NYPD Dismantling Occupy Wall Street Encampment 933
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.
Something not quite right (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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 f
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:4, 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.
Re:Something not quite right (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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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 [imgur.com]
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/ [documentcloud.org]
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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.
Re:Waste of Time (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.)
Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, 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.
Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Re:Waste of Time (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Waste of Time (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.
Re:Waste of Time (Score:5, 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?
So wrong (Score:5, 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?
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Something not quite right (Score:4, Informative)
they were allowed to build higher then the building code allowed because they built the park for public use.
Re:Something not quite right (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 [wikipedia.org], after that building the Zooning Resolution in New York was changed to offer: incentives for developers to install "privately owned public spaces".
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/nyregion/zuccotti-park-is-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html [nytimes.com]
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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.
AFAICT that's exactly what is happening (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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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.
Re:Something not quite right (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Something not quite right (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 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Something not quite right (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.
Re:Something not quite right (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?
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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.
You know I hear that a lot. (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/ [nycga.net] 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/ [occupywallst.org]. 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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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. [sodahead.com] Nearly 100,000 millionaires pay lower tax rates than middle class [washingtonpost.com], 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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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 [npr.org] yourself. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Something not quite right (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?
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Something not quite right (Score:5, 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.
It don't matter what he paints himself with (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Something not quite right (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
Another good stream here (Score:5, Informative)
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 [nyc.gov]
Vote on it here... (Score:3)
You can vote on whether you think this was the right thing to do or not...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hundreds-cops-flood-zuccotti-park-occupy-wall-street-protesters-show-defiance-retreat-surrender-article-1.977430 [nydailynews.com]
repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (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*
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (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.
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (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.
No it wasn't (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.
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (Score:4, 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.
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (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.
Re:repeating a tweet: if just, why 1am (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?
not too surprising (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.
Re:not too surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:only two choices - almost (Score:3, 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,
Re:only two choices - almost (Score:4, 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.
4th amendment issue? (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?
Re:4th amendment issue? (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.
Re: (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.
This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:4, 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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:5, 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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:5, 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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This seems to show the government doesn't care (Score:4, 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.
Occupying *is* peaceful protest (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 [wikipedia.org]
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
Originally, there were some good points made. (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.
Re:Originally, there were some good points made. (Score:4, 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 -
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....
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (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.
Re:Originally, there were some good points made. (Score:4, 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. [areddy.net]
shut the fuck up (Score:3)
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 f
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Originally, there were some good points made. (Score:4, 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.
The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. (Score:3)
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.
Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. (Score:5, 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.
Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. (Score:5, 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.
Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. (Score:5, 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.
Re:The occupy movement is getting ridiculous. (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.
Campers (Score:5, Insightful)
The only attention these knoblickers are attracting by sleeping in a New York park is from the rats and the homeless.
Re:Campers (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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Questioning legitimacy of the political system (Score:3, Insightful)
Denying media to report what's happening - fail (Score:4, 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.
#occupy impressions (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.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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 te
Re:good (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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 nob
Re:good (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).
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I can tell you're doing pretty bad; in your posting history you discuss your thousands of dollars worth of lenses [slashdot.org] and thousands of dollars worth of cameras [slashdot.org], your $600 superphone [slashdot.org], your recent relocation to Orange County [slashdot.org], and conveniently failed to mention that your "BS and MS science degrees" are in geology [slashdot.org], 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re:good (Score:5, 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.
Re:The right to protest... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if it's also the American Dream to make generalizations and straw men.