TWCL

[afterthedream]

I've been pretty moved lately by the Occupy Wall Street movement and also some of the police brutality in response to it. I'm not trying to start some big political debate here, but I wanted to share some art we've created recently to show support for something others of you may care about as well. The characters pictured are both from my comic. The first is Jonas DeSantis, a soldier-turned-activist, and the other is Kim Dee, an idealistic anarchist who would be right at home in a tent in Zuccotti Park or downtown Oakland.

[Casual Notice]

Scott Olsen was the victim of a sad accident while taking part in a violent and illegal demonstration. he chose to be there, and he knew the price of his cooperation in the events that led to his being hit with a riot beanbag.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[afterthedream]

Casual Notice wrote:

Scott Olsen was the victim of a sad accident while taking part in a violent and illegal demonstration. he chose to be there, and he knew the price of his cooperation in the events that led to his being hit with a riot beanbag.

I said I didn't want to start a big political debate, but I'm afraid I can't let a grossly ignorant statement like that stand. As it happens, I was there during the evening in question, because I'm a registered EMT and people needed my help. Police attacked peaceful demonstrators, whose actions were protected under the first amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Scott Olsen was shot at close range in the head with a rubber-coated bullet, in direct violation of the law and standard police procedures (rubber bullets are not supposed to be shot directly at people, never mind at their head at close range). THEN, when medics ran to Scott to treat him, a police officer threw a flash bang grenade directly into their midst, again in direct violation of the law, both U.S. and international. All of this is recorded for all the world to see in multiple videos which are easy to find on YouTube.

[Casual Notice]

Quote:

I said I didn't want to start a big political debate

You just wanted everyone to shut up while you spouted your opinion (and your view of events).

The protest was neither legal nor protected by the first amendment. The right of cities and states to regulate marches and large gatherings through permits has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 18th century. Freedom to assemble does not mean freedom to impose yourself on the rights of your fellow Americans.

Nor was it peaceful. There are filmed interviews with Occupy Oakland participants who freely admit that at all of the demonstrations following the vacate order, Occupy Oakland protestors began the violence by flinging rocks, bottles and (later) m-80 fire crackers at the police.

You're wrong on the law. Rubber bullets are designed to be shot at protestors and rioters (you may be thinking of the smoke gas canister that was originally reported as having been the item that hit Olsen). They hurt like shit, and they can break the skin a little, but they're non-lethal. Most reliable reports claim that he was hit with a beanbag (these are fired from a type of shotgun, and are less dangerous than rubber bullets, but still painful).

Back in the 70's, I was involved in a number of NORML marches in DC. We always had a permit, and usually started out peacefully. Near the end, of course, some moron always stepped over the line. At one, the idiots, for some reason, thought it would be a good idea to storm the White House Fence. Needless to say, I learned a lot about crowd control tactics that day, such as how much it hurts to be part of a crowd that needs controlling.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[citronrobotlord]

Having only one year of experience in the field of journalism, through a very comprehensive work placement (no post secondary yet), I can't say I'm an expert. but I do believe I know a thing or two about coverage of events like this.

It's NOT easy to know if you're telling the truth or not when you have to get your story up in a few hours because the other stations going to have their story up in a few hours. The only way to keep the fact pure is to say very basic things. And elimination your self from the questioning process is not easy.

In a world where the more exciting story gets more view (and that means more money for the station) telling basic things like "A political rally got out of control today, the police threw teargas and shot rubber bullets. There were some injuries incurred but we are not sure what from as of yet. We will update you on exactly how this came to happen when we've interviewed everyone we can." It just doesn't sell. the viewers attention on the story is lost.

I can confidently say this because even the small independent news broadcasters (like what I worked at, and it was owned by a retired CBC employee) act on the same concept.

To be really sure what the truth is, if you want to have any opinion at all, I recommend watching and reading and listening to as much on the subject online as you can, the big news stations have their websites and there are hundreds of independent and citizen journalists. (like Casual Notice mentioned about the interviews with the Oakland occupiers) (there are videos that show flash bombs going off inside a crowd trying to help the Vet who had been knocked unconscious.)

Even better, go down to your local occupy event and ask as many of the people down there why they're at the protest and what they hope to achieve. then, if they have any accusations against any kind of institution ask them where their proof is. whatever they give you look it up again at home and scrutinize that.

This is just another reason why giving a solid story just hours after an event is REALLY REALLY HARD. you have to dig and dig and dig farther to make sure your sources are solid and the facts are straight. then on top of all that you have to make sure your opinion isn't getting in the way of the story.

Sometimes, if you're educated enough on a subject you can find it really easy to cover that subject. but for the rest of us we still have to scrutinize that journalists work. Journalism is a hard world to work in and in a media age we all need to be aware of how to be impartial.

My opinion at least.

[afterthedream]

Casual Notice wrote:

The protest was neither legal nor protected by the first amendment. The right of cities and states to regulate marches and large gatherings through permits has been upheld by the Supreme Court since the 18th century. Freedom to assemble does not mean freedom to impose yourself on the rights of your fellow Americans.

You evidently missed civics class. Fundamental rights trump city ordinances. And the Occupy Oakland encampment wasn't imposing on anyone's rights.

Quote:

Nor was it peaceful. There are filmed interviews with Occupy Oakland participants who freely admit that at all of the demonstrations following the vacate order, Occupy Oakland protestors began the violence by flinging rocks, bottles and (later) m-80 fire crackers at the police.

Again, I was there. No idea where you're getting your info from, but I know for a fact that the police initiated the violence, just as was the case yesterday when some of the same police beat peaceful demonstrators at UC Berkeley with batons.

Quote:

You're wrong on the law. Rubber bullets are designed to be shot at protestors and rioters (you may be thinking of the smoke gas canister that was originally reported as having been the item that hit Olsen). They hurt like shit, and they can break the skin a little, but they're non-lethal. Most reliable reports claim that he was hit with a beanbag (these are fired from a type of shotgun, and are less dangerous than rubber bullets, but still painful).

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. I treated several people who were hit with rubber bullets, and many of them were collected afterwards as proof.

Quote:

Back in the 70's, I was involved in a number of NORML marches in DC. We always had a permit, and usually started out peacefully. Near the end, of course, some moron always stepped over the line. At one, the idiots, for some reason, thought it would be a good idea to storm the White House Fence. Needless to say, I learned a lot about crowd control tactics that day, such as how much it hurts to be part of a crowd that needs controlling.

Glad you enjoy licking the boot on your face. Not my style though.

[Traegorn]

afterthedream, there's no use arguing with Casual Notice - he has a hard on for attacking the Occupy movement, and no argument (regardless of the facts) will convince him otherwise.

(although he has a point on the use of public space thing - the right to assemble is limited - just as all parts of the first amendment - where yes, you have the right to assemble, but not indefinitely. That said, I support the Occupy movement)

[Casual Notice]

Quote:

he has a hard on for attacking the Occupy movement...regardless of the facts

Are you sure it's not because I consider all of the facts? Honestly, I have no "hard on" (as you put it) for attacking anything. Ask those who know me here. I abhor visceral responses to the point that I've often been accused of lacking passion.

If I have a "hard on" for anything, its for careful thought before taking action and care that your actions don't cause indiscriminate harm.

You were there, dream? Good for you. I was at a lot of places where chaos occurred and I couldn't tell you exactly what occurred at any of them except by later review of the footage. At the NORML marches previously cited, I honestly believed the cops were just attacking us because they liked smacking teenagers with their wooden batons (this was before hard rubber nightstick); it wasn't until later, when I learned of the people who mobbed the White House fence (and others who threw rocks and bottles) that I realized that maybe the police had a reason to respond as they did.

I didn't see any flashbangs in the videos I watched. The flash you see is the ignition spark of a smoke or teargas canister. I also didn't see any qualified EMTs being fired upon. I saw a bunch of kids being dispersed while they tried to carry an injured man (without regard to any back or neck injury he may have received) away from the proper medical attention that emergency services could provide him.

As to the "protests" themselves. These aren't protests, these are tantrums. There is no specific ill being addressed. There are no specific cures being offered. They claim to be the 99% then shut down a Burger King (not the regional offices, just a single restaurant), harrassing the hardworking manager and employees in the process. In DC they held a banquet hostage, then pushed an 85-year-old woman down a flight of stairs when she tried to leave.

And for what? They don't know. They claim to be the 99% (despite having an average household income of $100,000--40K above the national average) but let multimillionaires and billionaires like Michael Moore and George Soros do their speaking for them. They claim to be non-violent, but events like the two I mentioned above, and reports of attacks on police and civilians keep popping up—yes, yes, you can say "Outside agitators" but Dr King refused to attend a protest until the Black Panthers in the group agreed to carry no weapons and make no aggressive moves. He wouldn't have bought the "oustide agitators" excuse, and neither do I.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Traegorn]

They want to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% to support public programs, greater regulation of our financial institutions, and to get the money out of politics. Individual city protests may have other demands, and the decentralized nature of the movement may mean these ideals are of different priorities for different people,mbut that seems to be the universal theme.

Sure sounds like a protest to me.

[Casual Notice]

Traegorn wrote:

They want to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% to support public programs, greater regulation of our financial institutions, and to get the money out of politics. Individual city protests may have other demands, and the decentralized nature of the movement may mean these ideals are of different priorities for different people,mbut that seems to be the universal theme. Sure sounds like a protest to me.

Really? People rallying in the streets and the parks in order to deny or abridged the rights of another group sounds like a protest? Where I come from, we call that a lynch mob.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Traegorn]

They want the government to make laws - and how does it abridge anyone's rights? Your making a bull malarky equivocation there.

[Casual Notice]

They want a subset of the US population to bear a disproportionate responsibility, how is that not an abridgement of those people's rights?
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Traegorn]

They want to raise taxes on the top 1%. There is no "right to low taxes" in the constitution.

It's an equivocation fallacy to say that raising a tax rate is an abridgement of rights.

[Casual Notice]

Traegorn wrote:

They want to raise taxes on the top 1%. There is no "right to low taxes" in the constitution. It's an equivocation fallacy to say that raising a tax rate is an abridgement of rights.

It is an abridgement of rights to raise taxes on a single subset of the population, especially when you consider that that segment already carries a disproportionate 38% of the tax burden. And yes, it is disproportionate, since our tax system is scaled, the tax burden will always be disproportionate.

But that isn't what OWS is seeking. That's only one of about twenty varying and (often) contradictory "demands" coming out of the Occupy camps. It just happens that this one sounds vaguely reasonable, because we know it's much more acceptable to vilify an unnamed minority (referred to only by a number), and you were hoping that this nationwide snit by a sadly misinformed youth would seem somehow reasonable if you cleaned it up and pretended that was the basis of the whole thing.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Traegorn]

If the only differentiation is "how much money they have" then your whole "subset of the population" argument is so flawed it hurts.

By the way, that 38% number is only income taxes, and doesn't represent the whole of taxation. Income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government. Social Security, Medicare and Payroll taxes are mostly paid by The bottom 90% of wage earners.

Taxes have dropped on the top 1% over the last twenty years - even raising them to previous levels would be an improvement.

But, you know, that would be LOGICAL.