Slashdot Mirror


NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment

First time accepted submitter Red_Chaos1 was the first to write with news that, as of around 06:30 UTC, the NYPD appears to have begun removing the encampment of Occupy Wall Street. At 06:34 UTC the Mayor's office issued a tweet declaring: "Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared." Around 07:15 UTC the first of several large dumpsters were deposited and the police began throwing tents and other debris into it. Reports also indicate that a Long Range Acoustic Device is on the premises. The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage, but the Occupiers are streaming the events (alternative stream; #occupywallstreet on irc.indymedia.org is also rather active for those who don't fancy flash or twitter.) As of 09:15 or so, the situation according to those near NYC is that the park has more or less been cleared.

163 of 933 comments (clear)

  1. Something not quite right by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't particularly warm-hearted feelings for the Occupy hipsters, but...

    The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage

    Seems a bit excessive and somewhat dubious.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Something not quite right by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think it's "a bit excessive"? Hell, in what kind of country news coverage is forbidden? Next time I'll hear about critics to China, I'll talk about this event!!!

    2. Re:Something not quite right by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only reason the protestors are in the park is because the police made it clear they'll arrest anyone who dares to actually protest near wall street. The park is designated a 'free speech zone' because it's far enough out of the way that no-one will see them.

    3. Re:Something not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      they were allowed to build higher then the building code allowed because they built the park for public use.

    4. Re:Something not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The park has to be open and publicly accessible 24 hours a day.

    5. Re:Something not quite right by X.25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I haven't particularly warm-hearted feelings for the Occupy hipsters, but...

      The police are using helicopters and physical barriers to prevent news coverage

      Seems a bit excessive and somewhat dubious.

      Seems like that's happening in China. Or Soviet Russia.

      Where is this happening, again?

    6. Re:Something not quite right by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the USA, you can't just protest everywhere. They have no real free speech. You only have real free speech in the "Free Speech Zones". Usually, the free speech zones are hidden in places where the sun doesn't shine a lot.

      Wikipedia about free speech zones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

    7. Re:Something not quite right by emj · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cool thing is that these kinds of public/private parks are encouraged in New York since the building of Seagram Building in the sixties, after that building the Zooning Resolution in New York was changed to offer: incentives for developers to install "privately owned public spaces".

    8. Re:Something not quite right by rikxik · · Score: 2

      Seems like the oil sipping, gun toting, welfare hating, war mongering Party of Red is running amock with crushing civil liberties.

      Which party is in power, again?

    9. Re:Something not quite right by niftydude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems a bit excessive and somewhat dubious.

      I don't want to Godwin this thread - however, it seems that the NYPD has seized the 5000+ book donated library, and thrown all those books in a dumpster.

      Excessive is an understatement

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    10. Re:Something not quite right by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh? And when was the last time you actually checked the rules? Or by "last time I looked" do you mean "a lie I heard on Rush Limbaugh the other day"? Zuccotti Park is required to stay open to the public 24/7. The owners have the right to ban certain things, like tents, but they cannot ban protests.

    11. Re:Something not quite right by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seems like that's happening in China. Or Soviet Russia.

      The main difference between China and the US is that the Chinese economy is growing.

      The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the SU had social security.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:Something not quite right by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      Let me Wikipedia that for you: Brookfield Properties.

    13. Re:Something not quite right by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the USA, you can't just protest everywhere.

      Recall that your rights should end when they trample on someone else's. I notice that the analogous movement, the Tea Party hasn't had a problem playing within the rules.

    14. Re:Something not quite right by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, clearly if they're not the very most abused people on earth, they have no right to complain about anything at all. So what''s your excuse?

    15. Re:Something not quite right by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny, the last time I looked. That park was private property and they were squatting after they were told to leave.

      Funny, the last time I looked, the park was public property, privately owned, which is the entire reason you were in the park. Oddly enough, the first time I ever noticed you making a comment, you were being ignorant. And it's your parent comment that I'm replying to now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Something not quite right by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The park is indeed private property - the owners have given their permission and support to Occupy all along. In their frontpage demand that the park be cleared the New York Post even tries to talk around "respecting the rights of the owners to allow the protests" and then declares that the right should be trampled ANYWAY.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Something not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think it's "a bit excessive"? Hell, in what kind of country news coverage is forbidden?

      Or maybe you could try turning on the TV, and observe that there is no interruption to the news coverage, and that particular sentence was supplied without any source or citation because it's complete and utter bullshit.

      You might also be interested in looking up the definition of the word temporary . It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

      You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.

    18. Re:Something not quite right by thryllkill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Really? Looks to me like they've made their point. Unfortunately, no one really knows what that point is. All I've gotten from them is 'Wah! Rich people have more than we do!' "

      Lots of people got the point. They must have paid attention to the news, or maybe to the signs the protesters are carrying. Just because "you" and the "media" you consume are saying "no one really knows what that point is" doesn't actually mean no ones knows what that point is.

      Maybe if you repeat it some more.

      --

      Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

    19. Re:Something not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I notice that the analogous movement, the Tea Party hasn't had a problem playing within the rules.

      The police didn't treat the teabaggers like a hostile force. Incidentally, how many dozens or hundreds of laws have the police broken since the protests started?

    20. Re:Something not quite right by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      And before he failed to get the Democratic nomination for Mayor, he was a Democrat. He changed parties to Republican in order to secure the nomination of one of the parties for Mayor of New York.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    21. Re:Something not quite right by Riceballsan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OWS has made dozens of good points, if you actually read the signs, blogs, notes or anything of their movements they have quite a few things that are very specifically called for. End of corporates being considered persons, end to lobyism, allowing taxing on the wealthy, regulation of banks etc... If you look at the actual movement and the actual protestors, you see more or less a 50/50 of people carrying messages, and people trying to draw attention. The problem is the media likes to focus purely on the attention grabbers, and cut out the people with a message, and then make the statement "It seems like they don't have a message to give".

    22. Re:Something not quite right by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lets try rephrasing that.

      The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the US (at the time) was an improving country, whereas the SU was content to stand still or even decline.

      The main difference between the US and China today is that the China is an improving country, whereas the US is content to stand still or even decline.

      The Soviet Union eventually became so rotten and decayed that it collapsed from within.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    23. Re:Something not quite right by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      multiple [citation needed]s

    24. Re:Something not quite right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.

      Not exactly.

      The company that built the adjoining building wanted to make it taller, which violated certain city codes. In order to get a variance, they had to agree to provide and maintain a public space. In essence, create a public park.

      The actual deed to the land belongs to the company, but there is language saying that the company can never prevent public access. The reason the deed was kept with the company instead of the city is to help enforce the covenant that it would be the company that does all of the maintenance of the park.

      If you care to look it up, there have been good articles about this in the Wall St Journal and New York Times.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Something not quite right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      All I've gotten from them is "Wah! Rich people have more than we do!"

      I suppose if you only heard about the protests via right-wing AM radio, that's what you would take away from it.

      If you are even remotely independently-minded, and spend five minutes looking at primary sources, you would know that what the protests are about is pretty straightforward, and specific. It also represents a group of opinions that are held by a wide (and growing) majority of Americans.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Something not quite right by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Subtle legal distinctions like that matter a lot. If the park is merely public in practice but private in law, that's completly different from being a legal public park.

    27. Re:Something not quite right by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      End of corporates being considered persons, end to lobyism, allowing taxing on the wealthy, regulation of banks etc

      Oddly enough, the wealthy are already taxed, banks are already regulated, and they're lobbying for an end to lobbying....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:Something not quite right by CCurzon · · Score: 2

      They have stated that. Press with proper credentials have been told "you are not press tonight" and been forced away from where they can see anything.

    29. Re:Something not quite right by jmauro · · Score: 2

      The restraining order actually prevents the police from removing the protestors again until it can be properly litigated. It will likely be weeks until this is settled.

    30. Re:Something not quite right by whargoul · · Score: 2

      Then my 5 figure salaried ass must be in the 1%, because I have no idea what they were saying.
      But then again, I stopped paying any attention to them when I saw one of them taking a crap in the JFK memorial here in downtown Dallas. Way to represent guys.

    31. Re:Something not quite right by Fnord666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you care to look it up, there have been good articles about this in the Wall St Journal and New York Times.

      This is /. We don't have time for that sort of nonsense.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    32. Re:Something not quite right by apcullen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just watched the news conference. I'm wondering what the anonymous coward is smoking? The mayor explicitly said that reporters were kept out of the park "for their own protection". Isn't that interruption of news coverage? How is preventing reporters from filming the various arrests that went on not interruption of news coverage? How is taking people's tents and destroying them in any way legal? And they mayor said that there "may be" some kind of court order from some judge somewhere-- no details at all were provided (maybe they're still shopping around for a judge who can be bought?) -- that might prevent people from returning to the park.

    33. Re:Something not quite right by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ummm, no actually there's an amazing amount of public land. Have a look at a map some time (http://robbishop.house.gov/UploadedFiles/All_US_Public_Lands.jpg). That is just the federally owned public land, that doesn't count state or lower public lands.

      Also, as it relates to the protest, they might well be kicked off a lot sooner on public land. Here the protestors were camped in a public park and each night they were cited for illegal camping. The reason is the city's rules state the park is open from 7am-11pm for all people. "Public" doesn't mean "free for all", everyone has to follow the same rules. After a couple weeks, the city had used up its tolerance and told them to clear out (which they did peacefully).

      People seem to wrongly think that if something is public anyone can do anything. No, it means that anyone is allowed access and the same rules are applied to all. There very well may be a list of hours, rules of conduct, and that kind of thing. They are just universally applied. That is as opposed to, say, my house, where only people I decide are allowed access and I can change the rules as it suits me.

    34. Re:Something not quite right by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe you could try turning on the TV, and observe that there is no interruption to the news coverage, and that particular sentence was supplied without any source or citation because it's complete and utter bullshit.

      Sure, turn on the TV. See any news helicopters?

      You might also be interested in looking up the definition of the word temporary . It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

      It might help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you understood that authorities lie all the time.

      You might also want to pay particular attention to the fact that this is private property they are squatting on, not a public park.

      Great, let's move it to public property then. How about... the sidewalk in front of the NYSE? I think we'd all be happier with that, right?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    35. Re:Something not quite right by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Informative

      > It might also help you not look like a complete fucking retard if you paid attention to the
      > phrase : Protesters can return after the park is cleared.

      You're only reading half the story. They are not allowed to bring anything back in after the park is "cleared".
      http://i.imgur.com/TMxmg.jpg

      It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

      As far as the "private property" argument, something about that sounds dubious. If it were a private corp who owned prime space in downtown new york you can damn betcha it would have apartments stacked up as far and wide as legally possible.

      A judge even thinks so this morning too.
      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    36. Re:Something not quite right by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their issue is the wealthy are not taxed enough, banks aren't regulated enough, and lobbying tends to keep the powerful powerful and the poor poor. Protesting is not lobbying, and it's either intellectually lazy or dishonest to say it is.

    37. Re:Something not quite right by SlippyToad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also the owners of the park have received tens of millions of dollars of public funds. It is effectively a public park. Like most things the rich think they own, we actually bought it for them.

      --
      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
    38. Re:Something not quite right by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, no one really knows what that point is. All I've gotten from them is "Wah! Rich people have more than we do!"

      Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

      Really kinda sad considering that they are the 1% themselves when looked at from a worldly point of view.

      The preacher at my church tried to make the same point, and he was wrong, too. I'm twice as rich as someone in Chicago who earns the same wage as me, because prices are twice as high there. When I was in Thailand in the USAF in 1974, it was a third world country with a median income of $1000 per year. But you could feed four in a nice restaraunt for less than a dollar, take a bus anywhere in the country for a nickle, rent a bungalow (woman included) for thirty bucks a month. In the US, my airman's salary made me a pauper, but if I'd had a year's worth of that salary in Thailand, I could have retired. If you made $1000 per year in Thailand you weren't poor, $1000 per year in the US and you were destitute. You simply can't determine wealth by the amount of dollars one has, because a dollar is worth different amounts in different places.

      Simply being able to eat without working puts them there.

      Boy, you sure swallow these 1%er tea party lies hook, line, and sinker, don't you? One in six Americans have problems with hunger. I went without food when I was young and poor. And you're going to blame the 9% unemployment rate on the people who can't find jobs? Son, that's close to insanity. It's Washington and Wall Street that keep people poor -- jobs are their job, and they're both falling down on that job.

      You might want to educate yourself.

    39. Re:Something not quite right by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a clear attempt to sabotage the entire right to assemble/protest.

      No. It specifically lists tents and sleeping bags. You can still bring signs, bullhorns, pamphlets, and other things that actual peaceful protestors-- not entitled squatters-- bring to a protest.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:Something not quite right by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 0.1% "protestors" are keeping the 99.9% from enjoying this park that they are paying for with their tax dollars.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Something not quite right by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oddly enough, the wealthy are already taxed

      As it turns out, according to the IRS and ABC News,1,470 American millionaires paid no federal income tax in 2009. Nearly 100,000 millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class, and capital gains (gambling on the stock market and commodity futures) has half the tax rate as a working person's income tax. Funny how your tea party was all against repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but against the Obama tax cuts for the middle class.

      banks are already regulated

      Not nearly enough. For one thing, tha Glass-Stegal act's repeal was one of the causes of the economic meltdown. Do you really think that a 200% APR is in any way not usurious? Yet that's how much many of the payday loan places that the poor use charge.

    42. Re:Something not quite right by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      Look, I would really like it if the government made it so that there were no poor people. Or hungry people. Or people that couldn't afford homes.

      It would be nice as well if we all had a government-assured income so that in spite of an economic contraction that just means fewer workers are needed now and the unemployment is permanent that everyone would have enough money, housing and food. And entertainment.

      The problem is that unless you buy into something like Social Credit there simply isn't any way to do that. There will always be people with more than other have and there will always be people that have too little. Part of the problem today is population growth in the wrong places. Part of the problem is that we have had essentially a stagnant economy for the last 30-40 years and the only times there has been any real growth has been because of wars. Cleaning up after WWII made for a lot of rich people but it also made for a lot of jobs for common laborers. We haven't had a big economy-changing war for a long time and it clearly shows. Not that war is the most efficient way to do this, but it does work.

      The decision today is who is better at deciding what to spend money on - people or the government. We could easily tax everyone at 95% of their assets until they had nothing left as long as the government then took over control of housing, food, clothing and everything else. Why would you need money or assets when everything is taken care of for you by the government. The problem is, they tried that elsewhere and it didn't work - people still got richer, poor people still suffered without as much as they needed and things where very inefficient.

      Big problem today is that if you make things hard enough for those with assets - rich people, large corporations, etc. they will simply pick up and move somewhere that isn't that hard. Sure it is nice to have a mostly-functioning government but if you have enough assets it is easy to have your own security and your own rules. At some point you end up with your own army - tell me that Monsanto couldn't operate out of a corner of Somalia if they wanted to. Plenty of places would grant mega-corporations soverign rights (police, defense, courts, etc.) in exchange for enough money.

      So do we figure out a way to make things work or just try to recreate the Soviet Union? Or Jonestown? Mostly, I think people these days are pushing really hard for Jonestown without understanding what they are likely to end up with.

    43. Re:Something not quite right by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Funny, last I checked it didn't take setting up tents and camp stoves to have an effective protest in a public space.

      Last time you checked it must not have been winter.

      Last time I checked, people who say this kind of ignorant shit without logging in are trolls, but I just took this opportunity for snark anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:Something not quite right by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Look, I would really like it if the government made it so that there were no poor people. Or hungry people. Or people that couldn't afford homes.

      It would be nice as well if we all had a government-assured income so that in spite of an economic contraction that just means fewer workers are needed now and the unemployment is permanent that everyone would have enough money, housing and food. And entertainment.

      Your straw man is on fire -- nobody's asking for that.

      We haven't had a big economy-changing war for a long time and it clearly shows.

      We had two in the last ten years, and they did in fact change the economy -- they destroyed it. Wars always do that (the exception was WWII; our rebuilding Europe moved a lot of money from Europe to here). WWI was great for the rich, according to my grandmother, who was 17 in 1920 (my grandfather fought in WWI), the only roar during the roaring twenties were the rich, everyone else was in pretty bad shape. And note that the Coolige-Hoover years that led to the Great Depression had the same governing mindset of the Bush years: deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, government is bad, worship the free market, let the bankers do any damned thing they want.

      The Korean war led to the recession in the 1950s, which Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System project somewhat alleviated.

      The Vietnam war left us with the "stagflation" of the 1970s, which only hurt the poor and middle class. It looks like Iraq and Afghanistan are likewise hurting only the poor and middle class.

      There is a mistaken notion that the rich create wealth. They don't. The rich control and aggregate wealth, the poor and middle class create the wealth for the rich in their factories and programmer cubicles and recording studios and even behind the fry cook's grill. The Ford factory isn't Ford's wealth, the cars that come out of that factory are.

      Most of the "welfare" the wealthy decry benefits the employer, not the worker. McDonalds and WalMart employees recieve food stamps, without which they couldn't afford to work for McDonalds or WalMart.

      I see folks posting in messagebpards that they can't find qualified help. You would think a businessman would understand supply and demand -- if you can't find qualified workers, you're not offering enough of a wage. Raise the minimum wage high enough so a family can live on one and there would be very, fery few people on food stamps. The people creating wealth for the wealthy should not have to beg for food.

    45. Re:Something not quite right by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Informative

      next time someone in China is jailed for years for using twitter, vs a group that has suppressed rape reports, assaulted reporters and police, caused thousands of dollars in property damage and under the cover of political protests has essentially been a crime wave that has been tolerated for weeks, you mean, all the while creating some twisted twenty-first century hybrid of Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies... Moral equivalence is the devil's plaything.

      Don't forget seizing public/private property (parks) and taking it for personal use under the sham of free speech and assembly. The parks belong to everyone -- not just these Occupy clowns.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    46. Re:Something not quite right by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Nearly 100,000 millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class

      If you actually read the article you linked to, you find that it says nearly 100,000 millionaires (about 24% of people with AGI over $1 million) pay a lower tax rate than 10% of those with moderate income (folks with income under $100k). So basically, 100,000 people making over $1 million pay a lower tax rate (how much lower is not specified) than 1 in 10 of the middle class, and pay a higher rate than 9 in 10 of the middle class.

      Somehow this has become warped into "100,000 millionaires pay lower tax rates than the middle class." Phrased in a way that implies that they pay a lower tax rate than all the middle class. In reality the problem is not that big, and all that's needed to correct it is a tweak to the alternative minimum tax.

      and capital gains (gambling on the stock market and commodity futures) has half the tax rate as a working person's income tax

      No it doesn't. Long term capital gains tax is flat. The working person's income tax is graduated (as is short term capital gains). A graduated tax rate means the highest rate you pay is not your actual overall rate. If you're in the 28% bracket, that does not mean you fork over 28% of your pay to the government. Your actual tax rate is significantly lower than your tax bracket.

      Best case capital gains tax rate is 15% (well, 0% if you make less than $33,950, but those people wouldn't be considered rich).

      Worst case Federal income tax is:
      0% of $5,700 (standard deduction)
      10% of the next $8,350
      15% of the next $25,600
      25% of the next $48,300
      28% of the next $89,300
      33% of the next $201,400
      35% of anything else

      That means the true income tax rate is:
      0% at $8,350
      5.9% at $14,050
      11.8% at $39,650
      15% at $52,375
      19.0% at $87,950
      23.6% at $172,250
      28.6% at $378,650
      30% at $486,230

      So you have to make at least $52,375 for your true income tax rate to be higher than the 15% capital gains tax rate. And you have to be making at least $486,230 for the 15% capital gains tax rate to be half your true income tax rate.

      According to the IRS the median AGI in 2008 was $33,048, or $38,748 after adding in the standard deduction, which corresponds to a 11.1% tax rate. Additional IRS stats show that $40k AGI ($45,700 minimum gross income) corresponds to the 58th percentile, and a 14.0% true tax rate. So the 15% capital gains tax rate is higher than the true income tax rate for 6 out of every 10 Americans.

    47. Re:Something not quite right by gujo-odori · · Score: 2

      Fine, treat it as a public park. You're not allowed - generally - to camp in public parks. While they were doing so, they were not only breaking the law, they were preventing other people's use of the park. I don't know what the lay of the land is at OWS, but out here in California, Occupy Oakland was also screwing over every small business owner in the area because no one wanted to go anywhere near the place. It was filthy, it was attracting vermin (both two- and four-legged), there was crime and drug dealing, and the capper was when one of the protestors was murdered last week, possibly by other protestors who then fled.

      They can protest all day long if it's what floats their boat, but then they have to go home at night like everybody else.

  2. Another good stream here by x14n · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ustream.tv/TheOther99

    Major media helicopters have been forced out of the air by NYPD. Lots of fresh news on twitter:
    https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23occupywallstreet

    NYPD Police scanner here:
    http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?action=wp&feedId=8905

    NYPD switchboard isn't taking any more calls:
    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/contact_information.shtml

  3. repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this is right and legal and just, why wait until 1am to do it? Why? And why bar press? And why the hell didn't you just leave them alone in the first place, ppl would be like: "ppl in the park, protesting, want something" and then "next". But instead, it's sure to backfire. People want to believe the stuff they were taught in elementary school about freedom, etc. *shrugs*

    1. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USSR was up front about the limits it put on freedom. The US understood that most people are ignored so it's OK to let them mouth off until they're actually listened to, at which point you abuse and restrict them.

      The USSR also had job and housing security and good urban worker treatment. The developing system of internal identity checks and consequent restrictions on movement made it hard for all but the system faithful to gain the best positions in these cities, however. As in the USSR.

    2. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USSR was up front about the limits it put on freedom.

      No they weren't, the restrictions were enforced by fear and knocks on the door followed by disappearances. The USSR, much like China today claimed they were open and free. But woe to those who tried to test the limits of that.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    3. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The USSR had a written constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech

      As, in its way, does the US.

      Technically the two are different. The US's version is negative: it doesn't guarantee freedom of speech at all but merely restricts the government's ability to restrict speech - in practice the definition of "speech" is arbitrarily restricted and the locations on which free speech can be practiced severely limited. The USSR's version is positive: it describes vaguely how freedom of speech is "guaranteed", i.e. through certain media and locations - procedures and rules to access these resources could be and were used to restrict speech and you didn't get to say what you wanted everywhere else.

      In neither country can you say what you think where you want.

      ...but everyone knew...

      Because the constitution had other Articles which limited the possible interpretations of those Articles describing freedoms. And there were laws between the constitution and the people which countered the more general interpretations of certain Articles in the constitution and everyone knew about them. But people in the US are not aware of the limits on their freedom. There's the difference.

      The Party's power depended on legal ambiguity and the absence of accountability.

      It's true that the system of voting in the USSR wasn't, "Choose n hundred equally impotent representatives who then ignore you and follow the will of the lobbyists already being imposed through unelected civil servants." But there were elections of government bodies at various levels throughout its existence.

      terrible things would probably happen to you and those you loved

      Stalin's been dead a while.

    4. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by http · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Was following this until feed gave out. Press were barred because part of the plan is to take all the equipment of all the arrested people and throw it into compacting dump trucks. Concealing this little detail failed, because every other person in NYC has a cell phone that can record video, and their attempts to block everyone on ground level were, shall we say, not fully thought through. Garbage truck drivers don't have the same "us vs. them" mentality of police officers, less discipline, and even less threat assessment training.
      It's an action that is (i) probably going to be extremely effective at preventing quite a lot of people from assembling anywhere again for more than eight hours, and (ii) should make every Libertarian brain go splodey.They're going to be hard pressed to reconcile "Taser the Hippies" and "Personal Property is SACRED" if ever this little detail gets widespread attention.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    5. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the goal of the police is to do their job with a minimum of risk to the public and property.

      The fact is that the easiest time to do this is the middle of the night. Not just easiest, but safest.

      People are more generally compliant if they're woken from a sound sleep. Further, even if they aren't asleep, they're tired, their thinking is muddled, and they are generally low on energy.

      Finally, all the 'day-trippers' have gone home. I have no idea of the proportion of hardcore overnighters vs. the ones just coming down each day, but obviously there are going to be far fewer bodies to deal with/object to whatever the police are doing.

      Of course, add to this that the street traffic is going to be lower at that time, and and the reduced number of 'innocent' bystanders - really there aren't many reasons NOT to do it at 1am or later.

      Barring the press? I don't really believe there's any way to see that except cynically, although perhaps it's justified again by public-safety concerns: if the press were widely covering the event, more likely more people are going to rush downtown to try to stop it.

      But to answer your earlier question: why don't they just leave them alone?
      As justified as their protests may be, they're simply NOT entitled to occupy private property forever, and do whatever they want there. Personally, if the owner of the property wants them gone, I'd have firehosed them away day one if they refused to move on.

      --
      -Styopa
    6. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by fafaforza · · Score: 2

      They did it under the cover of night because they knew that it would have blown out of proportion as some sort of a tyranical government coming down on the populace.

      And why do it at all, and not just leave these people be? Ooh, I don't know, because they're shitting in buckets? God knows what other unhealthy things are happening there. Now, is that the city's only motivation? I don't know. But the situation being created in the park isn't exactly kosher and healthy. And don't get me wrong, I was screaming about the transfer of wealth, and the privatization of profits and the nationalization of losses when these hot shot bankers were first being bailed out. But it isn't like the city doesn't now have to deal with a sticky situation.

    7. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by mistiry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was going to mod up, but then finished reading your post....

      I am so tired of this argument, let me make it a little easier for your obviously-limited intellect...

      This 'private property' is required to be open to the PUBLIC, 24/7. An agreement between the developer and the City lays these terms out - the developer was permitted to exceed the maximum height of a structure as defined in CITY ORDINANCES by creating and maintaining A PUBLIC PARK.

      So, you'd firehose everyone away? If that happens, does that mean it is OK to blow the top floors off their building? I mean, if the park is no longer public, they shouldn't be permitted to maintain a building THAT IS TALLER THAN THE VOTERS LAID OUT IN CITY ORDINANCES, should they?

      They (the building owners/developers) are already a special case, and are now trying to infringe on the rights of American citizens. They should have done more research into what opening a 'public place' means before signing on the dotted-line. They were happy to build up taller, funny how unhappy they become when forced to abide by the terms of the agreement that ALLOWED them to build taller.

      Breaking the law by restricting public access doesn't seem so fucking smart now, does it?

    8. Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      "...camping and squatting in public parks is expressly forbidden..."

      Ah, but there's the rub?

      The previous poster liked to point out that it was public land required to be accessible 24/7 (ie, the law that the rest of us/society need to follow), but wants to conveniently ignore the OTHER laws that say you can't squat/camp there.

      Ie. "I'm a special snowflake, you need to follow the rules but I don't because I'm doing it for a reason"

      --
      -Styopa
  4. Re:good by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

    Yeah, right, it's just a lazy bunch of hippies with no brain... In what world are you living? Are part of the side of the 1%? Do you really think what they want is just get richer? Also, who's property are you talking about? I have read/seen/heard that they were anywhere else than on public spaces. Also, I think you might be the only person that doesn't know what they are protesting against.

  5. not too surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It has been going on for a couple of months now.

    At this point there is no real goal other than 'dismantel the man'.

    If you guys are *serious* about staying there and doing something then get a GOAL. Something you can actually achieve. Other than camping out. Winter is coming and it gets cold there.

    If your goal is nothing more than being pissed off at the 'man'. Well that has been going on for many generations.

    You guys have the will to do something. You just have no idea what exactly you want. Also keep in mind you will need to convince the other 98% of us to think it is a good idea too. Some will join you because they like a 'good cause'. Others will oppose you just because you want to change things. But if all you can come up with is 'i hate the man'. Well, we all do whats your point?

    If you do not come up with a concrete goal soon the 'man' will get tired of your BS and toss you on your ear.

    1. Re:not too surprising by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do what? Politics isn't working very well - there are two parties and both serve the rich. There aren't the numbers or popular support for a revolution, and historically those things tend to turn out rather poorly anyway. The protestors want to do something, but there just isn't much they can.

    2. Re:not too surprising by Goboxer · · Score: 2

      Vote for someone else. I mean, if you truly, honestly believe that your vote doesn't make a whole lot of difference than what is the harm in showing support for a candidate from a third party? I am being 100% serious here. If everyone who felt disenfranchised voted for someone other than the republicans and democrats maybe we could have a functioning country again. And maybe seeing "Joe Third Party" on a result board some where will actually make people wake up to the fact that they DON'T have to vote for the wangs paraded around in front of us by the republican and democrat parties.

      Sorry for the digression.

    3. Re:not too surprising by tbannist · · Score: 2

      The problem is that voting for a third party harms your own interests. It's the two-party, first past the post, trap. If you vote a third party, then candidate you prefer from the front runners is less likely to win.

      The system is broken and needs to be replaced by something that can handle this problem, like preferential balloting or proportional representation. Third parties can only gain power by destroying the party they agree with and replacing it, but to do so they have to forfeit victory over multiple election cycles, allowing the party they don't agree with free rein.

      As a side note, either system could reduce the gerrymandering problem where 90% of congress is virtually guaranteed to win their seats. That's because gerrymandering is enabled by the two-party trap. By limiting the choices that voters can make, it allows the gerrymandering process to accurately predict who groups of voters are going to vote for. Over 90% of American voters vote for the same party that they did last time, no small part of that consistency is because there are only 2 viable options and voting for the other side is tantamount to voting for "the enemy". Most other countries have more than two parties so switching parties is more common. Common enough that the gerrymandering process would have a significant chance to back fire.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:not too surprising by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      If you vote a third party, then candidate you prefer from the front runners is less likely to win.

      Indeed. However, if you believe that the two main parties are no good, then continuing to vote for one of them is not helping you. You must accept this as a trade off and start voting for third parties and encourage others to do the same.

      The system is broken and needs to be replaced by something that can handle this problem

      Why would the two main parties want that? Not much can be done until they are replaced.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  6. 4th amendment issue? by Dogun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Throwing tents into dumpsters, without issuing a 'vacate or your property is forfeit' order seems like a clear violation to a non-lawyer.

    Lawyers? Or have I simply missed something requiring the demonstrators to disperse?

    1. Re:4th amendment issue? by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      They've been given a vacate notice. The park is private property, and operates on a 'pro-quid-quo' status as semi-public at the pleasure of the owners who can restrict who can, and can't use it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:4th amendment issue? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No issue. They do not own the land. I spoke with a lady this weekend from the movement and it turned into an argument. Yes, it is public, but there is a reason we have houses. We own them and have no rights under the 4th amendment for property.

      It is publically owned, but the public has to vote to let someone use it. they are not 100% of the public as homeless people can not sleep legally at any public place in Las Vegas or Los Angeles. Same principle.

      You can be searched because you are breaking the law and you do not own the land. I can bet the mayor did get a judges permit anyway to be clean. A tent is not a home or a dwelling so they can do this.

    3. Re:4th amendment issue? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3

      They have been whining for months too. To top it off Foxnews reported they and local businesses held a counter protest and marched to the mayors office on Sunday. The mayor simply responded to their request today.

    4. Re:4th amendment issue? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

      A tweet in the middle of the night is not a vacate notice.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:4th amendment issue? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 2

      In the words of the immortal George Carlin, “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away, they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.”

      Ask the WWII era Japanese-Americans about your precious rights. The government has shown a complete and total disregard for them consistently throughout the entire US history. Only fifty or so years ago children got granted the right of finally being able to wear armbands *gasp* as a freedom of speech.

      I was seriously interested in joining the marines, until I read this. Is this what I will be defending?

  7. Re:good by penguinchris · · Score: 5, Informative

    You suggest:

    Perhaps a haircut and an education might help you attain wealth quicker than living in a cardboard box on someone else's property.

    I dress well, keep my hair cut and my face shaved, I have BS and MS science degrees from good schools. I haven't been able to find a job since finishing grad school - almost two years ago.

    There is reason to protest, and the fact that you don't understand what they're protesting is as telling as your non-solution of getting a haircut and an education.

    Though I fully support their ideals I wasn't enthralled with most of the crowd in Zuccotti Park when I went to check it out, and I wouldn't join such an occupation myself, but you're attacking the messenger and not the message - because there is very little that is attackable (barring fringe elements).

  8. This seems to show the government doesn't care by Sipper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By removing protesters, rather than having talks with them, the government is showing the occupy movement that they don't care. People should be allowed to practice peaceful protest, but it seems like the Occupy movement is being repeatedly shown that the government doesn't have a heart. First they were fenced in on the street. Then they were pepper sprayed. Then when it got cold, the fire department came and took away the generators providing heat. Now they're being forcibly removed from where they were camped.

    This is really sad, and I don't think any of these things were the correct response.

    1. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've noticed that NYC has had the subtle guise of supporting them but selectively enforcing the law. Taking away the generators when it was *really* cold outside because they were a "fire hazard" was one of the standout things that comes to mind. I don't think anyone in the NYC government thought it would last as long as it already has and that these simple actions would break them.

      Now that they're dismantling the camps, we'll have to wait and see whether or not the city will actually "let them back in" as they've said they will. Personally I doubt it, but the people who are organizing this thing seem to have their heads on straight.

      Honestly, we haven't seen protests on this scale or for this duration since the Vietnam War. The difference is that we're in the age of social media - a time when any citizen can capture National Guard soldiers shooting at unarmed protestors, or police pepper spraying peaceful (but civilly disobedient) people. The city knows that it's walking a very fine line and if they take a misstep they're going to make things far, far worse for them.

      I knew this would happen eventually at NYC - this didn't surprise me at all. What *did* surprise me was closing the airspace to news helicopters and shutting down all but 1 subway line as well as a major bridge. *That* honestly frightens me very much. The amazing thing - and one of the reasons I'm so very appreciative to be in my mid-20s during the digital age - is that despite all traditional news media being cut out there's citizen journalists on the ground now recording video and streaming it live to the Internet.

      I feel a paradoxically equal amount of pride and revulsion at being an American tonight.

    2. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Occupying is not a peaceful protest. They are living in an illegal space and not protesting. I think they forgot this part.

      They are protected to protest as long as they want but not sleep, deface, or occupy public property. That is not a right.

    3. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Sipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've noticed that NYC has had the subtle guise of supporting them but selectively enforcing the law. Taking away the generators when it was *really* cold outside because they were a "fire hazard" was one of the standout things that comes to mind. I don't think anyone in the NYC government thought it would last as long as it already has and that these simple actions would break them.

      Now that they're dismantling the camps, we'll have to wait and see whether or not the city will actually "let them back in" as they've said they will. Personally I doubt it, but the people who are organizing this thing seem to have their heads on straight.

      Or if they do, I bet you the NYPD will make changes to the area to make it more inhospitable, and then "let them back in" to a much more highly controlled environment. I'm cynical as you can tell, because the government hasn't shown any kind of response that promotes trust.

      Honestly, we haven't seen protests on this scale or for this duration since the Vietnam War. The difference is that we're in the age of social media - a time when any citizen can capture National Guard soldiers shooting at unarmed protestors, or police pepper spraying peaceful (but civilly disobedient) people. The city knows that it's walking a very fine line and if they take a misstep they're going to make things far, far worse for them.

      I knew this would happen eventually at NYC - this didn't surprise me at all. What *did* surprise me was closing the airspace to news helicopters and shutting down all but 1 subway line as well as a major bridge. *That* honestly frightens me very much.

      Yes, the bridges and subways are "choke points". They shut the bridges down after 9/11 similarly.

      The amazing thing - and one of the reasons I'm so very appreciative to be in my mid-20s during the digital age - is that despite all traditional news media being cut out there's citizen journalists on the ground now recording video and streaming it live to the Internet.

      I feel a paradoxically equal amount of pride and revulsion at being an American tonight.

      There's been an increasing amount of attempt at regulating the internet, there are major internet "choke points" at telecom switching networks, and at ISPs, so I share your concern. I'm hoping the work going on into distributed DNS systems outside of governmental control get completed and grow to be robust and popular, which should help some -- but there isn't a good solution for "last mile" connectivity yet, and that will be the next major concern to try to figure out.

    4. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      In Utah and Portland I read the cities put up baracades claiming it is was to fix the parks. IN the chaos the protestors wont know where to protest and the hope is it will disabanded.

      This is not a Vietnam style protest at all. Those had tens of thousands of people. In my city of Tampa, there are a full 21 people ... whoa wahoo...

      New York has maybe 100 staying out of 14 million people who live there. In the 1960s students were being killed, the media was lying, tens of thousands protested and took over Berkeley. Students were beaten with batons. Not even in the same scale.

      The baby boomers had a stronger work ethic too since their parents grew up in the great depression. They worked and protested when not at work. These kids even admitted on TV that they had crappy jobs so they want to stay here instead and then wonder why they can't pay their loans because they are not working and expect us to bail them out.

      FYI I support protesting and taking corruption out of politics and protesting. However, I would rather apply for jobs and be responsible than to sit in a tent and whine in the cold. That does not help myself and the students in the 1960s were smart enough to realize this.

    5. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

      The soap box has been rendered impotent by constant erosion of civil liberties. Time to organise a concerted effort into non-bipartisan voting.

      It's especially insulting that this action should be taken so soon after that one day per year when we collectively give thanks to those who gave their lives to protect those very freedoms we are losing.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Checkmate.

      OWS will have as much impact to government as the 2003 anti-war protests did when invading Iraq, and that is absolutely none.

      How about the anti Vietnam war or black civl rights protests in the 1960s? They certainly had an effect, it's a question of numbers and momentum more than anything else. That's how democracy works, not just ticking a box on a piece of paper every few years.

      The majority will be heard eventually, however much the corrupt power system in place tries to ignore or silence them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, all their lives people told these kids "go to university, get a degree or the only job you'll get is flipping burgers."
      So they went to university, spent a fortune and got in debt, studied and passed. Then they finished and tried to find work.
      Now you call them "entitled" because they don't want to flip burgers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with almost all of what you posted except the bridge. The Brooklyn Bridge has been closed Manhattan bound every night for a while now as part of a multi-year repair project, not special to last night. I live right by the bridge, the closures are a giant pain

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    9. Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The definition of value you use is exactly the one that capitalism uses. But value is sometimes more complex than that. The most valuable paintings in the world was made by a guy who in his entire life managed to sell ONE of them, to his own brother, for about the price of a loaf of bread.
      In the case of the arts (and sciences like philosophy) they have little capitalist percieved value because their output isn't really monetary. How do you put a price on an idea ?

      But philosophers are the reason we have CONCEPTS like capitalism or socialism at all. They are the creators of our very ABILITY to have social discourse. How do you reward that ?

      Poets (and their relatives like musicians - the vast majority who are not billionaires) are the expressions of our deepest desires, feelings, and "souls" (in a non-metaphysical sense).

      These things have value beyond measure, societies that treated them well were longer lived, more stable, more peaceful and wealthier. Societies that didn't have consistently declined.

      But how the hell do you work out what people will pay for that ? In fact the majority of people have no concept of the value of this (when last was a nobel-prize winning poet on the New York Times best-seller list ?)
      Capitalism defines "value" as "what people are willing to pay" and with that extremely narrow definition - supply and demand works great, but when you consider the value of things like arts, philosophy and social discourse the glaringly obvious truth is that the definition is woefully inadequate.
      They adjusted their definition to fit the limitations of their theory - they did not design their theory to fit the reality of a more plausible definition.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. Re:good by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true that a bunch of pseudo-hippies are crashing the protests, for douche points or whatever scorekeeping is used in the rapacious subculture, but that does not invalidate the handful of actual protestors that started the movement and continue to stand vigil, nor the effect the moment has had in sensitizing the public to some of the more serious issues plaguing North America.

    What's particularly ironic is that the NYPD is imposing censorship and using arguably anti-terrorist techniques and tools to squelch a peaceful protest. As if the NYPD needed any more bad press... The power of the Occupy movement is not so much in its stated message, but in the way the corporations and authorities respond to it. It is bringing much needed attention to these crooked organisations and reminding the everyman that the government and its corporate masters are conspiring against him.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  10. Re:good by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

    Zucotti Park is privately owned.

  11. update by terpri · · Score: 2

    According to the Livestream, at least 200 people remain and they are being arrested.

    1. Re:update by terpri · · Score: 2

      The people in the kitchen locked themselves to fixed structures; they were tear-gassed and are being arrested.

    2. Re:update by terpri · · Score: 2

      Correction: they may or may not have been tear-gassed; some people are claiming fire extinguishers were used (there is obviously some kind of gas being used in the video coming from the kitchen)

  12. Originally, there were some good points made. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The protesters made some good points:

    Chrony Capitalism coupled with inflation really has created a system where money comes out of the void, shoots to the top and by the very existence of that new money being created causes the money other people hold to decline in value.

    Wall Street without a doubt orchestrated the creation of this system.

    HOWEVER Wall Street people are the wrong ones to protest. Companies exist to make money by whatever means legal, and in some cases not legal. The bottom line is companies exist to make money. You invest in whatever company is most capable of doing that.

    The problem lies in chronyism. A company that participates in chronyism isn't doing anything wrong, it's a means to an end in the companies goal of accumulating money. The corrupt government playing ball with chronies on the other hand IS doing something wrong.

    Our government representatives are supposed to represent the people. When they begin to self-serve instead of serve the people they are doing something wrong.

    By protesting Wall Street they're sending the message they don't want anyone to make money. If they were to "occupy the mall" instead and focus all of their energies and talent into figuring out the mechanics of every bribe, kick-back, vote trade, intimidation tactic, threat and dishonest move of every politician in Washington and create something akin to Wikipedia devoted specifically to those ends with as much evidence as possible we would be putting the real problem back in check. Unfortunately our three branch balance of power is out of balance, I blame the executive and legislative branches for pushing it out of balance and I blame the judicial branch for actively endorsing the shift in balance.

    I don't get an actual feeling the OWSers are motived to fix things. I get a sense of "I'm fucking with you because I can" and I get the feeling they're pushing for a fascist communist/socialist shift. As with every large movement it's obviously not an across the board thing, but I do feel that it's the general consensus, and I'm also starting to suspect outside driving forces, in much the same way the Egyptian government had paid pro-government protesters to clash with the grass-roots protesters some time back. With the OWS crowd they wouldn't need more than a couple of key charismatic people placed in each camp.

    In short theres a real problem that needs fixing, but I feel the motive of the protesters is to insert an agenda instead of actually fixing the problem.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way I've always seen it is once you start calling people names or nitpicking spelling and grammar you've already lost your argument.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno, protesting wall street works for me in a couple of ways (I mean as an idea, I'm not even american so I'm not actually going to go and protest).

      What's legal is not necessarily moral. Companies do have a duty to profit but they don't have a duty to -

      • Play number games that massively, massively enrich themselves without a shred of productive work being done.
      • Buy laws that help them profit at others expense.
      • Encourage other companies to drop ethics/morals, outsource everything and exploit the third world mercilessly while they're at it.
        • Secondly, protesting Wall Street rather than the seat of government also makes it damn clear that they're protesting the financial system and situation, not just being generic angry people.

          OTOH, if they had gone to protest in DC, one wonders if they would have had a lot more sympathy from the right-wing end of the press....

    3. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and I get the feeling they're pushing for a fascist communist/socialist

      Fascist communist/socialist?

      You don't have the slightest fucking clue what any of these terms mean, do you? You're just stringing together a bunch of terms that Fox News tells you vaguely to hate.

    4. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I thenk that 2 + 2 = 5!"
      "You're an idiot. 2 + 2 = 4. Also, learn how to spell!"
      "You just lost the argument by calling me names and nitpicking my spelling and grammar! Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5."

      Unless I just don't know what it means to "lose" an argument.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    5. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Secondly, protesting Wall Street rather than the seat of government also makes it damn clear that they're protesting the financial system and situation, not just being generic angry people.

      But aren't they being seen as "generic angry people," anyway?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Wall Street people are the wrong ones to protest. Companies exist to make money by whatever means legal, and in some cases not legal. The bottom line is companies exist to make money. You invest in whatever company is most capable of doing that.

      Time to invoke Godwin: The Nazis were just doing their jobs, too.

      In short theres a real problem that needs fixing, but I feel the motive of the protesters is to insert an agenda instead of actually fixing the problem.

      They have no idea how to fix the problem, and the continual dismantling of our education system is why. This is a problem of the 1%'s making; don't blame the protesters for not knowing what they want, when the powers-that-be have done everything they can to make them ineffectual.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once again, I don't watch TV, including Fox news. Okay, fine I watch South Park every week on the web, but, sure.

      Yes, I do know and the first thing to recognize is that none of the definitions are universally recognized, especially fascism.

      Here are my definitions of the words:

      Fascism - compulsory submission to a philosophy - a very simple definition but it doesn't agree with the one on the Webster website.

      Communism - the government is the only employer - this works at various scales

      Socialism - the redistribution of resources within a group.

      Fascism is bad. Communism and socialism can be good without fascism, unfortunately most movements towards the other two philosophies involve fascism under the pretense that everyone must participate for it to work, but at least it works for all.

      An example of good communism: The historic Iroquois tribe. The tribe lived in their shared long houses, everyone hunted, cooked and fished for everyone, you did not for yourself that wasn't done for the tribe. You were free to get pissed off and leave, go loner or possibly join another tribe therefore participation was voluntary.

      An example of good socialism: The Amish today. If your neighbors barn burns down you help to rebuild it. If you have nails but he doesn't you bring your nails, your other neighbor brings wood, and another brings horses to help pull the frame up. You don't have to help, but the others would do it for you and not helping sort of makes you look like an asshole.

      An example of Bad socialism: Most US social programs that by the time the money gets through the IRS, the Treasury, the agency in question, the contractor, and the sub contractor my $100 in tax money pays $15 towards a grant to research the breeding habits of the woodchuck.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    8. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I don't see what your argument is. All three of those are variations on the government running the economy.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Originally, there were some good points made. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Chrony Capitalism coupled with inflation really has created a system where money comes out of the void, shoots to the top and by the very existence of that new money being created causes the money other people hold to decline in value.

      Wall Street without a doubt orchestrated the creation of this system.

      No, that would be the Federal government that created that system.

      If you don't like the idea of government being able to run roughshod over you, consider seriously the idea of giving it less power, not more.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  13. The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure how the original wall street movement is going, but it has spread to cities around the world. The one we had in our local small city was ridiculous. As much as I'm happy to defend the right for people to peacefully protest it seemed to turn into more of a tent slum in the middle of our nice city parks, a park which is for everyones use.

    While I'm all for their protest, in face of cancelling a major event that is hosted in the park annually I'm glad that our council gave them a move on order. Not as excessive as this NYPD action, but the protestors did make their point and it's time to let the rest of us also enjoy the public property they decided to essentially squat on.

    1. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So in other words, you're fine with protests so long as they're out of sight, out of mind, and have no hope of actually affecting anything. Got it.

    2. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . As much as I'm happy to defend the right for people to peacefully protest it seemed to turn into more of a tent slum in the middle of our nice city parks, a park which is for everyones use.

      It really stuns me that you don't think that so many people willing to live in a tent slum to make a point, no few of them because it's better than where they're otherwise living which is much the point they're making as letting things continue this way will put all of us in tent slums, points to a problem worse than the mild inconvenience of not being able to play frisbee in one of a town's several (I hope) parks.

      While I'm all for their protest, in face of cancelling a major event that is hosted in the park annually I'm glad that our council gave them a move on order.

      Fuck your event, and fuck everything else being disrupted by #OWS too. We have serious problems in our society which have made these people feel otherwise disenfranchised, something with which I agree very strongly and which is essentially provable if you examine typical election fraud, who writes legislation, who buys congress, et cetera. The only way to shake people out of their warm cocoons and remind them that there are other people in this country seems to be to inconvenience them. If it takes inconvenience to make you care, then not only are you a poor excuse for a human being, but it proves the validity of these protests.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck your event, and fuck everything else being disrupted by #OWS too. We have serious problems in our society which have made these people feel otherwise disenfranchised...

      So you are angry that so many people are disenfranchised and you turn around and say "Fuck your event" to someone who has just as much right to use that park as you and the OWS protestors do.

      This is the real problem with the OWS movement. For every one person in it who is honestly concerned that something has perverted, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" There are 10 people who really just feel cheated, entitled, and angry but have no problem turning around and abusing others the very same ways they think they have been abused.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No I'm fine with protests that are vocal and make their point. The occupy movement has passed that point a long time ago. It was in the newspapers and TV, and I don't think a single person in the city has come or gone without seeing the protesters at some point. Beyond this though there's nothing further to gain other than piss people off. There's a point where a protest ceases to be a protest and starts to be damaging.

      I'm not fine with protests that become a nuisance and inhibit other people from getting on with their lives. To liken this to an industrial protest we had at our workplace everyone was fine with people picketing out front, talking to the news, shouting slogans, etc. But as soon as someone thought it was a good idea to actually block people from entering or leaving the workplace the cops were called in to free up the road. That's all they did. The protesters took it upon themselves to start shouting abuse at the cops and throwing rocks. My sympathy for those wankers suddenly took a sharp dive and they effectively undid an afternoon of marketing for their cause.

    5. Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Inequality isn't going away just because you're tired of the protesters. If you want the protesters to go away, work with them to end inequality. If all you want is for them to shut up and go away, well that's what the 1% want too.

      If you actually have some suggestions on how to better address inequality, everyone would love to hear them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. Campers by soundguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one has ever accomplished a goddamn thing by "camping out". You protest during business hours when you can get people's attention and when media bureaus are active and fully staffed, then you go home, take a shower, and sleep in a warm bed. In the morning, you go back and do it again. Rinse, repeat.

    The only attention these knoblickers are attracting by sleeping in a New York park is from the rats and the homeless.

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    1. Re:Campers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More importantly, you protest the authority by defying it, not by obediently going where they tell you to go, and ranting there. They lost the moment they were restricted from, you know, actually occupying Wall Street - and headed over to the park, instead of saying "fuck you, we're gonna stay here".

      Of course, this means being tear gassed, beaten up, arrested, and possibly paying a fine or even serving time. That's what civil disobedience is about. And that can actually change things, especially when people around become concerned about why their fellow countrymen are willing to go through such hardship. That's how it worked in Egypt and Tunisia.

    2. Re:Campers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Civil Disobedience is an option when you have no power, like being black pre 1964 civil rights act ... where you have no power to vote or expression.

      Blacks pre-Civil Rights Act had both right to vote, and freedom of speech.

      In any case, in today's America, right to vote matters little due to the way political system is structured. Both parties are opposed to what OWS folk are preaching, so voting for either is not really an option.

    3. Re:Campers by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Look up history? The democratic party was very conservative while the radical republicans were far to the left and liberal. It changed.

      Why? People registered to vote and change parties from within. The democratic party was racist too in the early 1960s and blacks took it over and now they represent human rights.

      Corporations hold too much power but if enough people get together and vote in primaries like the Tea Party does results will happen. The majority of Americans hate this and the house has a 9% approval rating! While most of us oppose OWS they surely would not cleaning house and having reforms. It is ripe and the OWS have a choice. Either to sit in tents and not do anything, or be active.

      The religious right did it and owned the republican party even though Carter was the Christian and now the Tea Party is calling the shots. People make changes in democracies and this is true in corrupt ones as well.

    4. Re:Campers by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More importantly, you protest the authority by defying it, not by obediently going where they tell you to go, and ranting there. They lost the moment they were restricted from, you know, actually occupying Wall Street - and headed over to the park, instead of saying "fuck you, we're gonna stay here".

      Of course, this means being tear gassed, beaten up, arrested, and possibly paying a fine or even serving time. That's what civil disobedience is about. And that can actually change things, especially when people around become concerned about why their fellow countrymen are willing to go through such hardship. That's how it worked in Egypt and Tunisia.

      Yeah, to really have an effect, some of these fucking hippies should set fire to themselves, that's what worked in Tunisia. Or maybe they should ask for help from NATO to bomb the police, like in Libya.

      Curiously, peaceful protest isn't supposed to be so difficult or so illegal in the so-called democratic West.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Campers by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Last time I checked, the Republican party was actually trying to change the law to make it legal to refuse to hire someone because of the colour of their skin, whilst simultaneously blaming black people's inability to get jobs on the fact that the Government let them avoid starving to death without one just like you are. That's so racist it's boggles the mind.

      Really, when did they propose that?
      You know you really need to work on reading comprehension. What I said was that the Democratic Party says (just as you did) that if blacks are not given special treatment ("affirmative action"), they will not be able to succeed and they will starve to death. Without white guys like you to take care of them, they just won't survive.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  15. Re:good by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I do agree that the world is not fair and people have a right to be upset and fearful of a 2nd crash with this dangerous flash trading and debt created by the rich, I do feel these protestors are morons.

    Not all of course as I would want to protest for a few hours. However, occupying a public space, supporting socialism, and refusing to get jobs or at least look and just whine out in the cold in a tent is not very smart at all. What do they expect? A trader walking past says, oh poor fellows. Let me tell the CEO of Goldman Sachs to disaband and give all our money back to the people and hire these people to watch other peole do jobs. Shame on us ... YEAH RIGHT!

    Start a political party, organize voters house to house, go get a mcJob to start paying down the student loan debts you agreed to pay for (I don't care if it is a 40k a year job starting out), and so on. Doing these things might not get you as successful as the those over 34 or your parents, but it is better than whinning and you can start to do something about it. The Tea Party was smart and taken over the republican party. That is why there was no compromise on the debt ceiling a .001% tax increase will give a (R) a one way ticket out of office from the Tea Party. OWS needs to do the same.

    Defacing property with no message is wrong. If anything many support the tentants of communism and socialism that I find a problem rather than a solution.

  16. Re:good by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Tea Party was smart and taken over the republican party.

    Tea Party didn't just suddenly appear out of the blue - radicalization of Republican party has happened steadily over the last two decades (accelerating over the last one), so what you see today is just a new label slapped on top of the end result of this process.

  17. Re:The right to protest... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or at least the "right" to squat on someone else's property for several months while defying eviction orders.

  18. Vote on it here... by kurthr · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Vote on it here... by BMOC · · Score: 2

      What if you think it was right to clean the park, but very very very WRONG to prevent media coverage? Where's that vote?

      --
      I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  19. Questioning legitimacy of the political system by bkmoore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the reason the government and mainstream media are uneasy with the Occupy Wall Street movement is it is basically saying the government in its current form no longer represents the will of most American people. Governments do not like having their legitimacy called into question. No other american protest movement in my life time has done this.

  20. Re:good by Knuckles · · Score: 2

    Simple way to do away with all the pesky rights people have in public spaces: sell the public spaces to private investors, who can then make up arbitrary rules. E.g., in Berlin, Germany, the city council sold the Potsdamer Platz to investors (Sony, Daimler) because it could not be bothered with restoring this important and historic public space to its former glory, after it had been dormant for decades as it lay right at the inner-German border. Until the separation of Germany, Potsdamer Platz had been the urban center of Germany's capital, with all that goes with that. When you enter "Sony Center" today, you are informed by signs that you are not allowed to linger, not allowed to play music, not allowed to express political opinion, etc.

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  21. Denying media to report what's happening - fail by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    NYPD has some valid reasons to clean that park (as it is private and not everything happens by the book), but they totally drop the ball with trying to control it as much as possible - it is already crying out loud "dictatorship".

    As for OWS - those people should understood that only protesting nothing will change - they have to get into politics at this moment. Two party system have failed US, because currently elites of both parties are drawn in lobby money and are constantly encycled by rich people. Even if someone like Obama wants really to do something (I'm not saying that he did or does), usually such initiatives are leveled with low level complaining. If it doesn't work, "unamerican", "socialist", etc. arguments comes up. You know how it works.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  22. It don't matter what he paints himself with by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is the 1%. The king and his court are hardly going to be advocating for the foundation of a republic are they?

    Remember this next time you watch TV or any other media. How many of the people you see in media are making minimum wage or even an average wage.

    For that matter, how many here on slashdot do a real days work? Hint, it is 10:30 in holland as I post this. Do you think a factory worker has the same luxury?

    I am not the 1%, I am somewhere in the middle but I came from the bottom and know just how much you can expect from the 1% in caring even the tiniest bit about anyone else. Bloomberg can paint himself with a donkey or an elephant, in reality he is filthy rich and cares only for himself.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It don't matter what he paints himself with by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to mention there is a good reason for the hatred directed at the 1%. What we have in the USA is a system so corrupted by money the ones at the top literally have a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where it is damned near impossible for them NOT to become ever richer and more powerful.

      You have their lobbyists directly writing the tax laws so you get situations like GE that got several billion BACK instead of paying taxes, even while they were offshoring good jobs to India as fast as they could close the plants (we lost 21,000 FACTORIES in just the last decade folks, anybody think that level of gutting is sustainable?) and corps like Google get to pay a pittance compared to profits thanks to the Double dutch and Irish tax scam, aka the Irish whip, you have those at the top able to use Wall street like Las Vegas and then if they lose are able to get the house in the form of the government give them the money (your money) back in the form of "too big to fail", budgets are written with the "help" of those who are getting the money, hell I could go on all day.

      The American people say they want an end to the wars and they ignore you, say they don't want kids lives ruined by being thrown in prison for pot and they ignore you, say we don't want to send billions overseas in the form of government handouts when so many of our people are hurting and they ignore you, write petitions spelling out clearly what we want and they ignore you, tell them we want the top 1% to actually pay their fair share instead of getting more tax dodges codified and they ignore you, say we want the money being handed to illegals stopped and our border secured and they ignore you.

      Wise men once stood up against taxation without representation and fought and gained a nation for themselves. Well what do you think you have now folks? When even Colbert makes jokes about how you "need to stop smoking wacky tobaccky and give that money to a super packy" so you can bribe your own elected officials just like the corporations do, well what the hell is the difference between us and any third world banana republic? your vote certainly don't mean shit as they simply replace one bribed crook with another, thanks to the ownership of the MSM by only 7 multinationals your protests won't be heard or will be made to look like fools, so what is the difference?

      It is THIS that the OWS movement is about although frankly i don't think it will work. i think the only way to fix a truly corrupted system is to replace and when the 1% have gutted this country enough and we are looking at Germany 32 levels of unemployment while the right wing guts every safety net they can we'll be looking at our very own Arab Spring. Well it was nice while it lasted but nothing lasts forever and the elite 1% have taken a big old shit in the punchbowl that is democracy, no point in trying to dip around it, time to throw it out and start again.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:It don't matter what he paints himself with by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Note that protesting isn't the same as shooting at the government

      Protesters are people who still have faith that the democracy is working and that they have some say in their government. Protests are what we have instead of armed revolts (otherwise known as terrorism), because people still believe that we live in a democracy. Now, if the OWS people really believed that the government was controlled by corporations and not by their voting power, then we would see an armed rebellion.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  23. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are times when a job is more expensive than just being unemployed. For example, commute costs. Not everyone can afford to live in the heart of downtown, and most US cities, bicycling is out of the question unless one wants to risk having a white ghost bike planted in their memory. So, it requires a car and those costs associated with finding parking. Just the $25 per day parking cost can easily be a significant fraction of someone's wages because of the pressure to hire people at min wage and keep them at that.

    So, the "occupy a barber shop and employment agency office" claptrap is just plain wrong, and very dangerously close to "let them eat cake."

    Who knows. The occupy * movements have had their back broken, and are essentially dead after the synchronized crackdowns, but one has to at least give credit to people willing to risk it all, with the minimum being having to answer "yes" on "have you ever been arrested?" for the rest of their life on every job application or bank form. (And yes, virtually all jobs past McDonalds don't care about *convictions*, they care about *arrests* and NCIC records. Employers view that people can buy their acquittal, but if a police officer considers someone to be such a threat they have to whip out the cuffs and do the paperwork, the arrestee is a criminal, period.)

  24. Re:OWS, America, and The American Dream by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

    I wonder if it's also the American Dream to make generalizations and straw men.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  25. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...watch the news. they actually ARE a bunch of lazy hippies. dirty too...

    I'm watching it live now and I don't see a bunch of hippies. I see people so fed up with a corrupt government that they are risking a lot to try to make it right. They are risking their jobs, their health, heck they'll probably get a police record if not worse. Why? They see no future. Their government only listens to corporate lobbyists. Their government gives money out to CEOs but won't help the people. Corporations are ruining their country and nobody else is doing anything. I respect them and hope nobody gets hurt.

  26. No it wasn't by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither was nazi germany all that bad, as long as you weren't on the list. That is why such regimes can continue to exist, because the majority isn't on the list and it is very unhuman (but very human) to risk getting on a list for someone else who is on a list.

    That is why real heroes, like the people of Urk (fairly strict christians who had no real love or hate for jews but disliked people telling them what to do with a passion) are so fucking rare. It takes balls of steels to risk your safety for someone else. The fast majority did not. Ich habe es nicht gewust really means, I spend all my time looking the other way so it wouldn't happen to me.

    And the US has been caught out many many times recently and in the past in making people disappear. Check all the foreign detainment camps operated by the CIA. It is not even a secret anymore, except by those like you who choose to look the other way.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  27. Re:good by tehcyder · · Score: 2

    Unless you live in bumblefuck nowhere, there are thousands of jobs available around where you live. The problem is, you want a specific job for a specific amount of money, and won't settle for what's available. Which is sad, if you haven't taken anything in 2 years. You're unemployed by choice, and that makes your opinion on OWS even funnier.

    The thing is, when the GP applies for a proper job suited to his qualifications, the comfortably well off fucktard interviewing him will look at his CV and say to himself "this guy isn't the sort of professional go-getting person our high quality organisation wants, look he spent two years flipping burgers instead of working unpaid as an intern for Goldman Sachs".

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  28. shut the fuck up by unity100 · · Score: 2

    fascist communist/socialist

    dont talk, if you dont know shit. what you typed in there in one shot, are THREE different, separate concepts, and they dont go together. one cannot exist or be merged with the other. but you have written them as if they are one or merged concepts.

    so, basically you dont know shit about these, and yet you have typed us what, 6 paragraphs ?

    how about taking that time to actually google and read what the concepts you were shitting about ACTUALLY mean, from wikipedia or some other source ? out of respect for the people in your community ? huh ? so next time, you wont shit around without actually knowing shit and coming up like an idiot ?

  29. Re:only two choices - almost by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, my last big theory is that we have exactly one shot at a grand slam Dark Horse candidate, totally out of nowhere, to pummel Washington into smithereens. But only once. Then the outcasts will be livid and we'll see the final sweep into oppression.

    But the last tool the Big Two use is they're all in 1 town, and they play the entire country on a Prisoner's Dilemma. And it worked for 50-100 years. But with the advent of the newest social media, if the entire country suddenly decides it has had enough, one last vote could sweep out absolutely everybody leaving the entire Washington machine speechless.

    We'd need both the Pres and a Filibuster-Proof Congress. Then we'd have to work FAST. We'd only get a year (you better bet the Justice Dept would cheat and not let us have all four years!), but maybe we can fix 30 years of abuse.

    Fix copyrights.
    Fix patents.
    Fix net neutrality
    Fix police arrogance
    Your choice of 20 more things.

    Let there be loopholes!

    Being funny for a moment, let's apply our Rapid Software Development to Law! Heh wanna get the Geek's revenge for all the version explaining we have to do?

    Corp: "Haha we found a loophole so we're going to do This Evil Thing."
    Fast Track Administration: "Oh. Nice 0day. Okay. Tomorrow is Patch Tuesday. It's 3PM. Better hope your execs are around to get it done because it won't be there tomorrow at 9am. K. Thx. Bye."

    Use the "put the testing on the people" mentality we wail about into lawmaking. Think about it, an Administration that moves with blinding speed, getting more done in a year than the last century.

    "Hi. We're Comcast. We're going to throttle torrents."
    "Internet Law 2.01. Sudo No you're not. Go away. Next!"
    "Hi. We're MPAA. We're going to throw those pirates in jail for copyright theft."
    "Copyright Extension Act is repealed. Oh look, how many works are now in public domain! Disney, yes we know about the Mouse, here's a coupon."

    But it only works ONCE.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  30. AFAICT that's exactly what is happening by brokeninside · · Score: 3, Informative

    Police are clearing out the park so that the owners can clean it.

    Once they are done cleaning it, the protesters will be allowed back in so long as they do not bring tents, sleeping bags, etc.

  31. Re:good by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Unless you live in bumblefuck nowhere, there are thousands of jobs available around where you live.

    If you do live in bumblefuck nowhere, then you can't afford to get to where the jobs are. Jobs increasingly do not pay a living wage, so the total number of jobs is totally uninteresting without the percentage of them which do. Under Bush the total number of jobs remained fairly constant, but hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs were lost and replaced with part-time positions without benefits or indeed enough hours to actually live on. Taking two jobs simultaneously can bring up the hours if you can find employers who can be flexible about the fact that you have an inviolate schedule, but it won't provide you benefits, so your family winds up without health care and the first time someone suffers a debilitating illness you're out on the street.

    The problem is, you want a specific job for a specific amount of money, and won't settle for what's available.

    My problem is, they won't even hire me for what's available in the backwater I live in, because the jobs are all beneath my skill level, and they think I'll quit and take another job when it becomes available... as if it would in this poophole. So I work freelance and I make it, but it's not fantastic. But then, I guess since I choose to live in the boonies, I don't deserve to be able to get a full time job which will support a simple lifestyle.

    Maybe it's unrealistic to expect that we go back to the 1950s level of prosperity where a busboy can afford to buy a house, but I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that most people should be able to raise their family on a job for which the public education system has provided them some preparation. Further, it's not clear how our society will function at all if we don't make it so — perhaps that is a sign that we should put some effort into fixing the problem instead of talking about how people are lazy. If they are, it's because our culture has taught them they should be, and now it's going to have to change to make people who aren't. No matter what, it is time for massive social change, even if we disagree on what shape that change should take.

    Too bad you didn't log in. That makes your opinion even funnier. You probably rented it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  32. Re:good by xaxa · · Score: 2

    Good. No one knows what they are protesting anyway.

    I liked this cartoon.

  33. Occupying *is* peaceful protest by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Occupying *is* peaceful protest

    It's called a sit-in. Just like in Greensboro North Carolina and Jackson Mississippi in the 1960's civil rights movement which resulted in desegregation of lunch counters.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

    Government has just gotten better at sweeping protesters under the rug and stifling media coverage by designating areas away from the target of the protests as "free speech zones".

    It's a backhanded way of doing it, but it's pretty clear that what's going on is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

    I find it ironic that the Tea Party is portrayed as "Right Wing" and the Occupy movement is portrayed as "Left Wing" when both groups have the same goal of throwing corrupt scoundrels out of public office.

    I think that characterization has more owed to Sarah Palin seeing a parade and running to get her baton and march in front of it as if she were leading. Ironically, her doing that has protected the Tea Party somewhat under the political shield of a former vice presidential candidate, which has required that they be taken seriously.

    You would think that some other savvy politician would take the same approach for the Occupy movement to advance their agenda, as Palin did.
      with the Tea Party.

    -- Terry

  34. Re:good by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    I guess there would be more jobs if you guys didn't need to give 700bil to Goldman and friends for bonuses.

    The funny thing about that is that the "Occupy" movement is as much, or more, a branch of the Democratic Party as the Tea Party was of the Republican Party, yet the guys receiving the bonuses you are complaining about are movers and shakers in the same Democratic Party.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  35. Re:Waste of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Americans are completely and utterly blind to the mis-deeds of their politicians as well as the abuse of their rights by said politiciams

    Not at all. Americans as individuals are mostly POWERLESS to do anything about the misdeeds.

    About the only power they have is where they spend their money. And with modern cell phones - the citizens could be empowered.
    1) The Armed forces over in Afghanistan are taking pictures of people and using facial recognition to ID people. You can't choose to deal/not deal with someone due to race/religion/sex but if they happen to to work for Gold-Man Sacks....
    2) The cameras on portable devices can read UPC codes and hold SQL databases. Compare the UPC code to a database of policies of the firm that makes them - that way if your thing is "is there an active boycott" because you support unions - you can make a different choice or even select that product over others.
    3) Note how the rich and powerful are wanting people to do "code enforcement" - the Texas citizen makes reports of illegal car parking as an example. Take the list of the donors to the political parties and encourage citizens to take the cell phones to the political donors properties and compare the condition of the home to the 800+ page 'building code violation' ordinances. (This one is more about showing how the politically connected get special treatment, finding fraud and abuse in the political donation system and pushing for campaign reform.)

  36. Re:Waste of Time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

    I'm pretty sure that's not true.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  37. #occupy impressions by Fished · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had the opportunity of visiting occupy wall st. a couple of weeks ago for a couple of hours. I don't claim that this makes me some sort of deep expert, but I did get to see it and formed a few impressions.

    First impressions were of Manhattan, which I had never visited before. Frankly, my impressions were that the place is a police state. I visited areas of Manhattan far away from #occupy, and there's pretty much a copy on ever street corner. There are also signs everywhere about how you are under video surveillance by the police. When I took the Staten Island Ferry into Battery Park, it was escorted by a literal gun boat. Now, I'm a Southern Boy, and I found myself thinking ... "okay, if I were in Beijing or even London, I wouldn't be surprised. But this is America! What the hell is going on in this place?" It seems to me that New Yorkers have traded there "eternal liberties" for "termporary safety", and they need to take them back.

    So, I more or less wandered into #occupy without even knowing that that was where I was heading. Everyone could certainly tell that this old, fat, tired, bald guy with bad clothes was from out of town, but everybody was very courteous to me and eager to tell me about their particular issue(s). Emphasis on their particular and the (s), because there was not one, unified issue driving the place unless it was the feeling that "those in power aren't listening to us." I was approached by people whose primary concern was corporate power, tax reform, fracking, and gay rights in the hour or so I was there.

    If I thought the police presence in Manhattan was over the top, around Zuchotti park it was completely over the top. I'm talking cops every ten feet, a portable observation tower with people-tracking radar ... you name it. But, here's the thing. So, near the kitchen, there's a sign that says, "X00 people have been arrested since #occupy began. There will be a meeting to discuss legal strategy at 8:00PM." And, 10 feet from the sign, and 20 feet from a cop, there's a couple of guys smoking pot right in front of God and everybody. Good old southern country boy that I am, all I can think is, "we at least closed the barn door when we did that!" I also wondered, were those umpteen-hundred protesters arrested being persecuted for "sticking it to the man", or were they arrested for smoking pot in front of a cop? Probably impossible to sort out.

    So, I hung around for a while, sang a few Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie songs, grabbed a half-dozen copies of the "Occupy Wall Street Times", and left." All in all, an interesting experience, and the Occupy Wall Street Times might be worth something someday if this turns out to be the start of an "Arab Spring" kind of movement in the US (although I doubt it.)

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  38. Re:good by Alioth · · Score: 2

    Unless you live in bumblefuck nowhere, there are thousands of jobs available around where you live.

    Have you ever tried to apply for one of those as a postgraduate? You get turned down on the grounds of being "overqualified".

  39. Re:One more reason the system must be destroyed .. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    Yes, we know. You represent the "peaceful" protesters of the Occupy movement. And when you get done with the powers that be, you will move on to those who have too much money (defined as "more than me"). Look how well that worked during the French Revolution.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  40. Re:Waste of Time by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

    I'm pretty sure that's not true.

    50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)

  41. Re:good by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I can tell you're doing pretty bad; in your posting history you discuss your thousands of dollars worth of lenses and thousands of dollars worth of cameras, your $600 superphone, your recent relocation to Orange County, and conveniently failed to mention that your "BS and MS science degrees" are in geology, which was never a job field with any demand and therefore is irrelevant to the discussion of job availability.

    Look, you seem like a nice guy. But what you're doing here is misrepresentation. When you use dishonesty to support a group, it makes the whole group look bad. Think about it.

  42. Re:only two choices - almost by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It only works ONCE, because what you've just described is revolution, and revolution inevitably becomes tedious and annoying to pretty much everyone - including the revolutionaries themselves. Businesses larger than a sidewalk vendor can't cope with laws that change on a daily (or even a weekly) basis. It's terrible to say, but to a certain extent bad laws that are stable and can be worked around are generally preferable to volatile laws that constantly change in unpredictable ways.

    The real key to reforming US politics is to reduce the power of parties to enforce discipline on their members, and reduce them to brand names that let voters know they're likely to be getting a certain bundle of beliefs, without the teeth to force them to support specific positions that go against the best interests of the specific people who elected them.

    If you want to know when Congress really started to go down the shithole in recent years, look no further than the "one-vote win" policy that the Republican leadership in Congress began to aggressively follow sometime around the turn of the century -- the policy of suppressing debate, and crafting laws that compromised *just* enough to win by exactly one single vote, and nothing more.

    I personally know at least one individual involved in the policy, and in retrospect even they've admitted (privately, years later) that it was misguided. It's something that might be tolerable in a crisis, but in the long run it actually works against the party in power because the disenfranchised 49% ends up being slightly different after every vote, and eventually you end up with a situation where the percentage of voters who regard themselves as "disenfranchised" starts to approach 60-70% (because people forget about the votes that were in favor of things they don't particularly care about, and vividly remember the votes of things they care about passionately). That's exactly what's happening today.

    A good place to start the reform might be to look at how the internal power structure of the Senate differs from that of the House of Representatives. The Senate isn't perfect, but it does seem to be a tiny bit more resistant to blind partisan politics (statistically, a Senate Democrat and Republican from the same state are more likely to vote the same way than they are to vote with their party leadership). A good place to start might be allocating committee memberships and leadership via secret Condorcet balloting instead of having representatives elect one leader (almost inevitably and without exception, on party lines) who then proceeds to allocate memberships and leadership positions on equally rigid party lines (with occasional exceptions for "well-behaved" members of the other party). Maybe even throw a complete monkey wrench into the power process by picking a dozen representatives at random and giving them first choice at committee memberships, before anybody else is allowed to bid on them. You don't necessarily want to throw the process into complete upheaval, but rather ensure that at least one key position ends up statistically in the hands of someone would can use it to screw up the neat, orderly plans of the power establishment -- if only to enforce greater debate and compromise. I've come to believe that real debate in congress in a good, healthy thing, and attempts to suppress it by *either* party are bad.

  43. Re:Waste of Time by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that really the tack you want to take? It's not that the American people are ignorant, it's that they are actually complicit in the war crimes of their leaders?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  44. Re:Waste of Time by gslavik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is ~55 million votes out of a ~280 million population, 50.1%? Does not compute. Population as of 4/1/2000 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html), Voting numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004). Also, feel free to correct numbers on Wikipedia, aparently, they are wrong with 48.3% for Kerry.

  45. So wrong by Quila · · Score: 4, Funny

    He totally screwed the pooch on illegal immigration, TARP, medicare drug benefit, and just general out of control spending and growth of government.

    Oh, you were probably talking about the wars?

  46. Re:Waste of Time by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    I believe the parent is referring to percentage of voting Americans as not all 280 million American can or exercised their right to vote. While your numbers are correct, the basis of your calculation is wrong.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  47. As the lady on The Daily Show yesterday said by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You Americans need to go Occupy Capitol Hill. Use your freaking guns, the second amendment is there for a reason they won't listen to you sitting in a park, all over the place, in every city I've heard of you'll get moved out and arrested for your peaceful protesting. Don't move, chain yourself down, make a barrier, provoke an attack and counter.

    You guys are pussies really when it comes down to protesting. The PD's will use their less-than-lethal weapons on you and you let it happen. As clearly demonstrated, there is no political willpower to change anything, there is no interest from the commercial space to improve your situation. All they care about is when you will move out and in the mean time they'll just vote into law who goes into the Baseball Hall of Fame or whether God should appear on the dollar bill (literally, that's what Republicans are voting on).

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  48. Re:Waste of Time by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Americans are completely and utterly blind to the mis-deeds of their politicians as well as the abuse of their rights by said politiciams."(sic)
    Yes that is why the new coverage is filled about protesters on both sides Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. And whenever a politician is caught breaking the law it is posted everywhere.

    Ever sense the Nixon Administration the Americans have became obsesses with the mis-deeds of their politicians. Just check out a liberal news source and a conservative new source and you get a good portion of the misdeeds that are done.

    The problem isn't as much that we are blind, we are just overexposed and have a hard time really knowing the difference between a president having an extra marital affair or authorizing an illegal wiretap.

    The problem is about 50% of the population has below average intelligence, and they are getting more and more information crammed into their heads and a lot of people cannot or don't want to stop the see the big picture and hop onto a small number of sources as the absolute truth while the rest if gives a conflicting message is seen as an utter lie. Debating a middle ground will often get you places as being one of those nazi right winger conservative bible thumping republicans, or those communist left wingers liberal hippy democrats. Just because they will not open their minds to understand both view points and really step back and see their good points and their bad ones.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  49. You know I hear that a lot. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Oh they've made their point! They've said what they want!" Really? Because I've looked. I've seen the "official manifesto" posted here: http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ and it is a rambling read of various supposed evils of companies that make them out simultaneously to be complete idiots and extremely malicious villains, but no actual list of demands. To "Clarify" things there is a picture that looks to be straight out of Mad Max Magazine.

    Or then on the official site there's this list: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/. Talk about some of the most stupid, unrealistic demands ever. They want to reduce the workday to 6 hours, yet lower the retirement age to 55 (hint: more work is required to retire since people live longer)? They want a moratorium on foreclosures and layoffs so, you know, nobody needs to actually pay their mortgage, and companies can't get rid of workers even if they must. Then we get some real good ones that show that they've never read the Constitution: "Ban the private ownership of land." "Immediate debt forgiveness for all." "Ban private gun ownership."

    So where is this list of very reasonable demands they have? I am not saying find me one guy, I'm saying something from the movement itself. Because I've gone to the official places, and all I'm finding it idiocy.

    1. Re:You know I hear that a lot. by waives · · Score: 2

      They don't have a simple easy plan to fix everything. But they don't need one. They are doing a valuable service just by drawing attention to the problems.

      It's a hell of a lot more than you are doing.

    2. Re:You know I hear that a lot. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      Well a big part of it is you can't be a hyper literal geek about it. The Constitution wasn't written like that and isn't used like that. In terms of gun ownership yes, the second amendment does protect that. The right to "beep and bear arms". You can't very well keep and bear arms if you are not allowed to own them. It does apply to individuals as well, the supreme court has ruled on that, many times.

      What's more, the rights aren't just what is specifically enumerated (there's an amendment that specifies that too). Rights can confer other rights. An example is the right to privacy. The court has ruled you have that, but there is no explicit language that grants it.

      Property rights are more complex, because they are throughout the Constitution. Even in just the bill of rights there are several: The third amendment prohibits the government from using private property to quarter troops during peacetime, the fourth prevents unreasonable seizures of property, the fifth requires just compensation for any property that is seized for public use (eminent domain). That isn't all of it either, there's more in the main body.

      Again those are then interpreted and fleshed out by case law and so on.

      In terms of amending the Constitution you are correct but then that is a pretty serious process. Serious enough it has only ever happened 17 times (the first 10 were put in right at the beginning). If that is what you want you really have to be focused on just that, and it really needs to relate to one single thing. Repealing the second amendment might be doable but not just randomly as part of a whole laundry list of shit.

      You have to propose a 28th amendment that says something like "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The Congress shall have the power to restrict or ban arms by appropriate legislation." Then you have to get on selling that to enough of congress to get it to go to the states, or get two thirds of the state legislatures to put it forward.

  50. Re:First you have to get the ordinance by tibit · · Score: 2

    I believe that the U.S. courts repeatedly held that legislation is exempt from copyright protection. So, even if the NEC is protected by copyright as its printed in the NFPA publications, if you get a copy from your local legislation, you can do with it as you please. Thus bulk resource. Alas, the laws in all of Europe are in complete opposition to this: they have plenty of laws that incorporate fairly expensive standards, and the courts have held that it's OK. Just E.U. legislation (so we exclude member countries' laws!) includes by reference standards that would cost you tens of thousands of Euros to obtain!

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  51. Re:You're funny by Ironhandx · · Score: 2

    Which is why I said it was wrong. They're not after all of that 1%, just the filthy rich ones that control everything. You don't get into the club until your net worth is 100m+

    There are some details like higher income tax above 250k/yr that would affect all of the top 1% but beyond that...

    Also I can't believe the taxes in America. If I was making 250k/yr where I am living right now I would be taxed at a base rate of 55% before deductions. I would also be doing damn fine on the 115k/yr(roughly) that I had left in cash. Thats enough money that if you were a real cheapskate on everything else you could buy my house outright every 3 years, and I'm one of the people thats considered "upper middle class".

  52. Re:Waste of Time by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry, 50.1% was intended to be an obvious hip-shot from memory. To get research based about it:

    In 2000, 52.1% of voting U.S. Americans voted against George W. Bush.

    In 2004, only 49.3% of voting U.S. Americans voted against him.

    So, I can see how George W. Bush's actions from 2000 to 2004, in total, could be argued to have won over 2.8% of voting U.S. Americans, although there are mitigating effects such as those people who are pre-disposed to vote for/against a sitting president (I believe the balance still favors for), and the variation in his opposing candidates, which I would characterize as creepy in 2000 vs. un-likeable in 2004.

    My point is, not all U.S. Americans are abrasive ignorant jerks - only about half of us.

  53. Re:Waste of Time by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Neither can black people in Texas and Florida. Man, I wish I was trolling :(...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  54. Just the rules of the park by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    I don't know all the reasons behind it, though part of it is because they don't want people camping in it. However these rules have been around for a long, long time. Like decades. There are other places that don't have the same hours, or don't have hours at all, but the particular park they chose, in downtime, does have hours. They apply to everyone.

    Again remember: You don't have a right to do whatever you want, wherever you want, public land or not. As another example the county here operates a gun range. It is public, as anything county owned must be. However there are some rather strict rules for its use. There is a fee (a pretty small one, $8 for a day) and you have to abide by all regulations like ceasing fire when the range master calls it, handling firearms safely, wearing appropriate safety gear, and so on. That it is public doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there. Anyone from the public is welcome to come and shoot, but all rules must be followed. Hours of operation are also a rule among them.

  55. OWS Comments by daneubauer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I found a list of the OWS demands. Here they are:

    "Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr."

    Why do those foreign companies have wage and regulation advantages? Because of the minimum wage and because of the endless regulation of products here in the US. Do you really think that raising the minimum wage to $20/hr will help? No! It will have the opposite effect. Either the company, say a fast food joint, will raise their menu prices to cover the cost of expensive labor or they will lay off the majority of their workers. Either way, the company is doomed. "Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors." A single payer system is a pipe-dream. Many other countries have tried and they have failed to provide timely and quality care. Am I saying that our current system is perfect? No. Government regulation and the need for tort reform have driven healthcare prices through the roof. Also, banning patients from using private money to get healthcare? Would they also agree that people should be banned from attending private schools? How about private businesses?

    "Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment."

    I just have to shake my head. How would they accomplish this? Where does the money come from? You can't get it from taxes. It is impractical.
    "Demand four: Free college education."

    You would just continue the current system. Already you can get student loans and not pay them back. And you wouldn't improve anything. For example, say I am a hiring directory in a mid-sized company. I have to choose someone to interview. There are two applicants for the same position. One went to a private college with a good reputation and the other went to the state run college. Who am I going to be more likely to interview assuming their experience and grades are the same? Obviously, the one who went to the private school.

    "Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand."

    Let the market run its course. Oil will become harder to find. As the price of oil goes up, other technologies become cost effective. Subsidizing anything does not make it a viable alternative. You also have to look at the alternatives. Most likely it will be electricity. Where does that electricity come from? We could get it from coal, nuclear, oil, or hydro. All of those are unlikely due to environmental regulation. What does that leave us with? Solar and Wind. Both unreliable and non-cost effective sources. Personally, I would buy an electric car if it can have the same performance, range, and refuel time as my current car. I also believe that nuclear and hydro is the best source.

    "Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now."

    Where does the money come from and what are you going to do with it? Assuming we print it, that will devalue our currency. If we borrow it, that puts us closer to a Greece or Italy type situation. If we tax it, you stifle the economy. And what are you going to do? Replace metal water and sewar pipes with plastic ones? Make roads wider? Build more/replace bridges? Improve the electrical grid? I live in

  56. Re:only two choices - almost by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 2

    You're making the assumption that everyone wants things fixed the same way you want them fixed. Which isn't true.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  57. Re:Waste of Time by steelfood · · Score: 2

    You're not living in America. Or at least, not in the majority of America. You're probably living in the little blue corner of wherever you're at. A lot of people agree with his deeds, especially once you sprinkle "muslim" or "islamic" liberally into the object of your sentence. That's the real America that's all around you. It's a place socially engineered over generations to hate and fear the rest of the world, especially those different from the "Western" norm.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  58. The campers are acting like the 1% by drnb · · Score: 2

    The campers are acting like the 1%. Self indulgent, acting however they feel, believing they are entitled, believing they are above the law, expecting others to pay for the costs that they generate, etc.

    Camping is not protesting. The city has said the park is open 24/7 and people can protest there. The owners of the park have welcomed protesters. The only thing being prohibited is camping out. The 99% would show up, protest, carry signs, shout, etc ... and then go home or get a room when they tire, and then repeat the process.

  59. Ummm Really? by DnemoniX · · Score: 2, Informative

    I got up this morning and I turned on CNN for some noise. As I got ready, they showed the press conference from the Mayor of NY. He was very clear, this park is privately owned but the owners are bound to an agreement to allow 24/7 public access. There are restrictions to this such as no camping etc (which were actively being violated). They can also close the park for cleaning and public health concerns. The owners have completely supported the protesters using the park, and continue to do so. The Mayor stated several times, after it is cleaned, you are welcome to come back, but leave your tents and tarps at home.

    You know what else I saw on CNN? Loads of footage of the garbage trucks cleaning up giant piles of garbage and refuse in the park. It looked like a shanty town in a 3rd world country. If there was some sort of media blackout nobody told CNN. If people were in fact kept away, doesn't it make sense that a bunch of extra bodies hanging around just might get in the way of the cleanup efforts?

    Go home, let them clean the park, then you are welcome back. That was the message the Mayor gave in the press conference. Somebody please provide a rational argument or facts that they can back up as to why this is a bad thing?

    1. Re:Ummm Really? by DnemoniX · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I guess that would be asking a lot now that I think about it. I do object to your characterization that there are hundreds of individually smart people reading this however. Based on the lion's share of responses above, the percentage of idiots is pretty high. You can also easily pick out the teenagers, college kids and Doritto eating mom's basement dwelling trolls. Having a /. id !=intelligent

  60. Re:Waste of Time by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    No it is very difficult to have exactly below average intelligence.
    Lets use a small scale example of 10 people.
    IQ
    108,102,103,101,97,99,98,95,99,98
    So 40% of them have an above average IQ and 60% have below average IQ none of them have average.
    Now as you add more data points you will see the numbers approaching 50% but unless you are really lucky I doubt you reach it.

     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  61. Re:only two choices - almost by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

    > The Democrats are doing it exactly right...and can't get anything passed.

    Well, at the moment, the Republicans can't, either. You could cynically argue that the schizoid nature of Congress today demonstrates that, at this moment, there IS NO real consensus about what Americans want Congress to do, and allowing the worst elements of both parties to openly percolate to the surface in public view is healthier than a situation where either party can be actively harmful to the best interests of somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of voters' interests.

    Here's the magic test -- if Congress' leaders, after grandstanding about having the support of most Americans, were able to irreversibly call for new elections to occur at some random, unpredictable date between 60 and 120 days from now (so they couldn't pick a moment of scandal and try to ride it to victory, and had to face the real risk of changing tides between now and then), how many of them would actually vote for it? Not one. A few firebrands who aren't very powerful, maybe... but leaders? None. As much as they bitch about gridlock, there's no way in *hell* the Republicans would risk letting a few more Democrats in (or, god forbid, a RINO or two), and no way the Democrats would risk giving the Republicans an unbeatable majority.

    The fact is, Congress is gridlocked right now, and it's probably a good thing. Think about how much good the side you support could do if they were able to, then sober up and realize how much damage the other side could do if they had their chance. Where things are going to get REALLY interesting is when the 99%/Occupy crowd starts skimming off the disaffected casual supporters who were previously clinging to the Teaparty groups as the "not in power party" and start drifting over to the other side. It's already happening -- you can watch the Teaparty leadership get more strident and radical by the day, because the leftern end of the spectrum is walking away and ceasing to anchor them towards the middle. The same thing will eventually happen to the 99%/Occupy crowd... they'll have their surge of centrist support, then the middle crowd will start to get uncomfortable with its most vocal leaders' leftist politics, and drift away (leaving them to become more radical and ardent on the left). Stir, rinse, and repeat.

    It's the story of American politics. The Democrats of the 70s and 80s were pretty hardcore on the left, as the middle drifted into the Republican camp. Now the middle has drifted back into the Democratic camp, pulled it back towards the center, and the Republican party has gone floating off into right-wing extremism like they did in the late 50s/early 60s. Rush celebrates the defection of RINOs, and the more leftward Democrats mourn the fact that it's now OK for Democrats to support Alaskan oil drilling.

  62. Re:Waste of Time by cusco · · Score: 2
    Bush, as Commander-In-Chief, is responsible for the actions of his subordinates as they carried out his orders, as established at the Nuremberg trials. He is also directly responsible for actions carried out at his direct order.

    From the US Constitution: Article. VI.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Those treaties include the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit 1) wars of aggression, 2) torture of combatants, prisoners, or civilians, 3) deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, 4) deliberate attacks on civilians, and a number of other points. The Pentagon, under his direction, was also guilty of multiple deliberate violations of the chemical warfare treaties and biological weapons treaties, in addition to (while not a war crime it would still be an impeachable offense) the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a number of nuclear weapons treaties.

    No, the bastard isn't going to be prosecuted, any more than Clinton, Obama, or his father will be, because anyone making a serious attempt at prosecution would be dead within days.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin