I am glad the commander in this situation is stupid enough to defend the actions of her subordinates. She's handing the protesters a PR victory.
I hope they're stupid enough to embarrass themselves by beating on any protester who's willing to take it. They may as well concede now if they think that kind of action will accomplish anything.
It's really weird, for me. Upsetting as it is to watch, publicized police brutality is actually the single most desirable thing for the protesters. Just as I don't personally identify with the protesters or their goals, but I think they're fascinating and necessary as a movement. Let's take the long view... where is this all headed?
|
Derek,
Just a little in defence of my nation. You woun't catch me doing it much, but, we didn't dump this on Germany. Greece's problems are caused by being part of the Euro (the currency), not the Eruopean Union the larger politcial entity. The fact that they shouldn't have been allowed within a 100 yards of membership given their economy is another problem that the members ignored at the time that's come back to bite them in the arse. Britain is not part of the Euro and so we have no more responsibility to paying that problem than the US do. We are paying through the IMF, just like the US is, but it's a Euro problem, not a European one. Geven the danger Greece poses to the world economy why isn't the US ponying up the cash? Right, because it's not your problem and you don't have any. Same deal for us.Eruope is many things, I'm afraid. Youve got Europe the continent, which has some members who aren't in the European Union, the political entity of 26 (?) members and the Eurozone (17 members) who use the one currency. They're not all the same thing.
I knew y'all were still on the pound, but I didn't realize you were as separated economically as all that. Thank you for the correction. :-)
|
|
I knew y'all were still on the pound, but I didn't realize you were as separated economically as all that. Thank you for the correction. :-)Derek,
Just a little in defence of my nation. You woun't catch me doing it much, but, we didn't dump this on Germany. Greece's problems are caused by being part of the Euro (the currency), not the Eruopean Union the larger politcial entity. The fact that they shouldn't have been allowed within a 100 yards of membership given their economy is another problem that the members ignored at the time that's come back to bite them in the arse. Britain is not part of the Euro and so we have no more responsibility to paying that problem than the US do. We are paying through the IMF, just like the US is, but it's a Euro problem, not a European one. Geven the danger Greece poses to the world economy why isn't the US ponying up the cash? Right, because it's not your problem and you don't have any. Same deal for us.Eruope is many things, I'm afraid. Youve got Europe the continent, which has some members who aren't in the European Union, the political entity of 26 (?) members and the Eurozone (17 members) who use the one currency. They're not all the same thing.
No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.
No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.
Some would argue that the UK only came aboard the EU when it became apparent that it would be more successful than the EFTA (founded by UK back in '57), and to make sure that it wouldn't stray too far from a strictly economic free trade zone.
Old habits die hard : UK spent most of the nineteenth century playing France against Germany, or Germany against France, and seeing them taking the path of a federation wasn't good news.
|
|
No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.Some would argue that the UK only came aboard the EU when it became apparent that it would be more successful than the EFTA (founded by UK back in '57), and to make sure that it wouldn't stray too far from a strictly economic free trade zone.
Old habits die hard : UK spent most of the nineteenth century playing France against Germany, or Germany against France, and seeing them taking the path of a federation wasn't good news.
Pretty much. We haven't been very successful at making sure it doesn't stray too far, though. ;-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just had a Yes Minister flash back.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Pretty much. We haven't been very successful at making sure it doesn't stray too far, though. ;-)No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.Some would argue that the UK only came aboard the EU when it became apparent that it would be more successful than the EFTA (founded by UK back in '57), and to make sure that it wouldn't stray too far from a strictly economic free trade zone.
Old habits die hard : UK spent most of the nineteenth century playing France against Germany, or Germany against France, and seeing them taking the path of a federation wasn't good news.
Yep. But we had to drag you flailing and screaming all the way... :)
I don't remember any european treaty or institution that UK didn't enter last!
I just had a Yes Minister flash back.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Spot on. Inflation of membership (from 15 to 27 now) is probably the main cause of the current paralysis of the european institutions.
On the other hand, it did create the need for more democratic institutions, to get rid of the unanimous vote.
|
|
Pretty much. We haven't been very successful at making sure it doesn't stray too far, though. ;-)No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.Some would argue that the UK only came aboard the EU when it became apparent that it would be more successful than the EFTA (founded by UK back in '57), and to make sure that it wouldn't stray too far from a strictly economic free trade zone.
Old habits die hard : UK spent most of the nineteenth century playing France against Germany, or Germany against France, and seeing them taking the path of a federation wasn't good news.
Yep. But we had to drag you flailing and screaming all the way... :)
I don't remember any european treaty or institution that UK didn't enter last!
Oh, really? I seem to recall deGaul keeping us out of the EEC for quite a few years (and by recall I mean "read about". I wasn't around for the last referendum, never mind deGaul).
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f-WLMvMyF0&feature=youtu.be
Video of horses going into a crowd - claims it is in portland.
Oh, really? I seem to recall deGaul keeping us out of the EEC for quite a few years (and by recall I mean "read about". I wasn't around for the last referendum, never mind deGaul).Pretty much. We haven't been very successful at making sure it doesn't stray too far, though. ;-)No problem. We are fairly conencted as half our exports go to various countries in Europe. We are also in the European Union, but not the Eurozone. And given that almost every newspaper and most of the public (argue aqbout which causes which later) are suspicious at best of the European Union, the British government couldn't give more money even if it wanted to (and as the current governemt is part Conservatvie [mainly anti-European Union] and Liberal Democrat [mainly pro European Union] it can't make upt it's mind if it even wants to) . Imagine the American governemtn propping up the Mexican currency adn you'll have an idea how unpopular it would be.Some would argue that the UK only came aboard the EU when it became apparent that it would be more successful than the EFTA (founded by UK back in '57), and to make sure that it wouldn't stray too far from a strictly economic free trade zone.
Old habits die hard : UK spent most of the nineteenth century playing France against Germany, or Germany against France, and seeing them taking the path of a federation wasn't good news.
Yep. But we had to drag you flailing and screaming all the way... :)
I don't remember any european treaty or institution that UK didn't enter last!
Oh, I meant ONCE YOU WERE IN. You are right, we first tried to keep you out as long as we could!
It's funny, because I first meant to wrote about de Gaulle opposition in my last post (he saw you as an US trojan horse in the EEC, not a real candidate) and ended erasing it. Didn't want to sound too anglophobic, which I am not.
Watched the live feeds in Portland and Oakland. The strategy is to drive occupiers out of the parks, then raze the tents and put barriers up around the parks while collecting lots of easy overtime.
The war on tents is working. This is a bad time to be a tent in America.
Warning! THIS might piss you off.
|
|
Frogboy,
Insanely high taxes? In America? What world are you living in? You have insanely low taxes compared to practically every other industrialised economy. Take a look at German taxes, or French, or even ours in the UK. If you think American taxes are 'insanely high' your brain would explode at what other countries have.EDIT: Oh, and several of those countries are growing faster than you, so 'insanely high taxes', which aren't, don't stop the grwoth necessarily.
If talking income tax, you are correct, but Corporate taxes are much higher here than in any of those countries you mentioned. Also, you are dreaming if you think any of those countries you mentioned have higher economic growth than the US over any substantial period of history.
EDIT: Wow, that took a long time to post?? I see you already corrected so my post is a little late :)
If talking income tax, you are correct, but Corporate taxes are much higher here than in any of those countries you mentioned
Well here's the thing.
We have a listed tax rate, and we have an actual tax rate. They're not the same thing. How much you pay in corporate taxes varies wildly depending on what you do and how good your accountants are. The end result is an overall low tax rate and a lot of rich and "creative" accounting.
|
Watched the live feeds in Portland and Oakland. The strategy is to drive occupiers out of the parks, then raze the tents and put barriers up around the parks while collecting lots of easy overtime.
The war on tents is working. This is a bad time to be a tent in America.
Devil's Advocate: Why do Portland and Oakland require tents? Or crowds, for that matter?
Media-molded perception of OWS.
I really like this article.
Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.
Isn't it nice to feel included?
Devil's Advocate: Why do Portland and Oakland require tents?
- So that people can stay there overnight without dying. The people need to stay there overnight to prevent the police from comming in during the night and putting up barricades to keep them out.
Or crowds, for that matter?
Its the entire point of the right to assemble. Its the difference between being one person asking your government for something (where they just chuck your letter in the trash) and being in a large group of people that says "holy BLEEP they really mean it"
I think its also a way of telling the elite "Hello. There are a large number of people who are angry. We know what you did, now knock it off. We're being peaceful... now... but if you keep it up we might not be"
|
|
Devil's Advocate: Why do Portland and Oakland require tents?- So that people can stay there overnight without dying. The people need to stay there overnight to prevent the police from comming in during the night and putting up barricades to keep them out.
Wouldn't barricades be a more efficient use of the movement? Keep the action on the move, force more and more barricades in more and more areas, make the police the ones wholly responsible for disrupting the non-protesting masses?
OWS ain't formless enough.
Miller. You disappoint me.
Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
Wouldn't barricades be a more efficient use of the movement? Keep the action on the move, force more and more barricades in more and more areas, make the police the ones wholly responsible for disrupting the non-protesting masses?
If the masses aren't concentrated in one particular spot then they're very easy to keep shooing away until they go home. Its much easier to take 50 cops and break up 5 groups of 100 people than one group of 500.
"They put barricades up" won't resonate with people. They beat someone in the head with a stick...might.
|
|
Wouldn't barricades be a more efficient use of the movement? Keep the action on the move, force more and more barricades in more and more areas, make the police the ones wholly responsible for disrupting the non-protesting masses?If the masses aren't concentrated in one particular spot then they're very easy to keep shooing away until they go home. Its much easier to take 50 cops and break up 5 groups of 100 people than one group of 500.
"They put barricades up" won't resonate with people. They beat someone in the head with a stick...might.
(continuing Devil's Advocate)
No, it won't. It should have by now, don't you think? There's a reason "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" is a joke.
Besides, the police are part of the 99%. They aren't the enemy, just a tool. Why does OWS try to escalate issues with the police? They could drive the police into murderous frenzies, and it still won't touch the actual enemy.
STILL nothing would happen.
The police need to be embraced into the movement, not cast as enemies of it.
No, it won't. It should have by now, don't you think? There's a reason "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" is a joke.
Besides, the police are part of the 99%. They aren't the enemy, just a tool. Why does OWS try to escalate issues with the police? They could drive the police into murderous frenzies, and it still won't touch the actual enemy.
STILL nothing would happen.
The police need to be embraced into the movement, not cast as enemies of it.
When public opinion turns on the police completely, they'll join the movement. In order for that the happen, they have to lose public support. To lose public support, they will have to exercise force against passive targets. I think they're well on their way.
|
|
When public opinion turns on the police completely, they'll join the movement. In order for that the happen, they have to lose public support. To lose public support, they will have to exercise force against passive targets. I think they're well on their way.No, it won't. It should have by now, don't you think? There's a reason "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!" is a joke.
Besides, the police are part of the 99%. They aren't the enemy, just a tool. Why does OWS try to escalate issues with the police? They could drive the police into murderous frenzies, and it still won't touch the actual enemy.
STILL nothing would happen.
The police need to be embraced into the movement, not cast as enemies of it.
Are you sure? I personally wouldn't join any movement that casts me as the enemy. I'd fight it to the bitter end. Are police officers so different in their mode of thinking?
Are you sure? I personally wouldn't join any movement that casts me as the enemy. I'd fight it to the bitter end. Are police officers so different in their mode of thinking?
I'm sure.
Non-violent protests work*. There will always be some people who are just too stubborn to snap out of it, but for many of these officers I expect they will hit "rock bottom", almost like an alcoholic. A moment of self awareness.
We're not even close yet. A lot of very bad things are going to happen to the protesters before people really give them that kind of support.
We were such wimps compared to this crowd.
Treating the protesters as sacrificial pawns toward your ulterior goal?
You are Evil Lincoln. B)
Oh, I'm very armchair about the whole thing. I do totally support the idea that something needs to be done. The problem is, I can't help but mentally compare it to past movements, and so I realize they don't need a clear message or any steps to follow to attain their goal.
The rabble of protesters are a symptom of economic stress, and they're a symptom that particularly affects politicians. If things get really bad, heads start to roll, and nobody wants that. So their mere existence can effect change, but things have to get worse. The threat needs to be credible, and that has little or nothing to do with the character of the protesters themselves.
Player: Events must play themselves out to aesthetic, moral and logical conclusion.
Guildenstern: And what's that, in this case?
Player: It never varies — we aim at the point where everyone who is marked for death dies.
Guildenstern: Marked?
Player: Between "just desserts" and "tragic irony" we are given quite a large scope for our particular talent. Generally speaking, things have gone about as far as they can possibly go when things have gotten about as bad as they can reasonably get.
Guildenstern: Who decides?
Player: Decides? It is written.
If the economy turns around tomorrow and people have jobs and food, the protesters will go home and we will all laugh about how silly the whole thing was.
If that doesn't happen...
I'm not sure I agree with your starting premise, IVV. All the Occupiers I have spoken to and most of what I see on the internet have made the same point you're making about police officers being part of the 99%. In OWS itself, there was a big attempt to draw a distinction between "white-" and "blue-collar" cops.
Now, I don't agree with OWS on this point, but I think that they mostly agree with you.
Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
The words I would use to describe my feelings towards Frank Miller would likely get me banned or at least censored here :).
But I've never been a fan of his work anyway.
Are you sure? I personally wouldn't join any movement that casts me as the enemy. I'd fight it to the bitter end. Are police officers so different in their mode of thinking?I'm sure.
Non-violent protests work*. There will always be some people who are just too stubborn to snap out of it, but for many of these officers I expect they will hit "rock bottom", almost like an alcoholic. A moment of self awareness.
We're not even close yet. A lot of very bad things are going to happen to the protesters before people really give them that kind of support.
** spoiler omitted **
I was in a number of marches at that time, too. We showed up, carried signs, chanted slogans, etc. Then, after an estimated 50 to 200,000 people heard the speeches and the music, we all went home and saw about 2 minutes of news coverage of it all.
In one ear and out the other. It probably forced a delay, but had no other effect. The government was lying and nothing changed.
The corporate control of government is even more absolute than their ability to profit from war. Rooting out the causes and symptoms is the great challenge to what's left of our democracy today, and it won't come from the top.
It will take massive effort, and it won't be pretty. The revolution will be tweeted.
Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
Funny, I never figured the author of Dark Knight Returns to be a moronic asshat.
That's...disappointing.
Miller. You disappoint me.Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
Seriously, I just read that again...it's a completely incoherent screed, a bile-filled stew of insults and islamophobia. I would have expected Frank Miller to be capable of making a cogent argument, but apparently not. Now I'll never be able to read DKR again with thinking "Greedo Shoots First." :(
|
|
Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
The words I would use to describe my feelings towards Frank Miller would likely get me banned or at least censored here :).
But I've never been a fan of his work anyway.
You mean he's not a troll? But . . . he says "Lord of Warcraft!"
You mean he's not a troll? But . . . he says "Lord of Warcraft!"Frank Miller, maverick comics legend turned reactionary xenophobe, thinks most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are entitled, basement-dwelling Gamers who play "Lord of Warcraft"and live with their parents.
Oh, and they're rapists too.Isn't it nice to feel included?
The words I would use to describe my feelings towards Frank Miller would likely get me banned or at least censored here :).
But I've never been a fan of his work anyway.
If you read the comments there's a lot of people agreeing. Makes me think it's not a one-off rant but just one in a series of idiotic, hateful rants. I'm afraid to scour his site for more though.
I like how he accuses the Occupiers of being rapists...and then recommends they join the armed forces...
In 2010, there were 3,292 reported cases of female American soldiers being raped by fellow servicemen.
Maybe I should go troll Frank Miller...
EDIT: Nevermind, he's already got 6,000 trolls responding to him.
I only recognize Jay-Z and The Coup. Either none of these rappers are big, or I am getting old...
|
I just died a little reading that post and the comments that followed.
Likewise. I Like Frank Miller Movies. I dont think I'll pay money for them through any service where he's getting reimbursed for them though.
Maybe Pawnshops. I know that way he's not getting a cent from me. lol.
I like how he accuses the Occupiers of being rapists...and then recommends they join the armed forces...
In 2010, there were 3,292 reported cases of female American soldiers being raped by fellow servicemen.
Thats. Inexcuseable.
[Edit]I'm going to leave my thoughts of what I think those people deserve out of here.
Im reading that the poo is hitting the fan in NYC
I've heard that it's been broken up. Not sure how this is going to affect things aroundabouts.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Non-violent protests work*. There will always be some people who are just too stubborn to snap out of it, but for many of these officers I expect they will hit "rock bottom", almost like an alcoholic. A moment of self awareness.
The problem is the OWS hasn't been very good at self policing and keeping the crime out of their encampments. The OWS protests, in every major city, have been marred by crime. rape, vandalism, muggings, theft, Oakland they had a murder, drug overdoses. I think the public is less sympathetic to the protestors now than when the protests started.
And I just heard that a judge has kept them from being kicked out in Zuccoti Park. Not sure where things stand now.
Non-violent protests work*. There will always be some people who are just too stubborn to snap out of it, but for many of these officers I expect they will hit "rock bottom", almost like an alcoholic. A moment of self awareness.The problem is the OWS hasn't been very good at self policing and keeping the crime out of their encampments. The OWS protests, in every major city, have been marred by crime. rape, vandalism, muggings, theft, Oakland they had a murder, drug overdoses. I think the public is less sympathetic to the protestors now than when the protests started.
Indeed. They need to organize.
Regarding the Berkley videos - at least 1 protester was hospitalized with a broken rib(s). At least that is what Colbear and Huffington Post seam to be saying.
Colbear
*giggle*