest gets lost in the background noise.

    3. Re:Policy City-State by trolman · · Score: 1

      Dear BOFH, My point was that this behavior is standard practice for NYC. Now that this system in place the next step is for a dictator to step up. Signed, KCBOFH

    4. Re:Policy City-State by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It's quite a panopticonic fiefdom they have there... Still haven't caught London in terms of cameras; but the sinister image-processing central computer is a nice touch, as is the 'fusion center' and the oblique references to anti-aircraft capability...

    5. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "pendulum" will not even begin to swing back until the people:

      1) Withdraw all of their savings from the big banks.

      2) Reclaim personal control over the money in their IRAs or 401Ks or 403Bs or whatever, and invest it themselves instead of letting corrupt corporations use these assets for their own goals.

      3) Place a value on the dollar that is connected to real-world resources and human advancement instead of some false "economy" construct that is programmed into them by their slave-masters.

      Street protests are stupid and futile. Many of the idiots who are getting beaten by the cops have credit/debit cards, savings/checking accounts, retirement accounts, etc with the very corporations against which they protest.

      Promote change by moving your money,not raising your voice. That the ONLY kind of change that will affect the financial "institutions".

    6. Re:Policy City-State by erroneus · · Score: 2

      I appreciate your general view on this but I respectfully disagree. In the urban jungles, "controls" of this sort might be more readily accepted, but if this were attempted in, say, Texas (my home state) you would see something else occur in response. And frankly, I don't see how or where the police forces I have known in Texas even attempting what is being done in New York city. (That's not to say they don't do bad things in Texas... they do! Lots of injustice to go around.)

      But then again, I don't imagine there would be much in the way of government protests in the first place...

      I'm quite sympathetic to the cause of inappropriate support of global banking by the US government and and the Federal Reserve bank... the shadow tarp pisses me off more than just about anything associated with the financial mess.

      I got into an "uncomfortable" conversation about market speculating and how it's a problem for the global economy... an opposing viewpoint chimed in with words that included "hard earned money." It was hard to listen to them after that. Wall street does not operate the way people like this think it operates...

    7. Re:Policy City-State by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well... yes and no.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Policy City-State by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The level of violence of U.S. cops "on the scene" is pretty surprising by most civilized standards. I will agree it's not a "police state" because the biggest marker of those is what happens more generally if you're arrested (e.g. do thousands of people get disappeared?). In the U.S. a typical arrested protestor will just be released, sometimes cited, though occasionally prosecutors do go overboard with charges intended to intimidate. There are a handful of more worrying terrorism detention-without-trial cases, but I haven't heard of that being used in relation to street protests.

      It does seem strange that the level of violence on-the-scene is needed, though. Sure, it's not mowing people down, Tiananmen style, but it seems pretty excessive. I don't know if it's an attempt to scare off "normal" people from showing up (which leads to a vicious cycle of only more-extreme people being willing to show up), or if it's just the individual work of not-very-disciplined cops.

    9. Re:Policy City-State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm living in a police state. Saudi Arabia. The cops here tend to keep a lower profile* and rarely bash heads.

      *Lower profile as in, there are cops everywhere, but they aren't as thuggish. Americans lost to terrorism (but it keeps the money flowing up into the defense industry). Your spouting out that it's not a police state when it obviously is makes some of us in actual police states laugh. Go get your kid's nuts checked and fingers put into your wife's vagina so you can board a plane. But keep insisting that the US ain't a police state.

    10. Re:Policy City-State by jythie · · Score: 1

      *nods* this fits my understanding of our history better then a simple direction. We have been through many cycles of this stuff before, and to be honest, the crackdowns we are seeing today are NOTHING compared to the ones, say, 100 years ago. Turn of the century these protesters would have been in body bags, or at least their leaders would be.

    11. Re:Policy City-State by jythie · · Score: 2

      Heh. Check your history.... tieing the dollar to 'real world resources' had its own massive problems and did not actually help in any of the mythical ways people think it did. It was quite unstable and easily manipulated.

    12. Re:Policy City-State by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you've experienced living in a police-state, you're well aware that agents provocateur are standard tools of the trade. What reason do you have to believe that they're not being used here?

      Which makes more sense? A peaceful protest being held for a week suddenly turning violent for no apparent reason? Or police tolerating a peaceful protest for a week, at which point they find or make excuses to turn the protest into a riot?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Policy City-State by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The Syrians are making a good run at the title right now.

    14. Re:Policy City-State by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must be really popular at the Ron Paul meetings.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. Considering the Arab Spring, protest does seem to have an affect. But I agree that the way to really hurt someone motivated by the bottom line is hurting the bottom line.

    15. Re:Policy City-State by SendBot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the authorities really wanted to keep things civil, they would do something about the elite minority committing wholesale theft against everyone else in the country. They also might try to uphold constitutionally protected rights, or not pepper spray kettled peaceful protesters in the face, or impose disciplinary action on those who represent them poorly instead of promoting such despicable activity.

    16. Re:Policy City-State by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Some cops enjoy the conflict with the crowds. And some on the crowd will enjoy the conflict with the cops. I'm sure the majority of both would rather things move along peacefully.

      Someone from wall street probably put into the mayor's ears that the protestors needed to go. The cops were probably instructed to arrest a few and some of the cops are having their fun with it.

      Protesting wall street is pretty useless. They'll do what they always do: try to make money. The change needs to come in regulations and prosecution on what we'll allow them to do and to punish them when they break the law.

    17. Re:Policy City-State by NotAGoodNickname · · Score: 1

      You mean like Waco, Texas? Or is that not in Texas now?

    18. Re:Policy City-State by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Let's see: Two weeks after the largest terrorist attack in the US, targeting the same general area as the protests, with the city already on a heightened level of alert and a lot of officers who have probably been working a LOT of shifts in a row. In _no way_ am I condoning their behavior. Not at all. Zero. Zip. I'm just guessing that the protesters are either consciously or subconsciously escape valves for the NYPD. I find the response repugnant and I'm not trying to justify it. Just giving one possible reason for their behavior. And I'm guessing it's not every, single member of the NYPD. I'd be very interested in seeing the time sheets for the past two weeks of the officers who are involved.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    19. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      You don't say, but I suspect you're talking about the gold standard or some similarly narrow definition of the value of currency.

      I'm talking about linking currency to a much broader basket of useful resources (Au is actually NOT a very useful resource...just a rare resource) and useful human productivity (researchers and makers and teachers advance humanity; while bankers and insurers and middlemen and most politicians abuse humanity).

    20. Re:Policy City-State by sodul · · Score: 1

      100 years ago. Turn of the century

      Do you mean 100 years or 10 years ? Last I check the most recent turn of the century happened on January 1st 2001.

      You don't say 'yesterday' the whole week when you mean Monday, do you ?

    21. Re:Policy City-State by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      You don't say, but I suspect you're talking about the gold standard or some similarly narrow definition of the value of currency.

      I'm talking about linking currency to a much broader basket of useful resources (Au is actually NOT a very useful resource...just a rare resource) and useful human productivity (researchers and makers and teachers advance humanity; while bankers and insurers and middlemen and most politicians abuse humanity).

      An example, please.

    22. Re:Policy City-State by scalarscience · · Score: 2

      Well the supreme court decision that has directly led to "papers please" in the US took place in Texas, a man on his own property with his truck (NOT on public land or a public road) was asked for ID by a police officer and declined, was arrested and subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property....so yep Texas isn't exempt from police state status. Incidentally how are the speed traps in rural TX these days?

    23. Re:Policy City-State by cobrausn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I've been able to figure out about Paul and the Gold Standard, it seems he just wants to see multiple forms of currency being accepted, such as standard dollars, gold dollars, silver dollars, etc... supposedly the idea is that it's harder to mess with a market via currency manipulations if you don't own all the currency, and somehow this will open up world trade in such a way that it becomes harder for a government to 'wage war' via currency manipulations.

      Basically he likes peace and free trade between nations, and thinks as long as we have one form of currency that can be easily manipulated, there is a greater chance of international (and internal) conflict.

      Not sure if he's right (or even if my interpretation is right), but it's interesting. I always like listening to Paul because he doesn't discuss the same five talking points every other party-affiliated drone does, though I don't agree with all his policies.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    24. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      Say what? They sent YOU to evangelize on Slashdot? Fascinating.

    25. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      You have a couple of things going on.

      You have a handful of weirdos who wouldn't get attention if they didn't provoke the police into some kind of action.

      You have some number of police who are willing to cross the line, or who have too short a fuse for this kind of work.

      You have people only posting the interesting bits of video, such that observers get a skewed view of the scene.

      If you actually live in NYC and venture through these "protests", you see a bunch of people standing around and you wonder what all the fuss is about on the national news.

      As an aside, I no longer live in NYC, so I haven't been to this particular protest. Also, if this is an "occupy Wall St" protest, what the heck are they doing in Union Square? Let the dog molester and peepers get back to work!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Or police tolerating a peaceful protest for a week, at which point they find or make excuses to turn the protest into a riot?

      Why assume the police are the provocateur? It could be anyone from local pissed-off store owners to some random pro-death-penalty guy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      An example, please.

      Seriously?

      For most of its history, money has represented real value (resources, services, productivity, growth).

      It is only very recently that it became a subverted and leveraged means & end all in one.

      Don't believe me? OK. Here is the archive of Fortune 500 lists which began in 1955:
      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1955/index.html

      And here is your homework:
      Discover exactly when the "too big to fail" banks and insurance corporations started to displace productive manufacturers and developers in the Fortune 100. Then the Fortune 50. Then the Fortune 10.

      Hint: Save yourself some time by starting today and working backwards. This has happened in your lifetime. :o)

    28. Re:Policy City-State by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      So Texas is responsible for the ATF and FBI I always thought they were at the federal level.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    29. Re:Policy City-State by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well the supreme court decision that has directly led to "papers please" in the US took place in Texas, a man on his own property with his truck (NOT on public land or a public road) was asked for ID by a police officer and declined, was arrested and subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property....so yep Texas isn't exempt from police state status. Incidentally how are the speed traps in rural TX these days?

      Can you provide a link to this please? I'd not heard of this.

      I thought that you were compelled to identify yourself...basically when asked you had to tell who you were, but not that you had to show or produce verifying documentation?

      I thought that the cops could only ask you..if they were investigating a crime, and had reason to believe you might be involved...but I didn't think the cops could just randomly stop citizens for no good reason for an ID check?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:Policy City-State by NetDanzr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As someone who grew up in a police state (communist Czechoslovakia), I find quite a lot of parallels between the Wall Street protests and the beginning of the anti-communist revolution in my country (I'm not implying these protests will spark a revolution).

      On November 17, 1989, a massive student demonstration took place in Prague. This, by itself, was not all that unusual - another took place the day before in Bratislava, and others took place from time to time in all large cities. What was unusual, though, was the police brutality. They attacked the peaceful protesters to the extent that rumors started circulating that one of the students died. This sparked the "Velvet revolution" that overthrew the police state in Slovakia. What we see here is a similar scenario: instead of lack of basic freedoms we have an economic crisis that started a series of protests. Police is showing a comparable level of brutality. Fortunately, largely thanks to much more fragmented information system with mainstream media downplaying the protests (in Czechoslovakia, the only two TV stations sided with the protesters and informed the public about the police brutality), the brutality on Wall Street won't grow into a much larger movement.

    31. Re:Policy City-State by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      And you must be really popular at the donut shop.

      Seriously, if you're going to rebut a comment, explain what the problem with the comment was. Just dissing your political rivals for being your political rivals is unconstructive.

    32. Re:Policy City-State by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property.

      Come on. An extraordinary claim like that requires at least some sort of support.
      The only recent ruling that I am aware of from the SCOTUS on the requirement to provide identification is Hiibel which ultimately ruled that Hiibel, who was on public land, had to identify himself by name only.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:Policy City-State by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean "two weeks after the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack in the US", right?

    34. Re:Policy City-State by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that we have history of other police agencies (in the UK, that is, not the US) infiltrating various special interest groups and at times suggesting more "active" protests or events, and even allegedly doing things like throw rocks and the like -- as you said, agents provocateur. Sadly, I can't spare the time to look for links to the blogs about the officers in question, but I read about them several months ago so presumably someone from the UK will remember what I'm referring to.

      I'd be surprised if a force as large as NYPD didn't have some bad eggs interested in escalation of a protest into a riot. Apologies to those of you who aren't bad eggs.

    35. Re:Policy City-State by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, nice catch. Anniversary.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    36. Re:Policy City-State by cavreader · · Score: 1

      In the 1960's the US government did infiltrate or attempted to infiltrate the anti-war groups. They probably do it today but I doubt the wall street protest is worth the effort. Today they are much more likely to infiltrate various international and domestic Muslim groups and computer hacker groups,

    37. Re:Policy City-State by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      That said, there's got to be a better way than just turning the issue over to banks and letting the dollar be worth whatever they say it's worth. That is a really bad idea, and it's an obvious conflict of interest.

      We really just need to stop selling ourselves to bankers. I know that people say buying a house, or taking out loans to get a college education is an investment, but in reality you're mortgaging your livelihood in order to buy into a system.

      Before you write me off as a nut, hear me out. Very few jobs make use of what you learn in college. Yet college enrollments are higher than ever, and many jobs require degrees, even though they don't actually require degrees. The practical effect is that only people who have sold themselves to banks are allowed to participate in large portions of the economy.

      Home buying is much worse. Houses cost much more to buy than they cost to produce. The lending process has encouraged people to pay prices that in the past they wouldn't have felt they were able to afford. As a consequence they've driven up a housing "bubble" much larger than the one that just burst. The government and the banks have been encouraging home-buying for decades now. The whole point (or the practical effect) is that people with a mortgage need to stick with it, and continue working their jobs, or they will be out of the system.

      So a big part of the problem is just how we spend out money. We take on mountains of debt that will be repaid with our future labor. And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future). This has the effect of consolidating a lot of power with the people how have a lot of money today. If we didn't do that, they would have about as much power as the rest of us.

      Obviously the gold standard is no good, but we do need to move away from an arbitrary standard to free us from market manipulation. Currency should be based on actual value. Tangible, fungible goods that would still be equally valuable were they not used for currency. Things like stored grains, oil, and useful minerals. The quantity of currency would be limited to the actual quantity of resources on hand, and the reserve ratio should be set so that the money multiplier is equal the the the ratio of the quantity of goods available over the lifespan of a person to the quantity held in reserve.

    38. Re:Policy City-State by moortak · · Score: 1
      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    39. Re:Policy City-State by moortak · · Score: 1

      You have it pretty close to right. They can also do it if they claim they think you might be involved in a crime soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada Either way stop and identify grew out of the actions of Texas law enforcement.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    40. Re:Policy City-State by tidepool · · Score: 1

      And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future).

      You've obviously never priced out materials that are required to 'build' a house. Or, for that matter, partaken in a decently large renovation project.

    41. Re:Policy City-State by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember Seattle? No-one does, accurately. Long, peaceful protests against the corporations, then suddenly: Anarchists! OMG! At least a dozen, springing from the protesters, smashing and running and breaking and somehow, not getting caught. Then, of course, in immediate sync, governments across the world instituted a world police state in which the very act of protest caused police violence. In Canada, the UK, the US. Very convenient.

      I'd bet much that most "anarchists" are specially trained agents of god-knows-who, governments, quasi-govercorporPR ad hoc committess, whatever. They activate and infiltrate, then disappear.

      End result: anti-war protest, Chicago, 2003-ish, where I personally witnessed every unmarked cop car in the city parked on lower Wacker drive, poised to take on Armageddon, or as we know them, anti-violence peace marchers. They rounded everyone up and arrested them. We've not had a mass peace march since. Not to mention the media channels broadcasting nothing but "these pinks are holding up rush hour!", instead of examining WHY the war to come was insane - as it was. The protestors were right, and the cops and everyone else were wrong.Too damned bad no one cared to cover them other than commie-pro-Islam crazies. We'd have about a million more live Iraqi innocents, and twenty thousand fewer brave Americans with their junk burned off.

    42. Re:Policy City-State by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      There is no "people". They don't hear anything that disagrees with corporatism on TV news, papers, or websites. Everything is fair and balanced, which is to say, with any historical context, waaaay to the right. The "people" don't read history, don't know history, don't care about history, and are impervious to the idea of revolt in any way bu refusing to pay taxes.

    43. Re:Policy City-State by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      Lemme give an example. The Tea Party. The very name of the "movement" is a perversion of history.

      The Tea Party was not a revolt against a tax increase on tea. It was a revolt against a tax removal on tea by the British Parliament designed to benefit the crown corporation. The Tea Party was an anti-corporate rebellion, for godsakes, yet somehow the "Tea Party" of today gets their history wrong in the very meaning of their name! And no one points it out in all the years since they formed, not in any debate or interview I've seen. A people with a fake history cannot learn real history, nor can they make history other than screwing everything up.

    44. Re:Policy City-State by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      More for optimism, perhaps, but any idea how well Koku (enough Rice to feed a person for a year) worked for Feudal Japan? Seems like a reasonable measure of value to use as a base for currency. I know it was used, but I have no idea whether it suffered from similar issues to the gold or silver standards.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    45. Re:Policy City-State by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      We take on mountains of debt that will be repaid with our future labor. And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future). This has the effect of consolidating a lot of power with the people how have a lot of money today. If we didn't do that, they would have about as much power as the rest of us.

      The market value of a house really does correlate with the cost to create it, assuming there is not a bubble. First of all, materials are quite expensive, as is the labor not only to construct the structure, but prepare the land, dig and pour the foundation, etc. If you have to tear down an existing structure or handle hazards (e.g. a swamp, unstable/shifting land, etc), that adds more. But before you even start looking at those costs, take a look at the value of the empty lot itself. That has a market value as well: I have seen empty lots in nice areas of my city go for $100k, ten times as much as equal-sized lots with houses in the ghetto.

      I believe the market value of a house truly is "what someone is willing to pay for it," not what a bank wants to mortgage it for. It is actually in the bank's interest to mortgage it for less than its worth, since in the event of a foreclosure, it is more likely to recoup its costs and at least break even.

      I have been through buying, refinancing, and foreclosing a house in the past four years. I know firsthand about the value of a house, and what number various interested parties place on it.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    46. Re:Policy City-State by Roachie · · Score: 1

      The ATF is federal.

      Nice try, please pull around to the first window.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    47. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      Hello...are you awake?

      An AC posted "Wow, you must be really popular at the Ron Paul meetings."

      Do I really need to explain the problem with that comment? I never indicated any political affiliation whatsoever, to a person, or a party, or even the widespread left vs right idiocy.

      Get a grip.

    48. Re:Policy City-State by JasperHW · · Score: 1
      How much effort is involved in having an undercover officer blend in with a semi-impromptu, decentralized protest? Particularly when it's happening in a high tourist and business income neighborhood.

      And of course, this is the same NYPD that can spare four officers to stand around a remote Queens or Brooklyn subway station and search the bags of every one out of a thousand people who go through.

    49. Re:Policy City-State by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Street protests are stupid and futile.

      Maybe you should read about what they accomplished in the 60's. Not working now? It's just a question of scale.

    50. Re:Policy City-State by scalarscience · · Score: 1

      You're right the Hiibel case (moortak also identified it in a reply above) is the actual case that stands on the books but the Nevada Supreme court referenced a 1979 Texas case Brown v. Texas noting that the Supreme Court declined to address the issue of identification and decided that being asked to identify yourself didn't incriminate you if it wasn't specifically in reference to a crime. So I was perhaps overstating things a bit in my formerly caffeinated state, but the inaccuracy was misremembering the Nevada case stemmed from the Texas case and not the other way around. It's only been 7 years since I read the articles on that you'll have to forgive me =]

    51. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      More for optimism, perhaps, but any idea how well Koku (enough Rice to feed a person for a year) worked for Feudal Japan? Seems like a reasonable measure of value to use as a base for currency. I know it was used, but I have no idea whether it suffered from similar issues to the gold or silver standards.

      My knowledge of feudal Japan is mostly limited to the incident at Sakai Jiten, so I can't directly answer your question.

      However...Japan is currently the 2nd largest foreign holder of US treasuries in the world, at $914 Billion. China is the first largest with $1174 Billion, but China has more than 10 times the population of Japan, and more than 30 times the arable land. The UK (arguably the birthplace of modern "banking") is a distant third with only $353 Billion in US treasuries.

      So I'd say the Japanese have done quite well, despite the western propaganda about the "lost decade". Perhaps the feudal "koku" standard was a factor.

    52. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      Exactly what do you think "they" accomplished in the 60s?

      The ruling class still fought a war in Vietnam (btw in Vietnam, they call it the "American war"). And the ruling class developed and deepened a "cold war" against the Russians/Soviets.

      I'll admit that the space race of the 1960s was exciting...even if it was motivated by development of nuclear ICBMs. But the protests? Good place to meet girls. Nothing more.

    53. Re:Policy City-State by Aighearach · · Score: 3

      Sonny, sonny, sonny.

      First you ask, "Don't believe me?" And then you fail to provide any coherent proof of your hypothesis.

      Then you attempt to assign homework.

      Your homework should have been to discover facts that actually support your hypothesis, along with some explanation of their support.

      And until you can get an A+... stay off my lawn!

    54. Re:Policy City-State by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Street protests are stupid and futile.

      Maybe you should read about what they accomplished in the 60's. Not working now? It's just a question of scale.

      Exactly what do you think "they" accomplished in the 60s?

      I'm not sure why you don't think it's clear, but the word 'they' in this conversation refers to street protests.

      I'll admit that the space race of the 1960s was exciting...even if it was motivated by development of nuclear ICBMs. But the protests? Good place to meet girls. Nothing more.

      Even if you were there - which I doubt - you don't know what you're talking about.

    55. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Where is the link to "their own pages" where the people maced by cops on Wall Street arranged to be maced?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    56. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      All correct, if you ignore that women, gay people and Black people actually got closer to equal rights with straight White men, all through 1960s street demonstrations. It took until 1970 for street demonstrations to start to end the Vietnam War, which otherwise would have gone on forever. Forever: just as the Iraq War has gone on longer than the Vietnam War, even if you don't count the Iraq War that we waged in Iraq 1989-2003.

      And that's just to name a few. Also accomplished was the birth of environmental protection from corporate pollution and any number of other advances underwritten by people going into the streets to show their anger or just unity in opposition.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    57. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The women who were maced by the cop weren't provoking anyone. They were actually calmly accepting being netted on the sidewalk like cattle when the cop maced them for no reason.

      You're an idiot. You evidently couldn't cut it in NYC. Just shut up and stop slandering the people who are here dealing with these cops.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    58. Re:Policy City-State by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You mean where a bunch of ATF agents didn't heed the local Sheriff's warning to not storm the compound cause they'd get their asses shot off ... who then proceeded to storm the compound and got their asses shot off. Is that the event you're refering too?

      Waco was pretty much a perfect example for what he was saying. Texas police wouldn't have been so stupid, the ATF who thought they were bad ass on the other hand, fucked it up royally. In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too. You tend to be much less of an asshole when you aren't given a massive advantage.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    59. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You're right that I couldn't cut it in NYC - it was too damn expensive. Loved it, though.

      I didn't say the girls deserved to get maced - did you miss the part where I said that there were some cops at fault?

      They were being "netted" because they wouldn't stay out of the street. You can't just drive into NYC and plop your ass down on the street - people live and work there.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    60. Re:Policy City-State by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      I have. We've remodeled every room in our house except one, increased the appraised value by over 50%, cost us less than 10% total, and thats being cautious, we probably spent far less than that specifically on remodeling the house, as we did some other things as well. We've done the wiring, the roof (including having to repair structural support due to a tree falling on it), installed hardwoods in the main areas, tiled from floor to ceiling the bathrooms, removed the ugly wood panelling from the main rooms and drywalled them. About the only thing we haven't redone is actually putting up new brick walls on the exterior.

      Housing is ridiculously overpriced, even now when its 'bad'.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    61. Re:Policy City-State by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Overacting a bit aren't you? Just makes you sound like an ass.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    62. Re:Policy City-State by F34nor · · Score: 1

      1st amendment, the most protected form of speech, foundation of our whole society and what's more they are being Republicans, they are protesting socialization of risk.

    63. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      They were on the sidewalk. And around Wall Street, especially in the afternoons, the streets are full of pedestrians and jaywalkers, as all over NYC. That doesn't provoke the police, and it certainly never should provoke mace.

      You just stay in whatever province you found your own level instead of here and congratulate your local police on their iron fist. Here in NYC we demand better, though we usually don't get it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    64. Re:Policy City-State by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      So Texas is responsible for the ATF and FBI

      The lead-up to the Waco massacre involved the McLennan County Sheriff's Department calling in the ATF. And it's not as if the armed citizens of Texas all came out to stop the federal government's assault on the cult.

      (Koresh was a nutjob, but being a nutjob isn't a crime. The allegations about sexual abuse were serious, but you don't conduct a blitzkrieg rate to "protect the children." The allegations that the Davidians had illegal firearms had very little evidence; the allegation that they were running a meth lab, used to obtain military assets, was an outright lie. The Davidians were nuts, but the ATF were more nuts and more dangerously violent.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    65. Re:Policy City-State by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      If we're going to talk "making more sense" then let's actually put this in perspective: Which makes more sense: 1) A small group that was selected at least in part for mental stability having a bunch of mentally-unstable people or 2) a large group of unfiltered people having a bunch of mentally-unstable people.

      Personally, I'm much more willing to believe the protesters are being at the very least verbally abusive to the authorities. Part of protesting is resisting authority. It makes sense that those resisting will try to make themselves seem more intimidating.

    66. Re:Policy City-State by jcr · · Score: 2

      In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too.

      The effect of this awareness in Texas, as in other places like Switzerland where the population is not only armed but well-trained in the use of arms, is that the police tend to avoid actions that would meet with disapproval from the people.

      FWIW, the most polite officer I ever encountered was a DPS trooper who wrote me a ticket for 70 MPH when I was doing 90, and informed me that if the fine were paid before the court date, Texas wouldn't bother to notify my home state of the infraction.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    67. Re:Policy City-State by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Texas police wouldn't have been so stupid, the ATF who thought they were bad ass on the other hand, fucked it up royally. In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too. You tend to be much less of an asshole when you aren't given a massive advantage.

      So the google search http://www.google.com/search?q=texas+police+brutality will come up empty?

      "A stunning incident of police brutality in Paris, Texas, was caught on tape and has led to ramifications. ..."

      "CNN reports that police are accused of having robbed at least 150 drivers in Tenaha, Texas. The amount stolen is close to ..."

      "Beatings by police officers are not new; the new twist to this old story is how modern technology is giving us all a bird's eye view of what cops ..."

      Yup, an armed society is a polite society. Please ignore the thug in uniform.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    68. Re:Policy City-State by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      An example, please.

      Patents and copyrights, obviously. They had it right all along! ;-)

    69. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      the streets are full of pedestrians and jaywalkers,

      Jaywalkers generally aren't a traffic impediment. I lived there - jaywalking is normal. Blocking traffic is not.

      That doesn't provoke the police, and it certainly never should provoke mace.

      The fence was fine. The mace was not, given what I've seen of the girls' behavior on the video.

      You just stay in whatever province you found your own level instead of here and congratulate your local police on their iron fist.

      Who congratulated the police? I think the overreaction from the police was just as much a part of the problem as the protestors provoking them. I mean, if a kid is teasing a strange dog and the dog bites him, sure we may put the dog down but we also blame the kid.

      Here in NYC we demand better, though we usually don't get it.

      The police do a generally good job in NYC. Certainly better than their pay scale would lead you to expect. Some of them suck, some of them have some kind of mental issues, but most of them are on the level.

      You just stay in whatever province you found your own level

      Again with the nice talk.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    70. Re:Policy City-State by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You can be mentally stable and still be a complete bastard. Your question could be alternatively phrased as which is more likely to start violence: a bunch of uniformed men with weapons or a bunch of unarmed men and women?

      It is what it is.

      Violence on the part of one individual on either side only justified sufficient violence to stop that individual. It doesn't matter if some protesters are violent, you don't kill, beat or mace the ones who aren't. Likewise it doesn't matter if some police officers are brutal, you don't attack or kill the ones who are just doing their jobs. I'm not taking either side, but I've seen too many people try to justify extreme over-reactions on flimsy pretexts.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    71. Re:Policy City-State by wezelboy · · Score: 1

      When 90% of the wealth is this country is controlled by 3% of its people (I honestly don't know the exact figure), the boycott you espouse is just as futile as you believe the street protests to be.

    72. Re:Policy City-State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Many times when incidents of police brutality are brought into the open, the police are disciplined (maybe not as much as we would like...but that is the courts). If we were in a police state, no one would care when these things would be brought up. That is a very big difference.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    73. Re:Policy City-State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? Mr Schrödinger called :)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    74. Re:Policy City-State by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would say personally that what differentiates a police state from the US is what happens when the violence is brought out in the public. In a police state, the cameraman/whoever posted it would be gone overnight. In the US there will be trials/discipline for the officers involved. People do illegal stuff, even police officers who should know better. When it is publicized or brought to the attention of the government, what they do is the difference.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    75. Re:Policy City-State by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      I chuckle when I see what the Warren Court has wrought. Some pepper-spray and light usage of a police baton, and people are screaming the police are overly aggressive/brutal, and using it as proof of a "police city-state". Fourty-plus years ago, if one was unfortunate enough to have an encounter with a baton, the beating was vicious, and continual until the sounds of bones breaking was heard. Some didn't survive. Police interrogations were often just as physical as they were mental. And police could tap phone lines outside of the home without a warrant (Olmstead v. United States, 1928), which I totally agree with (of course, I grew up during the last few years of party lines in my hometown, so my perspective is everyone is listening...just like we did). An honest, object comparison of history to today will show this is nowhere near a police state.

      Right, and they used to hang black people from trees too, but that doesn't mean there's no racism today because nobody is hanging from trees.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    76. Re:Policy City-State by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      We've remodeled every room in our house except one, increased the appraised value by over 50%, cost us less than 10% total,

      Labor has no value? Looking at current prices at LumberLiquidators for the bamboo floor I bought a while back. $1.89 sq/ft for the flooring. $50 per 100 sq/ft for glue. And LumberLiquidators is currently offering installation at $1.99 sq/ft. So just in this case labor is as high as materials. On other items, like concrete work or drywall installation (mud/tape/paint), material costs are a fraction of labor costs.

      Sure, you can take a house with the 'right' kind of necessary upgrades and out perform the cost. I have done it, but it's not a given. Since the housing market crash I doubt you'll find too many markets that are 'ridiculously overpriced'. Given the proper financing, I could buy a house every day that was selling for 1/2 it's value in a reasonable market.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    77. Re:Policy City-State by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      Street protests are stupid and futile.

      Egypt? Tunisia? March on Washington '63? Someone with more time on there hands could dig up a thousand examples.

      It works if it goes far enough, and usually indirectly. Oftentimes, it's the only way people can show an overwhelming support in favor of a cause when the media isn't playing the voice of the people.

      The cops are actually doing an enormous favor for the occupy wall street protestors by beating them senseless, as now the media is reporting on it. It couldn't be better if it was scripted. In that sense, go NYPD!

    78. Re:Policy City-State by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > The "pendulum" will not even begin to swing back until the people:
      [do stuff]

      How are you going to spread the information to the people that they ought to [do stuff]? You need press coverage. And how do you get press coverage? Clue:

      > Street protests are stupid and futile.

      You're underestimating them.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    79. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      It isn't about who holds the wealth; it's about who controls the revenue.

      I'm looking at the 2010 annual reports for Citigroup and Bank of America. You know, two massive banking corporations who received $50B and $45B of taxpayer TARP money, respectively.

      49% of Citi's $66B annual revenues came from consumer/retail banking
      45% of BofA's $110B annual revenues came from consumer/retail banking

      Do you think those tens of billions came from the high-net-worth customers? No. They came from the poor shmucks who carry credit card balances, pay usurious interest rates, and even pay fees for the privilege of the bank hold their small deposits in checking & savings accounts.

      Feel free to pull the annual reports for other large banks if you want to see how much they rely on consumer banking.

      If 1 in 100 of big-bank consumers moved their debts & deposits to trusted local banks and credit unions, the big banks would (collectively) lose billions in revenue and start to get scared.

      If 1 in 10 consumers moved their accounts, the big banks would lose tens of billions in revenue and would be absolutely frantic.

      Of course it won't happen, because the average consumer is much to lazy and clueless to exercise their real power. It feels better to just march down the street like a lemming, chanting "the people, united..." or "what do we want..." or somesuch. But bank executives pay practically no attention to these protests.

    80. Re:Policy City-State by optimism · · Score: 1

      How are you going to spread the information to the people that they ought to [do stuff]?

      How about the internet?

      I know, large corporate interests are doing everything they can to contain and control that information hydra. For many folks, it has been squeezed down from the internet, to www, to google, and now just facebook. But...you and I are having an informative conversation right here.

      > Street protests are stupid and futile.
      You're underestimating them.

      Not really. I lived in San Francisco for many years, so I've experienced my share of street protests. Little to no education occurs. People form a mob and their average IQ drops by about 50 points. Blocked commuters aren't convinced of anything; they are just pissed off. Much time and energy is wasted just venting mob emotion, when it could have been used to educate others one-on-one, or actually take steps (like moving your bank accounts) that would effect REAL results.

    81. Re:Policy City-State by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I'd bet much that most "anarchists" are specially trained agents of god-knows-who, governments, quasi-govercorporPR ad hoc committess, whatever. They activate and infiltrate, then disappear.

      Wow tinfoil hat alert! I think most are just unemployed, angry, poor, young people, that like to break stuff and cause mayhem.

      Otherwise that is some widespread organization! They are everywhere! :)

    82. Re:Policy City-State by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      So Texans should risk their lives for a child molesting nut job?

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    83. Re:Policy City-State by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Not Facebook or Google? Do you do Google searches while logged in to your Gmail account?

    84. Re:Policy City-State by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      When it applies. In this country, we are never satisfied with the middle. We love the extremes. Until they get to extreme, then we swing back. Very foolish, and very predictable.

    85. Re:Policy City-State by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The cop who maced those women was caught again on video spraying down people, including a cop, just down the street.

      The cops are not strange dogs. You are defending the police. You don't deserve nice talk. You deserve much worse talk than that. But you're not getting any more talk of any kind from me. Out of towner, stop pretending you have New Yorker cred when you're just a pigfucker.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    86. Re:Policy City-State by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The cops are not strange dogs.

      No, it was meant to be an analogy.

      You are defending the police.

      Point out where I defended the offending officers?

      You don't deserve nice talk. You deserve much worse talk than that.

      No one "deserves" nice talk, but you should use it if you want to be regarded as a rational person.

      Out of towner, stop pretending you have New Yorker cred when you're just a pigfucker.

      I don't have to pretend because I lived there. If you have no argument, that is fine - I tried to give you a chance to behave like someone who's opinion matters rather than a raving reactionary. I'm still here if you want to actually discuss something.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Apparently, by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there is a conflict between occupy English and Slashdot, as well.

    1. Re:Apparently, by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      This type of ambiguity could be eliminated if Slashdot would join the rest of the civilized world and use standard case instead of title case for their article names.

      What would be another word for "article names"? "Article titles," maybe?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Apparently, by siride · · Score: 1

      What conflict would that be?

  3. Lack of news by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

    Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?

    1. Re:Lack of news by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, considering that they are protesting the heart of America's economic system, and considering that mainstream media outlets have long refused to publicize movements that run counter the American economic policy, I would not be surprised if the black-out was deliberate.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Lack of news by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      I am in the southern US and I have seen nothing on the news. The only info I have seen is what is posted to news sites like this one.

      I am not even sure what the protest is about. I agree with you about "protesting corporate greed in America"

    3. Re:Lack of news by what2123 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry Canada, here in America, I haven't seen or heard about this until today. If this really has been going on for "ten days" I am certainly surprised. I'm even on the East Coast, about 3 hours from NY and there is nothing on the radar about it around here.

    4. Re:Lack of news by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      A good answer to that is here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=share It is not news because no one died. But now it is becoming news because the media is ignoring it. And the pendulum starts to swing back.

    5. Re:Lack of news by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

      I live in the US, tend to watch a good bit of news on all the networks (let things balance out a little that way)...and read headlines on the internet.

      It has barely made a blip on the 'map' on any news source I've seen.

      From the little coverage I've heard...would seem to be like 20 people showing up to protest. Frankly I had no idea it was still going on.....thought it was a one day deal that happened the other day.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Lack of news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're basically protesting capitalism..

      Basically protesting Crony capitalism. A Big difference there....

    7. Re:Lack of news by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

      I'm not sure the protesters know either.

    8. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing that the people who purposefully conflate capitalism and corporatism fail to mention all the time is that in "Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith was talking about small communities doing deals one-on-one. At the time the corporation wasn't in vogue and Adam Smith thought it was an outdated concept.

      Secondly, Adam Smith didn't like monopolies or banks that were "too big to fail" in today's lingo. The ultimate goal of corporatism is working towards a monopoly or trust.

      Anyway... a point that can be drawn from this is that you don't need corporations for capitalism to work and, furthermore, the corporation could work against capitalism in the long run.

      Being against corporations having too much power and too many rights is not automatically anti-capitalist.

    9. Re:Lack of news by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      What's also interesting is that the coverage coming out of the protests is rather one-sided. It's all coming from the protesters. And there's little interest in posting any non-controversial/non-sensational footage, or even to post footage in context. What we get instead is the video equivalent of sound-bytes--enough to get a non-cynical viewer riled up about something.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    10. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is also a huge difference between equitable capitalism and a feudal system under the the guise of capitalism using corporations as proxies of power for the "noble class".

    11. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Just like Iran, Tunisa, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria, the people in power in America don't want you to know and are more than willing to manipulate the media to keep you blissfully ignorance of their tyranny. Some of those have have fallen, and others have tightened their grasp and brutalized their own people.

    12. Re:Lack of news by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Same reason why you won't hear too much about leaked cables or what Michael Geist writes about. If it don't contain sex or a related scandal wont get much attantion from The Province or Vancouver Sun.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    13. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, considering that they are protesting the heart of America's economic system, and considering that mainstream media outlets have long refused to publicize movements that run counter the American economic policy, I would not be surprised if the black-out was deliberate.

      Well lets just wait for Al Jazeera's take on the events.
      Capitalism is not evil, free reign capitalism is. The late Pope John Paul II understood this very well and tried for many years to bring to the attention of the masses this truth.
      Money cannot trump man, but this is what an out of control capitalistic system does.

    14. Re:Lack of news by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

      Part of the media gap may be because such an ill-informed, ill-aimed and intellectually diffuse protest is meaningless. Here's an article from the left-leaning NY Times:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html

      I would say that coverage in one of the major newspapers of record is hardly a big gap. Certainly less of one than these wastrels seem to deserve.

    15. Re:Lack of news by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Lack of coverage? Probably because the protest appears to be more about smug hipsters sitting around with their cameras waiting for something to film, jockeying to be the first to release a video they desperately hope will go viral.

    16. Re:Lack of news by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Except news about all of those places in recent months has been widespread and well-discussed, here and other places. Your paranoia is misplaced.

      The current Wall Street protest isn't news because it's poorly organized, small, and no one's really clear about any specific goals.

    17. Re:Lack of news by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      No true scotsman....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    18. Re:Lack of news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work on Wall St (as in, I work on that street, I do not work for a bank). The reason there has been little to no media coverage is because there's very little to cover. The protesters are exaggerating the situation to a degree that has gotten offensive. There are not "thousands of people" marching on Wall St. The largest march has been less than 200 people, and most have been in the area of 20-30. The largest gathering I've seen has been maybe 250 out in the park. They have no message, no organization, and no direction. If anything, the police have been overly lenient with them. They've been marching without a permit, and blocking traffic when they do it. They're squatting in a privately owned park with no permission from the owner. They're blatantly antagonizing the police on a regular basis. The whole thing is pathetic, and the fact that they have the audacity to compare themselves to the situation in Libya is flat out offensive.

    19. Re:Lack of news by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 5, Informative

      A friend of mine works downtown and has a view of the protest, and the reason it isn't getting coverage, is that it has been quite small. I hear that it has been growing in size each day, but last Friday, the number of protesters was laughable, it looked to be about 100 people from the cellphone picture I saw- the plaza they are protesting in is more crowded during rush hour when people are going to/from work. Not much of a protest, especially by NYC standards. I mean every time the UN meets there are gatherings there many times that size.

      I also get within a block of that park on my commute home. They certainly aren't making much of a splash, as I don't even notice them. I think this is a very small protest that is getting national media coverage only because its such a provocative subject.

    20. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      That is not a no true Scotsman argument.

      They are protesting the corruption in capitalism, not "basically capitalism"

    21. Re:Lack of news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Leftwing Psuedo Anarchists protesting Wall Street ... again

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    22. Re:Lack of news by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Well the media certainly isn't there to cover it, and you certainly won't get access to police video showing police brutality, so who else exactly are going to get video from? Did you watch the video? Did you see the police commander reaching across the police line to drag a completely unarmed woman across the ground for no reason other than stating her opinion? Did you see the police officer macing a group of women standing on the other side of the police line minding their business?

    23. Re:Lack of news by wanzeo · · Score: 1

      I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism.

      I agree. Protesting without a clear, achievable goal is not going to solicit any support from politicians, and will only cause the public to become indifferent to future protests.

      Unfortunately, I think many of the activists of our generation are recreational protesters, who are there more for the experience than because they have a solution to a problem. Protest if you must, but do your homework first.

    24. Re:Lack of news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The true scotsman is wearing a kilt. The false scotsman is wearing a suit and carrying 1.2 trillion in secret fed loans.

      A distinction is only a "no true scotsman" if there isn't a sensible rule of assignment that allows true and false scotsmanship to be distinguished. There are, arguably, edge cases; but distinguishing the American financial services sector as "crony capitalism" isn't a terribly bold move.

    25. Re:Lack of news by sjames · · Score: 2

      Your post inadvertently reveals why protest is so important here. Capitalism is NOT supposed to be about unbridled greed. Certainly it is not supposed to be about greed that results in scrapping all morals and ethics.Wall Street has come to epitomize everything that capitalism is NOT supposed to be. It is intimately tied to those investment banks that knowingly and willfully risked the entire world's economy in order to extract even more profit from the system, often resorting to outright fraud to do it. Without them, we would not be in a crappy economy today and we would not have so much unemployment.

      Unlike the petty thieves who go to jail for their crimes, these guys who have done a lot more damage to a lot more people got a big fat bailout to make sure their bonus checks wouldn't bounce. If justice were functional, the police would be leading them away in cuffs, but instead they are arresting the people complaining about them.

    26. Re:Lack of news by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Then you need to expand your horizons quite a bit.

      the BBC has had several stories on it. CNN has had a coule of shorts on it the last few days.

      all that said though if 1000's of people was 1,000 and included the cops and EMT's then maybe the slashdot story is right.

      Also the protesters are egging on the cops.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    27. Re:Lack of news by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Yawn for the protest.

      WTF?! for the overbearing and brutish NYPD response. We're closer to a police state than a lot of folks want to admit. Non-violent protests should be handled in a non-violent way (i.e. if permits are not in order, make arrests, don't go around pepper spraying). Media coverage of such events MUST be whole heartedly tolerated. We should ALL support unfettered coverage of even yawn worthy protests, even by those we don't agree with (well, especially by those we don't agree with).

      Oh well. Back to bobble headed news about Dancing With The Stars...

    28. Re:Lack of news by Amouth · · Score: 1

      AL Jazeera has been covering it from the start (and a little before)

      http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Search/?q=Occupy%20wall%20street

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    29. Re:Lack of news by PyroMosh · · Score: 2

      THIS!

      The people who haven't seen anything about this haven't been paying attention. I've heard "nobody is paying attention!" since day one. Al-Jazeera, MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the Guardian, Keith Olbermann on Current TV, and NPR are all sources I've encountered this on, to say nothing of social media. Hell, even Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert covered this. (I don't know if The Daily Show did or not).

      The reporting I've seen and heard has all played more or less the same... reporters looking for a story. Most outfits came right out and said if you ask 10 people what the event is about, you get 10 different answers. They go over how they operate as a commune and how they are voting on what they want.

      I'm not making that up, they've got a council that's trying to decide what their demand will be. they haven't decided, nor do they even have any illusion that they *do* have a formed demand.

      Until there started to be violence against the protesters, I get the impression that most of the reporters were going through the motions of what they sensed was a non-story.

      The Tea Party by contrast had some elements to it that were sexy to the media. They were vocal and belligerent. They showed up at town hall meetings and yelled at members of congress, they showed up with guns. Later, they carried misspelled racist signs and got 10x as crazy.

      The media shows up at this, sees a hundred or so hippies living in a commune in a part trying to decide what their demand will be. There's nobody opposing them (until the seemingly random violence from some cops), and no story to cover. Nothing that looks good in a 5 second clip on the 9 O'Clock news, and nothing that sounds good and concise in print.

    30. Re:Lack of news by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Permits are not required to hold a demonstration. Demonstrators are required only to be peaceful and not disrupt traffic.

      Permits are only for the mutual convenience of the police and the demonstrators, and if the police are uncooperative (as they frequently are in NYC with demonstrators who criticize government policies) the demonstrators can have their peaceful, non-disruptive demonstration without a permit or police permission.

      The First Amendment is always worth rereading:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    31. Re:Lack of news by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      No, they are protesting Corporatism. Corporatism isn't the same thing as Capitalism. There is a significant difference.

    32. Re:Lack of news by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's an example of the corporatization of the US media. Get 100 TEA Party members together to protest Obama and the media is all over it, it's big news. Get 1000 people together to protest Wall Street or the Keystone XL Pipeline and it barely gets mentioned unless there is violence.

    33. Re:Lack of news by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?

      After years of coverage of anti-war protests, and nonsense like the hoodlums at the WTC conference in Seattle, and the nearly daily protest marches, candlelight vigils, etc., etc. for a thousand different causes.... 'Protesters' with a vague, confused, and inchoate agenda don't even make the needle twitch anymore.
       
      And though I agree with their general ideas, there's no way in hell I want to be associated with them. Have you seen the "Occupy Wall Street" website? It makes me weep. A million dollar ad campaign by Madison Avenue's finest, or a billion dollar disinformation campaign by Langley's couldn't do a better job of making them look like hoodlums, loons and trolls. ("Gangsterism" and "Communiques"? Really guys, those tags are right out of Marxist Protest Manual v19.22 - which has long since been deprecated.) Though, to be fair, it seems to be doing a pretty good job of attracting the professional trolls (*cough*Micheal Moore*cough*).
       
      They've also succeeded in capturing the attention of the 'internet rage' crowd, which (if I were organizing such a protest) should be about absolutely the last thing their leaders should want. Once you become an internet meme, the clock on your half-life is ticking... and it's ticking fast. Like the 'outrage' over the electoral irregularities in Iraq or over the false dawn of the Jasmine 'Revolution', you're an eight days wonder. In a week or two, you'll be "so like 30 seconds ago" as the 'net moves on to it's next ineffectual retweeting and forwarding.
       
      Real change takes time, effort, and organization. (Ask the civil rights movement.) But these guys are from the MTV and internet generations - where style is more important than substance and attention spans are short.

    34. Re:Lack of news by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. While the rest of the world got good coverage, the citizens of Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria were ill-informed of the goings-on in their own respective countries.

      I don't think this is really what's going on here so much though, because it doesn't seem like *anyone* is hearing much about this protest.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    35. Re:Lack of news by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      When tea party activists are out protesting bank bail-outs, it's True Americans doing their civic duty. When it's a bunch of students and random non-affiliated people, it's just Leftwing Psuedo Anarchists.

      Maybe you called out the tea party protests as being a bunch of malcontents too; in that case, my apologies. Otherwise, fuck you and your hypocrisy.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    36. Re:Lack of news by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They're not sticking to just one topic. Some demonstrators have said bank bailouts, mortgage crisis, and execution of Troy Davis. That means their message is being watered down instead of being focused. It shows a generalized unrest or a sort of all-purpose protest.

    37. Re:Lack of news by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Considering they should be media-savvy, why aren't we seeing pics from their own discreetly planted photographers?

      The lamestream media are one thing, the internet another.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    38. Re:Lack of news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'd say it is part of a wider effort to make protest ineffective by no publicising it. The mainstream view seems to be that protesters are on the fringe, hippies or students who don't have to go to work so they have time to be there. There is also a general feeling that the police are not tough enough, and that they should crack down on undesirables. Crime has been falling and sentences getting longer for nearly a decade in the UK but polls consistently show the majority thinks otherwise.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Lack of news by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      why is there such a media gap about this protest?

      Manufacturing Consent

      The film presents and illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination of the history of The New York Times' coverage of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky says exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally of the elite.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    40. Re:Lack of news by terjeber · · Score: 1, Insightful

      free reign capitalism is

      What "free reign capitalism"? Where? The US hasn't been capitalist since well before Bush took office, and Bush made the US more socialist than Lenin did the Soviet Union. Big government paired with cronyism is not part of capitalism. It never was. Bush is one of the presidents who has presided over the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in US history. Obama is obviously not going to rectify that insane move.

      The government using tax-payers money to shore up bad investments made by private investors (banks in this case) is not, has never been, and will never be capitalism. It is socialism. The US has been more socialist (on a Federal economic level) than capitalist for at least a decade or so.

    41. Re:Lack of news by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Big government paired with cronyism is not part of capitalism. It never was.

      You are soooooo wrong. Big government + cronyism is the default steady state of capitalism. The capitalist system can have no other outcome. Wealth concentrates. The rich use it to brainwash the masses and pay for political favors. The two dynamics amplify each other until you get what we have today. It's inevitable.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    42. Re:Lack of news by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The situation the US faces right now, with corporatism out of control and a government that has had size-increase as its main goal since G. W. Bush took office, what is a capitalist to do? An ever-growing federal sector is a strong indication of a socialist (minded) state, and corporations growing "too large to fail" with the heads of the two intermingling on every golf course around, the US is in some trouble. Not as much as Europe mind you, but still in serious trouble. Perhaps it is time for the US population to look at what The Second Amendment was actually for and start using it on its politicians. I mean, that is actually what it is there for. They knew that when running for office. No grounds for protest once they are blindfolded and up against the wall.

    43. Re:Lack of news by djp928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only permit anybody should need to hold a peaceful protest is the first amendment.

    44. Re:Lack of news by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      Archangel Michael... giving "the man" a reach-around.

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    45. Re:Lack of news by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is all about using greed as the primary motivating factor behind the economy. "Unbridled", of course not... unless you're against regulation (i.e. republicans) ... then it is all about unbridled greed.

      Communism on the other hand, is all about working for the betterment of your neighbors, for the good of the whole, for the satisfaction of doing a good job and you see where that gets you? Capitalism is all about individual greed. If you use it right, if you harness it and bound it with fair competition, the greed motivation works is much than all that group love you get from communism. This is the way of things. This is what the 20th century taught us.

      But don't for one tiny iota of a second think that capitalism isn't all about greed, because it is.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    46. Re:Lack of news by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Adam Smith was talking about small communities doing deals one-on-one."

      Smith in many ways was a moron who never really grasped the implications of his theory. Giving men the ability to set prices allows them to amass significant amounts of power when they "win" in the market and many encumbants end up staying their permanently North america has a permanent plutocracy where less then 1% of the people have more wealth then the bottom 90% combined. That's how adam smiths theory plays out in the real world. There's no easy price and property disputation mechanism for people to have legal way take back price-setting power and abuses of society from business people. Since business people are so nannied by the state with all the laws they create in their favor (just see copyright, DMCA).

      Not only that Smith was a believer in the enlightenment theory of human behavior, markets only work if people are rational and reasonably intelligent but modern science shows human beings are as dumb as rocks. So entire "industries" or "markets" exist just out of stupidity and inertia, not based on any kind of rationality. Their are entire industries based in barbarism and ineptitude of human beings. The fact that people celebrate this as a triumph of the market is pretty disgusting in and of itself.

      See:Enlightenment was wrong about human reasoning
      http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

      Adam smith was also wrong about human morality - if modern society shows us anything it's that large scale societies don't have the collective intelligence and values in common to form any kind check against corporate power.

    47. Re:Lack of news by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "There is also a huge difference between equitable capitalism and a feudal system under the the guise of capitalism using corporations as proxies of power for the "noble class"."

      Historically their isn't, one only has to look at the founding of america and the issues with the East india company to see that you are simply wrong.

    48. Re:Lack of news by tidepool · · Score: 1

      In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..

      Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?

      There is no doubt , in my mind, that it's 100% on purpose. As word would spread, it could only help add numbers to the protesters force. There is very very very little media coverage, even denouncing the protests. Out of sight, out of mind. Given enough time (if we have enough time), individuals will spread the word to the majority of the population; At least those who semi-frequently use the internet.

    49. Re:Lack of news by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2

      If it was such a pathetically small number of people, why did the Police feel the need to use such force?

      I should imagine the media in the US are much the same as the UK when it comes to the police. They do not like criticizing them unless someone dies. Even if there is plenty of footage of police hitting unarmed peaceful protesters it will just be reported as "Police Scuffled with Protesters".

    50. Re:Lack of news by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Key word: equitable

      In order for capitalism to be equitable all parties must have full knowledge and act in good faith.

    51. Re:Lack of news by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anything critical of capitalism - or corporatism, really, 'cause they are not the same - is simply not covered anymore. The protestors are considered pinks by the people who own things, among which are the people who own all the media outlets, and by extension, hire the reporters who cover the events. A reporters who would try to present anti-corporate discussion, other than with derision, would soon be marginalized and then unemployed and unemployable. See what happened 2001-2003 to the very few reporters who tried to disagree with the march to war. They were dumped and disgraced, never to be heard from again. Any reporter knows what happens to any reporter writing to the left of Reagan - you gone.

    52. Re:Lack of news by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You think we have something resembling "capitalism" in the United States?

      Why can no-one see that the US has a fascist economic system? Government and corporate power are 100% merged to create a set of conditions that makes it difficult or impossible for new companies to compete with established ones. Want to start a new bank? Sorry, you pay the same FDIC rate as the risk junkies and multiple bankrupt TBTFs. Want to open a consumer goods store? Hope you can afford health insurance, as well as compliance and liability departments, etc. Want to open a new company that makes things? Hope you've got enough cash to pay off the unions. Want to build a flying car? The FAA says no, sorry, you are out of business.

      Hell, even our money is fascist, as the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE bank that carries more weight than the government itself in the economy, and worse, has the power to unilaterally control the entire economy through the arbitrary issuance of debt to the point that they could print a quadrillion dollars tomorrow and buy up the entire country, and there would be nothing anyone could/would do to stop it.

      So don't pretend like these problems were caused by "out of control capitalism". This is out of control fascism. Failure to recognize and understand the difference only allows the fascists to increase their own wealth and power through confiscation of purchasing power, both by suppression of competition, and by simply printing money and spending it as if they had contributed something to the economy.

    53. Re:Lack of news by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Well lets just wait for Al Jazeera's take on the events.

      Yeah! sure! Al Jazeera is the holy incarnation of independent news.

      Try RT

    54. Re:Lack of news by sjames · · Score: 1

      A desire for self enrichment certainly is part of capitalism, bound by ethical business practices and regulated by law then harnessed by the forces of the market into a system beneficial to society. Wall Street bears less resemblance to that every day. On Wall Street, the greed has slipped it's bridle and is running roughshod over all of us. There is absolutely no need to be a Socialist or a Communist to believe that Wall Street must be stopped, proper Capitalists have good reason to complain as well.

    55. Re:Lack of news by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      That's a good question. Aside from the girl getting pepper sprayed, I didn't really see anything too out of the ordinary for the NYPD. If you don't listen to a cop, lawfully or unlawfully, and resist arrest in any way, they are going to rough you up a bit. The NYPD is also a bit of a crapshoot, sometimes they are nice and let you off despite clearly doing something illegal, other days you get a jaywalking ticket.

    56. Re:Lack of news by SETIGuy · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it they had been Tea Party goons beating up homeless vets, then there would have been repeated news stories about how the homeless people had egged on the non-violent Tea Party demonstrators by repeatedly bashing their faces into the demonstrators fists.

    57. Re:Lack of news by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

      If the US is somehow socialist, I'd like my cut, please. I'm sitting here, working my ass off, wife sick with MS, and the bills are starting to fall behind. Please explain how I get my cut.

    58. Re:Lack of news by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      To reflect your perception, I only just heard about it today. It's in its 11th day. I'm an American; I heard it on NPR on the way home (not on the way in), and then saw it here. I think the answer to the media gap is likely somewhere in between: it doesn't sell as many papers as Britney's tits, and also it challenges the media owners. (I'm also thinking of the 98% decline in the US dollar in the past 100 years, 70% of which happened after Nixon took us off the gold standard, and that so few people are aware of that; it's just not good form to be informed these days, I suppose.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    59. Re:Lack of news by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      What a fucking bigoted asshole you are Mikey, at least your a consistantly bigoted asshole i suppose.

    60. Re:Lack of news by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That the protests are small is probably a major reason the cops use force.

      Why? Think about it this way:
      Beating the shot out of one guy in a 5,000 person crowd is incredibly stupid, and border-line suicidal. OTOH it's pretty much the only way to stop a truly determined one man protest.

    61. Re:Lack of news by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no mod points, so an "amen, brother" will have to suffice.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    62. Re:Lack of news by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is this posted anonymously? This is like the best post I've ever seen.

      In fact, corporatism is completely anti-capitalism, in that capitalism will inevitably fail under corporate monopolism, and unrestrained corporations (the current model) ALWAYS lead to monopolism.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    63. Re:Lack of news by nu1x · · Score: 1

      Haha, don't worry, some people are just too inundated with definitions to see that the powers that be change names yet the concepts remain exactly the same.

      To http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2448946&cid=37533438: Also, history ? What history ? You mean propaganda written to woo uninformed masses ?

      Someone needs some Chomsky 101 (the guy, if you listen closely enough, just states some well researched facts).

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    64. Re:Lack of news by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      They went over the SEC to their (SEC's) bosses: Wall Street.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    65. Re:Lack of news by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      it looked to be about 100 people from the cellphone picture I saw

      A single cell phone pic doesn't have enough information. Here's a random Flickr crowdshot cropped and showing a much bigger crowd.

      Maybe Friday was lighter and the weekends were more populated.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    66. Re:Lack of news by dave562 · · Score: 1

      You have a job, access to the internet, a grocery store filled with food, police and fire protection, and you can probably keep your wife alive. In most of the world, your life would be dead and you would be trying to subsist for a month on less than you probably make in a day (assuming you even had a job).

    67. Re:Lack of news by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any news of the black gangs targeting and beating whites in several US cities recently, which is much more newsworthy, but not politically correct. Additionally, protestors against Wall Street is hardly something new, the filthy hippies have been doing it for decades.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    68. Re:Lack of news by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      And you know it's not interesting because... you never heard of it, and the BBC ran only a couple of obviously shallow articles about it. Which is why there's no stories about it in your media. That's a tautology. How can you know anything about what might be interesting about it?

      When 1500 middle class people turn up for a week and a half to demonstrate against the financial system, especially if it's badly organized but still persists, that's an event. You might want professionally produced Tea Party simulations of popular movements, but this demonstration is what real people getting fed up with looks like.

      And the cops attacking them for no good reason should be interesting to anyone.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    69. Re:Lack of news by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is consensual trade. Government only becomes involved when it is necessary to adjudicate disagreements.

      If government has the power to favor one company over another, it's not a capitalistic system. If government does favor one company over another, that's evidence of corruption. "Political favors" ARE corruption.

      Some people work better than others. Some people are lazy and try to avoid work entirely. Some people save and invest money, some people are spendthrifts. Under capitalism (i.e. in the absence of government interference) people who work well and invest frequently become a lot richer than those who don't work and waste what little they have. This is what leads jealous and vindictive people like you to say "wealth concentrates."

      People who work well and invest tend to want a capitalistic system. People who are lazy and want to cheat or steal their way to wealth seek to take a capitalistic system and corrupt it into "crony capitalism", and then lie about what they're doing and call it capitalism. Naturally, there will always be people who hate freedom and justice and will call the thieves and their allies in government "capitalists".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    70. Re:Lack of news by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, macing those women who were merely being corralled by other cops was really "lenient". Of course you don't want to bite the Wall Street hand that feeds you, Anonymous Coward. But why should we listen to you? Didn't you used to be Bush's press secretary?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    71. Re:Lack of news by dryeo · · Score: 2

      This is the end game of capitalism. The most ruthless, greedy capitalists buy the government to make sure there is no competition. Pretending that human nature will lead anywhere else is as stupid as those that thought that communism could work on a large scale.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    72. Re:Lack of news by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're right about fascism. But you're wrong about Mussolini's "memoirs". People who are hanged in public in the middle of a World War in which they were deposed while lead their country in the losing side don't write memoirs.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    73. Re:Lack of news by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Why do you think a socialist society would give you a cut of anything. Could you give an example of when and where that happened?

    74. Re:Lack of news by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You are soooooo wrong. Big government + cronyism is the default steady state of capitalism

      No, it is not. Once you have big government and cronyism you no longer have capitalism. You could argue that capitalism always degrades to big government and cronyism, but you can't say that that is what capitalism is. If you are right on the latter part, then all known systems of economic government always degrades to big government and cronyism.

    75. Re:Lack of news by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is consensual trade. Government only becomes involved when it is necessary to adjudicate disagreements.

      Capitalism is about collecting capital. It's about obtaining capital, and then using that capital to obtain more, and so on.

      Some people work better than others. Some people are lazy and try to avoid work entirely. Some people save and invest money, some people are spendthrifts. Under capitalism (i.e. in the absence of government interference) people who work well and invest frequently become a lot richer than those who don't work and waste what little they have. This is what leads jealous and vindictive people like you to say "wealth concentrates."

      If that were the case, then the people who work hard should be richer than those that don't - yet this is demonstrably untrue. Instead, most people who are rich because they have benefactors or other fastpaths to capital. Collecting capital & then exploiting it to obtain more is the essence of capitalism - as is ensuring your legacy to exploiting your capital to benefit the favoured few. Of course there are always counter examples - but those are needed for stability, because if the system was too closed then the unwashed would become restless. Better to have the illusion of opportunity to keep the worker bees quiet.

    76. Re:Lack of news by qubezz · · Score: 1

      Here is an MSNBC report and commentary that is quite good,The last word with Lawrence O'donnell

    77. Re:Lack of news by ildon · · Score: 1

      Because normally a couple hundred people hanging out on Wallstreet are just called homeless people.

    78. Re:Lack of news by Syberz · · Score: 1

      My guess is that Anonynous is "backing" the protest and they're not particularly popular with the media... unless they hack something of course.

      --
      ~Syberz
    79. Re:Lack of news by tbannist · · Score: 1

      No, it's not quite that. You have to understand that every mainstream media outlet in the United Stats (and most other developed countries) are owned and operated by corporations. There is a systemic pro-corporate bias to the news because all of the reporters, anchors, and editors all work for corporations. They idea that there may be merit in protesting corporations is either alien to most of them because they are too used to working in that environment, or they are a victim of the rule that "it is difficult to make someone believe something when his lively hood depends on him not believing it".

      The political right is usually the culprit for misinformation on crime, they constantly claim that we need to be "tough" on crime, people naturally assume that if they're telling us that we're too easy on crime that there is a crime problem. It's a "big lie" problem. I wish I knew any easy way to deal with these problems, but frankly the majority of people in western nations seem to have no interest in knowing anything about politics or current events that don't involve celebrities.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    80. Re:Lack of news by x6060 · · Score: 1

      Um, you mean he has a good standard of living... because of the current economic system used in America... which is Capitalism... (Socialism. I dont think that word means what you think it means...)

    81. Re:Lack of news by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Stupid reaction on the cops part. These protests have been completely ignored by the media until the cops started beating heads.
      Even topless women protesters didn't get the media interested.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    82. Re:Lack of news by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      "certainly a part of capitalism"??? If you remove greed, you don't have capitalism. What do you think capitalism is?

      Ethical business practices are something imposed upon capitalism to make it more people friendly, it has nothing to do with what capitalism is. Same as regulation.

      No, honestly, I'm kind of scratching my head at what your vision of capitalism is. Please explain because if you understand free markets and all, then you should be able to see it for what it is. The motivating factor in capitalism is greed. period. end of story. The goal of capitalism is to set up system where greed motivates people to compete with each other. In this competition, assuming it is somewhat close to fair (i.e. not corrupt, not a monopoly, etc), people's desire for more money will drive the system to create more and more efficient products, to make more and more efficient use of natural resources and people. This has nothing to do with ethics, laws, niceties or anything else. We impose them on capitalism to keep it fair and to protect things we care about from "excesses".

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    83. Re:Lack of news by sjames · · Score: 1

      "certainly a part of capitalism"??? If you remove greed, you don't have capitalism. What do you think capitalism is?

      What do you thing certainly means? The desire for personal enrichment (not greed) is necessary but not sufficient.

      Have you ever actually read "The Wealth of Nations"? Not somebody's shallow summary, but the actual writing of Smith? Capitalism requires regulation and ethical practices just as much as it requires a desire for self enrichment (or really, just a desire to make a living). Smith makes a good case that without ethics and regulation, Capitalism will go off the rails and crash.

      As for your mention of "people friendly", you do realize that the only point of an economic system is to serve people, right? It's measure of "goodness" is intrinsically tied to how well all people are served by it. If it makes everyone miserable, it must be discarded. Without the ethics and regulation, the market will be nothing like fair. Let's face it, in the absence of law enforcement, fraud and corruption are more profitable in the short term than fair dealing, but you can't build a society on it.

      It's noteworthy that Smith warned that corporations were a danger because they would tend to act independently of personal morals.

      If you can create an economic system driven purely by greed and without ethics or regulation (I strongly doubt it), then it cannot be honestly called Capitalism.

      A car requires an engine. Without that, it's useless. However, it also requires brakes. Without those, somebody's going to die. Arguably, if you have no brakes, you're better off not starting the engine.

    84. Re:Lack of news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Pot, Meet Kettle.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    85. Re:Lack of news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      When Tea Party protests something, they are ORDERLY and obey the rules, They don't need cops with riot gear to keep people in line.

      See the difference?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    86. Re:Lack of news by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Please. If ANY tea party looked ANYTHING like what this was, John Stewart would have been all over it, and it would have been "news"

      This was day 14 (or whatever) of an ongoing protest against whatever ... yawn. This is the MO of the leftwing pseudo anarchists at every protest. Hardly news if it is SOP. It is like reporting that lions eat antelopes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    87. Re:Lack of news by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      Several points:

      From Wikipedia:
      "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets" Fairness, regulation, or even free market is not a crucial part of this definition.

      In my own personal definition I see capitalism as "free market capitalism"... however there are many ways a free market can be corrupted as both agree upon. However just because the markets are corrupted and not fair and/or unregulated, it's still capitalism.

      "Without the ethics and regulation the market will be nothing like fair." I Agree. However people seem to define the robber barons time of monopolies as "capitalism run amok", thus still defining it as capitalism. For example laissez-faire capitalism is capitalism with no or very little regulation. These are phrases and uses of capitalism that seem to be lacking in morality and fairness so they imply that fairness is NOT a requirement of capitalism.

      Feudalism is also an economic system. Which people does it serve? Feudalism is only people friendly if you're at the top? You're using a metric for defining the success of an economic system that is not intrinsic to the definition of an economic system. An economic system doesn't care about people, only about how commerce happens.

      So, my point is that you can have free market capitalism without regulation or fairness, but you can not have it without personal greed.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    88. Re:Lack of news by sjames · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about is poorly implemented capitalism. The system not done right (we don't tend to use the term amok in a positive sense, after all). However, this last shows me you are more interested in splitting a frog's hair 8 ways than discussing a proper implementation of Capitalism. I don't see any value in hair splitting.

      A heart isn't required for human life, but without it, you'll be on life support and only minimally alive. More commonly, we just say you need your heart to live.

      I was speaking of the "goodness" of an economic system, not "success". Feudalism successfully made a great many people miserable for a great many years, but certainly was not a good system. You speak of economies as if they are independent organisms with some sort of right to exist. They are not. They exist to serve US, we do not exist to serve them. You might as well claim that how well a hammer drives a nail has nothing to do with it's success as a hammer. If you want to think that, I can't stop you but I advise you to watch your thumbs carefully. Meanwhile, I'll just go get a decent hammer.

      Note how Feudalism was ultimately thrown on the scrap heap by threatening to kill everyone who helped keep it in place. It REALLY failed on the goodness scale! It was so bad that even the noblemen threatened the king over it. I'd like to not have to go to such extremes to get at least a well regulated capitalism ruled by law in place. I must admit, it would be amusing in a sick sort of way to see the Mafia muscle in on the financial markets and show GS what hardball really looks like, but I really can't advocate that.

    89. Re:Lack of news by PoopCat · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is not evil, free reign capitalism is. The late Pope John Paul II understood this very well and tried for many years to bring to the attention of the masses this truth.

      To repeat a tired old meme: citation *definitely* needed.

    90. Re:Lack of news by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than tea party protesters?

  4. Link for "well-covered link" Broken by InvisibleSoul · · Score: 1

    At least at the time of this posting.

    1. Re:Link for "well-covered link" Broken by InvisibleSoul · · Score: 1

      I meant "well-covered incident".

    2. Re:Link for "well-covered link" Broken by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for noticing, I've fixed the link.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
  5. have fun protesting by onepoint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone should be protesting, and have the right to protest.

    Police that don't understand the right to protest should be charged and removed from work ( fired if the attack is unprovoked )

    One sad thing that protesters bring upon themselves is when then charge forward and attempt to become menacing, that in the eye's of the police looks like an attack. They will respond with an overwhelming amount of force. Which is sad, since a peaceful protest goal is for the attention of the problem and to have those in power look and find a solution.

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.
    1. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Protestors that don't understand that laws still have to be obeyed and consequences suffered should be removed from the protest.

      If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there. An unruly and possibly violent mob should not.

    2. Re:have fun protesting by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      laws have to be obeyed? do you know what civil disobedience is?

      Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots. People try to be polite because they don't want to be violent/be victims of it. Police instead are inciting it, which is a *really* bad idea.

    3. Re:have fun protesting by waives · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Peaceful protest doesn't require a permit you fucking fascist.

    4. Re:have fun protesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there.

      Permits? For a protest? That sounds blatantly unconstitutional. I'd say that it isn't the protesters that are breaking the law, but our government. I don't care if it's so they can keep better track of protesters. I'd rather have some "bad" things happen than harm honest protests.

      An unruly and possibly violent mob should not.

      Where's the violent mob? I don't know much about this specific protest, so it is an honest question.

    5. Re:have fun protesting by SkimTony · · Score: 2

      If they had their permits

      Which part of the First Amendment to the Constitution was unclear? No one should be able to require permits. They have a Right to Peaceably Assemble. Period.

    6. Re:have fun protesting by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      If they had their permits and weren't breaking any laws, then they should be there.

      Nice to see the first amendment requiring permits just like the 2nd ...

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    7. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're doing civil disobedience then you know you are breaking the law and, this in an important and, you accept the punishment for doing so if it is brought against you.

      Your cause is more valuable than what the punishment takes away.

      If you're just trying to get a message out without the civil disobedience being a protestor isn't a magical get out of jail free card for when you over step your bounds.

    8. Re:have fun protesting by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you don't need a permit to protest. Pretty sure that's constitutionally protected.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    9. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 2

      There's lots of protesting for you to do then. Basically every public building has a maximum occupancy, set by some level of Government! The fire marshal is taking away your rights!

    10. Re:have fun protesting by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Public assembly and free speech require no permits in free America my communist and/or fascist friend. They were not breaking any laws and were not violent.

    11. Re:have fun protesting by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots.

      Depends on which law you disobey. If the actions they take are violent (in addition to being illegal), then it's not a civil disobedience. It's "violent protests." So your point is off key, while the gp's point is on key.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    12. Re:have fun protesting by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Permits? I thought the US had amendments protecting free speech and assembly. The constitution is the only permit that should be necessary... unless this is a permit to close a street to public traffic, or something.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:have fun protesting by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I really don't know this answer...
      do you need a permit to protest? or is it that you need a permit to protest if the protest is cutting off services to the public.

      I would think that you can protest legally ( protected somewhere in the law )
      but I think you need a permit if the protest is going to cut off services to the public

      I'm really not sure.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    14. Re:have fun protesting by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Permits for assembly are in violation of the First Amendment. It's not the protest that's illegal, it's the government itself.

      Somehow the "law and order" crowd always exempts itself from following the law.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:have fun protesting by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And being a police officer isn't a free ticket to smashing somebody's face in.
      Being arrested should be the legal and reasonable answer to illegal activity (civil disobedience or no). Being assaulted is not.

    16. Re:have fun protesting by DogDude · · Score: 1

      What bounds were overstepped? Being on a public sidewalk? Talking? Standing?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    17. Re:have fun protesting by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      How does this work with Free Speech Cages?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:have fun protesting by sheepofblue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the first protest resulted in destruction of property you lose the ability to claim peaceful. Being forceful with the police and taunting them does nothing to change that perception or to create the perception that it was a tiny rogue minority. Sorry but these people came with the intent of being annoying and disruptive and then complain when they get treated like they are annoying and disruptive.

    19. Re:have fun protesting by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. Your right to protest does not override my right to travel and conduct business.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    20. Re:have fun protesting by Surt · · Score: 2
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    21. Re:have fun protesting by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      Free Speech Cages would be presumably unconstitutional, if there were any authority capable of upholding said Constitution. Alas.

    22. Re:have fun protesting by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      First, no one said anything about civil disobedience. While civil disobedience is a form of protest, it does not cover all protests. Second, I don't think you quite understand what civil disobedience is. Basically, you find a law to be unjust, so you get lots of people together in to peacefully break that law in a very public place, preferably with lots of media coverage. The cops then show up and arrest everybody in front of all of the news cameras. If the group of protesters is large enough, maybe not all of them will be arrested, but at least some will be. You go into this act knowing full well that you WILL be arrested. The goal is to capture the absurdity of enforcing such a law on camera for the world to see. You do everything you can to make your groups actions peaceful, especially if you expect an aggressive response from the cops. This helps emphasize the absurdity. However, the key here is that you don't get a free pass just because you are protesters. Those who break the law are arrested. If you don't like the law, then try to change it. I hear civil disobedience is great for that.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    23. Re:have fun protesting by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      I can buy a gun. Despite any permit regulations, I can still do what the second amendment allows me to do - buy a gun.

      This is beginning to demonstrate that I cannot protest with speech or assembly. This is something I am supposed to be allowed to do by the second amendment.

      Sounds like it's time for me to exercise my second amendment rights to protect my first amendment rights. Otherwise, why would they put it in the constitution? The second amendment wasn't put in place to protect hunting rifles or for self-defensive pistols. It was put in place so we have a means to push back an over-reaching tyrannical government.

      We have an over-reaching tyrannical government. Push back.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    24. Re:have fun protesting by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While in theory you are correct you do forget that there are limits on free speech and I would say limiting the number of people in a building for safety reasons (have you ever looked at those signs you can pack a lot of people into a building or room) would probably be held up as a reasonable restrictions much like prohibiting yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do agree with the grandparent and find the whole idea of "Free Speech Zones" abhorrent in the US and have never like the idea of having to get a permit to protest. Now lets say you want to have a protest parade down main street (the bike protesters in Minneapolis do this) where they will be disrupting traffic, then I would say yes the should have to go get a permit just like every other parade. But to go and protest in a park, grassy area, white house sidewalk they shouldn't need a permit. Another thing I have wondered about is why are union strike lines treated differently from other protests and don't need a permit?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    25. Re:have fun protesting by lahvak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I peacefully protest or commit an act of peaceful civil disobedience, I fully expect to be charged for violating the law, and have legal charges brought against me. I expect to have to spend some time in jail, or pay a fine, if I break a law. What I do not expect, though, is having my face smashed into a parked car, being beaten by police officers for non-violently refusing to disperse, etc. I expect that my infractions against the legal system will be responded to withing the limits of the legal system.

      Violent attacks against peaceful protesters is exactly the kind of police behavior that we usually heavily criticize when they are committed by police in various totalitarian regimes.

      --
      AccountKiller
    26. Re:have fun protesting by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never heard of "Free Speech Zones". I know here in Minnesota if you wan to have a protest on the state capitol lawn you need to go and get a permit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    27. Re:have fun protesting by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble. I would go farther to state that my interpretation of the Constitution is that since the first amendment does not qualify the right to assemble in anyway there is no cause to deny such a permit in ANY circumstances.

      G8 meeting that week, to damn bad the protesters want to assemble on 9th street and must be permitted to do so.

      In other words the permit process would really just be more like a registry. Which might be nice because that would let the rest of who don't want to deal with it know to avoid the area, or possible show up and join in.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    28. Re:have fun protesting by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Constitutional amendments aren't worth the paper they are written on with the current belief that the commerce clause covers everything. We have had the idea of "Free Speech Zones" held up by courts as being perfectly fine.

      As a side note with the abuse of the commerce clause I wonder if one could get around all of the federal machine gun laws if one were to smelt their own iron/steel and entirely manufacture the device within their state using only in state resources (wood, ore, and hand made tools). It would take a long time to do, but I think that would eliminate any interstate commerce implications thus making that exempt.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    29. Re:have fun protesting by m.ducharme · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, were the protesters "peacefully assembling" in someone's living room? Or on a public street? I missed that part. And by the way, I think you have herring in your teeth. Looks kinda red.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    30. Re:have fun protesting by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if they were annoying or not. That does't give one the right to assault people. If that were the case, then I would've been able to crack some heads at the last Palin speech I went to.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    31. Re:have fun protesting by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      Your argument is specious. If you, personally walked into my house, I could have you thrown out. Likewise, if you walked into my house with some friends of yours, I could have the lot of you thrown out. However, if you, personally, stood on the sidewalk in front of my house, there's nothing I can do about it (unless you're breaking other laws, e.g. drunk and disorderly).

      Requiring permits creates opportunity for abuse. Who decides to whom to issue permits, and whom to deny permits? Did the mayor have a grudge against Unions? Maybe he'll lean on the permitting department to deny a permit to the union organizers. Does he have a good reason? Maybe he doesn't need one; you just have to make the requirements for the permits sufficiently confusing that every application has some flaw or other in it.

      The fact that they're called permits implies that they are used to grant or deny permission for something which has already been explicitly granted by the highest law in the country. If you want to register protests for the sake of managing public safety (by which I mean knowing where to route ambulances), that's not the same sort of requirement as a "permit."

    32. Re:have fun protesting by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I don't know about this case, but peaceful protests may require a permit and may require that certain rules be followed.

      For example, depending on local laws, a group of people cannot necessarily completely block a sidewalk and prevent thousands of others from using the sidewalk for its intended purpose unless a permit is secured in advance. If it's illegal to block public sidewalks and prevent legitimate users from using them without a permit, it's still illegal to do so as part of a "peaceful protest".

      If, in the name of "peaceful protest", protesters do block the sidewalk without the necessary permits and continue to do so after being warned by the police to allow others through, that's "civil disobedience" and the protestors should expect to be arrested. Of course, the arrests must be conducted in a way that is consistent with laws and department regulations (which does not necessarily mean that those being arrested may not suffer some harm if they do not submit readily to being arrested).

      Again, I don't know anything about what's specifically happening in the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    33. Re:have fun protesting by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Some protests may turn violent, but that does not mean you need to violate everyone's rights by requiring a permit to protest. You just need to take care of the violent ones when they occur. I'd much rather have the response time be slower than have protest permits.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    34. Re:have fun protesting by bishop32x · · Score: 1

      Yes. It does. See the first amendment.

    35. Re:have fun protesting by bcmm · · Score: 1

      If laws a broken, they are punished through the courts, not with beatings in the street.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    36. Re:have fun protesting by Talderas · · Score: 1

      As a side note with the abuse of the commerce clause I wonder if one could get around all of the federal machine gun laws if one were to smelt their own iron/steel and entirely manufacture the device within their state using only in state resources (wood, ore, and hand made tools). It would take a long time to do, but I think that would eliminate any interstate commerce implications thus making that exempt.

      Nah. That's already been addressed by Wickard vs Filburn. The fact that you are producing it for your own consumption means that you are interfering with interstate trade by denying a purchase on that market.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    37. Re:have fun protesting by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      The only people committing any of those crimes in these videos were cops....

    38. Re:have fun protesting by Amouth · · Score: 1

      ever had a "permit for protest" refused?

      ever been knocked to the ground and put in the back of police car for standing silent on a sidewalk holding a sign?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    39. Re:have fun protesting by uncqual · · Score: 1

      However, note that the First Amendment doesn't say people have the right to peaceably assemble on public property or on private property without the consent of the owner.

      In interpreting the First Amendment, the SCOTUS has, like it or not, defined the scope of what is "constitutional" and what is not. They have not determined that it conveys a unfettered right to assemble without restriction on public lands.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    40. Re:have fun protesting by Bengie · · Score: 1

      1) Right to property has nothing to do with "commerce and travel"
      2) Last I checked, driving a car on public roads was a privilege, not a right.
      3) If it's a public place, they have just as much right to be there as you do, there's just a lot more of them

      So which is it "Majority rules" or "Minority rules"? No matter which way you look at it, someone is going to lose their rights.

    41. Re:have fun protesting by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood the purpose of permits for protesting.. The purpose, at least over here, is to coordinate the protest with the police and other authorities, not to request permission from the authorities. Permission to protest would sort of negate the whole freedom of speech thing as it would be within the rights of the authorities to reject a protest on political grounds. The worst the authorities can do, legally, is to withhold their cooperation.

    42. Re:have fun protesting by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Oops, replied to the wrong parent..

    43. Re:have fun protesting by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood the purpose of permits for protesting.. The purpose, at least over here, is to coordinate the protest with the police and other authorities, not to request permission from the authorities. Permission to protest would sort of negate the whole freedom of speech thing as it would be within the rights of the authorities to reject a protest on political grounds. The worst the authorities can do, legally, is to withhold their cooperation..

    44. Re:have fun protesting by Bengie · · Score: 1

      While rebellion against a government that is not for the people, is listed as both a right and a duty, just make sure it's more than just you. The difference between a crazy people and a rebellion is the difference between a few people and a small army.

      Personally, I would love to see a Federal Judge outline what constitutes as a "formal" constitutionally supported rebellion.

    45. Re:have fun protesting by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      > Peaceful protest doesn't require a permit you fucking fascist.

      Yes, it does. If you want to peacefully stand in the lane I use to get to work, you better have a permit, so that I can demand to know what idiot issued it.

      If you are protesting without a permit, you are breaking the law, and the police should arrest you. If the law is unjust, your arrest may prompt a change in the law. If the law is 'don't block a public thoroughfare', I doubt you will get it changed.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    46. Re:have fun protesting by Kenja · · Score: 1

      So you think that the first amendment overrides all other constitutional rights and amendments? Then you wont object to us having the next protest in your living room I guess, or painting slogans on your car.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    47. Re:have fun protesting by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Violent attacks against peaceful protesters is exactly the kind of police behavior that we usually heavily criticize when they are committed by police in various totalitarian regimes.

      Ah, but we're not a totalitarian regime. Therefore we don't commit violent attacks against peaceful protestors. Therefore, if there is any violence, it's because of non-peaceful protestors. Therefore, any action the police take is justified with a nice bit of circular logic on the part of authoritarians.

      You can see these thought processes at work in this very thread. Read through it and count the fascists, it's pretty scary.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    48. Re:have fun protesting by nbauman · · Score: 1

      It's pretty clear:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      As long as they're peaceful, and as long as they don't block traffic, they have a right to assemble and demonstrate. Permits are merely a convenience for the police and demonstrators to coordinate things. But if the police are uncooperative, as the NYC police have been under the Bloomberg Administration, you have a right to have a peaceful demonstration without the permit.

    49. Re:have fun protesting by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong. Violent protest is not civil disobedience. Nice to spin that though! You tried to troll and/or be a fascist, but didn't do so well. These people are getting their assess kicked for doing nothing but standing around and protesting, and the cops are literally kicking the shit out of people at the same time. That isn't a "the law says you can't protest here" scenario.

      So your point is off, and your post was pointless.

    50. Re:have fun protesting by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      People can peaceably assemble, and it is as unconstitutional as it gets to make a law saying that they can't.

    51. Re:have fun protesting by hey! · · Score: 2

      Suppose your neighbor stands on the sidewalk in front of your house and shouts political slogans through a bullhorn at 3AM. You can call the cops and the First Amendment doesn't keep them from arresting him, as long as that's what they always do in cases like this. What they can't do is listen to the guy and treat him differently based on whether they agree or disagree with him.

      What the long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment is in such cases is this: the government may regulate the *manner* of speech, provided that there is a legitimate purpose (in this case protecting the peace and privacy of people in their homes minding their own business), the regulations are narrowly tailored for that purpose (not arresting people having normal conversations that don't intrude into other peoples' homes) and they don't discriminate based on the content of the speech (say, arresting the commie but giving the born-again Christian a pass).

      Permits can fall into the category of reasonable regulation or not, depending on how they're handled. There are many legitimate purposes in a case like this for requiring permits. One is to be able to prepare for the protection of the rights of people using the space in question. This includes both people going to and from work, and the protesters themselves.

      A permit requirement can be unconstitutional if it discriminates base on who the protesters are or what they're protesting, if it is unreasonably restrictive (e.g. requiring a protest against Wall Street to be held in Brooklyn) or burdensome (e.g. requiring a permit fee that's so expensive it would discourage the protesters).

      In other words the government can ask protesters to do reasonable things, so long as doing those things don't meaningfully restrict the protesters right to protest.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    52. Re:have fun protesting by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's only democracy if you can participate in it, and that doesn't mean just getting to vote for one bastard or another every few years. Protest is an essential part of any democratic system, and not just the right to protest but the responsibility of the government to listen to the people.

      When the government does everything it can to ignore protests and the media helps by barely reporting them, or just as importantly barely reporting the violent suppression of democracy by the police, pretty much your only option is to embrace violence yourself. The US constitution endorses that view - the people have a right to bare arms to keep the government in check. Those women who were maced for no reason had a constitutional right to form a militia and use weapons to defend themselves, suicidal as that may be.

      You don't necessarily have to use violence yourself of course, just be on the receiving end and then do everything you can to prosecute and publicise it. Filming the police in order to gather evidence is now your civic duty, and since the government is always going to out-gun the people you should have a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to record every action an agent of the government takes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:have fun protesting by onepoint · · Score: 1

      thank you for an great answer

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    54. Re:have fun protesting by djp928 · · Score: 1

      WTF is this silly notion people have that protests require permits??

      The first amendment specifically enshrines the right of assembly. That's the only permit any US citizen needs. Any other requirement is by definition unconstitutional.

    55. Re:have fun protesting by poity · · Score: 1

      I hate when people get on the pedestal about "civil disobedience" when they themselves don't even understand it.
      If the park property owner was discriminating against certain people gathering, then protesters gathering there would be a form of civil disobedience. This isn't the case is it? They're protesting something else entirely while gathering on private property and continuing to do so even after the owner made a complaint.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    56. Re:have fun protesting by Hydian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. If you want to peacefully stand in the lane I use to get to work, you better have a permit, so that I can demand to know what idiot issued it.

      The question of permits aside, unless you are a police officer or the Mayor or something, you lack the authority to demand such things. You have the right to ask just as they have the right to tell you to go away, but not the authority to demand anything. There is a very important distinction.

    57. Re:have fun protesting by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Apparently the part that is unclear is the part that says you have the right to free speech. That seems pretty clear to me. Why we should infer that we should be able to block a public thoroughfare in order to practice that right is beyond me. Just because one person decides to exercise a right doesn't mean that 1,000 other people all of a sudden lose their rights.
      Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that you cannot be charged a fee for holding a public event or that you cannot be required to have a permit in order to hold such an event. All that you are guaranteed is that you cannot be turned down for a permit simply because of what you have to say.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    58. Re:have fun protesting by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      Keep dreaming.

      Try peacefully assembling in a fire station's driveway, in the middle of the I-405, or on the path of police activity. Bring a copy of the Constitution, if you wish... See how far it gets you.

      If it interferes with someone else's rights, if it prevents access to public services, if it conflicts with existing laws, if it lacks locally required insurance, if it incites a riot... these are exceptions that have applied in US cities where I have personally lived.

      Like most anything in the Constitution, it's a great idea, a great ideal, and severely crippled if frowned upon by the Powers that Be.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    59. Re:have fun protesting by tftp · · Score: 1

      People can peaceably assemble

      Sure - as long as the assembly is indeed peaceful. It stops being peaceful if someone objects with a good reason. If a thousand people can't get to work because you are blocking the road it is not peaceful - the complaints against you are valid. If a thousand of adherents of religion A don't like you preaching religion B in a public park - too bad, they don't have a case.

    60. Re:have fun protesting by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      What The Fuck... what is wrong with you America? how did you let it get so bad?

    61. Re:have fun protesting by tftp · · Score: 1

      I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble.

      Well, this here group of exhibitionists wants to have a barenaked protest in front of an elementary school, right when the children are outside. You will have to approve their permit, isn't it so?

    62. Re:have fun protesting by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      It is unconstitutional for Congress to make a law saying that they can't. Whether it is unconstitutional for a state or city authority to do so is another question.

    63. Re:have fun protesting by tftp · · Score: 1

      But if the police are uncooperative, as the NYC police have been under the Bloomberg Administration, you have a right to have a peaceful demonstration without the permit.

      How can you have a peaceful demonstration (with or without a permit) while being beaten by the NYPD?

      This means that according to the Constitution you must cease any and all protest or other assembly when threatened with violence (that revokes your right to assemble.)

      Of course the attacker would be acting unconstitutionally (you had a right to be there,) but good luck suing them. They can always say that you were preventing some street peddler from peddling. There are too many laws on the books and most of them are only useful to stick it to you when the police needs you taken out.

    64. Re:have fun protesting by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Sorry but these people came with the intent of being annoying and disruptive a

      That is the point of a protest. If a protest isn't annoying and disruptive no one will pay attention to it, and it won't accomplish anything. You can be annoying and disruptive and still be peaceful.

    65. Re:have fun protesting by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. Your right to protest does not override my right to travel and conduct business.

      Yeah, actually it does. Protests tend to shut down streets, and protesters take up space. It impedes your right to travel and conduct business. And you know, that is sort of the point of the protest.

      They can impede your travel and business, but they can't stop it. That is where the difference is.

    66. Re:have fun protesting by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would love to see a Federal Judge outline what constitutes as a "formal" constitutionally supported rebellion.

      Me too. Particularly if he is in stocks while he does it.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    67. Re:have fun protesting by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Similar to the thinking of growing cannabis on your own property for your own use.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    68. Re:have fun protesting by nbauman · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in general but I would make certain subtle distinctions.

      You have a *right* to have a peaceful demonstration. That doesn't mean the government will follow the law and let you exercise that right.

      The Bill of Rights doesn't doesn't *give* you the right to free expression. It merely *recognizes* that right. If you want to exercise your rights, you have to fight for them.

      How can you have a peaceful demonstration (with or without a permit) while being beaten by the NYPD?

      This means that according to the Constitution you must cease any and all protest or other assembly when threatened with violence (that revokes your right to assemble.)

      You have a right to peaceably assemble. Maybe your demonstration won't stay peaceable when somebody else attacks you, but your peaceable assembly continues to be legal. If the cops attack you for exercising your constitutional rights, you still haven't broken the law. That's why if they want to prosecute you, they have to lie and claim you were violent, obstructing the street or committing some other, different crime.

      Of course the attacker would be acting unconstitutionally (you had a right to be there,) but good luck suing them. They can always say that you were preventing some street peddler from peddling. There are too many laws on the books and most of them are only useful to stick it to you when the police needs you taken out.

      Surprisingly, when the ACLU and other lawyers sue the police for not allowing demonstrators to exercise their rights, and for beating the protesters up, they sometimes win. They don't win often, but they do win. There are a few maverick judges out there who do uphold the Constitution.

    69. Re:have fun protesting by Nursie · · Score: 1

      1. OMG! Naked people! Scary deviants! Won't somebody please think of the children!

      2. If it's illegal to be naked there, it's illegal to protest naked there.

      3. You're an idiot.

    70. Re:have fun protesting by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "Kettling" is sick. It's a nasty, nasty practice and only ever seems to be used against peaceful protestors.

      Note how this technique didn't see the light of day during the London riots.

    71. Re:have fun protesting by tftp · · Score: 1

      OMG! Naked people! Scary deviants! Won't somebody please think of the children!

      Are you for it or against? A mayor has to make a binary decision, he can't just write a joke on the application. Peaceful assemblies are allowed, but is this assembly peaceful in all meanings of the word, with all participants?

      If it's illegal to be naked there, it's illegal to protest naked there.

      It is legal to be naked in public in San Francisco. In NYC it is legal for a woman to be topless wherever the same is legal for a man. This allows for a lot of protesting.

    72. Re:have fun protesting by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      In your examples two laws (at least..) are broken:
      Trespass. (your living room)
      Criminal Damage. (painting your car)

      Protesting in peace on a public street and breaking no laws should not require a permit.

    73. Re:have fun protesting by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      As noted by a poster far above, some protestors deliberately try to incite police violence. At best, this is very unwise behavior. This is a leftist tactic; you will not see "Tea Party" people baiting cops.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    74. Re:have fun protesting by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      If they had their permits

      permit (noun): a written order granting special permission to do something.

      From the 1st Amendment:
      the right of the people peaceably to assemble

      Something requiring a permit cannot, by definition, be a right as well. Requiring a permit to do something is an acknowledgement that you consider it to be an activity that can be prevented at the whim of the permitting authority.

      This is not touching on the case of actual laws being broken, other than those requiring a permit to peaceably assemble.

    75. Re:have fun protesting by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, I have little doubt that this sort of thing would not stand up to a supreme court challenge even under this corporate friendly nine.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    76. Re:have fun protesting by Duradin · · Score: 1

      You're right, Tea Party people bait sane people instead.

    77. Re:have fun protesting by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with it at all.

      Wickard vs Filburn is one of the cases that basically solidified the Commerce Clause lets Congress interfere with whatever the fuck they want.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  6. Not just Canada by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

    This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well. The only coverage I've seen is on blogs and Slashdot.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Not just Canada by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      pretty much this, I'm only hearing about it on the internet, local and even world news doesn't seem to be touching this stuff.

    2. Re:Not just Canada by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      well, I don't know if you consider fark a blog or not - but they're one of the larger news sites that does cover it. but yes, politically motivated media (it's not just MSM) will not cover this stuff at all.

    3. Re:Not just Canada by rednip · · Score: 1

      It's obvious to me that they are missing the required 'tri-corner' hats. Why should they be taken seriously if they can't follow the rules?

      Bizarrely, if it weren't for the tactics of some poorly trained or supervised police it wouldn't be getting any notice at all.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    4. Re:Not just Canada by plopez · · Score: 2

      CNN had a brief blurb. Huffington post is covering it. NY times had something. Google it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:Not just Canada by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This protest has failed to make headlines in the US as well.

      Probably because it is not a tea party protest.

      Those things seem to get a LOT of news reports these days...about how violent they are, etc....

      If it isn't a protest by a conservative group...well, the mainstream press doesn't seem to feel the need to take much interest in it...

      Then again..I don't see fox on it either....so, maybe both sides have a reason to ignore it....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh for fuck's sake. I saw coverage of this crap on CNN on the 18th. Two weeks ago.

      The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.

      And they don't even understand what they are complaining about; sure, the government bail out of the banks was a bit of a raw deal for the taxpayer (I bet the protesters don't have much to complain about there) and a bit of a terrific deal for the bank, but the thing no taxpayer wants to talk about is that their entire existence is made better by some sort of stability/existence of the dollar. The richer taxpayers really don't want to talk about all the fixed income funds of theirs that the bank bailout saved.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Not just Canada by Surt · · Score: 1

      Here's what made the front page of msnbc:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44656667#.ToIqis2OcRo

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:Not just Canada by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      And I am sure there is some police who are being little more harsher then they should be, but I expect the protesters are not as peaceful as this article has you believe. I remember a while ago a friend of a friend who we were having lunch with was stating that she was going to get a bullet proof vest before she went to go protest...
      Why because her goal was to egg on the authorities until an "Accident" happened so she can show everyone that she had the higher moral ground.

      Wall Street isn't really to blame it is more of a symbol of what they are blaming. Espectially as all the rich people who do pull some strings are filing electronically miles away. It is like protesting in front of a Data Center because you don't like the website they are hosting.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Not just Canada by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      This is exactly it. It's not in the news because there's not much news to it. It's no media/government conspiracy - it's just not interesting. People don't seem to understand that major media (even the dreaded "MSM") is in competition with each other - if there's a story to be told, it'll get coverage.

      Also, there are between "scores" and "a couple hundred" people there (it ebbs and flows), their goal seems to be only "occupation", and while their target is huge, it's not specific. If there were really thousands of people there, day in and day out, or if there were specific goals or activities going on, there'd be more coverage.

    10. Re:Not just Canada by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I noticed an article on BBC news ("neutral"), and several more in the Guardian (left wing). I didn't try and look for any more information (but I live in a different country).

      But, I've checked, and there is an article about this pepper spray incident in the Telegraph (right wing) and one about the protests in the Financial Times.

      There's been more coverage of the execution in Georgia, but that's over now.

    11. Re:Not just Canada by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      And they don't even understand what they are complaining about

      Well, why don't you come down here and live in the real world with the rest of us? You'd understand it immediately.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    12. Re:Not just Canada by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Are there any other kind of police?

      That was unfair, they are trained to do this and there supervisors surely approve.

    13. Re:Not just Canada by Mab_Mass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.

      Please don't be so sure. If you recall earlier this past year, there were massive protests in Wisconsin. As someone who personally took place in a lot of them, I know that our media is terrible. For example, during these protests, the rallies were larger than the biggest Tea Party rally ever, even though it was during a snowstorm in Wisconsin in February. That certainly strikes me as news, but when you turned on CNN, all you saw was a 10-second sound bite on Wisconsin, followed by a 3-minute long piece on the history of the Tea Party in US politics. (I don't have links handy.)

      Personally, I don't know enough of the ground truth of what is happening on Wall St. to comment, but I very highly suspect that anything that has been said on any major network news is woefully inaccurate at best.

    14. Re:Not just Canada by RingDev · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that excuse. The MSM makes news cycles about the most inane of things. Heck, we gave up 2 weeks of news cycles over a family's debate over Cindy Shehan's will and death. It turned a tiny local event that only effected 1 person into a national debate on every damn channel.

      This is a national debate, being acted out in a local protest, and there's not a wiff to be heard about it. A lot of folks are saying "they don't even know what they're protestings for" Which may be, or may not be. I don't know, I'm not there and this blog reference and a couple of people sharing stuff on face book is about the extent of coverage that I've seen.

      Maybe if we got some decent media coverage of the protest we would know what it is they are protesting. Maybe if more people knew about it, more people would attend. Maybe if the media industry put more value of significant social issues than over hyped rediculousness we wouldn't be having this discussion now ;)

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    15. Re:Not just Canada by thePuck77 · · Score: 1

      That's because except for the inconvenience it causes people, there's no story. Just a bunch of narcissistic idiots masturbating in public.

      And then there are the protestors!

      --
      "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
    16. Re:Not just Canada by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? I have yet to see a single news account about violence at a Tea Party rally or protest.

      I think you misread me. I meant that many news reports, on the left/liberal side or those giving speeches about the TP (Shelia Jackson Lee and the like) constantly berate the TP as having meetings that are violent, express and advocate violence as part of their platform....but no, there isn't any documentation to this fact in reality. Yet, you see violence show up at left/liberal protest...like this one.

      The thing is...many on the far left seem to speak of the Tea Party in terms of violent protests and violent change advocacy, but when asked to show evidence of it...you just plain don't see it. I've seen video of labor unions acting violent to TP's and other groups they disagree with however.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:Not just Canada by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I meant that many news reports, on the left/liberal side or those giving speeches about the TP (Shelia Jackson Lee and the like) constantly berate the TP as having meetings that are violent, express and advocate violence as part of their platform....but no, there isn't any documentation to this fact in reality.

      It's because everyone is more interested in slinging mud to their opposition than arguing their own points. It's one of the reasons why we're screwed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Not just Canada by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      Well, I have to decide whether it's

      A) a conspiracy of the MSM to prevent word getting out
      B) the MSM knows their audience better than your and the 50+ crowd who read mainstream newspapers and watch the evening news really don't care about a bunch of kids protesting

      I'm gonna go with B. The liberal old folks likely remember their days protesting the Vietnam War/Civil Rights and feel like this is amateur hour. The conservative old folks, well they hate any kind of protest.

      Nobody under 50 watches the evening news these days- there's a reason why every commercial is either Cialis or some other drug for seniors.

    19. Re:Not just Canada by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking you meant Terri Schiavo, not Cindy Sheehan who is still very much alive. Otherwise I agree with you.

    20. Re:Not just Canada by scot4875 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why because her goal was to egg on the authorities until an "Accident" happened so she can show everyone that she had the higher moral ground.

      If the authorities do something illegal, then it doesn't matter how much they were "egged on." They're supposed to be trained professionals.

      I don't get it with people like you. You're generally anti-government but pro-authority. Don't you see the disconnect there?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    21. Re:Not just Canada by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'd agree that it's just not very well organized. It doesn't matter how well intentioned your ideas are if no one knows about them. The tea party gets press coverage not because they're kooks but because they know better how to get organized, play to the media, drum up interest, etc. This particular Wall Street protest has the feeling of a flash mob or social event more than an organized protest. There's nothing to distinguish this group from the typical randomized protests that show up at every single WTO, G8, or political convention, these may even be the same people. So the media sees this as the same old story.

    22. Re:Not just Canada by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      Ok... spell it out for me. Tell me what they should say when a reporter sticks a camera in their face.

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    23. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      How about you explain what you mean instead of insinuating things.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1, Insightful

      complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich

      Is that what they are complaining about, or are they complaining about the fact that when those "rich people" risked losing a lot of money on bad bank investments, the government came in and bailed them out with tax-payer money? Are these young, and somewhat dumb protesters, really understanding the fact that government giving tax-payer money to cronies and golf-buddies has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with big-government cronyist socialism?

    25. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      One of your links about major network news coverage being bad is to a major network news site.

      It's like the opposite of an Ouroboros.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    26. Re:Not just Canada by tftp · · Score: 1

      If the authorities do something illegal, then it doesn't matter how much they were "egged on." They're supposed to be trained professionals.

      It's not too late for you to buy an airsoft handgun, paint the tip black and go visit Wall Street. Brandish the said toy near an LEO and observe their reaction. I'm pretty sure they will react right by the book. I hope you don't mind that.

      (I have to make it absolutely clear: this is NOT a suggestion that anyone should follow. It's a rhetorical device.)

    27. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yes, the fact that regulations were such that banks were able to make those bets and get bailed out was/is bad. Without the bailout, the actual functioning of the economy would be far worse than it is right now. That's the part I'm claiming they don't understand.

      So yeah, protest the bailouts, but it wasn't so simple that it was just cronies and golf buddies, every pension in the country would have vanished without those bailouts. And so freaking on.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    28. Re:Not just Canada by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, a quick search shows that CNN, FOX and MSNBC all have articles about the protests, so I don't think there is any kind of conspiratorial coverup.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    29. Re:Not just Canada by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      If the media started giving this event a lot more coverage, it would turn into over hyped ridiculousness. That is what they do. Once a story gets moved to the front, the fervor to get the scoop on the other media outlets causes it to blow out of proportion. Sadly the current media operations do not allow decent media coverage of meaningful events. It only reinforces the behavior of yelling louder than everyone else and judging people in absentia.

    30. Re:Not just Canada by xhrit · · Score: 1

      It is a protest against the economic disparity in the USA; a protest against the top 1% that controls 99% of the wealth on this country. All of the media outlets are owned by the 1% that the protest is against. Why would anyone give airtime to people protesting against them?

    31. Re:Not just Canada by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      One of your links about major network news coverage being bad is to a major network news site.

      And unfortunately, that's often the best information out there.

      Generally, I don't think that the news is wrong, its more an issue that it is incomplete in crucial details.

    32. Re:Not just Canada by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The reason it isn't getting much coverage in the major media is because it is a couple hundred dirty twenty-somethings (I'm barely not a dirty twenty-something, judgement not particularly intended) complaining that a bunch of rich people are rich.

      That's funny, because if it was 2009 and ten armed retired red necks were spitting on homeless vets outside the White House while complaining about non-existing socialism as a means to prevent health care reform it would have gotten 24 hour a day coverage from every news network and would have been presented as a well reasoned argument about the form of our government.

      Go figure.

    33. Re:Not just Canada by crhylove · · Score: 2

      Worst Slashdot Comment ever. The giant corporate mega banks have devastated nearly every global economy, families, individuals, and brought the world to it's knees.

      Obama's entire staff is ex Goldman Sachs. The fox is fully inside the hen house, we're all fucked, and a few people shouting about it in the streets and getting beaten by the corporations police force (the corporations own the state at this point), IS NEWS.

      These giant corporations and corporate mega banks need to be shut down, permanently.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    34. Re:Not just Canada by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      I wr0k in the area, and frankly, there are more cops on the street than protesters. Another ``problem'' protesters didn't foresee is the barricading of streets---leaving only a very narrow walkway for human traffic in the wall st area---you can't exactly protest AND have pedestrian traffic in that narrow walkway... and then they have folks arrested for blocking traffic---which may have been the NYPD intention all along.

      As for the protesters being violent... that's completely not true. I walked *through* the protesters a few times on my way in/out of exchange, and haven't felt any particular intimidation or anything. Seems like a buncha police folks itching to arrest someone (i saw that mace video, and it was horrifying that something like that is happening right outside).

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    35. Re:Not just Canada by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      When an obvious piece of biased crap like this can get +4 its obvious that Slashdot moderation is severely broken

    36. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it's all over the news.

      People can complain that the coverage is short, but it is there, and it doesn't take all that long to cover their rambling message.

      Believe it or not, I'm pretty okay with the idea of using dissolution to solve the problem of bad corporations.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    37. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      What bias is so obvious?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    38. Re:Not just Canada by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      It's like the opposite of an Ouroboros.

      Thank you for reminding me of the South Park episode where they eat with their butts, and shit from their mouths.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    39. Re:Not just Canada by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think these guys and gals are a bunch of 'dirty twenty-somethings'.

      http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/27/7995471-pilots-from-continental-and-united-airlines-demonstrate-on-wall-street

      Only about 800 pilots, to be sure. But I don't think the focus was that 'rich people are rich' - more like, 'our highly paid executives are mismanaging our company, and we are stuck with the results.'

      Regardless of whether you agree with the message, perhaps you will agree that the major media tends to ignore peaceful, organized and coherent messages in favor of 'bad boy' protestors & violence.

    40. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      I tend to think of MSNBC as major media. They clearly didn't ignore your example.

      And I would guess that those pilots are not particularly aligned with the other protestors (I could be wrong), they are likely taking advantage of the, yeah that's right, attention being paid to those protests.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    41. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      You're lying. Your friend, if she does exist, did no such thing. If she exists and did tell you that then she was lying.

      So what if you expect the protesters are not peaceful. In fact they are, and the cops attacked them without reason.

      Wall Street is full of the people who actually robbed us of our money and freedoms. I know; I worked supporting a hedge fund in Midtown through 2010.

      You are just another authoritarian who will lie based on your preconceptions, totally uninterested in fact especially when it contradicts your expectations.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    42. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      Or you could stand on the sidewalk in the afternoon talking to your friend and get maced for no reason. Like what actually happened, not what your bizarre violence fetish dreamed up.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    43. Re:Not just Canada by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone give airtime to people protesting against them?

      So they can use their existing influence to discredit the character of the protesters?

    44. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Tea "Party" gets press because it is indeed very well organized. FreedomWorks and other corporate funded professional groups, led by some of the most veteran Republican politicians, fundraisers and staff, are tightly plugged into corporate media led by Fox News. The Tea "Party" is entirely a creation of the corporate class in the corporate media, and has managed to attract a small number of actual private people from the most extreme parts of the Republican Party.

      The people occupying Wall Street are mostly just people. The closest to an organization behind them is AdBusters magazine, which has nearly no money, nearly no staff, nearly no political connections. Mostly the people occupying Wall Street are making it up as they go along, on their own money or spontaneous donations.

      But in fact that also makes them different from the usual demonstrators you mentioned. It really is different, and it really is much more real. Which is itself a story that many Americans would find interesting. Especially because finally these demonstrators are opposing crimes that actually directly hurt most Americans, not abstractions like the G8 or popular crimes like fraud-driven wars.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    45. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      When I look at the actual demonstrations I see that they're not complaining about the bailout itself as much as they're complaining there were no strings attached, or penalties for the people who caused the bailout to be necessary.

      It was just cronies and golf buddies, and every pension in the country would have vanished without these bailouts.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    46. Re:Not just Canada by stickyboot · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you have wonderful first hand experience, evidence and documentation to back your claims up, and that you are totally qualified to make these statements.

    47. Re:Not just Canada by tftp · · Score: 1

      As I understand, the use of Mace was pretty bizarre even for police officers who witnessed it.

      My point was that "egging" is not a safe activity. LEOs are not robots; mistakes can be made -- and will be made if the encounter lasts for several days. A single psycho can become a catalyst for a large battle. That psycho can come from either side.

    48. Re:Not just Canada by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Clever attempt to reword the GP, but it doesn't succeed. '"Accident"' is not the same as 'something illegal'.

      To "egg on" as protestors frequently do involves such things as obstructing traffic (which is illegal), abusive language, verbal threats (also illegal), and refusing to obey the orders of a policeman who is trying to solve the three problems just mentioned (also illegal).

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    49. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How were those women who got maced egging on the cops? The cops who maced them just walked up to them and sprayed them, while they were not resisting being netted in like livestock.

      The cop in question, Anthony Bologna, has a pending case from 2004 for abusing demonstrators at the Republican National Convention. Pending for 7 years, during which they have been running the NYPD division responsible for controlling public demonstrations.

      It's perfectly clear that his approach to demonstrators he dislikes is not only violent, but is embraced by NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    50. Re:Not just Canada by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      While you're at it, why don't you mention that unions bussed their rent-a-mobs into Wisconsin, in contrast to Tea Party rallies where most participants are there on their own volition.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    51. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Without the bailout, the actual functioning of the economy would be far worse than it is right now

      How would the economy be worse off? Why? Please explain to me why it takes government doing socialist things to save a presumably capitalist economy. That makes no sense. Would some people be worse off? Absolutely, but we'd be back to growth. Borrowing hugely (which is what we actually did) to cover the terrors that were caused by over-borrowing and over-spending seems like an anti-solution.

    52. Re:Not just Canada by tftp · · Score: 1

      As I said, there are psychos on all sides of the debate (specifically, on the police side.) Even his colleagues aren't defending him (as reported.)

      What matters far more is the larger picture. Imagine hundreds of people on one side and hundreds of people on another side. 1% of each side is unstable. 1% of one side is armed. What is likely to happen? Will there be riots after what is destined to happen? Most certainly. People will be killed and property will be destroyed.

      None of that is really necessary because the protestors don't have a positive agenda. They have no plan at all - they are "against" things, but rarely "for" something. It takes a drug-free mind and some talent to come up with a good idea.

      The worst part is that both sides are spoiling for the fight. Protestors believe (correctly) that the open conflict will attract attention to their cause, and the police has orders to disperse the crowd, with violence being the only weapon that they have (and that would work, actually.) They are like two competitors in a boxing ring, going in willingly and ready to fight. Peaceful citizens are just props and the arena on which the fight is occurring - and an innocent passerby can be hurt.

      With regard to the violence in general, imagine a bully that walks toward your house. You ask "stop please here" and he goes forward. You ask again and he crosses the threshold. You ask again and he is in your bedroom. At some point you will have to change your tactics because asking just doesn't work. If the opponent is not willing to listen, talking is a waste of time. I don't imply that this or that specific protestor is deaf to reason - every protestor is a person; but if some aren't interested in cooperation then bring out your water cannons and guns. Otherwise you will surrender the city to the lawless crowd (like in London) and *they* will be in control. We explicitly pay the police to not permit that to occur.

    53. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Right, because I'm the only person on the internet coming anywhere close to speculating about any of the things in my comment.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    54. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      There were strings attached, that's why the big banks ran screaming away from TARP (i.e., paid it back). The owners of AIG were pretty much wiped out (the government took ~80% ownership when it infused capital) and the owners of Lehman were 100% wiped out. So some of the people paid quite a bit.

      The quiet secondary bailout where they are borrowing at very low interest rates from the Federal reserve is a little hairier, but it takes a little more than accusation to make me think it is horrible.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    55. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, a for instance: AIG holds life insurance products and a lot of pension funds. Those policies probably wouldn't have been at risk during a bankruptcy, but I'm pretty sure many of the holders would have freaked out.

      And I'm not particularly sure we'd actually be back to growth (or if we were, the contraction would have been so large that it would be hard to argue the economy was doing better...).

      The reason the government had to do things was that it had already stepped into the supposedly capitalist economy, continued intervention was probably the best way to correct for the mistakes of the previous intervention (i.e., things like implicit guarantees for Freddie and Fannie and 'too big to fail' and the implied oversight of the financial sector (implied because obviously nobody was really watching) all contributed to creating the circumstances prior to the bailout).

      Certainly, if the government is going to act like it is regulating the financial sector, it had better start doing a better overall job. I actually don't think it would be so terrible if it just stepped away, as long as it did it in a way that people were convinced it was gone, which would make them start doing their own homework.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    56. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between cops and the general public. And here the difference is that the cops are violent, and the general public is not. This crowd is not lawless. The cops are. This violent, lawless cop is in charge of the cops. The people getting hurt are the people you are blaming, hurt by the cops, especially the leader of the cops. In the most basic, non-abstract, objectively true way.

      You are just making the worst kind of false equivalence. Nothing you say is about the facts of this event. You are not interested in the facts, just in attacking the people. You are a liar.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    57. Re:Not just Canada by sbillard · · Score: 1

      ...and don't forget the Bill O'Reilly coverage of that... complete with Wisconsin palm trees in the background.

    58. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There were no strings attached. The equity losses by shareholders in AIG and Lehman were strings attached by the market to their market actions. The bailout protected them all from further losses, and from lawsuits. The bailout that paid their debts protected the careers of the executives that made the decisions - and the huge money, including continuing bonuses. The same bankers have continued to damage the economy by continuing to sell the CDSes that ruined it, and continuing to speculate in commodities like oil, food (and precious metals, and anything else their retained money can buy).

      The continuing lower-than-inflation (and negative, in places like Japan's money markets) interest rates aren't just "a little hairier". They're more proof that even you can't excuse.

      There were no strings attached. Strings would have meant guaranteed amounts of new loans under stringent rules to targeted economic points, like hiring in strategic labor sectors. Such as the carmaker bailout, which should have been financed by the banks instead of also by the Treasury. The repayments of those loans would have given the banks more liquidity, more profits, and relieved the Federal budget of hundreds of $BILLIONS in debt the Republicans are using to shut down government operations every few months. Strings would have seen hundreds of bankers arrested and jailed, and swift trials jailing some for life by now. No strings.

      But you said these demonstrators just oppose the bailout itself, not the failure of justice and administration, though there's no evidence for that statement. Now you're not even arguing about the demonstrators finding a distinction between the bailout and the impunity. You're just making handwaving excuses that are defeated by the most glaring reality.

      What are you, a banker?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    59. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      How were those women who got maced egging on the cops? You won't even answer the most basic question, because you can't.

      The bully here is undeniably that cop, and the many others under his command who have been slamming harmless, peaceful assemblers into the ground.

      You are a liar.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    60. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to excuse anything. I simply accept the proposition that the bailouts were necessary to preserve any sort of status quo in the U.S.; I'm happy to agree that I'm not particularly well placed to make that judgement (I'll point out here that I haven't made any claims as to my opinions being mighty and irrefutable). I'm not even particularly sure that preserving the status quo was the best outcome for me (but my comments are made in the context of other people not even realizing that preserving the existing society and economy were actually on the minds of the people deciding to do it...). But all I did with that opinion was post it to a discussion forum...

      And I guess I sort of did imply a narrow reason for the protests, which you can hold me to, or you can accept that I simply view the crisis and bailouts as the seed that started the protests (and yes, I do have the opinion that the main body of the protestors are (at least more) naive (than I am) of the mechanics behind the things they are protesting).

      If you did work for them valuable enough to them that they paid you money, why are you waving a stick of righteousness in my face for posting some opinions?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    61. Re:Not just Canada by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I doubt it has "nothing" to do with capitalism. The people bailed out are certainly hailed as "capitalists". A lot of capitalism fans are in denial that their "team" is made of humans too. And that like most other humans they will bend the rules and outright cheat if it looks like it will benefit them. This is particularly true in the U.S. where cheating creatively is often viewed as good and right. The sad truth is that Ayn Rand's superhuman capitalists don't exist.

      The sooner everyone understand that capitalists and capitalism are neither all good nor all evil, the sooner the U.S. can start to actually fix itself.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    62. Re:Not just Canada by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      While you're at it, why don't you mention that unions bussed their rent-a-mobs into Wisconsin, in contrast to Tea Party rallies where most participants are there on their own volition.

      I would if it were true. The narrative that you just presented is exactly the kind of media distortion that is the problem. Yes, it is true that the unions organized buses to transport people from the general area to Madison for the protests, but the Tea Party people also showed up on buses.

      From my personal experiences in talking with people, I never talked to someone who was NOT from Wisconsin (although I'm sure there were people from out of state there), and everybody was there because of their own personal reasons. Quite frankly, the narrative of "rent-a-mob" has no basis in reality. Perhaps some of the people there came on paid vacation or some such thing, which gives enough of a grain of truth to allow the pundits to say, "The protesters were paid to be there," but the ground truth doesn't bear it out.

      Instead, as you walked around, you saw an extraordinarily peaceful protest, which included many families and children. Never was there any sense of danger or conflict, despite emotions often running high.

      Your impression is exactly the point that I'm trying to make - our media failed. For example, at one of the protests, the crowd was about 95% against Gov. Walker and his policies with about 5% showing up to voice support. In the media, though, it was reported as, "XXX people came out today in support and opposed to the bill."

      Those kinds of distortions were extremely common. My experiences of what I saw on the ground rarely matched the narrative that came out of the media. Let me ask you - other than being "protesting the stripping of collective bargaining right" do you have any idea why people were out there? Here's a hint - it is much more complicated than that single sound bite. It was much more about how a long-standing trend towards erosion of worker's rights has led to a shrinking middle class, which has led to a recession, which has led to budget issues, which led to the draconian measures put forth by the current administration, but even that summary is a fairly trite, simplistic overview.

      Try watching this video and hear other people express why they were there, and try to start questioning everything you hear in the news, especially the reports that confirm your own political biases.

    63. Re:Not just Canada by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

      ...her goal was to egg on the authorities until an "Accident" happened so she can show everyone that she had the higher moral ground.

      You know what we call it when someone "eggs you on" and you assault them? Assault.
      You know what we call it when someone "eggs you on" and you murder them? Murder.

      Newsflash! No amount of "egging on" makes it acceptable to break the law. And if the police are doing so, they should be held to the highest standards.

    64. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1

      A lot of capitalism fans are in denial that their "team" is made of humans too

      Sigh. What "team". There is no team. There are no capitalists. There is behavior. If you behave like a capitalist you are a capitalist. If you behave like a scientist you are scientific. If you behave like a cronyist, monopoly-loving corporatist you are in fact not a capitalist. Not any more than an astrologer or a psychologist is a scientist.

    65. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1

      sure many of the holders would have freaked out

      I am too. And they they would have stopped freaking out, or perhaps things would have gone really bad and they found that their freaking out was justified. So be it. The current economy needs a swift kick in the balls. It needs to fail badly. The current government actions are just prolonging the fall. More or less indefinitely. That is a bad idea since it increases the future burden. We need to take this on the chin now and then re-build as best we can afterwards. Sadly no politician is going to vote for that.

    66. Re:Not just Canada by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Legally Yes your are right... However if you Egg someone one too much the assault becomes self defense.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    67. Re:Not just Canada by tbannist · · Score: 1

      That's wonderful. Everyone's a capitalist until they are not. That's certainly a politically useful definition.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    68. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Were you born as dumb as this or is your brain damage given to you with a blunt instrument. Your link to useful idiot is also insanely misplaced. You clearly didn't even understand what a useful idiot is.

      But yes, everyone is something until they are not. A car is driving east until it turns around and is driving west. No matter how convinced it is of going east, if it is going west it is going west. Someone who supports cronyism and big government spending is not a capitalist, no matter what they or others think. By definition. Big government spending is the antithesis to capitalism, so supporting it is the opposite of supporting capitalism.

      And, if you were to find what was actually not utterly mal-apropos to this, it is not something that is convenient, it is. Per definition.

    69. Re:Not just Canada by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Look, your defending the bailouts as necessary is a strawman. I have defended them too. The lack of strings attached, the lack of criminal prosecutions or any other penalty or accountability for those responsible is what the demonstrators and I are angry about. Every post I repeat that, and you reply in every post with your strawman.

      I took money to clean up after they had done their major ripoff, starting in 2009, thinking they couldn't be doing those heists any more. By 2010 I got out of the industry because they were still selling CDSes and no one was stopping them - or making them pay for what they did. I got a better paying job in the energy efficiency industry, which is as good as the bank work was bad.

      So I am in a perfect position to wave a stick of righteousness in your face. Because your "opinions" are nonsense, and wrong. Because I have firsthand knowledge of the situation and my conscience is clear. Because you are a willfully ignorant fool who is defending with nonsense the worst crime of your lifetime, and instead attacking the people who are standing up to it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    70. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Show me exactly where I attack the protestors.

      The main thrust of my first comment in this thread was that they were getting media coverage pretty much since the start of the thing, which is exactly true.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    71. Re:Not just Canada by maxume · · Score: 1

      Oh, and also, I didn't defend the bailouts as necessary. I said that I accept that they were necessary to maintain the status quo in the country.

      That status quo goes a hell of a lot further than Wall St. They certainly are very visible beneficiaries of it though.

      I even already said that I wasn't sure that maintaining the status quo was a good thing for me, if you think I am backpedaling here.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    72. Re:Not just Canada by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Were you born as dumb as this or is your brain damage given to you with a blunt instrument.

      That lines alone shows you have nothing but bluster and arrogance supporting you.

      Your link to useful idiot is also insanely misplaced. You clearly didn't even understand what a useful idiot is.

      I'm afraid it is you who do not understand. You sir, are being used. A definition of convenience is only useful for jiggery-pokery.

      Someone who supports cronyism and big government spending is not a capitalist, no matter what they or others think. By definition.

      Whose definition?

      There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.

      I checked three different dictionaries and got essentially the exact same definition:

      capitalist
      noun \-ist\
      1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
      2 : a person who favors capitalism

      Notice it does not say that a capitalist must be opposed to government. You might be convinced that capitalism itself is opposed to government, so let's look at that too, shall we?

      capitalism
      noun
      \ka-p-t-liz-m, kap-t-, British also k-pi-t-\
      Definition of CAPITALISM
      : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

      What's this? I can't seem to find your definition that government is antithetical to capitalism. It doesn't appear to be in the definition. Maybe you meant "by inference", "by deduction" or "by custom"? Wow, it's a good thing you didn't call the person you were disagreeing with brain damaged or you'd really have egg all over your face.

      The point you seem incapable of understanding is that using your definition there are no real capitalists, there is only an ever changing list of people who have not disappointed you so far, and when they do disappoint they are replaced with an identical person who primarily qualification is that they have not yet disappointed. You will forever be hoping that this time they aren't really human.

      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein.

      That's why the entire developed world is run by liberal democratic governments with state-regulated capitalism, because it's the best system for the most people that we have discovered so far. Libertarian-capitalist governments have been tried a few times and they rarely last more than a year before they collapse due to internal or external pressures.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    73. Re:Not just Canada by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Someone who supports cronyism and big government spending is not a capitalist, no matter what they or others think. By definition

      Whose definition?

      Most things are difficult to define, but it is usually relatively straightforward to define what things are not. So, it is not capitalism when the government controls a significant (or all) means of production. That is easy to agree on. It is not socialism when most or all means of production are controlled by non-private interests. It is often therefore a lot easier to say when something is not capitalism or not socialism than it is to say when they are.

      The current actions of government and "the market" can roughly be characterized by two major trends. One is the government meddling in the market, partly by increasing the size of the government and partly by directing and controlling it through, for example, by poring tax-payer money into various corporations. Another strong tendency in the current market is the formation of large and mega-large corporations.

      Both of the two trends above are antithetical to the basic tenets of capitalism. Marx, for example, separates sharply capitalism and corporatism, and claims that capitalism will tend to evolve towards (something else, namely) corporatism.

      So, are bankers who subsist on government subsidies capitalists? Clearly not. It is difficult to say what the are, but it is easy to see what they are not.

      government is antithetical to capitalism

      Government? I have said no such thing. Big government? Sure. Big government is defined in the amount that they spend, in other words, in what degree the means are controlled and used by the government. A capitalist will work to make the governments part of the market smaller, an non-capitalist will either not care or he will work towards making the governments part of the overall market bigger. Bush, as an example, was well on his way to double the size of the federal governments part of the market. That is non-capitalist behavior. In other words, Mr. Bush was not a supporter of capitalism. If he had been, he'd have worked on reducing the size of the government participation. He did not. Not even a little.

      using your definition there are no real capitalists

      There are on "real" anythings. There are people who pull towards this or that though. Bush pulled towards corporatism and cronyism, and he also pulled away from capitalism. Bush was therefore an anti-capitalist president. Just as an example. Obama is more of the same.

      Libertarian-capitalist governments have been tried a few times and they rarely last more than a year before they collapse due to internal or external pressures

      I'd love to see an example.

    74. Re:Not just Canada by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Okay, well if I google wall street protests, the first page has Salon, Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NY Times. Is that enough? I'm reading below of people talking of a "blackout", as if there's a media conspiracy, but I've seen this on TV news, and even Bill Maher.

      Let's do some homework before we spread falsehoods.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  7. Any reliable coverage? by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is there any reliable coverage outside of these first person blogs?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Any reliable coverage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Local ABC 7 and NBC New York covered them only in passing. The tones of the two were worlds apart - ABC 7 was an absolute hatchet job, not bothering to interview any of the protesters, then resorted to name-calling (whiny, privileged, etc.). NBC actually got as far into the nitty-gritty as a two minute clip would allow.

    2. Re:Any reliable coverage? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most neutral I have seen is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=share And it is an opinion piece.

    3. Re:Any reliable coverage? by Surt · · Score: 1
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Any reliable coverage? by angrytuna · · Score: 2

      There's a Times article available today on the subject.

      --

      It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

    5. Re:Any reliable coverage? by E.I.A · · Score: 1

      I think cryptome has some great photos, and probably a few other links too. http://cryptome.org/ If you look on the front page, there are multiple "Occupy Wall Street: links.

      --
      Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
    6. Re:Any reliable coverage? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The video footage is pretty clear if you watch it in slow motion. A guy with a professional grade camera, i.e. a professional journalist, is thrown against a car while not resisting. An officer leans far over a barrier and drags a women, again not being violent or committing any visible crime, along the floor. Finally there is a video of some women standing back from a police fence and acting calmly and normally, while a police commander calmly walks up behind them and sprays mace into their faces, then calmly walks away as the other officers look shocked.

      Go see for yourself.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Any reliable coverage? by Marcika · · Score: 1

      That's not a Times article, that's a NYT article. (Be glad that it is, the Times is paywalled off these days.)

    8. Re:Any reliable coverage? by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, THAT was the most neutral example you could find?
      I'm not too savvy with US news, as I'm from Australia, but is that normal?

    9. Re:Any reliable coverage? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Nope. It is very biased. Just less biased than most. Scary...

    10. Re:Any reliable coverage? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Please understand that I'm a liberal and I'll be the first to believe that police often use unnecessary force and get a power trip from it. But there are also news pundits like this one who like slinging mud and getting off on it. Let's leave the mud where it lies and not pick it up to throw it again.

      I am conservative and agree with you. This supports my theory that "liberals" and "conservatives" have much more in common with each other than anyone in the media or in Washington. But as long as we keep demonizing each other, they keep their jobs. And that is why "unbiased reporting" never happens. So, you have to just find two opposing biases of the same news and see if you can filter the truth out of that.

  8. scum by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

    Just trying to provoke a similarly violent reaction from the protesters to make their job a lot easier and remove the tension. They're trained to think protests always go awry, and when it doesn't happen in a timely fashion, they create it.

  9. Expected Police Violence by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Police violence against civilians is becoming an increasingly expected occurrence. Will the officers involved in these incidents be punished in a way that discourages future abuse? Can the public reasonably expect to see that punishment? Can the public trust police officers? I've been to protests where I've seen officers calm down the situation, and situations where officers escalated or created a dangerous situation (at the same protest!). Couple incidents like these with recent stories involving misuse of tasers and general police brutality, and the issue is the police are moving from our trusted protectors to our abusive jailors in the public eye. That is horribly dangerous for everyone, including the police.

    1. Re:Expected Police Violence by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=share shows both good a bad officers as well. And yes, it is worse for the vast majority of good cops out there because of a few idiots with guns and badges.

    2. Re:Expected Police Violence by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If those "good" officers are in a position of authority over those other officers they are just as responsible for letting it happen. They don't make it to "good" unless they are at least filing complaints to there internal affairs as much of a joke that is. We need to get rid of the shield laws for officers if a DA wants to change them and a grand jury goes for it not this review board BS. We also need a way for person to get this up to a grand jury.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Expected Police Violence by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      They don't even get punished when they kill somebody without a very good reason, so what do you expect?

    4. Re:Expected Police Violence by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If they were any good, they would be making sure the "bad" officers were incarcerated.

      Instead they lie and protect them. This can only lead to the conclusion there are no good cops.

    5. Re:Expected Police Violence by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Will the officers involved in these incidents be punished in a way that discourages future abuse?

      I have heard through the rumor mill that the police have also been filming the events. I think whether there is any punishment handed out may have something to do with what the other videos show. I think it is funny how everyone complains about police brutality to a bunch of malodorous hippies, but every person taken down on "Cops" gets a knee to the neck.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:Expected Police Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like the assaults by anonymous officers in Toronto at the G20. Problem is that with this escalating violence on the part of the authorities for the non-violent protesters the message increasingly is if you want to protest you better come armed and in strength. I hate to see it in my lifetime but I am afraid that the West is due for its own version of another revolution. The political class is certainly as out of touch with what is going on as the tsar...

    7. Re:Expected Police Violence by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Cops have always been like this. It's just that now we have the fuckers on video.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Expected Police Violence by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Cops who allow these bad cops to be bad cops are not "good cops".

  10. Re:doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I can tell they chose peaceful and leftist. Their organization is terrible.

  11. Hmmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Given the absence, thus far, of 'heroic cop wounded in line of duty while saving city from anarchist scum' stories, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that the protesters represent no meaningful threat to the cops who've been containing them. And, since riot cops never commit, much less revel in, the sort of activity that makes people call 'cops' 'pigs', I can only assume that the heavily equipped and rather illiberal police forces of New York have been defending one of the major local industries from outsiders with considerable zeal...

  12. Re:I'm confused by sgbett · · Score: 1

    Because they can. Human nature is such that there are percentage - one hopes a minority - who abuse the power granted to them by a uniform.

    The unfortunate truth is that their localised abuse of power also has a much wider reaching effect of undermining the god work that the remainder of the force does.

    You could scrap the police, but the same problem would just manifest itself differently. That is a small group of humans would break the social contract as they feel it does not serve their best interests to adhere to it.

    --
    Invaders must die
  13. Re:I'm confused by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

    Look at the videos. The Police crossed the line, and not by a little. But not all. In any group of 100 people, there will be some jerks. The problem is the protecting of jerks with badges and guns.

  14. Re:I'm confused by cfulton · · Score: 1

    Are you trying to be funny? Or do you really believe that "those kinds of tactics were done away with". Maybe you are both confused and obtuse.

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
  15. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent report by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Informative
  16. Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know, of all the videos I've seen, I've noticed one thing. They start either right after or only a second or two before the police undertake some form of action (arrest, detainment, macing, tasing, etc). Why don't these videos ever show us what is happening in the few minutes prior? If you are lucky, the longest you ever get to see is about 20-30 seconds. If the protestors really are acting peacefully, then why aren't the showing the parts of the video showing them being peaceful before the police's "brutal, unprovoked aggression"? I assume that, in events like this, the protestors always have cameras rolling in case of police action, so you can't say that there is no video of this. I'm sure most protestors there really are acting peacefully, but in the thousands that are there, you can't say there aren't any intentionally trying to provoke a police response.

    And I know I'll probably take a karma hit for this, but I'm still not posting AC, because I am trying to point out what I see as a major hypocrisy in the US protest culture these days: entrapment on the part of police is always decried as immoral, wrong, or illegal, but it is perfectly fine for protestors to entrap police.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Videos I've seen by Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      I got that impression as well. In at least one video you can see the arms of a protester swinging at a cop before they pan over to show the officer grabbing and subduing them. Just because you yell "this is a peaceful protest" does not make it one.

      I'm not saying that there's not overly aggressive cops involved, just that the story is being skewed in both directions.

      --
      I only need the Preview button when I haven't used the Preview button.
    2. Re:Videos I've seen by DogDude · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      To be honest it is most likely because there wasn't much worth recording up to that point. That may not be the case, but it seems likely.

      But like I said, they have to have cameras already rolling so as to not miss recording any police response, right? In that case why not show the protestors being peaceful before they are being attacked? I'd say it's very much worth recording, because it would sway a lot of people to their cause that would normally be doubtful in regards to their claims of being peaceful.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Videos I've seen by MoriT · · Score: 2

      They are live streaming too, if you want all the context you can handle. Most videos get trimmed because people get bored: I know that if I start watching something and nothing happens for 20 seconds I'm likely to swap to the cute cat video linked in the right bar...

    5. Re:Videos I've seen by ryocoon · · Score: 1

      In a number of cases there have been some live-streams posted where people are streaming the events as they happen. A lot of the information was gathered from those initially and then supported by other on-site reportings (smart-phone video, camcorder, photography, testimony, etc). A large number of the live-streams have stopped due to lack of resources (power, bandwidth, etc), or due to the devices being confiscated or the holders of the devices being locked up. It also has become pretty apparent that if anybody even seems like they are leading, or are trying to record and report things, they often get targeted for arrest, even if peaceful. There have been actual reporters (from PBS, NPR, yes yes... liberal media what?) that have gotten dragged in and incarcerated. The brutality is generally single sided, but I would admit that the repeated slogans are likely grating on their nerves. Some of the officers have refused to participate. I've been following this and I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard so much as a 10 second blurb on CNN or even the WSJ.

    6. Re:Videos I've seen by haruchai · · Score: 2

      If you watch the clip of Lawrence O'Donnell's commentary, as posted by itsybitsy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UHsLccXQUY, he promises to post the complete, unedited video of the protest on his MSNBC blog. Have a look to see if there's any intentional misleading of the protestors actions.

      And I think you're completely off the mark about perceived hypocrisy - if it's anyone getting away with entrapment, it's the cops.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:Videos I've seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Straight from the "movement's" website: https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/

      Although, I'm certain there are many more videos available.

    8. Re:Videos I've seen by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      While I can't disagree with you. There are faults on both accounts. The biggest flaw in determining information related to this, is the absolute lack of media coverage, however that lack of media coverage does make me favor the protestors a bit more then the police. In all forms of media (both done by the news and by civilians, people tend to cut to only the 5 seconds that they are trying to point out before they tell you what you are supposed to think. The main thing I think however is the media's typical response, more often then not the media favors police. Just watch any of the standard cop shows these days. The heroic police spend the first half of the show tricking manipulating, stepping around the laws that get in the way of their investigation, and then of course the handful of times when the person the police brought in and accused get's out, it's an evil person who got out on technicalities. It seems to be a very rare thing for the detectives on those shows, to bring someone in, and then realize it was a mistake.

    9. Re:Videos I've seen by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/09480916110/can-nypd-back-up-its-claim-confrontation-that-required-pepper-spray-despite-more-video-evidence.shtml

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:Videos I've seen by SmoothriderSean · · Score: 2

      FWIW, some of the linked articles point to videos of the mace incident that include a good minute or two beforehand.

      There's no doubt in my mind that it sucks to be one of these cops, and that there are protesters out there looking for the police brutality money shot. Hell, the cops are the kind of people who'll be having their pensions cut to maintain tax cuts for Wall Street, the protesters should befriend them.

      But at the end of the day which side here is herding people around to try to end a public demonstration? Is it worse to be shouted at or maced? Do you (rhetorical "you", not Nidi62 in particular) apply the same degree of skepticism to mainstream news reports? Should we be so quick to imagine or assume a wrong by someone less powerful that would excuse the wrong we can see being done by someone more powerful?

    11. Re:Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to be universal that the police force attracts pricks who act out violently. It is only going to get worse when all the rapist, torturer, child murderer soldiers we have in Iraq and Afghanistan come back home and become cops (A CV that lists prior job skills as "killing people" doesn't apply to much other than being a cop).

      I know you're trolling, but this is ridiculous. I know many police officers and veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan. None of them have raped or tortured anyone. None of the police I know have killed anyone, and most of the soldiers I know never even fired a shot while in Iraq/A-stan. These "rapists/murderers" are the reason you are still allowed to say things like that about them. Without them you would probably have died or been imprisoned long ago. And notice how, above, I made sure I was logged in when I posted my controversial opinion. You didn't even have the balls to log in for your trolling. These people risk their lives so you can spew this crap, to protect you and your rights that you don't even deserve to have.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:Videos I've seen by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Supposedly there is ongoing legal action on account of the the same cop, who is accused of abusive behavior during a 2004 protest:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna?newsfeed=true

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:Videos I've seen by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Try this vid:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig

      (haha it has "pig" in the URL)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:Videos I've seen by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Errrm.... maybe because no matter how vile you think police are, in general (whether you want to believe it or not), rational humans who don't engage someone without provocation.

    15. Re:Videos I've seen by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Although I agree that the GP was out of line, I must take exception with your statement:

      These people risk their lives so you can spew this crap, to protect you and your rights that you don't even deserve to have.

      Perhaps you don't realize this, but the rights mentioned by you are accorded to everyone simply because they are human - deserving them or not does not come into the picture. The idea that some people deserve rights, while others don't, is often a key ingredient to (apparent) overreactions like this article is about. You might want to rethink these words, as they seem to have been typed in anger, rather than in reflection.

      --
      That is all.
    16. Re:Videos I've seen by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Life experience of many disagrees with you. Heck, news reports do as well. Look at that man the police in CA beat to death while handcuffed.

    17. Re:Videos I've seen by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Nope. For example, I fully support the death penalty. Not because I think it deters people from committing murder(I see the death penalty as a punishment, not a deterrent), but rather because someone, by their own willing, intentional action, has taken the life of another person. It goes back to social contract theory: only the government has the right to take or sanction the taking of a life(war, legal executions, etc)(except in VERY limited circumstances, ex: self-defense, defense of others in direct mortal danger). Through action such as this, I firmly believe you have given up your own right to life.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re:Videos I've seen by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      It was the G7 protests in the spring of 09, and I saw it from my office across from the Bank of England.

      Having seen it, I can understand your scepticism. IMO most of the day was peaceful, with people doing interpretive dance and singing folk music, but there were definitely people there who weren't just peaceful protesters. People started throwing stuff at the cops, and they provided an appropriate response. There were people essentially taunting the cops by knocking down the portable barricades. Why did they have to do that? That's got nothing to do with protesting. To be fair though, most of the people weren't there to cause damage or provoke the police. I think the few that were were quite a lot louder than the masses though.

      I noted a HUGE proportion of journalists. Ever wonder how those dramatic pictures of lines of cops appear after each protest? The answer, it seems, is that half the people in the front line of protesters are holding cameras! What the media showed was a complete distortion of reality. On TV, you'd see a clip of protesters running towards the line of cops, stopping, and being pushed back by the cops. They've clearly cherry-picked, because what I saw was waves of cameramen running up to get a closeup. And then retreating to get the intense shot of a charging cop.

      But to get back to your point about the police, the ones in London did a great job. They allowed the legitimate protesters to protest, and then made sure the rump of troublemakers weren't allowed to go on a rampage as everyone else went home. There was a greatly exaggerated story about a man who died that day, which from looking at it IMO was an unfortunate coincidence. But the fact is the police have to be careful of accusations of brutality, as they are after all the representatives of state force.

    19. Re:Videos I've seen by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.

      Of note is that one of them actually says - caught by camera - "I can't believe he just fucking maced her".

      And the blue shirts were there for a while, unlike the white shirt guy who just walks onto the scene with mace in hand and starts spraying. So they have seen how the protesters behaved.

    20. Re:Videos I've seen by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      I've seen individual officers act out on demonstrations here in the UK. The one incident that always sticks in my mind is when, on an anti-Iraq war protest about 7 years ago, I saw a copper lunge into a crowd to grab a young teenage girl who was in tears and was swearing at him. As far as I could make out, she was upset that a friend of hers had been arrested. She was surrounded by several other individuals who were taking her away from the police and she actually had her back to him as she called him a "fucking bastard". The copper lost his cool and dived into the crowd to grab her; the other coppers on the line with him went in after to subdue everyone.

      Unfortunately when one copper goes too far, instinct seems to kick in and the rest of them pile in to save their colleague. I guess their attitude must be "calm this down now, sort the mess out later".

      The police really need to be open and honest about when they screw up public order policing and the need to keep the dicks away from demonstrations.

      --
      Nick
    21. Re:Videos I've seen by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Because its boring as hell, and nobody would watch through to the gripping part.

      Try it on youtube yourself. Watch something boring for a good two minues, with all those interesting looking "related" links off to the right just begging to be clicked on. If you are under age 45 (MTV generation or younger), I give you 10 seconds before you start to get jittery, and 20 (30 tops) before you can't take it anymore and click a link.

      I actually have seen protest videos with extra chuff on the front, and went through that exact process. The ironic thing was that there were sometimes still folks insisting the attackers were provoked prior to filming in the comments. If you just don't want to believe someone could be attacked unfairly, no amount of prior context will convince you.

    22. Re:Videos I've seen by itchythebear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed that too. I did notice at least one cop in the videos who was holding a camcorder and recording the protestors. It would be interesting to see the footage from that perspective as well.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
    23. Re:Videos I've seen by thePuck77 · · Score: 1

      Just a quick question...when, exactly, has people's ability to comment on the habits of soldiers been something that was at risk? In 34 years, I have seen our military going and attacking people who have nothing to do with us. They have never come near us and I have never felt in danger from any other nation. There have been many "threats" we have been told about, but none that I have seen. Since I know, from history and what has happened in other countries, that governments lie to their people about "threats" to justify their behavior all the time, why, exactly, should I have faith that our government is telling us the truth?

      In addition to that, with every lie this country's government has been caught in, with every manipulation of the media, with every broken promise and bought politician and just plain bald-faced corruption across the board and both sides of the aisle, why should I have faith that our government is telling us the truth?

      How do you know we are really the good guys? Everyone, from the sackers of Rome to the loyal comrades of the USSR were told they were the good guys by their leaders. The Nazis though they were the good guys. EVERYONE thinks their own side is the good guys.

      Every soldier says they aren't murderers, because of course the murder of someone on the other side isn't murder, right? It's heroics so long as you murder for the right people. It's not torture...it's interrogation. It's not rape, it's psychological undermining.

      But I'm sure that doesn't apply to YOUR friends. They're the heroes. They're the good ones. It's always the other guys, the bad apples, just acting on their own, with no orders or supervision at all. Because that's how the military is...it's just free time, and you run around just doing what you want with no commanding officers, or cameras, or anything to keep those bad apples in line. Of course. There's no reason for you to look at them twice in suspicion...or for us to look at you that way for the company you keep.

      Of course.

      Or you know...it might make more sense that people who like violence, control over others, and the prospect of killing people seek out positions in life which give them the opportunity to do those things with impunity. But I'm sure your way of viewing the world, the one that trusts governments to tell you the truth and soldiers to not be violent killers, is the right one. After all, it makes so much sense.

      --
      "We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
    24. Re:Videos I've seen by freaq · · Score: 1

      Why? Becasue what's going on for hours and hours beforehand is really dull, and forcing thousands of people to watch that would be a really dick thing to do. If you dig, you'll find that longer clips are available, but they don't actually add anything to the discussion other than "nothing happened to provoke the police".

      If you're going to take a karma hit, it's because you're posting nonsense, and putting quotes around the police's brutal, unprovoked aggression doesn't make it something else or justify it. It does, however, make you look like an apologist, or secretly a member of the NYPD.

      As for intending to provoke a police response, that's wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin, other than to say you sound really paranoid. You could just as easily say, "in the thousands that are there, you can't say there aren't any police agent provocateurs."

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
    25. Re:Videos I've seen by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see that as Salvor Hardin said "An atom blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways." and the surveillance state has a hard time avoiding cameras when they're so little and so easy to carry.

      Not that they don't try though

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    26. Re:Videos I've seen by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Bravo, well said. You summed up my thoughts exactly.

    27. Re:Videos I've seen by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Watching the video you linked led me to this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwfExUyJLNw , the killing of Oscar Grant who was face down and being restrained when shot in the back. The cop's defence? "I thought he was reaching for a gun and drew what I thought was my Taser". Great, just what we need on the streets, trigger-happy officers who can't tell a pistol from a stungun. From watching the video, that doesn't seem to be the case.

      And, although it's been less than 3 years since Grant's "involuntary manslaughter", Officer Johannes Mehserle has already been released from prison.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    28. Re:Videos I've seen by esocid · · Score: 1

      I know he's trolling, but there's a reason he's painting everyone that way, albeit unjustifiably. It does happen, and it's disgusting when it does. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  17. Re:I'm confused by sgbett · · Score: 1

    god work!? my, there's a slip and a half!

    --
    Invaders must die
  18. Protest - permit required by milbournosphere · · Score: 2

    Forgive my (lack of) understanding of this, as it's been a while since I took my civics courses. Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble? Just like 'free speech zones', it seems that these measures tale away from our right to assemble peacefully to protest one thing or another, not just under the American constitution, but under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights as well.

    1. Re:Protest - permit required by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Under current case law the permit system is largely allowed, though it may violate the Constitution depending on how it's applied. The government may place "reasonable" "time, place and manner" restrictions on protests in order to maintain public order and safety, but is not supposed to prohibit protests entirely, or treat them differently based on the content of the protest (this is easiest to show if they treat protestors for and against some position differently).

      I don't, for the record, think that interpretation of the Constitution is correct. Were it up to me, I would treat public protest similarly to publication: the government may prosecute actually illegal activity (libel for publication, or violence in the case of protests) if it ever takes place, but there should be an extremely high bar for prior restraint through anything like a permitting or imprimatur system before the speech even takes place.

    2. Re:Protest - permit required by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble?

      That's a bit murky. Since the right is to "peaceably to assemble" rather than just assemble, and since the municipal government is charged with maintaining peace and civil order, it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest. In other non-news, fire department puts maximum occupancy requirements on all enclosed public places. Getting into enclosed public places is also a form of assembly. What they can't do is deny the permit because they don't like the topic of the protest. They can only deny for compelling reasons. Not that they never abuse this requirement (like moving protests to another city borough during the Republican convention in NYC).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:Protest - permit required by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But what about when protestors decide to walk down a major road in a city, putting themselves in danger from getting hit by cars or creating financial damage by prevented people from accessing business on that street(businesses that they may not even be protesting against). This is the point of permits for protests; it is not a censorship issue, it is a public safety issue.

      Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store. Now, while the government may(or may not) have done something wrong, obviously I have not. There is no way you could justify (morally, ethically, or legally) denying me my right to make a living and feed my family to protest something with which I have had no part in. This is why many cities have permits or designated areas for protests to be legally carried out.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Protest - permit required by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I'd be okay with requiring the protestors to clear a path and not obstruct traffic, if they do in fact obstruct traffic, and arresting people if they refuse to do so. It's ahead of time saying that they aren't allowed to protest here without the government's permission that bugs me more, and seems hard to square with a free state. If me and 10 of my friends get together to protest in an orderly fashion and don't in fact block the sidewalk or road, then the cops shouldn't be able to arrest me based solely on some technicality like lacking a permit.

    5. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      it is not a censorship issue

      I disagree. I'd say that the ones who break the law should be punished. Even if it means that the government can keep better track of protesters, I do not support the permits. I'd rather have some protesters commit illegal acts than make all protesters suffer by requiring permits and putting such powers into the hands of the government.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Protest - permit required by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Under current case law the permit system is largely allowed

      Current case law is inconsistent with the Constitution.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Protest - permit required by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      treat them differently based on the content of the protest (this is easiest to show if they treat protestors for and against some position differently).

      This is why I've thought that an interesting exercise would be to put on a suit and tie and stand around Wall St holding signs like "Lower the Capital Gains Tax" and "Immunity for Bankers", just to see how the police would react to that.

      First off, unlike the Occupy Wall St folks, there's a good chance I could get to Wall St without being stopped or cordoned off. Second, I doubt I'd be cornered and sprayed with pepper spray.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Protest - permit required by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But what about when protestors decide to walk down a major road in a city, putting themselves in danger from getting hit by cars or creating financial damage by prevented people from accessing business on that street(businesses that they may not even be protesting against). This is the point of permits for protests;

      No, that is the point of protests! If you can hold a protest, and not disrupt anything, what pressure do the authorities feel? None whatsoever.

      An effective protest must be disruptive, or there's no incentive for anyone to change anything. Any steps the government takes to limit the disruption caused by protests, are in actuality disenfranchising you of one of your most basic rights.

      Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store.

      Well, you're going to put a hell of a lot of pressure on your representatives to capitulate and get those protesters off your sidewalk, right? This is how protests work.

      There is no way you could justify (morally, ethically, or legally) denying me my right to make a living and feed my family to protest something with which I have had no part in.

      What about the millions of people out of work who cannot feed their familys or make a living, only because of government policies. How do you justify denying them their right to protest? It could just as easily be your family, as anyone else. Wouldn't you want the right to protest in that situation?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest.

      Where does the amendment mention that? If they want to maintain peace and civil order, then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think. I don't think harming honest protests because they want better control over all protests is worth it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Protest - permit required by superwiz · · Score: 1

      then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think.

      Wall street is fairly tight (physically). If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out. This is no different from fire department establishing maximum occupancy in buildings.

      Where does the amendment mention that?

      It mentions that by stating the it is a right to peaceably assemble rather than simply to assemble. City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.

      I don't think harming honest protests

      I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    11. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out.

      That's simply too bad. I don't think they should attack peaceful protesters because of that. As for your analogy, I disagree with that practice as well. "Recommended occupancy," maybe. But not enforced.

      City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.

      I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."

      I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.

      That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Protest - permit required by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      Once there are ten thousand people in one location it's damn hard for the cops to do anything without being horribly brutal. Moreover if you stuff ten thousand people in one location with no control it's damn easy for the thing to go horribly wrong (see London recently) before the cops even get there. Humans in groups do not behave like rational individuals, they behave like herd animals. Just look at every store in the US on Black Friday.

      And that's without anyone, on whichever side (which includes third parties looking for LOLs), deciding to spread some misinformation to spark things off.

      So yeah, getting permission beforehand and requiring proper safety measures by organizers is the only sane way to keep things under control. Welcome to real life where things aren't black and white, zealots who think they are generally cause more deaths than anyone else.

      And you definitely do not want mass violence happening because that's how you get people to happily and willingly vote for a police state.

    13. Re:Protest - permit required by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."

      Three points.

      First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.

      Second, since the possibility of different interpretations has been broached, the correct interpretation becomes a matter of judicial opinion (that's just how the system is meant to work -- if the language needs to be interpreted it is SCOTUS' job to do the interpreting).

      Third, the 10th amendment allows the power of the government to grow as the size of the constituency shrinks (with the most power and smallest constituency being with an individual). The ONLY exception to this arises from the 14th amendment which has been interpreted to (among other things) dictate that individual states must abide by the Bill of Rights. It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities. As those are smaller constituencies, they can exercise more excessive powers. They can, for example, declare that every house must be painted white. They can establish all kinds of zoning laws. All of this has been litigated and declared constitutionally sound because of the very principle that the power grows as the size of the constituency shrinks.

      That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.

      Ok, that was unclear. I thought you were referring to the actual physical harm caused to the attendees of the already in-progress protests.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    14. Re:Protest - permit required by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      From the videos I've seen, if you had a suit on, you would probably be let through no questions asked. And if you stood there with your sign, maybe told some people what you were protesting, and not yell at the cops, You would most likely be left alone.

    15. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.

      I didn't ignore it. I just don't understand how it opens it up to that. It doesn't explicitly mention anything like that. It could just mean that the government can't enact any laws to prevent peaceful protests. But this permit law is affecting both peaceful and non-peaceful protests. That's what I thought, anyway.

      It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities.

      I see. So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then? That seems rather disadvantageous for the people, in my opinion (as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly).

      In any case, I definitely do not agree with any such laws (even though that won't by itself make the laws vanish).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:Protest - permit required by superwiz · · Score: 1

      So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then?

      A stronger statement is true. It has been interpreted not to limit the zoning and policing powers of municipalities. It goes so far as to allow (this has been litigated and declared constitutional) counties to make it illegal to open a business to general public on Sundays.

      as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly

      Well, yes and no. If my community wants to be a sleeping town for commuters, they may disallow loud noises past 10pm. But if another town wants to host a red lights district, it probably wouldn't have such a requirements. These are municipal ordinances which certainly would be outside of what a state or the Federal government can allow or disallow. Of course, making such noises would be a form of free expression.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    17. Re:Protest - permit required by tftp · · Score: 2

      Say I own a small electronic repair store along a major street that also runs past the state capitol. People want to demonstrate against the state government, so thousands of people march down the street, clogging traffic and keeping people from entering my store.

      Well, you're going to put a hell of a lot of pressure on your representatives to capitulate and get those protesters off your sidewalk, right? This is how protests work.

      "That's a nice electronic business you got here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."

      Attacking uninvolved, peaceful civilians to further political aims is called terrorism. Attacking people or property to elicit financial gain is called racketeering. Do you seriously advocate use of these tactics?

    18. Re:Protest - permit required by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about attacking? Exercising our constitutional rights is in no way an attack.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      These are municipal ordinances which certainly would be outside of what a state or the Federal government can allow or disallow.

      In that case, the government need only overlook it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    20. Re:Protest - permit required by tftp · · Score: 2

      Who said anything about attacking?

      One of earlier posters:

      "keeping people from entering my store" is a serious interference with business. This particular anarchy is 10 days old. With low margins of commodity services that electronic repair guy could be bankrupt by now.

      If you don't think this is a real attack, let me surround your house with hostile hippies, so that you can't safely enter and your wife and your kid can't safely leave, for ten days. The hippies probably won't hit or stab any of you, but really you can't know that - those are all strangers to you and to each other. Some of them may be even professional provocateurs (they exist.) Other may be on drugs, not in control of their actions.

    21. Re:Protest - permit required by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      always has been though, hasn't it?

    22. Re:Protest - permit required by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      but, then that would be freedom of association,

      they need to be able to treat you like all the other violent protestors because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, its that simple. its an "us vs them" mentality that is doing nothing but growing between the police and the public.

    23. Re:Protest - permit required by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Protesters aren't the only ones with rights.

      I, for example, have the right to use the public roads to drive to work. If you and 50,000 of your friends all decide to protest downtown during rush hour I'm not gonna be able to do so.

      If there's a permit process in place the government can mitigate these problems, my Constitutional right to get to work won't be hindered, and your right to protest will be hindered solely by you having to file some paperwork.

    24. Re:Protest - permit required by adolf · · Score: 1

      Your natural right to profit is trumped by my inalienable right to peaceably assemble.

    25. Re:Protest - permit required by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      There is no way you could justify (morally, ethically, or legally) denying me my right to make a living and feed my family to protest something with which I have had no part in.

      Sure there is. You have the right to choose how you attempt to make a living. You do not have a right to be free from impediments to making that living if those are not the result of illegal activity. There are many things in the world that can prevent you from making a living in a chosen trade. Your only right is to attempt to continue in that trade despite impediments you have no control over (and no right to exercise control over, or delegate others to exercise control over), or to move to a different trade.

      If people protest that a product you make is horribly destructive, far in excess of its useful purposes, that product may be rightfully restricted or banned. You might lose your livelihood and have to change careers. There are plenty of examples where a protest can either directly disrupt your business, on purpose, or do so as a side effect. As long as they are not intentionally harming your trade in contravention of rational legal standards, you better just suck it up. If protests block your store long enough to cause you to go out of business, perhaps it's something you should actually be paying attention to.

      If you don't like it, perhaps you should have bought property where the storefront wasn't butted up against a public space. Oh, wait, you benefit from that public space in good times, but bitch and complain that it's public when something happens there you don't like. You sound like a fucking rancher complaining about others using public lands that they graze cattle on. Only your use of the public space is acceptable, fuck everyone else. Sense of personal entitlement much?

    26. Re:Protest - permit required by ildon · · Score: 1

      Large, organized protests can be extremely disruptive and dangerous (even completely unintentionally, i.e. slowing down an ambulance that has to move through the area for an unrelated reason), especially in places of extremely population density (like New York).

      As long as the laws are reasonable and fair and have safety in mind, they're really no different than laws against shouting "fire" in a public area.

    27. Re:Protest - permit required by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If there's a permit process in place the government can mitigate these problems

      It also potentially stops completely valid protests. I'm sorry, but I think you'll just have to deal with the occasional "bad" protest. I refuse to accept a law that hurts valid ones.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    28. Re:Protest - permit required by Crag · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the implied motivation of your hypothetical ("they shouldn't be able to protest if I think it costs me money or annoys me"), but what you described is already prohibited in most jurisdictions by jaywalking laws. Pedestrians must cross in crosswalks and must obey traffic lights. Protesters who violate those laws may be cited, and if they persist they may be detained.

      (IANAL)

    29. Re:Protest - permit required by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am.

      I'm not defending illegal behavior, if such occurred. I'm defending legal behavior that may have had a tangential negative impact on others.

      Operating a business without any possible obstruction of the public spaces it is attached to is not a right. They have to share that public space with others who are behaving in an otherwise legal manner.

  19. Re:doubt it by AlgoRhythm · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure I agree with you, but to pick the 2 that are apropos here: Peaceful and leftist.

    This bunch of loosely assembled hippies, anarchists, socialists and new agers doesn't have a coherent voice what-so-ever.

    I haven't been down to Wall St. to see the current incarnation, but several dozen camped outside of the my office at the Woolworth building for a couple of weeks while protesting the mayor's budget a month or two ago. They were a nuisance, but certainly not threatening.

  20. Re:doubt it by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

    Maybe you won't get modded down if you explain your strong statements that seen explicitly designed to offend those who clearly don't think the way you do.

    By the way, How can a cause, which is an abstract concept make you uncivil, I don't even know.

    Your claim implies that regardless of their actions, you've already judged & condemned them.

    --
    "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  21. I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market by LordNacho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because to do that they'd have to be in Secaucus, NJ.

    1. Re:I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market by torkus · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, the posters and tent cities might improve the neighborhood.

      Seriously though, they're not even ON Wall St. but it doesn't matter. You can debate how violent the protests are but they most certainly have NOT tried to 'storm the gates' of any exchange, bank, or financial institution. Oddly if the cops had just left them alone instead of attempting to occupy wall st. *themselves* I'd guess this would have petered out once the couple topless women protesting got bored and went home.

      That or zucotti park would turn into a tent city :)

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    2. Re:I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market by jafac · · Score: 1

      No. They have to be in cyberspace. Leave that to the Anonymous folks.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    3. Re:I hope they're not trying to disrupt the market by LordNacho · · Score: 1

      Can't say I know terribly much about the details, but unplugging a few wires in NY4 will properly wreak havoc on quite a few financial markets. I suppose there's a less physical way in as well. Not sure how well protected that is from an IT security point of view.

  22. Is that English? by rs1n · · Score: 1

    I was having trouble understanding the title of the summary. Is that really the same as "Conflict between protesters and NYPD occupy Wall Street, and Escalating" ?

    1. Re:Is that English? by porges · · Score: 1

      The name of the group/movement/protest is "Occupy Wall Street".

  23. Easy, Bush is not President by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wall Street is a major supporter of this administration, if not every administration before this but this one seems to be heavily stacked in favor of Wall Street this time (and I propose that Wall Street isn't the same as what most people know as Big Business)

    So the political machine is not behind it, specifically the unions are not in this. Never under estimate the ability to move people when and how needed. Students don't stand a chance (if this is truly student based) and the really big organizations that would gin up a protest on demand when Bush was in office aren't being given marching orders. Since they aren't giving marching orders their contacts in the press don't have reason to report.

    See this is this dirty little secret about protests in America now, they have to be sanctioned by the political parties to receive attention. Sponataneous protesting or groupings of people politically are not favored and about anything that can be done to ignore them is done. If they don't go away then they most be portrayed as a whole as having the very worst traits that can be found in individual members .

    So until certain political elements need this protest it doesn't exist.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Easy, Bush is not President by nadavwr · · Score: 2

      The protesters in Wall Street have the right idea.
      A year ago, there was very little chance for such a protest to get momentum. So, what changed?

      This year, people living in western democracies were vividly reminded how much power the people hold when governments in Tunisia and Egypt were toppled by protesters.

      In Israel, for example, what started up as a few students striking up tents in protest against skyrocketing housing costs quickly evolved into thousands of tents around the country and massive protests. From a few tents, in one month, the protest movement went to this. (and this wasn't even the largest protest).

      The protests weren't affiliated with a political party or a labor union -- there were no "marching orders" -- but now politicians are lining up to garner votes, and party platforms are being rewritten to cater to the newly sounded demands of the people. This wouldn't have been possible in Israel before the Arab Spring -- Israelis just had no idea they were capable of any political action other than voting every few years and complaining the rest of the time. The projected impact of the protests is increased taxing of the rich for funding social plans, and increased regulation.

      If the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest manages to strike a nerve in the American public, it can grow very fast, and media outlets ignoring them now will not be able to continue doing so. There is place in the American political system for a counterbalance to the Tea Party movement.

    2. Re:Easy, Bush is not President by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      I think Wall Street is pretty much big business now. Big business found they could make more money by manipulating stock prices than by controlling physical resources, so they mostly gave up the latter. This is why so many of our big companies are falling apart, nobody's really running them any more, the management isn't paying attention to much except for their stock options and delegating stuff to offshore.

  24. Follow the money by IMightB · · Score: 1

    Don't fuck with the police/politicians and the source of their bribe money..

  25. Furthermore... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

    How does one protest the requirement of a permit in order to protest?

    --
    Something witty.
    1. Re:Furthermore... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      File a complaint at the appropriate clerk's office or air your grievance at the next $APPROPRIATE_LEVEL_OF_GOVERNMENT meeting.

    2. Re:Furthermore... by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      A guy in britain did a pretty good job. Plan about 20 mini protests and a day to show how ridiculous it is. if you really want to get radical have a 100 or a thousand groups all file separately. Flood them with paperwork to the point the police don't want to bother with it anymore.

  26. Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No real agenda, no real leadership, no real solutions, no real propose.
    Frankly just causing more harm than good and now Moore to make things even worse.
    He will make a movie about it, his Dittoheads will go and feel all righteously indignant and he will collect another nice paycheck.

    If you say it is the Republicans fault you are just a drone.
    If you say it is the Democrats fault you are just a drone.
    If you say that President Obama is all to blame you are a troll.
    If you say that none of it is President Obama's fault you are a mindless fanboi.
    If you think that being a Democrate makes you better than a Republican you are a fool.
    If you think that being a Republican makes you better than Democrate you are fool.
    If you are a Libertarian well your just in fantasy land.

    The solution.
    Talk less, listen more, stop treating elections like sporting events, stop vilifying those that disagree with you, and vote in the primaries.
    Oh and treat the election like this, this is a job interview and you are the boss. Grill them and then pick.
    And don't waste your time sitting on the street eating donated pizza and babbling.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Not much to report. by vagn · · Score: 1

      OGFY!

    2. Re:Not much to report. by brit74 · · Score: 1

      > "Oh and treat the election like this, this is a job interview and you are the boss. Grill them and then pick."
      The problem with that is the fact that we aren't the one's asking questions. It's the journalists asking questions. And the politicians have a tendency to punish "bad" reporters who ask them questions they don't want to answer (with those "gotcha" questions), and flee to the "News" channels that are going to soft-peddle them like FOX News does to Republicans. It's like conducting a job interview where the interviewer is hired by the job applicant, and we just get to listen.

    3. Re:Not much to report. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you say it is the Republicans fault you are just a drone.
      If you say it is the Democrats fault you are just a drone.
      If you say that President Obama is all to blame you are a troll.
      If you say that none of it is President Obama's fault you are a mindless fanboi.
      If you think that being a Democrate makes you better than a Republican you are a fool.
      If you think that being a Republican makes you better than Democrate you are fool.
      If you are a Libertarian well your just in fantasy land.

      Whoa, that last line is the sort of twist-you-never-saw-coming that M. Night Shyamalan wishes he could pull off a second time.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Not much to report. by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      So your contention is that the majority are loud-mouth blow-hards and the majority should, therefore, shut up, think and vote? I hope you aren't waiting to for that to happen. You'd be better waste your time sitting on the street eating donated pizza and babbling - at least you get a free pizza. If I wanted political change, I'd go with bloody revolution. It, at least, has a reasonable track record of success

    5. Re:Not much to report. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

      Well, the important thing is that inarticulate people parroting a form of lowbrow cynicism have found a way to feel superior to those who care about things and take sides on issues.

    6. Re:Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No the majority are not. The Majority of both parties are don't vote in the primaries. That leaves only the candidates that cater to the "activist" aka extremes. A moderate candidate will not win in the primaries so the majority have to pick from the least of two evils when it should be the "activists" that have to pick from the less of two evils.
      The majority do not have political bumper stickers, go to rallies, or put signs in their yard.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not at his fault at all. He just cashes in on blowing up problems and telling half truths. The same as Rush does but to the mirror audience.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Not much to report. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that's worked so well so far!

    9. Re:Not much to report. by dcray2000 · · Score: 1

      This is the greatest post I've seen on /.

    10. Re:Not much to report. by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      I agree that Moore has given the entire movement a taint that will be hard to shake off. That said, if you go to their website occupywallst.org, your solution sounds similar to theirs. Maybe there appears to be no real purpose or real agenda because they aren't forcing themselves into a "Left" or "Right" ideology. They are trying to find a solution by listening to everybody.

      The website talks about how this is not the worn out distracting battle between Conservative vs Liberal but rather one between the top 1% and the other 99% and how the top 1% has completely and thoroughly corrupted our government.

      You and many others may belittle the movement and paint it as a bunch of 'hipsters', 'topless hippies', or whatever, but their message is pretty clear (if you listen). The country is being fisted by the top 1% and BOTH sides of the political system is owned by them.

      Here's an example I just pulled out of my ass of the corruption this movement is trying to wake people up to: The government, through corn subsidies, gives you 7 free twinkies (through taxes you've paid) for every 1/3 of an apple.

      Need I remind you of the scam that is healthcare? For me, what really showed me that both sides were bought and paid for was when Obama 'fixed' the healthcare system by forcing people to buy private for profit health insurance.

      I could go on, but I'm depressing myself.

    11. Re:Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well I should have add the word all to the each of the first two lines.
      There are good Republican politicians and good Democrate politicians.
      There are bad Democratic politicians and bad Republican politicians.
      I have never meet a moderate libertarian. They are all sure that an completely untested system without safeguards can work. It is a very safe belief because it will never be implemented so you can never be proven wrong. It is a great beliefe for the eternal critic.

      I think that modernation is the key. Moderate regulations to and safety nets to keep thing in check.
      As far corporations go well it seems to be just common sense.
      A corporations goals is to make as much money as possible.
      A governments goal is to protect it's citizens.
      Apply enough controls to business to protect the citizens without so many controls you strangle inovation, initiative, and economic growth.
      The trick is to find the balance.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:Not much to report. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      And don't waste your time sitting on the street eating donated pizza and babbling.

      What if you're unemployed, with no job prospects? That's not a hypothetical question: The core of the protests in, say, Egypt, were young people with education but no job and no hope of getting a job. So, if you quite seriously have nothing better to do, why not get involved in political protests?

      I'm not saying intelligent voting isn't worth doing. But part of the process is to use the soapbox to make arguments about how other folks should vote too. And if We The People aren't making the pitch, then the only people who will be making the pitch are those who can afford TV ads or can gain access to newsrooms. That makes it easy for a very small number of people to mostly silence some of the candidates (e.g. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John Huntsman, Ron Paul) basically guaranteeing that they lose.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Not much to report. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    14. Re:Not much to report. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I never said say nothing. I said say less and listen more.
      You see if you listen to why people believe differently than you do then
      A. Might find out your are wrong.
      B. Understand why the believe the way that they do and then show them why you believe the way you do and change their mind.
      Taking sides? There is only one side which should be trying to do what is best.
      Oh and you will never engage, convence, or learn by being sure you are right and that everyone else is wrong.

      My advice comes down to listen, understand, discuss, learn, and then vote.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Not much to report. by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      "...and vote in the primaries."

      Better yet, if your state allows, vote for the candidate you'd rather see in the main election from the other party. If you're a Democrat, pick your favorite Republican. If you're a Republican, pick your favorite Democrat. This will moderate the parties and make things better.

    16. Re:Not much to report. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Oh and treat the election like this, this is a job interview and you are the boss. Grill them and then pick.

      Problem is that, like too much of the business world, the applicants are pre-screened by the HR dept, who have no clue what the job qualifications and specifications mean.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    17. Re:Not much to report. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I agree that Moore has given the entire movement a taint that will be hard to shake off.

      How so.

  27. So this is the new Slashdot? by MaxBooger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? This is what it's come to?

    I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

      There are plenty of sites that I can go to that cover the activist social ranting scene. There is only one Slashdot. Please don't wreck the latter by trying to make it the former.

    1. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by plopez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot is also for "stuff that matters".

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by gambit3 · · Score: 1

      Man, I wish I had mod points. I'd give you all 5.

    3. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by trolman · · Score: 1

      Really? This is what it's come to?

      I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

      There are plenty of sites that I can go to that cover the activist social ranting scene. There is only one Slashdot. Please don't wreck the latter by trying to make it the former.

      Dear Booger, I agree.
      Signed,
      KC BOFH

    4. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      I don't see the old slogan on the front page anymore but, when I started coming here, almost 14 years ago, it was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters".
      This stuff matters.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      What strikes me as odd is that you haven't posted any complaints on the "Drunken Parrot Season Starts in Australia" story which immediately preceded this one. In fact, your previous comment dates back to August 31. So, you either believe that parrots acting drunk is "nerdy, techy, geeky news" and that until now Slashdot has been posting strictly nerdy stories, or somehow this story regarding a potentially dangerous social movement which shakes the idea that you live in a free and open society makes you a bit uncomfortable.

      Personally, I'm glad slashdot posted this story. If it wasn't for slashdot I wouldn't know that this was going on, because I haven't seen anything regarding this in any media channel. If it wasn't for slashdot I would never have searched for the videos in youtube or read the article in wikipedia, and due to slashdot I was able to do just that, and for that I'm thankful. And frankly you should be too.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    6. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Nothing says "Stuff that matters" like a loose gathering of semi-clothed 60's leftovers and semi-literate hipsters.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    7. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can convince Slashdot editors to keep you in the loop on under-covered PeTA protests too.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    8. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Really? This is what it's come to? I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

      You must be new around here - Slashdot has been home to activist social rantings since at least the late 90's.

    9. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      "Stuff like matters" or "news for nerds" applies very clearly to a story about the abuse of civil rights in our country. Most of us nerds are actually very big on Rule Systems, and it's rare that we get such clear and flagrant abuse of the law by those who are supposed to uphold it caught on camera. Some people nerd out about all the ways our rights are being eroded, all the reasons we should wear tin foil, etc. Along that spectrum of issues are ones that only crackpots would care about (wifi allergies?), and others are issues that everyone should care about, including nerds.

    10. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      I think the point is to imagine what the cops would do to people who actually mattered.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    11. Re:So this is the new Slashdot? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Really? This is what it's come to? I come here for the nerdy, techy, geeky news items of the day. This story is none of those.

      You must be new around here - Slashdot has been home to activist social rantings since at least the late 90's.

      Am I the only one who misses Jon Katz's brand of lunacy?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  28. Re:doubt it by DogDude · · Score: 1

    I'll tell you what, why don't you tell me who's violent in this video, huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9owY

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  29. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    How can a cause, which is an abstract concept make you uncivil, I don't even know.

    If the cause is itself destructive (or necessitates destructive outcome), of course.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  30. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would the police attach peaceful protesters? That doesn't make sense, those kinds of tactics were done away with after they sicced dogs on African Americans fighting for equal rights, that sort of thing just doesn't happen any more so if the police arrested 80 people they must have had good reason. We all know how violent the left can get these days.

    Don't invent theories about how you are sure no one would do something.

    I am old enough to remember dogs and firehouses being used on civil rights protesters. I also remember people making the same argument you do: The protesters must have done something violent, or be hiding weapons, or planning to loot shops, because the police are civilized people. Don't hypothesize about the morals of a large group of people. Look at what they are doing (there is a video), and judge them by their actions.

  31. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Probably whoever the editor of the video wanted to portray as destructive. I did mention that NYPD is not a civil police department. They respond to provocation all too aggressively. If there is provocation which is cut out of the video, it's easy to make the police look like the bad guys. But the job of police is to keep professional cool even in the face of provocation.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  32. Traffic cameras. by plopez · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the traffic cameras can confirm or dispel police brutality reports. Or if there will be "malfunctions" and footage will disappear.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Traffic cameras. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the traffic cameras can confirm or dispel police brutality reports. Or if there will be "malfunctions" and footage will disappear.

      Not everywhere has traffic cameras.

      I dunno for sure if NYC does or now..although I do think I heard the mayor or gov of NY pontificating for more of them, but I dunno if they have them or not.

      Certainly isn't something in every city in every state in the US...far from it so far (thankfully).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Traffic cameras. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If they're anything like squad car cameras they'll "malfunction" at very convenient times.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. Protest is in the news & has a goal by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find links on google's new page, like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-27/wall-street-protesters-joined-by-susan-sarandon.html

    The protesters are actually fairly well organized with planned events, a voting process for making immediate decisions, and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.

    The "traditional" media is indeed ignoring it. There's an on-going debate on twitter about whether or not the twitter admins are actively suppressing the #occupywallstreet hash-tag from trending.

    1. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by trout007 · · Score: 1

      That's easy. Get rid of the Central Bank. No other institution has done more to transfer the wealth from the average person to those in power than the Federal Reserve.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by Kenja · · Score: 1

      If the "traditional media" is ignoring it, why have I seen it on every news channel I visit? There's not round the clock coverage, because frankly it doesn't deserve that.

      And of course the whole MJ Doc' thing.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      I have a solution to the wealth gap - make the richest 5% of the country move out, say to Canada. That will solve all our problems as the "wealth gap" will be much less of a problem.

      I'm being sarcastic. Only stupid people care about a "wealth gap".

    4. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Wealth gap is not a problem in and of itself, but it is both a symptom of some existing problems, and a cause for some other.

    5. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The wealth gap is not the problem, the real problem is decent jobs that one can live on. There is always going to be a % of the population that only has a HS diploma and needs to find work. Factory work use to hire these people, but with automation and offshoring there is less and less for them to do. You also have the illegals taking work from the bottom (stuff that others will "not" do or doing it for sub minimum-wages) and then "higher" educated people taking lower skill jobs is putting a squeeze on these people.

      This is the current jobs problem, as I see it, there is a large number of people that are looking for work but we simply do not have the need for them anymore. Now in about 10 years when a lot/most of the baby boomers are finally retired, then we will have more parity in employment. However we will always have a wealth gap as that is they way of capitalism.

    6. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by venril · · Score: 1

      The protesters are actually fairly well organized with planned events, a voting process for making immediate decisions, and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.

      I'm curious what you would suggest as a solution to the "wealth gap". Confiscate the property of those who have worked for it and give it to folks who haven't? Pray tell what will happen when, eventually, you run out of folks willing to be robbed?

    7. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by TheSync · · Score: 1

      and a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it.

      How about this way of dealing with the wealth gap: study hard, get good grades in school, don't join a gang or commit crime, graduate, go to college for a major that makes money (like engineering), graduate from that, then go get a good paying job.

      Dropping out of high school, cutting class, taking too many drugs/alcohol, or spending your time protesting when you should be getting a real education or a job won't help you "deal with the wealth gap"...

    8. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by Threni · · Score: 1

      There are photos and videos here:
      http://www.cryptome.org/

    9. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Dropping out of high school, cutting class, taking too many drugs/alcohol, or spending your time protesting when you should be getting a real education or a job won't help you "deal with the wealth gap"...

      In some alternate reality were NAFTA was never passed, offshoring doesn't exist, millions of jobs haven't been lost over the last three years, and the CEO of Wal-Mart doesn't make more in a month than the average Wal-Mart employee does in her entire lifetime?

      Cool. How do we get there?

    10. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "A majority of the protesters are college educated but can't find the mythical good paying jobs you speak of."

      Are a majority of the protesters graduates with degrees in computer science, electrical engineering, biomedical engineering, law, medicine, etc.?

      Or are they english majors, political science majors, art history majors, women studies majors?

      A college degree will not get you a job any more. Only the right college degree. I would 100% support them protesting against their university for letting them blow their money on useless degrees...

      They'd be a heck of a lot better off at home working on a CCIE or PMP than blowing their time protesting though.

    11. Re:Protest is in the news & has a goal by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "In some alternate reality were NAFTA was never passed, offshoring doesn't exist,"

      Oh yeah, like NAFTA replaces a college educated computer science major with some guy in Mexico who can't speak English and only has a 6th grade education.

      I'll agree that if you laze around and only get a HS degree or less, you're screwed because there are two billion people in Asia finally freed from communism or democratic socialism who are going to eat up your lazy butt...and that doesn't even count the robots who can do your job but never get tired and don't need health benefits.

      "and the CEO of Wal-Mart doesn't make more in a month than the average Wal-Mart employee does in her entire lifetime?"

      The lesson there is to get an MBA and become a CEO. That is the market sending you a message.

  34. Re:doubt it by rmstar · · Score: 1

    Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded.

    Not really. What kind of crazy assertion is that? Your warped logic is typical of dictators and tyrants, btw, and their accolytes and apologists.

    So, what the hell is wrong with you?

  35. "Million taxpayer march" by plopez · · Score: 1

    I think this is what we need. Should we hit the MSM news sites and start planting a bug in peoples ear?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  36. I no longer believe video by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Having seen too many videos edited to show how the other side was wrong, then finding the full video showing how the first side started shit, I no longer believe pictures, video, etc.
     
    There are just too many people who get their friends to film them starting shit and only post the response to their shit and cry foul.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  37. Cops should help the protesters by Wansu · · Score: 1

    The cops are working people. All around the country, police forces are being cut. The cops roughing up protesters could find themselves being laid off when city revenues fall.

    It is all too common to see people working against their own interests.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:Cops should help the protesters by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      A common meme on the liberal blogs is that the police are protecting the very people who are trying to screw them.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Cops should help the protesters by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "All around the country, police forces are being cut."

      Total local, state, and federal spending on policing per year has risen from $50 billion in 1990 to over $300 billion today (source).

      Do we really need over 1 million full-time police in the US?

  38. Actually, I was just there. by mckinnsb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just took my lunch break off from work to check out the protest in Liberty Square. There seems to be about as many people there - staying with sleeping bags - as the small park can hold. It's no bigger than a block, and a small one at that. The estimates of about 200 people staying in the park are likely accurate.

    From my understanding after talking with some of the protesters there, the incidents in New York happened when they attempted to march through the streets. In addition, I found out that the numbers of people over the weekend were not just limited to the people staying in the park; there are a lot of people who are not roughing it in the concerete jungle of NYC and are staying with friends or relatives during 'off period times' of the protest.

    I can't speak to any police brutality during my brief visit. The protest was extremely peaceful while I was there (unless you consider a drum circle violent), but I did see several of the officers in the YouTube videos present at the square - although noticeably they were not the ones who perpetuated or committed any act of brutality (although you could argue they did nothing to prevent it). In fact, the officers I did recognize were the ones who had doubtful expressions on their faces in most of the videos. The officers were mostly staying out of it. There were also no "white shirts" there - the higher ranking officers whom, over the weekend, seemed to be largely responsible for the more egregious assaults. I also heard that some 100 officers refused to patrol the protest after the incidents over the weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if the commissioner or someone else "gave the department a talking to".

    IMHO, it's really hard to discount the video evidence that there was unjustified force, given the multiple angles of the YouTube videos available.

    I've heard some people say that some of the protesters' were "over-reacting" to the actions of the police. I think that is ridiculous. I would love to see how anyone would react to being pulled across a concrete street by four armed men. Additionally, one of the women maced in the YouTube video was deaf , and thats why she was screaming at a great volume.

    It's not unheard of for police officers to attempt to arrest people videotaping them - and given a recent ruling in a Federal Appeals Court that declared video taping a police officer a constitutional right, the actions of some of those officers was foolish and irresponsible, a fact probably made more evident to not just the public, but their superior officers, by their absence today.

    1. Re:Actually, I was just there. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      The estimates of about 200 people staying in the park are likely accurate.

      Wait, I thought the /. summary said "the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters..."?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Actually, I was just there. by mckinnsb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah - I tried to address this in my post. There are only 200 people staying within the park, as in camping with sleeping bags and plastic bags for shelter. There are thousands who are participating that are staying elsewhere in the city.

    3. Re:Actually, I was just there. by Unreal+One · · Score: 2

      I've been following the #occupywallstreet Twitter feeds and I really find this an important question. With little-to-no mass media coverage of the protests, it makes it really difficult to gauge the magnitude of the protests. If you go by the number of posts on Twitter, it's either a major event or a completely virtual one. It seems reading the feeds and headlines like this one about 'escalation' this may actually turn into something meaningful, but any coverage by the mass media plays it off as a fizzling joke.

      I think they are fighting the good fight, as David vs. Goliath as it may be. And I do think they have an agenda, as disconnected as it must be considering they are a leaderless group. Corporate Greed clearly IS a cancer, and personally I would really like to see five things done to right the ship: 1) mandatory, real taxation of corporations with major limitations and caps on exemptions, 2) heavy taxation on companies that move jobs overseas, AND heavy taxation on imported goods. 3) Don't hate me; tighter restrictions on h1b work visas to develop better local, skilled workers. 4) Absolutely criminalize corporate campaign contributions, and 5) abolish the two party electoral system and have completely open elections.

    4. Re:Actually, I was just there. by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Just because only 200 people are staying overnight doesn't mean the protest is limited to 200 people. Do you think all the people protesting in Tahrir square actually slept there? No way, they'd have to all stand up sleeping and few people have that option, only a small fraction of them did.

    5. Re:Actually, I was just there. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      There are only 200 people staying within the park, as in camping with sleeping bags and plastic bags for shelter. There are thousands who are participating that are staying elsewhere in the city.

      I was being a little snarky, but I'd love to get some kind of real confirmation of that. You said you saw 200 people. You seemed to be saying those people told you there were thousands more. Where are they? None of the videos I've seen seem to indicate thousands of people. We have protests here in the Bay Area, too, so I have a pretty decent idea of what a crowd of thousands of people would look like. What I'm seeing in these videos looks like a few hundred loosely-organized people, most of whom are just sitting around (as opposed to, say, choking the streets in their teeming thousands). Meanwhile, folks are posting photos to Facebook showing the streets filled with people -- which turn out to be Photoshopped. It seems to me that all the hyperbole and rhetoric coming out of the protesters is doing them more harm than good, because it all seems so phony and disingenuous. Since you live in New York, give us your real impression: How does this protest really compare to, say, the St. Patrick's Day Parade?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Actually, I was just there. by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      I've never been to the St.Patrick's Day Parade, so, I couldn't make a comparison on that basis, even though I bet you guessed I was of Irish decent by my handle. :) Also, I was not present during the protest over the weekend. So I couldn't give you any first-hand numbers.

      Thousands of people walk through New York City's streets in the financial district every day - by the videos, it would be hard to figure out who the 'bystanders' and 'protesters' were, for me at least, especially after having visited the park - a lot of the protesters don't really "look" like protesters - some of them are just kids, there are a few people who are well into or above middle age. The protest was enough to warrant at least one police helicopter and what I like to term as an "AT-ST", and a good contingency of police officers (more than were there at the park today), so I would guess it had to be substantial.

      As a point of reference, the last time I saw a police deployment that large was at the West Indian Parade in Crown Heights (where, sadly, three people lost their lives), and there were definitely thousands of people there.

    7. Re:Actually, I was just there. by lahvak · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly why you do not use excessive force against somebody who is doing nothing but screaming very loudly!

      --
      AccountKiller
  39. Re:doubt it by DogDude · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you didn't watch it. The police have corralled some people on a sidewalk. The people on the sidewalk are yelling things like "Why are you arresting him?" "Stop". A bunch of people get maced by a cop.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  40. Re:I'm confused by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    They do it because they are authoritarian pigs threatened by someone expressing their constitutional liberties.

  41. Re:doubt it by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.

    If you couldn't have all three, a black man wouldn't be the president. American history is full of occupations of public and private spaces for civil and worker rights, and they worked in the 30s as well as in the 60s. That's why you have a 40 hour workweek and the right to vote regardless of your gender or skin color.

    But what would an uneducated crypto fascist like you know about that?

  42. phx_xs numbers are inflated by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Kids trying to get media attention, but not able to. Thats the worst thing you can do is not give them attention.

  43. Beat the crap out of those brutes then. by unity100 · · Score: 2

    They are violating your legal rights, abusing power, judiciary is doing nothing about it, and they are just continuing living their life easily with YOUR tax money.

    They shouldnt. you should confront them and hold them accountable for what they are doing with your tax money, since the judiciary is not doing it, city is content with it, and the government doesnt care about it.

    an encounter in a back alley can make anyone remember that they are just human beings.

    1. Re:Beat the crap out of those brutes then. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      an encounter in a back alley can make anyone remember that they are just human beings.

      Attempting to stop violence with violence will usually just create more violence. And I say this as someone who is pro-military, generally pro-police, and decidedly not liberal or shy about using force when it comes to foreign policy.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  44. Re:doubt it by MoriT · · Score: 2

    Yup. Except those knitting grandmas: they seemed pretty organized and leftist, so I'm betting they're ready to stab someone in the eye with those knitting needles at any second!

  45. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by bracher · · Score: 1

    excoriate was the correct choice of words.

  46. Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you even watch any of the videos? Did you even look into this at all? I can't understand how you could have done so and still hold such an opinion.

    As far as I can tell, I don't agree with any of these people protesting. I am pretty much convinced their protests are ineffective and a waste of time, and that the individuals involved may, in fact, be wastes of perfectly good protoplasm.

    THAT BEING SAID, there is no excuse for the behavior of the NYPD in this incident. The behavior of the NYPD Commanders during this protest has been disgusting, immoral, illegal, and against everything we as a Nation are supposed to stand for. But what is even more disgusting is how the NYPD immediately closed ranks on this matter, excusing their behavior as completely reasonable. What is even MORE disgusting than that, however, is citizens such as yourself who are willing to give the Police a blank check to do whatever they want to people you dislike or don't agree with.

    Shame on you. You aren't worthy to lick the boots of those who shed blood to secure the rights you'd see others denied.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      We get the same behaviour from our police here in the UK.

      There's something fundamentally wrong with our model of policing. It seems even in liberal, western democracies police forces regularly use violence - even unjustified deadly force - against peaceful protesters. To people who are aware of results in psychology like the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments this isn't entirely surprising. It's also understandable how the powers that be - whoever they might be at any particular point in time - don't feel the need to change things. Even the most ardent reformist generally loses the will to change things when they have the levers of power.

      Something must be done, I'm sure you agree.

      --
      Nick
    2. Re:Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      So, I watched a few of these videos - I'm concerned that in true Slashdot fashion - YOU haven't watched the videos.

      The guy whose, "head was bashed against a parked car"? He was resisting arrest and his head did NOT hit the car at all - the cop protected his head all the way down, quite professionally in fact.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9owY 0:10

      More jail time.

      The pepper spray incident is right after that - and this video shows that probably wasn't warranted - but these things happen when you are associated with a crowd of people that are busy hitting officers. I have VERY little sympathy for people who put themselves into this sort of situation then cry about it. But yeah, the guy who deployed it probably needs a bit of re-training on situational awareness - he got the wrong people and was about a minute too late anyway.

      NYC needs to press charges on all these brats who think it is ok to hit cops.

      I'm damn sure that no one has shed any blood to give you the right to hit cops.

    3. Re:Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      Ugh, that got mashed up. Let's try this again.

      So, I watched a few of these videos.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A

      3:05 ish
      The guy whose, "head was bashed against a parked car"? He was resisting arrest and his head did NOT hit the car at all - the cop protected his head all the way down, quite professionally in fact.

      3:10
      The fat girl who was pulled from the crowd and past the barrier - she hit a cop. This is NYC, not the UK - you don't get to hit cops here. How stupid do you have to be to think you are innocent and nothing is going to happen to you after you hit a cop? She's going to jail. Nice of the protesters to collect the evidence though.

      6:20
      Here we have Mr. "They did nothing wrong" (5:58) hitting an officer. Again, morons; you don't get to touch officers, and you certainly don't get to hit them.

      Hope he enjoys jail too.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9owY

      0:10
      Here we have another angle that shows what the "Innocent" camera guy (from the previous video at 3:05) was up to...Yep, he can't keep his hands off cops either:

      More jail time.

      The pepper spray incident is right after that - and this video shows that probably wasn't warranted - but these things happen when you are associated with a crowd of people that are busy hitting officers. I have VERY little sympathy for people who put themselves into this sort of situation then cry about it. But yeah, the guy who deployed it probably needs a bit of re-training.

      NYC needs to press charges on all these brats who think it is ok to hit cops. All in all - the NYPD was incredibly professional throughout all of the videos I've seen. I can't even imagine having to listen to this crap for hour after hour.

    4. Re:Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      The guy whose, "head was bashed against a parked car"? He was resisting arrest and his head did NOT hit the car at all - the cop protected his head all the way down, quite professionally in fact.

      Resisting arrest? How do you figure? He was grabbed and slammed into the ground for having a camera, which is SOP for most Police Departments it seems nowadays. Where do you see him resisting arrest, much less doing anything worth being arrested for?

      The fat girl who was pulled from the crowd and past the barrier - she hit a cop.

      Is being shoved by a police officer now considered hitting them? I rewatched that about ten times in HD, full screen, and I don't see her ever striking and officer once.

      6:20
      Here we have Mr. "They did nothing wrong" (5:58) hitting an officer. Again, morons; you don't get to touch officers, and you certainly don't get to hit them.

      This is the one time you might have a point! Except we don't see who threw the first punch, it's off camera. An unlawful arrest is not an arrest, and you CAN defend yourself against one. This has been upheld in most sane jurisdictions. Being a cop does not mean people cannot defend themselves against your illegal actions.

      If less people got arrested for carrying cameras, we might actually have video of who started that fight and we'd know for sure. But for some reason the Police weren't interested in any of this being well documented.

      Here we have another angle that shows what the "Innocent" camera guy (from the previous video at 3:05) was up to...

      You mean getting shoved by cops? If one cop shoves you, another can arrest you for assaulting first said cop? Seriously? How does that make any kind of sense?

      But yeah, the guy who deployed it probably needs a bit of re-training.

      He's a commander, if he hasn't learned it by now, he needs to be fired. He's also got a Civil Rights case against him for beating protesters back in 2004 that's about to go to trial. Again, if he hasn't learned yet... Why is he still a cop? Much less in a command position!

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    5. Re:Don't let Reality hit your ass on the way out by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      >Is being shoved by a police officer now considered hitting them? I rewatched that about ten times in HD, full screen, and I don't see her ever striking and officer once.

      How do you not see that? - you can even hear it. They put the photographer on the ground. Then the crowd surges forward (3:09) - watch the girl in the backpack. They reach the cop, then when the guy yells "Let him f'ing go" she hits the cop's arm (3:10). You can hear the slap and he looks toward her - like WTF? She retreats back as the cop in white comes over to pull her out.

      >You mean getting shoved by cops? If one cop shoves you, another can arrest you for assaulting first said cop? Seriously? How does that make any kind of sense?

      Watch his interaction with the big black cop starting around 0:05 or so - he hits him in the chest. Obviously, the big guy ignores this - it's just a twerp and he has other things to do. But you can't fault the other cops from having a problem with a cop getting hit. I didn't mean him getting shoved by the other cop.

      >Except we don't see who threw the first punch, it's off camera.

      I guess you could believe the yelling guy carrying the shoe was just innocently standing there when all of a sudden the cop flips out? You can get another view here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbXfelyIoM (about 0:39) Still not perfect, but the cop was was straddling the guy on the ground. I have a really hard time even imagining that he decides to start a fight during another arrest (and the first couple motions the cop makes look defensive to me).

      I'll concede the other two points. It is very suspicious though that with all of the cameras in these videos - 90% of the available footage is the same 3 crappy videos.

  47. Re:doubt it by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    How the hell is their cause violent?

  48. What's Different? by dcollins · · Score: 1

    "There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply."

    Why did I not see any editorializing tags like this for any of the Middle East protests in the last year? Surely protesters there had at least as much motivation to skew the case that they were making (on YouTube and various social networks).

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  49. My personal observations... by zenetik · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was down there on Day 2 photographing demonstrators and police. This was Sunday, so the NYPD was able to block off Wall Street, the bull, areas near banks, etc. so disruptions by the demonstrators were minimal. An Anon told me they had been forced away from Battery Park and into Zuccotti Park the night before, but there didn't seem to be much tension between demonstrators and police at the time and some of the police seemed friendly with demonstrators. Demonstrators have made it clear time and time again that they are also fighting on behalf of NYPD officers. From reports I've read through Twitter and elsewhere, some NYPD officers have shown at least some support for demonstrators but the "white shirt" commanding officers are the ones who usually instigate trouble. I can't verify this directly, but in many of the photos and videos I've seen of arrests and attacks on demonstrators, "white shirts" appear to have been directly involved. The now-infamous pepper spraying of penned in female demonstrators was done by a white shirt officer who also appears to have sprayed some of his officers as well. I'm planning to head back to Zuccotti Park this week to get more photos, so I'll have a better idea of how much things have changed in the past week or so.

  50. Re:doubt it by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The video was a single continuous shot. Nothing was edited out of it, and anyone can tell this just by watching it, as I did. All your comment proves is that you're an idiot.

  51. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by AlgoRhythm · · Score: 1

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=excoriates

    If you watched the clip he linked to you might have picked that up from context clues, even if you weren't aware of the word.

  52. Re:Awesome by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    as of 2005, top 5% of american society takes 72% of everything. bottom 85% (includes YOU), take only 15%.

    in medieval western europe, the law of the land was in the below manner :

    lord gets 33% of produce from fields>
    church gets 33% of produce from fields>
    serfs get 33% of produce from fields.

    no lord could ever dream of being able to actually take 72% of economy, and a medieval peasant would be pitying a modern 'well to do' person in terms of the share of the wealth he is taking from at a measly 15% - for, he, as a medieval peasant, got double the rate you are currently getting from your society's wealth.

    thats what happens when you get a job. you live TWICE worse off than a medieval serf.

    moron. the one whose skull should be cracked is you. you are dragging the average level of humanity down. and if you made your name and address available, im sure someone from new york could offer you the courtesy in a back alley.

  53. Re:doubt it by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2

    Right, cause I've never been to a well-organized, peaceful and leftist protest.. Oh except for pretty much every well-organized protest I've been to.
    Stop blowing smoke out of your ass.

  54. Re:Terrorists! by cavreader · · Score: 1

    An effective "resistance" first needs a coherent definition of what they are actually "resisting" and they need to offer up at least some plausible idea of what will happen after the "resistance" is victorious. All those fabulous protesters in the Arab world spent more time exhorting their glorious revolutions on Facebook and Twitter then they did on actually planning for the future after the revolution ended up succeeding. I am still a little hazy on what the Egyptians think they accomplished. They moved from an autocratic/military ruled government to just the military who is promising elections sometime in the future. One of their main goals was the elimination of the "special laws" that had been in effect for 30 years. These laws were deactivated for a few months but those laws are now being called back into service because of incidents of idiotic mob violence that had nothing to do with forming a new government or creating a better society. Attacking foreign Embassy's or vandalising foreign sponsored Universities was not the most productive or prudent courses of actions they could have embarked on at this point.

  55. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Hi, did you even bother to watch the link? The word is "excoriates." Apparently you don't know what it means. The second sentence in O'Donnell's report was "the troublemakers were carrying pepper spray and guns and were wearing badges."

    Before you go calling someone a troll, try to at least understand what they're talking about, especially when they're talking about the same thing as you.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  56. wow. their cause PROVES that they are violence by unity100 · · Score: 2

    minded eh ?

    so then, the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down ...

    how DARE they revolt against unfairness and suppression.

    1. Re:wow. their cause PROVES that they are violence by Duradin · · Score: 1

      If the British had maintained their hold I'm sure they would have done so.

      We need a new godwin.

  57. I hope the protesters up their game a bit by argStyopa · · Score: 3

    Hopefully it will turn out like this:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515384.ece

    WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail.
    What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

    âoeWe bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,â one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. âoeIâ(TM)ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.â

    Another said: âoeI took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.â Behind him, on the balcony of the pub opposite the IPE, a bleary-eyed trader, pint in hand, yelled: âoeSod off, Swampy.â

    I had plenty of experience with anti-CIA recruitment protesters in college, and the charming anti-Republican protesters last year in St Paul. I really couldn't imagine possibly feeling sorry for them. They're repellent self-righteous zealots who are utterly obnoxious regardless of their cause, or even whether they're right or not. Even if I'd agreed with their point of view, I'd want them off my side.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I hope the protesters up their game a bit by Hatta · · Score: 1

      "The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw

      Everyone likes a doormat, but nobody likes a squeaky wheel. Guess who gets the grease though.

      Or to put it another way, who's the bigger asshole? The guys who crashed the world economy? The guys who refuse to hold the first guys accountable? Or the guys who are upset about the first two groups?

      When you don't have any power, what else can you do but be obnoxious?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:I hope the protesters up their game a bit by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are projecting.... The "repellent self-righteous zealots who are utterly obnoxious" part in case you have a hard time figuring it out...

    3. Re:I hope the protesters up their game a bit by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      My point is that protesting "Wall Street" is like protesting wolves eating meat.

      However, since the politics of the people protesting are what they are, it's more...useful...to attention-whore on the sidewalk in front of Wall Street traders instead of the government that allowed, nay, encouraged the rapine of our economy and have refused to hold anyone accountable.

      As an example, I don't even resent Goldman Sachs. They are what they are. What I find repellent is the revolving-door government(s) of the world that are made up of GS alumni and guys who will be employed by GS within moments of leaving their government office.

      --
      -Styopa
  58. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by splatter · · Score: 1

    fair enough but I watched a few min of that video as much as I could take, and I don't think that was his meaning. The video berates the protesters & excused the police saying the individuals were dangerous and carrying weapons.

    I'm sorry vocab aside the OP is a troll & is just making more excuses for this kind of behavior because in his/her reality things like this don't happen. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble they do happen, and it happens to innocent people even though the mantra is they must be doing something wrong for the police to act that way.

    Its just a lie to tell yourself & make you fell better, till it happens to a loved one or you..

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  59. Friedrich Hayek by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible.

    - Friedrich Hayek

  60. Who gets to be Marie Antoinette? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    a goal of getting Obama to acknowledge the wealth gap and appointing a commission to recommend actions for dealing with it

    Who gets to be Marie Antoinette?

    1. Re:Who gets to be Marie Antoinette? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      Please PLEASE let it be Sarah Palin!

      /I'm a registered Republican
      //I can't stand Palin

    2. Re:Who gets to be Marie Antoinette? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Please PLEASE let it be Sarah Palin!

      Tell her Romney is going to be beheaded in the next town over.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  61. Re:doubt it by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Since you've chosen to partially answer, I'll ask you to clarify: "destructive.." of what?

    The British might have argued that Gandhi's non-violent civil disobedience was destructive of a critical colonial bastion in their rightfully-held world-wide empire. They would have been right, and completely wrong. Destructive? Yes, absolutely, when it succeeded. But it destroyed something that desperately needed to be destroyed.

    See also the U.S. Civil Rights movement.

    That a protest movement may be destructive is not a condemnation, if the thing being destroyed deserves to be.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  62. Check out the RealNews by digitalderbs · · Score: 1

    The RealNews has coverage--look at transcript if you can't watch the video. They're an independent news outlet that monitors exactly this type of news.

    It appears that the protest, named Occupy Wall Street, is targeted at the corporate influence over politics, the imperialistic foreign policies of the US, and a demand for greater accountability in politics.

    1. Re:Check out the RealNews by tftp · · Score: 1

      It appears that the protest, named Occupy Wall Street, is targeted at the corporate influence over politics, the imperialistic foreign policies of the US, and a demand for greater accountability in politics.

      They might just as well protest Newton's laws. They are attacking the effect, not the cause.

      The country is behaving exactly as it is set up to behave. If you look carefully into what makes the USA tick you will notice that all the elements of policies are falling into place. For example:

      The USA is large -> people need cars -> people need oil -> Arabs have oil -> The USA wages wars in Arab lands

      The USA has a large number of "disadvantaged" people who don't work and can't work -> they need handouts, otherwise they will revolt -> borrow from China and give to them

      The USA has no industry -> it is insecure -> deploy US military all over the planet to compensate. As matter of fact, much of US economy (whatever remains of it) is based on the theory that the USA is "the leader of the free world." If that theory crumbles the USA will become a 3rd world country with Zimbabwean economy, confiscatory taxes and ready for a civil war. That's why the theory must be maintained at all cost.

      And so on. Not a single major thing is done "just because" - everything has a reason, whether the reason is good or bad. If you want to change how the country acts you need to change its motivation and change the causes of undesirable acts.

  63. Because it isn't really news by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It is a small protest. If it happened anywhere else it would be completely "not news". Please remember that people can and do protest things all the time. The only reason this has any traction at all is the people are protesting Wall Street.

    If it was hundreds of thousands of people, like you saw protesting the Iraq war, well then that would be major news. This is just not of any real interest to most news networks. It isn't "news" unless it is major, or it is bad. That is just how the news works.

    As such all we see are things like this: The protestors and those that support them trying to drum up interest on the Internet.

    1. Re:Because it isn't really news by E.I.A · · Score: 1

      Except that it is a real protest - large or small - that addresses one of the most hideous beasts in the known universe. Some images can be seen here: http://cryptome.org/info/bologna-abuser/bologna-abuser.htm and elsewhere on the site.

      --
      Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made. - Otto von Bismarck
  64. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by splatter · · Score: 1

    I watched enough to see him excuse the police and that was enough for me

    as I said above:http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2448946&cid=37530818
    I'm sorry vocab aside the OP is a troll & is just making more excuses for this kind of behavior because in his/her reality things like this don't happen. Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble they do happen, and it happens to innocent people even though the mantra is they must be doing something wrong for the police to act that way.

    Its just a lie to tell yourself & make you fell better, till it happens to a loved one or you..

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  65. does it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    So far, doing otherwise provided nothing. we are not in 60s anymore. we are in a period in which the established control mechanisms of government or other interest holders have been worked on suppressing the masses since 1960s. the innovation scale in that area surpasses the innovations made in military technology, ranging from sound weapons to tazer guns.

    and the police forces are not the random people who randomly have signed up in force anymore. governments have been taking care to focus recruitment to psychological profiles that will do whatever they are commanded, regardless of ethics, since a long while.

  66. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    Excuse the police? Where? O'Donnell calls it "unprovoked police brutality." He calls out the NYPD for "protecting its troublemakers." He says there is "absolutely nothing" in any of the videos that could constitute grounds for arrest. What video were you watching? Or did you even bother?

    I'm sorry vocab aside the OP is a troll & is just making more excuses for this kind of behavior

    No, I'm sorry... you're acting like a real moron. Is that "vocab" you can understand?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  67. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    No excoriate is a real word, it just means something close to the opposite of exonerate.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  68. Mace versus pepper spray by guttentag · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know this is slashdot and facts are irrelevant here, but the NYPD hasn't used mace since 1994: http://www.nyc.gov/html/ccrb/pdf/pepperreport.pdf. There is a difference between mace and pepper spray (most significantly that mace is illegal in most of the civilized world).

    1. Re:Mace versus pepper spray by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between mace and pepper spray (most significantly that mace is illegal in most of the civilized world).

      "Mace" is a brand name, and while it used to refer primarily to tear gas, these days the same company mainly manufactures OC/pepper spray - and it still comes in cans that have "Mace" written on it, so it's increasingly commonly referred to as such.

      However, some blogs and videos do correctly refer to what's used in this incident as "OC spray".

  69. Re:The protesters want this. by cfulton · · Score: 1

    And that gives the police the right to pepper spray them. The constitution does not limit freedom of speech to those with a clear message and clear demands that are not angry. It gives everyone the right to speech. The brutality of police is not justified or legal.

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
  70. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Any form of change is "destructive" to the original form.

    While every positive change comes from creative destruction, not every destruction is creative. Some destruction is just that. I assert this protest is just this destructive in its goals.

    And both the massive wealth disparity

    Wealth disparity is irrelevant. If everyone is lifted up (as has indeed been the case), but those at the bottom are lifted less, than the outcome is positive for everyone (just not for everyone's ego).

    regulatory capture in the governmental bodies

    Well, employment at regulatory agencies is at all time high (even per capita of the population). So if you are arguing against crony capitalism, then your argument should be against excessive regulation used to raise the barrier of entry into the market place.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  71. Re:doubt it by Zironic · · Score: 2

    If you watched that video you'd see it was completely unprovoked. If I knew any of those women I'd probably arrange to have him kidnapped and pepper-sprayed repeatedly for about an hour since his identity is known.

  72. Try to look more intimidating by Pence128 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to be much. Maybe tie in a baseball theme and have everyone have a bat sticking conspicuously out of a backpack. Nothing too threatening, just enough for them to think "If I try something stupid, someone might be scraping my brains off the asphalt."

    --
    404: sig not found.
    1. Re:Try to look more intimidating by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that walking downtown to a protest wearing weapons would be a very very foolish invitation to be treated as a violent protester. It doesn't seem wise to try to "appear threatening" (physically) to the police. Then again, it doesn't seem wise to appear to be carrying a camera sometimes, either.

    2. Re:Try to look more intimidating by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      "Weapons? What? Oh, these? Yeah, we're going to go play baseball later. Yeah, turns out everyone has their own favourite bat."

      The trick is to not appear threatening at all, aside from that one thing that says "You do not have absolute power over us. We can hurt you. We just choose not to."

      --
      404: sig not found.
  73. is this really in slashdot's charter? by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

    Whilst it may be very important - this isn't really news for nerds, is it?

  74. well. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you need bastards to protest against bastards.

  75. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by Surt · · Score: 1

    That was a brilliant troll. You fished like 8 responses!

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  76. What it's about. by JazzHarper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The OccupyWallStreet activists have, so far (this is Day 11 of the protest), been unable to articulate much their philosophy or objectives. There is no single leader; some of them are undirected anarchists, some are communists, and some seem to have no coherent viewpoint.

    The clash with police referenced in the article, during a march from lower Manhattan to Union Square and back, actually occurred on Saturday. On Sunday, the protesters were visited by journalist Chris Hedges, who gave an excellent interview (even if you don't agree with his politics or anything else). The full interview is posted at http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/chris-hedges-occupy-wall-street-is-where-the-hope-of-america-lies/ [rawstory.com]

    Chris Hedges is the first person who has been able to clearly summarize the position of the protesters. Although, it's really just his own viewpoint--some of the activists view Hedges as a "reformer, not a revolutionary" and therefore not a spokesman for their movement--it's the best statement that has emerged from Zuccotti Park since this thing started. Hedges makes it clear that he views the two dominant political parties in the US as equally corrupt and controlled by corporate interests. The corporate media will try to ignore this protest as much as possible, as it does not fit the political agenda of any major news organization.

    Personally, I disagree with most, if not all, of what these protesters say, but I emphatically support their right to say it. The behavior of the NYPD was disgusting.

    1. Re:What it's about. by riondluz · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that having no single leader (or even the need for 'leaders') was the purpose of both (conservative) anarchy and (liberal) communism extremes. A right to exist and a right to share the wealth.

      Belief in the need for leadership only draws the wrong crowd. I hope this is just a 'dry-run' for things to come. What is happening in the streets cannot be expressed by any proxy for the collective group. We're ALL pissed off. You know our demands. Stop the Lies, give back the loot you've ripped off and maybe avoid jailtime. Give us truth and maybe will give back reconciliation.

      --
      resist propaganda
  77. dear moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    the system is what creates your corruption. you think when you let 5% of society to get 72% of all wealth, they would use that wealth just to get gold gilded swimming pools to swim in and 12 yachts to water ski behind ? whomever has that much power, uses it to create the corruption you speak about. wherever there is possibility of amassing power, there is corruption.

    1. Re:dear moron. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      first of all, america never had any measure of socialism or social democracy. america's far left, is center-right in standards of the rest of the world.

      what makes i think that socialists (which are actually social democrats, by the way, terms in american political literature are totally fucked up) are better when in power ? why, the top 5 of human development index being dominated for the last decades by countries which have been predominantly social democrat through their 80 year old recent political history ?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

      the real trouble is, there is no 'fair and balanced approach' ever possible, when you let individuals or groups amass much more wealth (hence power) than others. these minorities will invariably use that wealth and its accompanying power, to further their own interest at the expense of anything else.

      that is that - money is power. if you dont limit that power, the power in economy invariably starts to command politics and makes things worse.

      there are limits needed, just like there are limits in political power. and, this can not be done without social democracy, since its antithesis capitalism is totally against any kind of limitations to wealth (hence power) amassing.

  78. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by splatter · · Score: 1

    excuse me I said.. that is if YOU can read..

    I watched a few min of that video as much as I could take, and I don't think that was his meaning. The video berates the protesters & excused the police saying the individuals were dangerous and carrying weapons.

    so is that understood or do you want to continue being an asshat?

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  79. Re:doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I saw some people try to force their way out of an officer's hands... if an officer takes a hold of you to detain you, or even to ask you to move, and you get combative, try to shrug them off, etc, they will take you down. I saw that in one video... guy shrugs and spins on the officer, then other officers move in and pin him down... while the idiot with the camera is screaming "brutality!". They weren't beating the guy with nightsticks, or repeatedly tasing him... he was aggressive towards the officer, and they responded with just force. There's another clip of them walking a guy off in cuffs, and another person appears to run, aggressively, at the officers... which would be an aggressive response generating event.

    Now, the pepper spray (it's not fracking mace, damnit!) incident, unless you were there and could see all angles, it *IS* possible that something occurred outside the angle of the camera...not saying this is what happened. I wasn't there, I'll leave that to IAB, who can get more evidence, and other cameras, etc.

    Most of the videos I've seen were taken by non-impartial people, who appeared to be there just to either incite something to post, or in hopes of something happening. An actual journalist is not supposed to get involved. Record, write, whatever.. but just having a camera and recording does not make you an independent journalist, or reporter, or a trusted (or supposedly trusted) source.

  80. "White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? difference? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Sorry, non USA person here. The reports talk about "white shirt police" and "blue shirt police" as if they are different groups (the "white shirt police" seem to come in for criticism for tougher policing) - are they two different organisations / branches / other division in the police forces? Local police and national police? Civil and military? (etc?)

    cheers, thanks for info.

  81. I live a block away by apilosov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the gist:

    *) There are no "Wall St" firms on Wall St anymore (nor anywhere close). NYSE trading floor is not that important in grand scheme of things. The neighbourhood became residential about 15 years ago, and now there's 20,000 residents like me.

    *) When the protest started (two weeks ago), there were minimal number of protesters (1000) despite the protesters claims to have 20k people.

    *) There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying). There's definitely more cops than protesters at any given area. At the beginning of protest, they had a 2-cop shoulder-to-shoulder line blocking Wall St. The only protesters were 6 people dressed in white robes (could pass for either Star Wars freaks or priests), cops were quite bored.

    *) Cops are polite and keep to their business (that is, stand there and look serious). I can't say same about the protesters.

    *) Protesters themselves...oy. Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".

    *) They protest evil corporations. Nevertheless, most of them have latest iphone4 (just look at the videos - they are ones taping). It doesn't bother them that Apple is largest corporation in the world who isn't very nice to its users.

    *) There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving.

    *) I started speaking to one of protesters about bitcoin. He was very interested in it and buying some if they are likely to appreciate. He was *shocked* when I pointed out that's exactly what "evil bankers" do.

    *) Cops don't really give a damn about protesters. They are charged with enforcing certain rules - such as, no "permanent structures". So, every so often, a cop walks through the protest site checking things out. Each time a cop does so, there's 10 people with cameras surrounding said cop to make sure any "brutality" gets videotaped. It gets quite silly since these kids don't really understand they need to move away for a cop to walk through (and since they are looking into their viewfinder, they don't realize that the cop is a foot away, resulting in a cop having to push the photographer out of the way - "omg brutality").

    *) Protesters are completely disorganized - there's nobody who is "in charge", which leads to interactions with cops that could go much smoother, if a single person was designated to be liaison to cops. Protesters also can't/won't police their own - so if someone does something illegal, its becomes up to cops to enforce (vs, protesters saying "this is not cool, please do not do it" and avoiding police involvement).

    *) When cops walk by, most protesters just ignore them, continuing with conversations etc. However, there are a few who get "in your face" to cops and start shouting/etc - and yes, I'd say that the protesters are trying to provoke conflict, whether they intend to or not.

    *) As far as professionalism goes, I'd say cops are generally acting professional, if bored and annoyed at having to deal with hippies who hate their guts.

    *) There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).

  82. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by creat3d · · Score: 1, Informative

    White shirts are seniors. Blue shirts are low-level cops. The white shirts are under pressure to stop this whole thing and they show it. The blue shirts support OWS.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  83. More than just Wall St. by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

    Looking around, it turns out that there are many places that either already have some people starting occupations (no not jobs), or are planning some to add to Wall St. A list of hashtags are popping up, and at least one protest is being planned in Boston.
    It looks like this could be something gaining some steam... whether or not it continues to the point of influence is another question.

    --
    Something witty.
  84. Modern barn dance by symbolset · · Score: 1

    It happens every day somewhere in this country. For most of them it's a chance to get their blood up in a charged environment so afterward they can couple up in the afterglow. Think of it as a cotillion for liberal arts majors, or the mating ritual of some bird.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  85. werent they ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    my my. what's that thing about EQUALITY in politics then ? like, everyone having a right to get elected, everyone having the EXACT same vote ? and that business about challenging king's, the property holder's rights ? it was all his property you know. how dare they challenge a property holder.

    these are left principles. dont talk about shit before knowing anything first. ignorant moron.

  86. Re:doubt it by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    > I absolutely categorically do not believe that the protesters are civil. Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded.

    I, on the other hand, believe or disbelieve things based on the evidence.

  87. Re:Awesome by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Whatever hippie. Your issue is you're looking over someone's shoulder and seeing what he has, and looking in your own pocket and you get jealous. Wealth distribution is a lie hippies tell to make other hippies mad.

    Here's a clue as to why whining about wealth distribution is so silly. If the top 5% of the country just moved to Canada, suddenly America becomes a much better place, right? No. The point of this thought experiment is to demonstrate that wealth distribution doesn't matter - standard of living matters.

    And if you work in the US your standard of living is pretty good. Sure, we need to address unemployment, but I don't feel bad if people who don't _want_ to work can only afford a 42" TV and to eat out at a restaurant twice a week.

  88. No it really doesn't by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It is a couple hundred people protesting. No matter how right you think they are or any of that it just doesn't matter because it is a small group and nobody else seems to care much. If it was a couple hundred thousand, yes that would matter.

    There are small protests of various things all the time all over, and they just don't matter much. For a protest to matter, it has to be fairly sizable, at least in relation to the group affected. Since Wall Street, America's investment centre, is being protested it would need to be pretty large.

    1. Re:No it really doesn't by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Change has to start somewhere and this story is about police treatment of peaceful protests. The actual reason for the protest is secondary.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:No it really doesn't by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We care little about why they are protesting (though I'm sure we aren't all happy about the mess the financial industry is in), but we care a lot about the way the protesters are treated. I'd hate to think about what might happen to me or my friends/family at a peaceful protest (not that we go to any).

      Moreover, there's something pretty nerdy about being able to say, "The police say that it was provoked. Here are four simultaneous viewpoints from different cameras all showing that they are liars." Until recently, high quality video cameras were something that few people had. Now, nearly anyone with a smartphone can take good quality video, and even can upload it to the internet. In the past, police only needed to break the cameras and maybe some faces, and the evidence would disappear. Now, it's a lot harder to suppress (if and when it happens), because once things are on the internet (especially from multiple now-ubiquitous cameras) it's extremely difficult to remove them.

      THOSE aspects are I think very interesting to nerds, as it can be applied to all sorts of things that are not related to police actions. For example, you could in theory stream video from your car, which could be used later to show exactly how an accident happened.

    3. Re:No it really doesn't by haruchai · · Score: 1

      But until the cops are CONSISTENTLY punished, they won't change. I'm amazed at their ability to close ranks and to deny what is clearly obvious. I've never understood why cops are treated differently from soldiers. If one of our soldiers overseas did that to an Iraqi woman, he'd be facing 3-5 at hard labor.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:No it really doesn't by haruchai · · Score: 1

      In case you've fallen behind on the news about this protest, several unions have voted to join and will be staging protests between Oct 5 and 12th.

        Like I said, in my previous reply, you gotta start somewhere, so these puny couple hundred are soon to become (tens of?) thousands and I'm looking forward to some asshole police inspectors trying to corral a bunch of big Noo Yawk blue collar workers and pepper-spraying them on the sly like they did those helpless girls.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  89. Re:doubt it by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    Now, the pepper spray (it's not fracking mace, damnit!) incident

    Yes it is. Mace is a brand name, not just a tear gas spray.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_Security_International

    Mace first attracted attention during the early 1990s for its manufacture of the less-than-lethal defense spray Mace. Although most of the general public probably still identifies the company with its brand domination in the pepper spray industry

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_(spray)

    Chemical Mace is a tear gas ... Most Mace branded products sold today by Mace Security International are pepper spray rather than tear gas

  90. Re:Awesome by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    Oh look, another guy confusing wealth with income.

    Tell me, how much of the gold in the lord's vaults did the peasants get?

  91. Mod parent up! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    And watch it.

  92. Crap Like This by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people.

    Any time I read crap like that (way too many inflammatory adjectives) I know that I'm not getting the straight scoop from this "unbiased" source.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Crap Like This by retchdog · · Score: 1

      there's one inflammatory adjective: "brutal". the rest are neutral facts.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  93. Re:I live a block away by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Here's the gist:

    *) Protesters themselves...oy. Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarrassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".

    *) There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).

    This sound a lot more reasoned and objective than the original poster's quoted comments. +2 INFORMATIVE.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  94. Re:doubt it by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    No. Trying to step between a police officer and the person he is trying to arrest would be "interfering". Saying something is exercising your freedom of speech. There is absolutely nothing you could say that would "interfere" with a police officer's ability to arrest someone.

  95. fool. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Dont talk as if you know something about what you are talking on when you dont know anything.

    economy in middle ages was entirely based on land until high middle ages (1250 and on). trade was limited to various cities in fortunate regions, and other masses entirely lived on land subsistence. naturally, ranging from the requirements for being made a knight to tithes you needed to pay to your lord were all calculated on things related to land. on a sidenote, noone wanted to become a knight, since it incurred great yearly expenses on you. and you automatically became one, if the land you own passed a certain threshold.

    1. Re:fool. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay then. How much of the land did the peasants own?

    2. Re:fool. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      noone 'owned' anything. the sole owner was the king of the country, and everyone else owned land in his name through hierarchical ownership relationships. the difference of today's system is just the king is replaced by the 'nation' represented by government and everyone gets their land permits from them. and the hierarchy requirement has been removed in-seeming - you can directly get land from government. tho, through feudal-like ownership mechanism of the system, you end up being a tenant to a bigger owner in general.

      technically, peasants could own any amount of land - peasants were unindentured people - freemen. you are confusing serfs with peasants. these are different.

      serfs were tied to the land they lived on. however, their sustenance and income had to be guaranteed by the lord by law.

    3. Re:fool. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Serfs, peasants. Whatever you want to call them, they had no wealth, and they were only permitted to keep 1/3 of their income. And their "income" wasn't the sort they could save (i.e. wealth) - it spoiled if they couldn't use it or trade it for something that'd last a while. Almost all of the actual wealth belonged to the lords and the king.

      wrong. serfs and peasants were very different, and both had the means to buy and own things. actually, the most common route going from serf to peasant was actually buying your own liberty by paying your lord through any means - be it land be it something else. there was all the way from serfhood to knight. local trade was lively albeit nowhere could be compared to the sea merchant trade of 13th century - every locale had fairs regularly. and people had the right to sell buy anything.

      As I said before, you're confusing income and wealth. The link you posted said that 72% of the wealth is held by the top 5%. NOT income - if you read the same link further down, about 60% of the income is earned by the top 20%.

      Under the feudal system, the top few percent earned 66% of the income - now that same portion of the income is divided among far more people, over 20% of the top earners rather than a few percent.

      i said income and wealth, and i added wealth generation tools there, and for good reason. the amount of wealth generated by what is recorded as income by itself cannot be compared to the wealth that is generated by wealth generation tools - the former is counted as income, but the latter still classifies as wealth regardless of the tool - if your shares go up 100%, it is not considered as income in this statistic. only dividends would. the wealth that is generated and recorded under wealth can not be compared to the wealth being generated and recorded as income.

      Under the feudal system, the top few percent owned nearly all of the wealth - much more than 72%.

      technically yes, actually 100% of them was owned by the king. yet, practically no, because they didnt have the means to control it. hence feudal system, hence decentralization, hence all decentralized location having its own laws, customs on top of common law. the term 'common law' comes from that aspect by the way - the law common to all feudal localities.

      By all circumstances it's better now than then, exactly the opposite of your original claim.

      sure. if you forget that a pathetic percentage of the generated wealth is being recorded statistically as 'income', due to the financial definitions of wealth and income. if your shares go up 1000%, its still wealth, and not considered income, and not put into the statistical calculations. yet you can still sell and use parts of it to do anything. note that almost no top executive gets a payment as in salary, only token amounts, but they get stocks and shares. this situation further reduces the amount of wealth that is being recorded as income, and shows the situation more balanced. google execs etc get paid $1/year. but if you talk about owned wealth in the form of shares ...

  96. Latest of Many by Vegan+Pagan · · Score: 1

    This wouldn't be the first time the mainstream media has ignored a big protest march. They also ignored the FTAA protests in Miami in 2003. According to my friends who went, it stayed peaceful but the protests apparently didn't have much effect on the negotiations since they were a long way from the protest area set up by the police.

  97. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    The video berates the protesters & excused the police saying the individuals were dangerous and carrying weapons.

    No. It doesn't. You're not just a moron, you're a troll.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  98. cut the crap. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    hippie ? why thank you. i am not, but i am trying to be.

    however, cut the crap about things you dont know zit about. moron. income distribution is directly linked to the percentage of amenities you can enjoy from your society - that is 'standard of living'.

    "in u.s. standard of living is pretty good" -> that is because you dont know jack shit .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    that is the most detailed index that measures standard of living regarding EVERYthing an INDIVIDUAL needs, from the soft drinks he can buy to his children's safety, and your hellhole can only rank #10 at best times, coming after all the social/social democrat/hippie countries you would curse and cuss about. in retrospect, those countries, especially nordic ones, always rank in the top 5.

    compared to them, you are living in a hellhole, and wealth/income distribution is the reason.

    really. these things are just a google search away. why you dont know jack shit, and yet talk shit, and do not spare the effort to just type in a 3 word search and actually LEARN what you are going to talk about ?

    1. Re:cut the crap. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you'd post a link and then lie about the contents of the link, liar. The US is #5 in the 2010 Human Development Report, and would be higher if not for life expectancy issues due to cultural issues (obesity, mainly).

      But I don't know why I'm arguing with a sub-literate nimrod who's rambling text reads like a Manifesto of Envy.

    2. Re:cut the crap. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      moron. what did i tell you ? go read again unless you are linguistically challenged. i told you that u.s. GENERALLY ranks around #10. i didnt say it never strayed higher or lower. ranking higher in one year's listing does not mean that it stays there. the only consistent ones are those at the top.

      if you have two brain cells you can go back and see the earlier years.

  99. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    As a USA person (not from the East Coast), I imagine those are the colors of certain types of police uniforms native to NYC. I have no idea what they mean because they probably aren't really supposed to mean anything to people not familiar with local uniforms. All the uniforms where I am are either brown or gray.

  100. Live Coverage by scoticus · · Score: 1

    you can find live streaming video of the event at livestream.com/globalrevolution

  101. Yes there is a medical code for that by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

    Y93D1 Activity, knitting and crocheting
    T1500XA Foreign body in cornea, unspecified eye, initial encounter

  102. Re:doubt it by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, getting in the way would be interfering. Yelling anything including stop is called free speech. Police should have less leeway than everyone else, they get to carry guns in public.

  103. Re:doubt it by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Wealth disparity is irrelevant. If everyone is lifted up (as has indeed been the case),

    That has not been the case. We are the first generation of Americans who cannot expect a better standard of living than our parents.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  104. What is a protest? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    If the city gives you a permit to protest, is it really a protest?

  105. Re:I live a block away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DPrivileged white republican spotted.

  106. Re:I live a block away by scoticus · · Score: 1

    1) they never claimed to have 20k. that was a goal, not an estimate. 2) smartphones/cameras. what exactly do you suggest they use instead? sketch artists? 3) yes the Cops in general are being professional. but, the protestors, for the most part, don't 'hate' the cops. many are protesting on the behalf of the Cops as well (chants of "we are the 99%, you are the 99%") 4) the Police have said that certain structures are allowed, provided they don't block NYPD line of sight (tents below a certain height, umbrellas, etc.) 5) Major Media is, or at least was, avoiding coverage. 11 days of anywhere from 150 to over 1000 people, often blocking traffic, many camping out, prompting large police presence, in Midtown freaking Manhattan is absolutely newsworthy, whether its 'disorganized' or not.

  107. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely nothing you could say that would "interfere" with a police officer's ability to arrest someone.

    That's really not true. Addressing someone, especially in an imperative fashion, while they are in the middle of an attempt to control an inherently uncontrollable situation is a bona fide distraction. It's like intentionally yelling "stop" when a tennis player tries to serve. You know there is a good chance you'll be removed from the stadium for doing that. And you know that it interferes with the person's ability to concentrate on the situation at hand.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  108. You are deluded about the nature of US government by EnergyScholar · · Score: 3, Informative

    You speak as if elections matter in the USA. I think you've not been paying close attention, else you are deluded. The two branches of the Money Party each field a candidate, and you get to choose between them. That's effectively one party government. The (mostly) young people protesting in New York have figured this out. I'm surprised you have not.

    Also, I'd like to point out that these kids are using the same non-violent resistance techniques that have toppled multiple governments worldwide in the past 12 years. These techniques were pioneered by Gandhi and have been refined considerably since then. They have proven, time and again, to be an effective technique, if and only if there is a free press. While I'm not suggesting that as isolated protest in New York City will cause revolution in the USA, I suspect the powers that be are more concerned than they care to admit. Please recall Gandhi's quote about the use of non-violent direct action techniques, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    These protests in New York are largely considered practice by the (non) organizers. I suspect that the protesters will learn, through some unpleasant incidents, that they need to engage in more and better non-violent resistance training. The standard mechanism used to stop protests of this sort is to have agent provocateurs incite violence, which is then used as an excuse to crush the public protest with overwhelming force. The way to avoid this is for all people engaging in non-violent direct actions to first practice, in an organized group training environment, how to respond non-violently when confronted with violence or the threat of violence. I don't believe this first round of protesters have had much training.

    Personally, I wish the protesters well, and hope they succeed in raising awareness about just how bad the current US system is. Perhaps, then, some practical ways to deal with the current disaster-in-the-making will be seriously considered. Here is a link to a very mainstream article from the BBC that describes the history of the techniques currently being deployed in New York.

  109. Re:I live a block away by apilosov · · Score: 1

    1) Sorry, I did see claim of 20k as an actual number in at least one [clearly misinformed] report. The "projection" was 20-50k. Actual number on Sep 17 was ~2k, including all tourists in the area.

    2) I think that having organized video team would be helpful - and educating them on how to stay out of the way of cops being taped.

    3) Absolutely, I said so myself. Most protesters are calm and want no trouble.

    4) Sorry - thanks for clarification. I wasn't listing the actual rules, I was just pointing out that there *are* rules, cops enforce them, and protesters are not always aware of them.

    5) Actually, its not Midtown, its Downtown. And, 150-1000 people protesting here are not *that* unusual - unions routinely bring more, Wall St is their favorite place to protest.

  110. Re:I live a block away by scoticus · · Score: 1

    i can't believe i'm having a reasoned discussion on /. anyways... 1) fair enough 2) they have a 'media team' for the livestream, but yah, they tend to get in the middle of it all. i've been thinking the same thing as you about this... 3) another problem with disorganization. the general assemblies held at the campsite are a good start for explaining the rules, but only the people there overnight hear any of that. 4) woops. Downtown. point conceded on the numbers, but still. 11 consecutive days can't be all that common..

  111. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    I feel like I have to explain this point just because I don't want to be pigeon holed as someone who advocates giving police excessive powers. I have personally been arrested once for denying a police officer's request just because I knew it was extra legal, so I don't exactly want to side on letting the police do "whatever they need to do."

    Let me use another analogy. If a doctor's was trying to stop a bleeding of someone laying on the street, would you think that addressing the doctor in the imperative (yelling "what are you doing?", "stop!", etc.) would be interfering with the doctor's attempt to save someone? I hope you would. Well, the act of arresting someone is an inherently dangerous act. A police officer expects that a person (who in his opinion just violated a law) may violate more laws and possibly attempt to do something erratic or even harmful. If the police are not beating the guy down or violating them in some excessive physical way, then I think the bystanders should give the police as much benefit of the doubt (at that point in time) as they would to a doctor who would be trying to stop a bleeding.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  112. No media coverage? by bdevoe · · Score: 1

    The mainstream media (MSM) is actually covering this. On CNN's page this afternoon in the US section, I saw the following:
    * Experts scale Monument for repairs
    * Wall Street protests enter 11th day
    * Interrupting the cycle of teen violence
    * Signs young Christians not waiting
    * Skateboarding for cancer
    * Walt Disney's story: American Dream
    * Translating Shakespeare into... lolz?
    Seems to me that the article linked from "Wall Street protests enter 11th day" might actually be coverage of the affair. No, it's not the lead story - sadly, that's the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor. Whether it's the pepper spraying (which did seem completely unwarranted based on the videos I saw) or just that it's hit 11 days now, it does appear that at least SOME MSM is covering the story (okay - the main news network in the country). The issue they face is one of communicating their goals. I think they need to get organized and actually have something cogent to communicate to reporters. If the protesters can get *that* sorted out, they may actually get some real discussion on the issue. But expecting *action* is completely different - kinda like hoping unicorns will come deliver chocolate rainbows to your house.

  113. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    White shirts are officers (lieutenant and higher), blue shorts are rank and file.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Ranks_of_the_NYPD

    Specifically, the guy who pepper sprayed the crowd is deputy inspector.

  114. Re:Awesome by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    lord gets 33% of produce from fields. church gets 33% of produce from fields. serfs get 33% of produce from fields.

    So ... back then the top 5% took only 66% instead of 72%? That doesn't really support your argument.

    I'll take my current position over that of a medieval serf, thank you.

  115. Heard this one before. by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Tin soldiers and Bloomberg coming, Four dead in the SOHO...

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  116. Re:I live a block away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The pure stupidity and greed makes me wonder each time a US resident steps up to voice some thoughts. I had no idea there is a protest, I still don't have anything than a vague idea what they want, but why in somebody's name would you need to starve in order to protest against something? What does age have to do with the whole thing? Just because bored older farts like you are burried in loans and are so s*tless afraid of their pension plan they would not risk anything even if it takes the life of a relative should dismiss a younger population till they get old enough to be themselves burried in loans?

  117. One of today's biggest fallacies. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    "I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism.."

    Um... no.

    I don't know who started this BS, but there is nothing about capitalism that requires corporate greed of exploitation of others. On the contrary: the very basis of capitalism is the idea that two people will naturally trade in ways that are mutually beneficial. If they aren't, then it isn't capitalism.

    Blaming distortions of capitalism by corporations and government on capitalism itself, is like living in the boondocks where you only get distorted cell phone and television reception, and blaming it all on the whole concept of radio.

  118. Re:Awesome by unity100 · · Score: 1

    do you have a problem with numbers.

  119. Not really capitalism by terjeber · · Score: 2

    you're basically protesting capitalism.

    You are? Since when was it capitalism that when an investor (or many) made failed investments, the government would jump in and cover their losses? The banks did badly. The "Capitalist" reaction to that, from the government should have been "OK. So what? Good luck". Instead the government took tax-payer money and started shoring up those failed investments. If it hadn't been for this government stupidity, which is 100% the opposite of capitalism, the crisis of 2008 would have been significantly worse, but essentially over before Christmas. In 2008. Due to government intervention funded by tax-payers, we'll pay for this for decades to come.

    Shoring up the banks was socialism. Isn't that what the Wall Street protesters are protesting?

    1. Re:Not really capitalism by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Socialism involves government control of the places where people work, and taking care of most people's welfare. Wall Street isn't really a business in the conventional sense, making money through the control of resources and other physical property. Its mostly skimming money off the top by manipulating stock as a kind of currency. Although theoretically they own the means of production, they aren't really oriented towards doing anything with it, they leave that to other people who find it easier to just send it overseas. So I think corruption is a somewhat more appropriate word than socialism in this case. Though granted that socialism comes with quite a bit of built in corruption also.

    2. Re:Not really capitalism by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Socialism involves government control of the places where people work, and taking care of most people's welfare

      No, not really. And no, corruption is not the problem with the current economy, it is far more fundamental than that. We have simply stopped letting the market decide. We have all but abolished any sense of capitalism.

  120. arresting == aggression? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people.

    I didn't read TFA, but this sentence seems to be implying (or at least I am inferring) that arresting == aggression. I presume they are separate issues.

  121. Re:I live a block away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying). There's definitely more cops than protesters at any given area. At the beginning of protest, they had a 2-cop shoulder-to-shoulder line blocking Wall St. The only protesters were 6 people dressed in white robes (could pass for either Star Wars freaks or priests), cops were quite bored.

    Ok, stop.

    If you can't recognize the fact that the police deployed a disproportionate force in FAVOR of the police, you obviously can't trusted to deliver a credible objective point of view. If the police outnumber peaceful/non-violent protestors that doesn't speak highly of police leadership. ("OH SHIT, THE UNWASHED MASSES ARE THREATENING OUR CORPORATE MASTERS! DEPLOY EVERYONE!")

  122. It's being covered by Russia Today.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    In depth, and by the Pacifica Radio Network.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/occupy-wall-street-spreads-505/

    http://www.pacifica.org/

    http://www.kpfa.org/

    And also I found, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Project-Censored/151690209993

    I really don't see that this is any real revelation, It's NOT a free country (unless you're very, very rich) and it's NOT "By the people for the people", it's by the money for the money!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  123. Re:I'm confused by poity · · Score: 1

    It's probably like everywhere else where the worst of the police get trolled into action by the worst of the protesters. Which then makes one side believe police are all pigs and evil and love bashing skulls, and the other believe protesters are all instigators who love nothing more than riling up anarchy. Then reasonable people like me get called out by both sides for being "anti-" just for trying to explain both sides to each other.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  124. Re:I'm confused by poity · · Score: 1

    that was supposed to be "anti-[their-side]"

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  125. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by gknoy · · Score: 1

    Moreover, there's very little a blue-shirt (low-ranking) officer could realistically do to resist or stop the actions of their superior officers (white shirts).

  126. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by creat3d · · Score: 1

    Yep. Case in point, the blue shirts reacting to Anthony Bologna (the pepper-spraying white shirt who got doxed)... one of them yelled "Thanks for the warning" after receiving some spray in his eyes himself, another looked down at the women screaming in pain and said "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced her". Still couldn't do anything other than hold the orange net with shocked expressions on their faces.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  127. Re:doubt it by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    just like yelling bomb on a plane or fire in a movie theater is just free speech and not inciting correct?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  128. Re:doubt it by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    No, not at all. People on a plane or in a theater are not supposedly trained professionals doing a job.

  129. Over exposed? Just a little! by end15 · · Score: 1

    I'm so sick of hearing about this all the time! Non-stop coverage everywhere I look, and now slashdot as well? Can't we just pretend that nothing happened and let the bankers do what they do best, make the world safer for the children?

    --
    All glory to the Hypnotoad!
  130. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    I was going to ask at which the 10 people realized that there were 11 of them. But fair enough. Your point about the extended prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply. It's just simply factually not true that attempting to make things more equal benefits everyone. It lowers the standards for the poor (who obviously suffer from it the most) and doesn't allow civilization to further advance. So it's a row deal for everyone. The fact that it may seem like a good idea is precisely the fault of the evolutionary biology. When we were finding things which we used to sustain life, the so-called pie was fixed in size. But now that we are building such things, the pie keeps growing. So hindering advancement of civilization is actually hindering the growth of the pie. As for the regulations, if they were simply employing less people they would not be attempting to regulate in such minute details. The only reason that top industry experts have to be hired by such agencies is that agencies try to regulate minutia instead of just providing top-level guidelines. It's a vicious circle in which power attracts expertise which is used to generate more power. The easiest way to stop is to reduce the power. But there are more subtle ways than just slashing agency employment (for example, instead of regulating everything only concentrate on identifying the most dangerous scenarios that may come out of business practices and regulate those).

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  131. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Not true. We have better access to healthcare, housing, clothing, communications, forms of entertainment and have a higher variety and amount of food available to us than people did 30 years ago. We have lower savings rate and work longer hours (so we have less leisure time). Money isn't wealth. Money is a token used to enumerate how the wealth is divided. If we have access to more of that which enables and improves life, then we are wealthier. And we are.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  132. Re:I live a block away by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    *) There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).

    The assaults on peaceful protesters surely are important. When you are pepper-sprayed for no reason or have your head slammed into a car for no reason, you don't need a "victim mentality". You are a victim.

  133. Re:doubt it by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    And yet if I yelled "Stop!" while a Doctor was trying to stop bleeding, and in response another Doctor pepper sprayed me, said Doctor would be in jail.

    There is no excuse for any of this behavior, or for any of the arrests that happened. The vast majority of the people arrested seemed to be guilty only of carrying cameras.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  134. Re:I live a block away by Ironchew · · Score: 1

    Whoever modded you "informative" may agree with your version of events, but your whole post reeks of a giant strawman liberal-hippie getting the stuffing beat out of it. I am reluctant to accept such a pristine evaluation of cop behavior and an utter dismissal of the other side's grievances without harder evidence.

  135. those traders are now cabbies by decora · · Score: 1

    Leah McGrath Goodman describes this event in her book about Nymex (the USA petrolleum futures exchange)

    those pits are almost entirely gone today, replaced by electronic trading. the pit traders were a rare breed - excessively physically aggressive, and during the greenpeace protest, they almost killed some people. in her book, alot of them could not deal with 'screen trading' and wound up driving cabs.

  136. Re:I live a block away by xhrit · · Score: 1

    There is nobody in charge, so there is nobody to suffer from a cia assisted suicide.

  137. Re:I live a block away by Aron+S-T · · Score: 1

    I also live a block from Wall Street & agree with the above - mostly. The fact is there never were "thousands" flooding the street - at most a few hundred and that only at the height. However, there IS a legitimate critique of US "capitalism" that can make you appreciative of productive companies like Apple while strongly opposing the predatory financialization of the world economy. Read Keen, Hudson and Graeber for thoughtful analysis on this. "Wall Street" is the name of that predatory economy that needs to be shut down, even if one is appreciative of markets and productive corporations, and understands the use of real banks and capital in creating a better life. however, I don't think the protestors are all that bright or have a clear critique and a vision of an alternative system. The fact that when I visited Liberty Park and heard and saw either Ron Paul libertarians or new agee types was enough for me to see just how sad and pathetic these protestors are. It also annoys me that when some white middle class girl gets pepper sprayed it's all OMG and everybody & the media gets their panties in a twist, while ignoring the day to day brutality poor people have to put up with. And if the cops, instead of eating donuts and being fat pigs, stayed in shape, they could subdue protestors without having to use pepper spray. Seeing the NYPD occupying my neighborhood, does not instill much confidence in our "finest."

  138. There were also 800+ pilots protesting. by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

    Very little mention was made in the media of the pilot protests on Wall Street today, despite significant organization, and a coherent message.

    A Video of such, you can skip the first minute.

    IMHO, traditional media outlets do tend to ignore marches and protests, unless something violent occurs. To wit, how many of you reading this were even aware of pilots picketing Wall Street today, with 5x the numbers of the other Wall Street protestors? Because we were organized, polite and non-violent, we didn't garner much media attention. Because the other protestors were scruffy, angrier, and less compliant, they were 'noticed'.

    On the other hand, the NYPD was extremely helpful with the mechanics of the protest. It helps to be well behaved in some ways.

  139. Re:Video without commentary shows... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should watch some of the other videos.

    The cops are also blocking the street, traffic isn't going anywhere (especially since there is no driver in the parked cars)

    Other videos show what they people are doing, they are staying on the sidewalk behind the "police line" until one is pulled across the line, for as far as I can tell (from four different cameras) for talking, and two others are peppered sprayed. ALL three of the victims were on the sidewalk behind the "police line."

    Apparently if you are a cop, legally charged with making people move (although you've done NOTHING to make the people move) you apparently, A) pepper spray them, and B) yank them over the barrier and into the middle of the street,

  140. some administrative control allowed by peter303 · · Score: 1

    A civic body implement public safety constraints, barriers or distance to allow patients to enter an abortion clinic or church funeral. But they cant be as severe to drown out the protest completely. Its a fine line. The Supreme Court overturned the lawsuit judgment against Reverend Phelpd who protested military funerals, even though all nine were personally disqusted with the guy.

  141. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by RossR · · Score: 1

    The white verse blue shirt is also related to the terms white collar and blue collar. Though currently not nearly as rigid of a class distinction as it was in the past. Basically, you "high" status of doing desk work was publicly shown by wearing white clothing that you could not keep unstained if you were to preform manual labor. Blue coveralls are often issued those engaged dirty work. Such as an auto mechanic. Google searching "mechanic coveralls." The top link: http://www.automotiveworkwear.com/Merchant2/coveralls.html Out of 12 garments shown, 9 are variations of blue and 3 are variations of Khaki.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_worker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-collar_worker

  142. Re:doubt it by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Is there any pathetic analogy you wont try to use to defend the indefensilble. Congratulaions, you are part of US facism, despite your feeble attempt to deny.

  143. I can tell.... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    You haven't been to China yet.

  144. Re:There is a more effective way to protest. by Nursie · · Score: 1

    "Don't have enough votes? Then you change your fellow voter's mind."

    And how do you do that without getting a billion dollar advertising fund?
    Street protests, marches and other methods of raising awareness.

  145. What was the cops' orders? by bronney · · Score: 1

    After viewing the videos and accounts, I was wondering what the orders were? What was the purpose of the cops? Was it to make sure a riot doesn't start by dispersing the crowd by penning them up in little groups? Was it to stop the advance of the group? What was it?

    If anyone knows I am interested because I don't see what's the point of all the dragging, spraying, and camera stealing if it's not contributing to any safety upgrades so to speak.

  146. Join Us by fingers1122 · · Score: 1

    I have been part of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Tonight there was a public assembly where Cornel West spoke followed by a citizens' soapbox. The movement is organizing and trying to define itself. There are currently a couple hundred people in the park, and there are police everywhere. The atmosphere is incredibly upbeat and friendly--there are young people, there are lawyers, there are doctors, there are concerned citizens of all races, ethnicities, and sexual preferences out supporting this movement. We are not going away. This is the start of a movement. If you are in New York please come out and join us.

    The movement is not perfect, but it is something. People = power. Now is a time for action. It is time for us to take our country back!

  147. Re:There is a more effective way to protest. by jelizondo · · Score: 1

    You might want to read on Gandhi.

    He didn't have a billion dollar advertising fund but he accomplished quite a bit.

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
  148. occupywallstreet by dailycomplaint · · Score: 1

    We posted before, WE R MYDAILYCOMPLAINT , not a coward. Love the call out. Great site. thank u

  149. Re:I live a block away by apilosov · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify, I I only wrote down things that I personally observed - that's the "eyewitness evidence" that was requested. If you notice, other /. posters who live/work in the area have generally agreed with me.

    From the publicly available videos of pepper-spray use during Union Sq protest, it is very clear that a cop used excessive force against a protester - which is unprofessional at best and assault at worst. Cops aren't perfect - but neither are protesters.

  150. Re:I live a block away by apilosov · · Score: 1

    I completely agree that number of cops initially deployed was unreasonable compared to number of protesters. However, cops had to work with 20-50k estimate that was provided by organizers - in which case, number of cops would have been right.

    Police presence was reduced the next day, but it is still, in my opinion, excessive - there is no need to have a cop every 20 feet, however, it was reduced from 'ridiculous' to 'excessive'. I'll grant the NYPD the benefit of the doubt - the only harm from having too many cops is paying for their overtime.

  151. Re:I live a block away by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Great points, except for the disingenuous ones.

    There are no "Wall St" firms on Wall St anymore (nor anywhere close).

    Nor anywhere close? JP Morgan Securities is right on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs has two offices within blocks of Wall Street. Ditto for CitiGroup and Bank of America.

    So other than the largest banks and investment firms, yeah, Wall Street would be a ghost town.

    When the protest started (two weeks ago), there were minimal number of protesters (1000) despite the protesters claims to have 20k people.

    A goal, not a claim, as others have already pointed out to you.

    There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying).

    That's usually the case these days. Like when Toronto deployed 20,000 cops for a few hundred G20 protesters. And yet they weren't able to do anything about a squad car that was set on fire by said protesters. After being parked unmanned for hours, far away from any police presence. Almost like they were hoping that it would be vandalized, so they could justify it and future massive police presences. Huh, interesting.

    Cops are polite and keep to their business (that is, stand there and look serious). I can't say same about the protesters.

    Other than the cops pepper spraying peaceful protesters, of course. And remember that many of those unruly protesters may actually be undercover cops or informants egging the the real protesters on so they can be arrested and hit with terrorism charges.

    Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".

    Word salad. Define "well meaning but clueless". Did they all want unicorns who's shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert? Or do they want the banks broken up and corrupt bankers prosecuted, like those crazy liberals Ronald Reagan and H.W. Bush did in the 80's with the S&L crisis?

    Nevertheless, most of them have latest iphone4 (just look at the videos - they are ones taping). It doesn't bother them that Apple is largest corporation in the world who isn't very nice to its users.

    What did Apple do to crash the economy? How many billions did Apple take in government bailouts? How many homes has Apple illegally foreclosed on? What is Apple doing to worsen the unemployment rate, slow the economic recovery, or worsen the already high level of income inequality in the U.S.?

    There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving.

    Non sequitur.

    There is serious "victim mentality" among protesters - such as "media is suppressing coverage" (no, its just not important enough - the protest is much smaller than an average union rally).

    Yes, the same media eager to cover 200 teabaggers congregating with lawn chairs and "keep your government hands of my Medicare" signs.

    So, any more right wing tripe masquerading as dispassionate analysis, or are we done here?

  152. are you a cop? by fertilizerspike · · Score: 1

    That's quite an extensive report there. What about your story about the woman who was "maced"? You say she was deaf but her narrative in the Boston Review suggests she heard everything that went on. Why are you floating this story that she was deaf, doing damage control for the boys in blue?

  153. Excellent report? by davesque · · Score: 1

    What's excellent about this report? He just makes a bunch of claims that aren't clearly supported by the evidence he lays out. How can we know that the only reason the man with the camera was attacked was that he was carrying a camera? Even if someone was there and knows that was actually the cause, there's no way to tell this from the video. Yet this guy is saying "Look, the only reason he's being attacked is because of his camera. Look, see?" See what? The video doesn't support that claim at all.

    Please understand that I'm a liberal and I'll be the first to believe that law enforcement officers sometimes get off on using excessive force. But reporters also get off on attention and ratings. This guy seems to belong to that group.

  154. Re:I live a block away by indiechild · · Score: 1

    You lost all credibility when you compared Wall Street to Apple.

    And since when does someone have to be starving to protest against Wall Street?

  155. Re:"White shirt" and "Blue shirt" police? differen by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    Officers dressed in white shirts are usually of higher rank. White gets dirty easily, and wearing it shows they don't actually do much of the work in the trenches. They come out to play and act tough during big events. They're also usually politically connected to some degree, far above what a patrol cop could expect.

    The rest are in actual work uniforms, because they actually work.

  156. Re:MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has an excellent rep by ildon · · Score: 1

    "When someone agrees with me it means their report was excellent!"

  157. US Broadcast TV by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest?

    Lesse; CBS Corporation, ABC owned by Disney, NBC owned by Comcast/GE, Fox owned by Newscorp (Murdoch)... hmm. Nope, no idea why we're not hearing about anti-corporate protests.

  158. Thanks for helping by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    , loyal worker bee.

  159. Re:doubt it by spiralx · · Score: 1

    People's happiness is based on relative wealth, not absolute wealth. That may have evolutionary causes, but it's still true and should be acknowledged by policy.

  160. Re:doubt it by spiralx · · Score: 1

    Again see the article I linked to in my other reply to you - less leisure time and more wealth (but relatively less so) is likely to decrease overall happiness, not increase it.

  161. "rich brats" by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

    I'd like to point out the following:
    1) iPhones are avaliable for almost nothing down (with contract) and an iPod touch can be ordered new for 200$
    2) DLSR's are even cheaper with no need to have a contract
    3) bitcoin is bullshit.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  162. In Ten Years... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    In ten years most of these protestors will be married, have children, and be working for the very same Eeeeevil corporations they are protesting now and talking about the good 'ol days when they got maced by the NYPD.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:In Ten Years... by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      The great work they're doing now will help ensure they'll be able to look back happily on these times. It's better than sitting on your hands in ignorance, mocking people who are trying to improve our country.

    2. Re:In Ten Years... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      This is what you call trying to improve our country!?!

      We are all fucking doomed.

      Now, run along, there is a nice cop somewhere who has a can of mace for you.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  163. Eyewitness news by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

    I live and work in the Financial District, NYC so I can give first hand information on what I've seen. So far the protests have been minor and largely ignored by the population down here. The largest march had maybe 200 people. I've seen another with about 50 - 100. So it's small scale events. The protesters are camped out in a common area with tents, sleeping bags & such. All participants seem to be basically peaceful young hippie types, many students, etc. About as non-threatening as one could imagine. The police have erected barricades everywhere to impede pedestrian traffic. That makes it a hassle to get around both for protesters and residents. Lots more cops than usual are in the area (and this place is normally manned like a fortress). Mostly the cops are just standing around looking bored. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if they are reacting strongly to the protesters. All the NYPD has focused on in the last 10 years is anti-terrorist training. The result is a force ill-equipped to handle peaceful, non-violent protests. So the overreaction to the crowds (such as pepper-spraying women) is not a surprise to me.

  164. Re:doubt it by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    to be fair, im not defending the cops here, im simply defending the argument that it is interfering in one way or another. however the response was not justified (from what we can see anyway)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  165. Re:I live a block away by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

    I see, so because I'm not starving to death I don't have any right to protest corporatism, corruption, and greed in the government. Because I own any sort of electronic device, I must implicitly support evil corporations. Because I own a small piece of something that will appreciate in value, I'm lumped in with evil bankers, who engage in all manner of illegal activity in order to make money they don't need. Because I protest as an individual instead of as a collective, my petitions are meaningless. And on and on...

  166. Poor conclusion .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    It doesn't really matter what your perception is of the individuals making up a group of protesters. With the possible exception of some of the church-organized abortion protests I've seen before, I've almost never witnessed a protest that didn't have quite a few participants in attendance who had the physical appearance of young, dirty n00bs who just wanted to be part of a scene.

    The important part is the message being sent! It doesn't make a difference if the protesters themselves fall into tax brackets too low to find themselves personally affected by having to pay tax money that was used for banker/investor bailouts. It *DOES* matter, in a huge way, because those decisions wind up further polarizing American society into a relatively small group of "haves" and a large group of "have nots".

    If this protesting has been going on for two weeks straight and is causing conflicts with the area police, it's *newsworthy*, plain and simple! If I turn on my local nightly TV news channel and I see them spending half the broadcast running down the crime reports of every 7-11 holdup or car theft, I fail to see how THOSE incidents are so worthy (despite them not affecting almost any of the viewers directly), yet a protest involving hundreds on Wall Street about serious economic issues doesn't deserve even a 5 second mention that it's still continuing?

    Clearly, our news is being selected for us.

    1. Re:Poor conclusion .... by maxume · · Score: 1

      But it is all over the news.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  167. Re:I live a block away by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Some of your points are valid, IMO, but on others, I think you're way off-base.

    For starters, in today's busy society, taking out the time to protest is a real challenge for most working folks. If you've got a full-time job and a family, making time to protest an issue like this in a rally that drags on for weeks means you're going to wind up on the unemployment line yourself! Who has more time than money AND has the energy to keep up a protest? Yep, usually those "young, foolish (but well-meaning)" college age kids, or those "crazy idealists" who already are largely "off the grid" and living non-traditional lifestyles. If things reach a point where a true cross-section of middle-income America is out in force, protesting our economy in some fashion, we're probably already at the point of no return -- because that would indicate massive unemployment and despair, the likes of which mean a violent revolution and government overthrow is imminent.

    Also, while I'm not vouching for the level of knowledge of the individuals you spoke with personally? I don't necessarily see ANY conflict of interest when it comes to using, say, Apple products like the iPhone and attending a protest like this. It's not really a protest about Capitalism! Apple Computer isn't part of the economic problem. If anything, they're one of the last remaining vestiges of the SOLUTION. The protest SHOULD be about government manipulation of Capitalism and the corruption that permeates the whole thing. It's FAR from a free marketplace when federal govt. and the Federal Reserve conspire to prop up institutions that were supposed to fail due to their own gross negligence and mismanagement!

  168. Only violence I've seen so far was started by cops by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Yet, you see violence show up at left/liberal protest...like this one.

    It's worth noting that the video evidence indicates that at least some of the violence was initiated by certain police officers. When even other cops are taken aback ("I can't believe he just fucking maced her"), something's clearly not right.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  169. I would argue the opposite. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Part of the media gap may be because such an ill-informed, ill-aimed and intellectually diffuse protest is meaningless.

    Precisely because it's so ill-informed, ill-aimed and intellectually diffuse, *and yet it's still persisting over a week later*, it is newsworthy.

    The simple fact that people are dissatisfied enough with the status quo to put in this kind of time and energy, even without any clear ideological focus, is a clear signal that there is a lot of untapped motivation. Any aspiring politician with a hint of ambition would be quick to try to capitalize on this.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  170. Re:I live a block away by Crag · · Score: 1

    "*) There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving."

    By your logic there can be no legitimate complaint about poverty. If you can afford to complain you're not poor and have no right to complain. If you're poor but not complaining you're not really poor, or you'd be complaining.

    I don't know how many, if any, of these protesters are claiming to be impoverished, but just because they found a way to acquire expensive cameras and phones (presumably with $50/mo plans) doesn't mean their points aren't valid.

    Furthermore, from what I've read, it's not the depth of poverty of which they are complaining, but the disparity between the wealthiest and everyone else. Their own status is irrelevant. They may even be children of wealthy stock brokers for all we know. That wouldn't invalidate their message. What would invalidate their message would be if resources were in fact equitably distributed.

  171. "being annoying and disruptive" = "getting maced"? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but your logic is off a bit. By all accounts that I've seen and read, the main targets of Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna's pepper spraying were sitting peacefully on the sidewalk after being corralled by other officers in blue. One of the men in blue can be heard in some of the videos saying, "I can't believe it, he just fucking maced us!" as he wipes his face, having apparently caught at least some of the fumes himself.

    • being annoying and disruptive = "getting corralled off to the side and out of the way, possibly being charged or fined" -- Okay, fine. This is indeed being treated like they are annoying and disruptive.
    • being annoying and disruptive = "getting pepper-sprayed in the face while sitting peacefully" -- Not acceptable in any sane world. This is being treated as a clear and present danger in need of forceful subduing, which is clearly *not* what was happening.

    I hesitate to bring up your username out of a desire to avoid any ad hominem arguing, but sheepofblue is jarringly pertinent when your comment is apparently so much in favor of authoritarian behaviour. Did you intend such an association, or was that purely accidental?

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  172. Re:I live a block away by riondluz · · Score: 1

    "and heard and saw either Ron Paul libertarians
    new agee types"...
    If by new agee you mean a modern equivalent to SNCC, SDS, NLF, e.g. today's lefty terrorists:)
    sharing the same space with goldman anarchists and goldwater libertarians then maybe they'll be a bridge to the new front on the people's war on "crony capitalism"

    --
    resist propaganda
  173. Re:I live a block away by riondluz · · Score: 1

    anybody compelled enough to be drawn into this should be OK with it too. You're correct, it's hardly Chicago'68 (or more recent elsewhere).
    The whole purpose of protesting is to get knocked around and arrested in the second place; first being to stop traffic.
    Property destruction, while sometimes inevitable, sometimes warranted is usually only a last-ditch resort out of desperation.
    Regardless, i'm starting to believe that if the mission is gridlock at a cost of bruises and bail money and trips to the courthouse; then why not just have flashmobs of people who rented a car, drove into town, park in the streets and walk away.
    Call in and report the car missing even. Save everyone the hassle of confrontation and there aren't enough tows in the city to keep it from being an all-day affair. Then have a 2nd wave do it the next day, and the next after that.
    Bet towing a car, finding lot space, etc... is more difficult than busting a person and processing them in court!

    --
    resist propaganda
  174. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's correct. Income disparity in a primitive society is very small. But even it's wealthiest members enjoy a worse life style than the poorest members of our society. Your insistence of using "happiness" as a metric diabolic (in the literal pejorative sense). I said in my post that it may not be good for the egos of those who advance less. And, well, not pinching the egos, not stoking the flames of jealousy may make people happy. But it's taking happiness in the worst of human vices. It is destructive to the core through and through.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  175. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Income growth within a percentage of population, as subdivided by income class, is tautological. It attempts to prove that a certain income class doesn't see their lot in life improved. But it's not the case because the percentage of people who actually stay within that group is very small. There is great deal of mobility from income class to income class. Thomas Sowell did an actually study on this and showed it to be the case... not with rhetoric, but with actual data. And if the actual people see their incomes improve or diminish depending on how they do in life, then discussing how each quintile does is pointless (because MOST people don't remain within the same quintile). Besides, income INCREASE does not indicate (however small it is) an decrease in quality of life. Even if it's a relatively small increase, the fact that jealousy may make it seem unpleasant, doesn't remove the fact the actual life-enabling mechanisms available to those people have increased. We don't live in the world of man-v-man. We live in the world man's wits v nature. If we reduced the harshness to our lives that we all suffer from nature, than our lot still improved.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  176. Re:doubt it by superwiz · · Score: 1

    supply-side church

    When people try to turn logical argument into gotcha phrases and slurs, I always take as their admission of having lost the argument. Just letting you know. Take as you will.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  177. Oh hey that's funny by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    Here's a second video of that asshat with the pepper spray:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eTi5-qNgA

    On the bright side, the NYPD has finally said they're going to investigate the guy.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:Oh hey that's funny by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      That's good. Like I said, he needs some retraining - maybe more. I have no idea about the alleged 2004 incident - maybe he has a problem.

      At a minimum, his timing is WAY off. The girl in gray was right next to the girl who hit that other cop a minute earlier. If he'd have pepper sprayed the crowd at that point, with them surging the line and hitting that guy - that would have been fine.

    2. Re:Oh hey that's funny by DanAnderson26 · · Score: 1

      No, actually that's a different girl

  178. Re:doubt it by spiralx · · Score: 1

    I'm not advocating happiness as the sole metric for ordering society, but even on a practical level happier people are more productive, more healthy and less likely to engage in crime. And I think you're mistaking a cognitive bias with an active emotion.