Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Townsend]

Yeah but you can only hear about so many stories of public nudity, drugs, public defecation, public drunkeness, prostitution, etc. before you realize it  sounds exactly like the United States Congress. 

Old news.

Rick Perry's going away party.

[we vs us]

Since this thread won't die, I might as well post this here:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/01/11/rising-share-of-americans-see-conflict-between-rich-and-poor/

Rising Share of Americans See Conflict Between Rich and Poor
by Rich Morin

The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

[snip]

"Virtually all major demographic groups now perceive significantly more class conflict than two years ago. However, the survey found that younger adults, women, Democrats and African Americans are somewhat more likely than older people, men, Republicans, whites or Hispanics to say there are strong disagreements between rich and poor.

While blacks are still more likely than whites see serious class conflicts, the share of whites who hold this view has increased by 22 percentage points, to 65%, since 2009. At the same time, the proportion of blacks (74%) and Hispanics (61%) sharing this judgment has grown by single digits (8 and 6 points, respectively).

The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009."

So we knew libs would be open to this kind of argument (duh, of course!), but it also seems that independents are up significantly (by 20%) in the last two years. Looks like class warfare is the new black, especially amongst unaffiliated hipsters.

[nathanm]

Class warfare has been in vogue in this country among the wealthy since at least the Civil War.

[Townsend]

Class warfare has been in vogue in this country among the wealthy since at least the Civil War.

[we vs us]

That has nothing to do with class warfare.  Thank god.

[Townsend]

After OWS, U.S. Drops in Press Freedom Rankings

The nation drops 27 places in annual index thanks to the harsh treatment of reporters covering the protests.


http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/25/reporters_without_borders_press_freedom_index_slams_us_for_occupy_wall_street_arrests.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow

[Gaspar]

After OWS, U.S. Drops in Press Freedom Rankings

The nation drops 27 places in annual index thanks to the harsh treatment of reporters covering the protests.


http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/25/reporters_without_borders_press_freedom_index_slams_us_for_occupy_wall_street_arrests.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow

I can buy that.  There were several "journalists" that "embedded" themselves in the group.  When told to disperse, they stayed with the group, and were arrested with the group, only then providing their journalistic "get out of jail cards," and many who claimed to be journalists had no credentials because they were "bloggers."

Even the Reporters Without Boarders website does a poor job of making their case:

"Sometimes they are arrested and then set free almost immediately. Sometimes they are arrested and, before being released, are charged with unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct or lack of press credentials."

Wahhhh!  Wahhhhhh!  Wahhhhh!


Here's a tip from your Uncle Scott:
If a cop tells you to leave or you will be arrested, you should probably leave or you run a fairly high chance of being arrested.  When arrested, you are typically not invited to have a seat in a comfortable chair and treated to refreshments and snacks, you  are typically handcuffed and taken to an uncomfortable location.  If you refuse to provide identification or scream in unison with the crowd that you are a journalist, that does not make you immune to the fact that you disobeyed a direct and legal order from the police.  Such actions may result in serious down twinkles!

[Townsend]

The pic doesn't help your point.

[Gaspar]

The pic doesn't help your point.

Yeah, but it's so darn cute!

OK
I changed it for ya.

[patric]

The nation drops 27 places in annual index thanks to the harsh treatment of reporters covering the protests.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/25/reporters_without_borders_press_freedom_index_slams_us_for_occupy_wall_street_arrests.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow

These cities are among dozens where the cops are moving out Occupy Wall Street protest encampments, and the police plainly don't want citizens to see how they're doing it. Photographers and reporters, with chains of credentials hanging off their necks like the Lord Mayor of London, are being handcuffed, herded into pens, hustled into police wagons and sometimes into court.
In Los Angeles, police arrested a credentialed City News Service reporter trying to cover the dismantling of an Occupy site. A video shows police taking him to the ground as he tried to show his credentials. Police later claimed he was drunk.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/columns/douglas-turner/article678486.ece






Arrested for Doing Their Jobs  

The rising tension between news photographers and law enforcement officials. http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5203

Covering fires is a routine part of a television news photographer's job. Clint Fillinger has been doing it for more than 40 years in Milwaukee, so he knows the drill: Stay behind the yellow police tape and roll on everything. But this fall, while doing exactly that, Fillinger went from shooting the news to making it when he was knocked down, handcuffed and arrested at the scene of a house fire. When did videotaping become a crime?

Several recent incidents suggest a disturbing new trend: public safety officials targeting photographers, including professionals. "Cops don't want to be identified," says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "They don't want their pictures taken."

The relationship between journalists and police officers has always been tense, of course. "They're both aggressive professions, and sometimes they get in one another's face," says John Timoney, former police chief in Miami and Philadelphia.

But something clearly has changed. "It used to be guys with a reputation for not following orders" who wound up in confrontations with police, Dalglish says. "These days, it's folks keeping their mouths shut and doing their jobs."

In the Milwaukee case, Fillinger was charged with obstructing a police officer after he objected to being forced back "for safety" while members of the public were allowed to stay put, watching the house fire from across the street. His boss concedes that he used an expletive and raised his arm when the officer closed in on him, but says the arrest was not justified.

"While the language was coarse, I truly believe Clint had no intention of touching the officer, and the whole thing certainly did not rise to the level of being dropped to the ground and handcuffed," says Jim Lemon, news director at Milwaukee's Fox affiliate, WITI. "It was a bad spur-of-the-moment decision made by the police commanders on the scene."

Two recent cases in Suffolk County, New York, reflect similar bad decisions. In late July, a photographer for a local TV news service was arrested while videotaping the end of a police chase. An officer ordered Phil Datz to leave the scene, even though he was standing on a public street with other people. When Datz asked where he was supposed to go, the officer responded, "I don't care where you go, just go away." After Datz set up in the next block and started shooting video again, the officer jumped in his squad car, raced up to Datz and arrested him for obstruction. The charges were dropped.

A few weeks after that incident, an emergency services official in the same jurisdiction manhandled a photojournalist for New York's NBC-owned station, WNBC, as he tried to videotape the cleanup of a chemical spill. The official grabbed the photographer's camera and tried to wrestle it away.

What's different now, some say, is the proliferation of cellphone cameras on the street combined with heightened concern about terrorism. "I think that post 9/11 police treat everyone with a camera as suspect," says Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association. "In certain instances, news photographers are singled out because of their high visibility."

Photojournalists aren't the only ones who have been targeted. Cases are pending in several states against citizens who have been arrested and had their cameras confiscated after videotaping police action. And the arrests keep coming, even though the police keep losing in court. The latest ruling, from an appeals court in Massachusetts, said the First Amendment "unambiguously" protects the right of citizens to videotape police officers performing their duties in a public space. Journalists clearly deserve the same protection.

"The press may have no greater rights than those of the general public," Osterreicher says. "They certainly have no less right of access on a public street."

Police officers should know better than to run anyone in just for taking pictures. "We tell them constantly at the academy, 'Take it for granted, you're going to be on camera,'" Timoney says. "Everybody has a camera and they're entitled to use it. We police have to suck it up."

Journalism groups say officers need training to make sure they understand the rights of professionals and citizens alike to take pictures of police activity in public places. But Timoney doubts that more training is the answer. "If police don't understand this now, all the training in the world isn't going to help."

Piling up victories in court probably won't help either. When charges against photojournalists are dismissed, as they inevitably are, the police officers involved pay no penalty and face no sanctions. Suing for false arrest might make a difference, Dalglish says, by hitting the police department where it hurts – in the budget. But it's unlikely any cash-strapped news organization would be willing to shoulder the cost of a lawsuit just to make a point.

So what's to be done? Keep shooting, I say. Nothing makes a better case for the First Amendment than good video of a police officer behaving badly.

[patric]

Oakland Police Claim Occupy Protestors Using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

Their press release:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2012-01-27/article/39213?headline=Update-on-Occupy-Activities-in-Downtown-Oakland-4-30-pm--From-Officer-Johnna-Watson-Oakland-Police-Department-and-Harry-Hamilton-Oakland-City-Administrator-s-Office

[Gaspar]

Oakland Police Claim Occupy Protestors Using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

Their press release:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2012-01-27/article/39213?headline=Update-on-Occupy-Activities-in-Downtown-Oakland-4-30-pm--From-Officer-Johnna-Watson-Oakland-Police-Department-and-Harry-Hamilton-Oakland-City-Administrator-s-Office

They also broke into City Hall and destroyed display cases containing architectural artifacts, and burnt a US flag on the front steps.



They escalated from the typical OWS peaceful rock and bottle throwing, to throwing peaceful metal pipes and peaceful lit road flares at the police.  Apparently the "improvised explosive devices" were made of bundles of fire-crackers.  Not sure how much damage those could do, but if you are a cop fearing for your life and you start hearing fire-crackers go off in a peaceful crowd of non-violent people throwing pipes, bottles and rocks at you, chances are that your hand goes for your service weapon. 






If the OWS crowd wants an unfortunate accident, this is how it achieve it.  Now that this has proven effective in escalating tensions, we will see more of it. 

[DolfanBob]

Wow ! Communism, really ? What next ? book burnings, race targeting, death camps ?
Do the Soviets still wear the red sickle and hammer ? Oopps sorry. Russians.

[Gaspar]

Wow ! Communism, really ? What next ? book burnings, race targeting, death camps ?
Do the Soviets still wear the red sickle and hammer ? Oopps sorry. Russians.

It's just like when the Tea Party demanded communism. . .Oh. . .wait, never mind.

[Hoss]

It's just like when the Tea Party demanded communism. . .Oh. . .wait, never mind.

No, they just demanded that the President not mess with the 2nd Amendment...wait, what?