Saturday Afternoon Open Thread


But, Go Gators!

Update (TL): We've got snow!

Open Thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread: Yom Kippur | Breaking Bad Finale: Who Survives? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My town's OWS is talking up October 15 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    is the date of a major event, and now I see this.

    The date has interesting significance, for those of us who remember it as Moratorium Day for one of the major marches on Washington (and around the country and the world) to end the Viet Nam War.  Will there again be a call on October 15 for a general strike?  We haven't had one of those in this country in a long time, and the state of this country today suggests there may be no better time.

    Terrific video. Although the sound is (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    destroying my immense enjoyment of "The Opera Show" on KUSC FM.  This morning:  contraltos and basses.  Marvelous.

    Will you be stopping by (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sj on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 04:59:52 PM EST

    Bloomberg on OWS: destroying jobs. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Oh, yeh, that's what OWS is about: (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:42:05 PM EST
    taking jobs away.

    Got it.

    Thanks, Hizzoner.


    On CNBC friday, there was a bizarre moment... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    Somebody was whining about raising taxes on millionaires - the premise being that it would cause more unemployment, the poor downtrodden millionaires being able to hire fewer servants.

    I'm not kidding.


    Wow, a new low (none / 0) (#31)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 11:41:06 PM EST
    in a land of lows lately.

    Let's bring back serfdom, while we're at it.  After all, those serfs were kept busy and out of trouble.


    They are working on that (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:36:07 AM EST
    Coming to your neighborhood soon.

    Make unemployed people work for free

    It is one of the few parts of Obama's "job" plan that gets the seal of approval from Paul Ryan so you know it will be great bipartisan legislation.  


    Paul Ryan's compassion is topped by (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    a fellow Republican, Florida State Representative Rich Workman (R. Melbourne), who also is looking out for the little people. Workman wants to overturn the ban on dwarf tossing in bars.  It is not that he has anything against dwarfs. Indeed, just the opposite, he wants to create job opportunities for them.

    You need to read more than the headline (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 08:27:08 AM EST
    From the article you linked to:

    Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) isn't a fan of President Barack Obama's American Jobs Act, but he does like the idea of allowing people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work for free.

    The plan is based on a program called Georgia Works which matches job seekers with employers. Under the plan, employers agree to provide up to eight weeks of on-the-job training. Workers, who can only work for 24 hours a week, continue to receive unemployment benefits instead of getting paid.

    It is clear that the workers continues to receive unemployment benefits while the employer TRAINS them for a maximum of 8 weeks.

    Isn't this what we want? To find a way for people to be trained for a new job?

    Think of it as a tax payer funded student loan.


    Or, how about what it is: free labor for the (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    employer, who doesn't have to spend a dime of company money to train the "employee," and has no obligation to hire the "intern" at the end of the training period.

    But, golly - the "employee," who presumably understands the whole working-for-pay thing because he or she used to have a real job - the reason they are eligible for unemployment in the first place - gets to show how grateful he or she is to be receiving it by working 24 hours a week at a job that, if he or she were a "real" employee, might pay them more than the effective hourly rate of working-for-unemployment.  And from a check that isn't enough to actually live on, the "employee" now has to pay the cost of commuting to this "job."  

    So, it's not only that the employer gets a free employee, but that the employer doesn't have to hire someone, pay them commensurate with the job, contribute to SS and Medicare and unemployment insurance, or provide them any benefits that are provided to "real" employees.

    The employer gets a huge break, and the "employee?"  He or she gets to keep receiving an unemploymemt check that isn't enough to live on.

    Seems like something inspired by the oh-so-compassionate post-Katrina Barbara Bush: "well, these people didn't have jobs anyway, so this will work out very well for them."


    What nonsense (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    This is a government paid for training program.

    I thought you believed in government programs?

    Get real. It doesn't matter why the person is unemployed at this point in time. (That can be worked on, but it is completely separate from trying to get someone back to work.)

    And read. The program lasts only 8 weeks. Assuming success, the unemployed person becomes a full time employee with all of the benefits that anyone else in that job gets.

    Does the employer get a break?? Well, the employer bears all the cost of training the person and any losses caused by mistakes during training.

    But what's your solution? No training just unemployment bucks until they run out and the person still can't find a job because they haven't been trained??

    Know what I think? I think you are against it because a Repub said he liked it.  


    Please (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    You really think the employer will now hire the out of work person.  Don't hold your breath.  Programs like this can and are scammed to get free labor.  After the first batch has done its time the next batch can be brought in.

    This is nothing more than a gift to business and business has had more than enough gifts.

    You may trust the business community, I certainly don't.  I've seen too much over the years.


    I believe in what Reagan said. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    Trust but verify. If you want to claim that the program can be scammed be my guest but I have no reason to believe that there is no oversight.

    How is it working out in practice? (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    are people really getting skills that will help them get hired, either at the participating company or elsewhere? I have heard anecdotes that say they are not, but if you have evidence of success stories, please share.

    Programs like this that do not really (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    work just give programs like this a bad name. I think that is the objection liberals have to them.

    Good analysis of GA Works (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    How Georgia Works Gives Employers Free Labor at the Expense of the Unemployed

    The total number of successful hires was 7,997, and they are divided up by NCCI code for categories. Here's a chart showing some of the major jobs types that stood out. Sixty percent of Georgia Works hires belong to four broad job categories:
    What does this tell us? All of these jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), require a high school diploma or less. They are all jobs that are "de-skilled": the types of jobs someone can go into and out of and be relatively productive at day one. Many of them are high churn, high turnover jobs. Indeed, they seem more characteristic of a temp agency than an institution that is focused on jobs that require skills to accelerate productivity.

    Georgia Works began in 2003. Since a large percentage of the "successful hires" occurred in high turnover jobs, it would be interesting to know how many of these new hires were just filling the same position over and over (i.e.temp agency aspect). Another thing to consider is how does GA's unemployment rate compared to the national average.

    Georgia Unemployment

    According to the BLS current population survey (CPS), the unemployment rate for Georgia rose 0.1 percentage points in August 2011 to 10.2%. The state unemployment rate was 1.1 percentage points higher than the national rate for the month. The unemployment rate in Georgia peaked in October 2009 at 10.4% and is now 0.2 percentage points lower. From a post peak low of 9.8% in April 2011, the unemployment rate has now grown by 0.4 percentage points. You can also see Georgia unemployment compared to other states.

    What kind of job do you (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    think you can be trained for in 8 weeks of 24 hours each?

    Brain surgeon?


    Brain surgeon. No (none / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    Dish washing or washing floors at a greasy spoon is more likely. Something tells me it doesn't take 192 hours to train for those jobs.

    Whatever. It is a job. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    I have no sense of humor over people thinking they are too do a job.

    What is your unstated problem with the program?


    I have no sense of humor (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    with your game playing.

    I have made numerous comments on this blog that clearly stated my position on the program. I have provided links in this thread and others to various analysis that emphasize the problems with this program. As far as I'm concerned you can go look them up or not because I don't chose to keep responding to your regurgitated, overused right wing talking points that are not responsive to the comments.


    I had no idea (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    that being for government funded employee training was a Right Wing position.

    The things I learn.


    If you have evidence that they (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:18:23 PM EST
    are not....

    Please share.

    The training is for a job with that employer, not someplace else.


    Government paid? (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    Seems to me, both the employee and the former employer are helping helping pay for it . . . .

    Does the "training" pay meet min wages requirements (here I think it's 7.75)?


    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    The government (tax payer) is paying unemployment benefits to the trainee.

    The employer is investing their time and resources.


    I have read the details and (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    not just the headline of this article and numerous others on the subject. But thank you very much for your suggestion.

    Eight weeks of free labor to companies under the guise of "training" for low paying jobs that require little training. No, not my idea of generating good paying jobs here in U.S.

    Anne throughly covers the rest of subject so just read her reply.


    I did (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    and she is just as wrong as you are.

    But, tell me what you want?

    What is your solution?


    It would be fair to say that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    I believe that you are the person who is wrong but I doubt we would ever agree on that.

    The first place to start would be a major investment in the infrastructure of this country which the last I read gets a "D" or a "D-" when the Corps of Engineers is feeling extremely generous in their grading. Elements of the China currency bill have merit IMO and changing the tax laws that reward companies for off shoring jobs would be nice also.

    Free labor to companies and new trade deals that will result in more jobs losses here in U.S. are not the answer. They are just another "business friendly" tax payer funded give away to the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.



    I agree that every trade deal (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    I have ever heard of cost us jobs. To say that our leaders, of all stripes, have been ignorant to the max barely scratches the surface of what we have given away in trade deals, foreign aid and military protection. We should tell S Korea to phony up for their protection or we're coming home and they can work things out with Dear Leader.

    But infrastructure as a means to start the economy is a loser. The time frame is too long and the number of people employed has been greatly reduced due to technology and equipment improvements. What this turns out to be is political pay offs to the unions and favored companies. Crony capitalism at its best.


    why be mad at Ryan, Obama plan (none / 0) (#42)
    by loveed on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 09:49:49 AM EST
     I wrote about the job training program at my job.
    The people who have not worked for 6months and have children are paid less.
     Two people hired for the same job. they take the same program. If your out of work for 6months or more your hired at $8.00. This tax incentive gives my job a big tax break,it also allow these people to work and keep there government health care. If your just looking for a job starting pay is $13.00 with benefits.
     Raises are base on percentage of what you make. Over the years 2 people who started at the same time doing the same job, one will make twice as much as the others.
     Also this affects our whole pay scale. We haven't received a raise in 5yrs. I have been with the company 20yrs. No one hired within the last five years,will ever reach the salary I make now.
      If Ryan like this part of Obama jobs bill, why be mad at Ryan. Obama brought this to the table.

    With out specifics (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    it is hard to understand, but this:

    Raises are base on percentage of what you make. Over the years 2 people who started at the same time doing the same job, one will make twice as much as the others.

    That sounds like a commission plan. I made a very good living on commissions for years. And yes, many people washed out. We are not all created to do the same thing.


    He worries about his tax base (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    and screw everybody else.  God Bless NYC, and nobody else!  He's a funny dude.

    Different POV by Sanders (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.

    More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. .....

    .... Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.

    As a result, Wall Street is back to making record-breaking profits, handing out record-breaking compensation packages, and taking the same risks that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Meanwhile, 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed; middle class families are making $3,600 less than they did 10 years ago; the foreclosure rate is still breaking new records; and the American people are still paying over $3.40 for a gallon of gas.

    The financial crisis and the jobs crisis have demonstrated to the American people that we now have a government that is of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent and for the 1 percent, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz eloquently articulated. The rest of the 99 percent are, more or less, on their own. We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major, advanced country on Earth. The top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, and the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.  link

    It is a long article which also includes 6 recommendations. Take time to read it all.


    I put it on my facebook last night (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    Because believe it or not one of my friends asked for links to what I have been frustratedly posting about when I do post.  She said that people need information and if I put what I have on my facebook it would make it easy for people who are busy with many other things to find the information.

    Don't know if you have seen this or not (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    And here's the New York Times editorial board:

    There are plenty of policy goals to address the grievances of the protesters -- including lasting foreclosure relief, a financial transactions tax, greater legal protection for workers' rights, and more progressive taxation. The country needs a shift in the emphasis of public policy from protecting the banks to fostering full employment, including public spending for job creation and development of a strong, long-term strategy to increase domestic manufacturing.

    It is not the job of the protesters to draft legislation. That's the job of the nation's leaders, and if they had been doing it all along there might not be a need for these marches and rallies. Because they have not, the public airing of grievances is a legitimate and important end in itself. It is also the first line of defense against a return to the Wall Street ways that plunged the nation into an economic crisis from which it has yet to emerge. link

    Nail meet head: If leaders had been doing their job there would be no need for OWS. WOW


    Perfect. And parameters just shifted (none / 0) (#79)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    on pols, especially Obama.  Because the Good Gray Lady has spoken, and She Is With the Protesters.

    Not with Hizzoner Bloomberg, he of the financial sector on the way to the manse.

    Wow, indeed.


    Bill McKibben Occupy Wall St. 10/8/11 (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    "Today in the New York Times there was a story that made it completely clear why we have to be here. They uncovered the fact that the company building that tar sands pipeline was allowed to choose another company to conduct the environmental impact statement, and the company that they chose was a company was a company that did lots and lots of work for them. So, in other words, the whole thing was rigged top to bottom and that's why the environmental impact statement said that this pipeline would cause no trouble, unlike the scientists who said if we build this pipeline it's "game over" for the climate. We can't let this pipeline get built.

    On November 6, one year before the election, we're going to be in DC with a huge circle of people around the White House and they're going to be carrying signs with quotations from Barack Obama from the 2008 campaign. He said, "It's time to end the tyranny of oil." He said, "I will have the most transparent government in history." We have to go to DC to find out where they have locked that guy up. We have to free Obama, because there is some sort of stunt double there now. So on November 6, I hope we can move, just for a day, Occupy Wall Street down to the White House and get them in the fight against corporate power. text video

    I think the developer usually chooses (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    who will do the environmental report, which is then reviewed by government.

    How is this not a conflict of interest? (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    ...the company building that tar sands pipeline was allowed to choose another company to conduct the environmental impact statement, and the company that they chose was a company that did lots and lots of work for them.

    What other impact studies if any are part of the government's review process and how much weight are they given? Seems this could well fall into the category of "garbage in" - "garbage out."  


    Is this done any differently elsewhere? (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    Here, groups such as Surfriders and others file objections to the company's environmental review.  Government review agency has its own critique of the report.  Decides.  Then to superior court.  Except in the case of LA NFL stadium.  State law "fast track."  

    that's how it's done (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    the developer hires an outside firm to do the impact studies.  The reason being?  Because the developer is the one responsible for paying for the comprehensive studies.

    But they hire an independent firm, and yes, I'm sure those firms do other work for them.  At the same time that firm also has their name on the line, there is an incentive not to make things up, because you are professionally liable for it.  The town/state/fed whomever will typically hire a peer reviewer to make sure everything in the report is kosher - especially on a big project.  These reports are also public documents, so anyone - citizen, adjacent land owner, town, whomever - can hire someone to review it and raise objections.  And at the end you have to go through the town/state/fed planning review process and whoever has the jurisdiction has the final say on whether a project gets built.

    This is how development works.


    It appears to be a conflict of interest (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    as well as cronyism.  TransCanada lobbyists include Paul Elliott, a former campaign aide for Secretary of State Clinton. And FOIA emails suggest, as the Sierra Club notes: "a pattern of undue assistance."   TransCanada did submit a list of firms to conduct the environmental study of which CardnoEntrix was first, and the one selected by the Department of State.  The public hearings of the state department have been outsourced, under the purview of the Department staff, to CardnoEntrix.  Public comments about the pipeline go not to the government but to Cardno.com email.

    wait what? (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:34:09 AM EST
    If the same firm that wrote the study is also reviewing the study that is a big problem.

    The public hearings should be a place to register objections to the study, and not run by the person who wrote the study.

    The developer does hire the firm to write the study.  They should not be doing their own review though.


    While OWS has our political leaders (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    betwixt and between, not knowing whether to call a meeting or a cab, the media also seems beside itself, running  hot and cold, and, of course, in the service of balance--lukewarm.

    The NYT, for example, offers Gail Collins dabbling account of the Lower Manhattan "encampment" where she describes the scene as if from "Outdoors Hoaders" and wonders if the world would ever have noticed the protesters had it not been for the NYPD whose officers keep getting caught doing things like shooting helpless women in the face with pepper spray. Quotations from protesters are complete with descriptions of clothing: "a young man with a knit hat who was dubbed "the voice of people who are in the dark about what's happening." Gail concludes with her bet that "these folks will only be remembered for having been there, taken a stand. But that 's no small thing.  We complain, they showed up."

    Elsewhere in the same edition, is an article by Cara Buckley who provides the perspective of some of the nearby residents. Mothers have grown weary of navigating strollers through the maze of barricades, and a psychologist (no less) is quoted as saying that she felt disturbed by some of the conduct, having to shield her toddler from the sight of women at the park dancing topless.  

    Another resident wanted to know "about her rights" to use the park (which is private property). The article devotes much space to inappropriate bathroom usage at local businesses including charges of stealing toilet paper and soap (which could be considered a plus by some).  To provide balance, Ms. Buckley does note that some businesses are booming, such as sporting goods stores where sales of googles are brisk as well as at  Dunk'n Donut shops presumably owing to both protester and increased police presence.

    No mention of new business opportunities for toddler eye masks, however.  And, the article did fall down in the balance department in that it mentioned noise from drums, but failed to mention that while  OWS protesters may bring bongos to their rallies tea party people bring different noise- makers to theirs ---guns.

    How could a truly balanced report (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    fail to mention the

    new business opportunities for toddler eye masks

    So sad how far the NY Times has fallen. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    If they didn't have Krugman, the op-ed section would be a wasteland.

    Casey, (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    read New York Times editorial board excerpt in comment #61 above. They get it right in the 2 paragraphs that digby highlighted. In fact, they do a darn good job in the entire editorial. Read the whole thing if you get a chance,

    Yes, this editorial is (none / 0) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    a pretty good one, and I am glad to see the Times publish it.

    Still, the all too rare good editorial does not make up for the collective idiocy spewed out by Times columnists on a daily basis. Has a major newspaper ever assembled an op-ed stable of such total putzs as has the NY Times?

    Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, Collins, Douthat. What a sad commentary on the American chattering class. Forget intellectual rigor, at this point I'd be happy to see any signs of intelligence in that crowd. Like I said, if the paper didn't have Krugman, there would be a complete dearth of intelligent thought in the hallowed halls of the the nation's newspaper of record.


    I definitely do agree with you on (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    Friedman, Brooks, Dowd, Collins, Douthat. What a sad commentary on the American chattering class. Forget intellectual rigor, at this point I'd be happy to see any signs of intelligence in that crowd. Like I said, if the paper didn't have Krugman, there would be a complete dearth of intelligent thought in the hallowed halls of the the nation's newspaper of record.

    It's public property. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jpe on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:00:13 AM EST
    Another resident wanted to know "about her rights" to use the park (which is private property).

    It's sorta private property: the title is held by a private company, but the public has right of access.  We (NYC residents) have a property interest in the land and it is, functionally, public property.

    Yes, apparently a privately owned (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 08:02:49 AM EST
    public access space.  A concession generally made to the public by developers in order to obtain favorable zoning or exceptions to, say, height restrictions.  Zucotti Park is not a part of the city park system and its control remains with the owners.  Maybe, such quasi-public spaces should be a part of OWS's agenda--with these spaces deeded over to the city.  Free speech, for example, may become an issue if really a private park and not a governmental space.

    It's the only reason... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    they haven't been beaten from the park...if it was a publicly owned publicly accessible park there would be a curfew, and the police would force them out every night.  I find this terribly ironic, the public has more rights on private land than public! Go figure.

    When I arrived at the Washington Sq. Park rally Saturday, all the patches of grass were barricaded off, to discourage any attempt by the protestors to set up camp.  Rather than be beaten, maced, and arrested, the hardcore occupiers marched back to Liberty aka Zuccotti.


    No arrests at OWS Denver (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:24:23 PM EST
    today, several hundred showed up and though the Sheriff's vans were waiting, they weren't used.

    Seattle police adopted (none / 0) (#24)
    by shoephone on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    a new tactic last night. I think this is outrageous, and I really hope the cabbie challenges it in court. Our mayor is such a friggin' idiot he can't make up his mind from day to day whether he is in support or opposition to the protests. At the last minute I went to a dinner party instead of going downtown to join the protest with a friend, as planned. Maybe that was for the best: if I had witnessed this nonsense first-hand I may have reacted in a way that would have gotten me arrested.

    Residents? (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jpe on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 05:57:08 AM EST
    They quickly put up an impromptu sign that said "Don't honk! After 10 p.m. you will be ticketed."

    It sounds like it's a quality of life thing.  Or: don't be a rude jackass, and they won't get tickets.

    You want to see a jackass? (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    Look in the mirror. Since you're totally ignorant about Seattle's geography, here's a primer:

    Westlake Center on 4th Avenue -- where the protest is taking place -- is in the heart of the downtown Seattle business district. There are very few residential condos on 4th Ave. And it's about two blocks from dozens and dozens of bars and clubs that create a hundred times more noise -- UNTIL 3:00 a.m. on average every night -- on the streets (1st and 2nd Avenues) where the residents actually live.

    It's just sad and embarrassing when know-nothings like you weigh in on stuff.


    Even more ridiculousness form SPD... (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    Things going much better for Occupy Portland (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    at least so far. The group has been camping in two downtown parks, with tents and without permits, since Thursday. Today they temporarily vacated one of the parks to make room for the Portland Marathon which holds permits to those two parks for this weekend. The start and the finish line for the marathon is right at those parks.

    Quiet and respectful negotiations between Occupy Portland, the Portland Marathon and the mayor's office resulted in a workable compromise that allowed Occupy Portland to maintain its presence while not interfering in any way with the marathon. After the marathon concludes, those demonstrators who moved to the south park blocks (by Portland State) will move back to the downtown parks which are across the street from both City Hall and the courthouse.

    Who knows how long this state of peaceful coexistence will last? Not me, but for now things are good.


    Good for Portland! (none / 0) (#75)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    So far, the only mayors I've heard of who are cooperating instead of antagonizing are yours and L.A.'s Villarigosa.

    Someone in my building is smoking (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    and the smoke is making its way into my apartment.

    I think I've found a soft spot for capital punishment.

    Honestly, enraging.

    It's kdog (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    don't inhale

    Nope, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    It's tobacco, not weed.

    I'm a fan of both... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    if you're than sensitive, you need a house dude, not an apartment. Comes with the territory in apartment buildings.

    Infuriating attitude (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    You don't get to impose your death smoke on me, sorry.

    Some imposition.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:48:22 AM EST
    is one of dem costs of freedom.  We're all exposed to various forms of slow death everyday, it's called living.

    That being said, you should talk to your neighbor and ask nicely, ya catch more flies with honey than with unreasonable demands and expectations.


    No way to tell who's responsible (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    And no, this proven killer is not a "cost of freedom." If you want to smoke, fine. But you have no right to force me to smoke with you. None.

    As long as apartment dwellers... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    have some rights, yes they do sir.

    It could be worse, this could be the 50's, or you could live in the Bronx near the bus depot...talk about poisonous air!  Or near a power plant, or work in a toll booth, etc. etc. etc.


    answer to, "what do they want;' (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 07:46:31 AM EST
    courtesy of Zero Hedge:

    "I think it's a very strong point that they haven't made specific demands...  Their worry is that if they make specific demands, then the media and other people will make these particular demands the issue. That's not the issue. The sense is that the financial system is dysfunctional as a system. That means that you can't make a technocratic demand like "fix this," or give a consumer protection law, or appoint Elizabeth Warren to the commission.

    It's much bigger than that. There's an awareness that the whole financial system is dysfunctional... The government is in the hands of the financial lobbyists. That's why it's called Occupy Wall Street, because [Wall Street] essentially bought the electoral campaigns and bought the Obama administration. And I can tell you that there was an absolute disgust yesterday and today after Mr. Obama's attempt to hijack the Occupy Wall Street demonstration by saying "here's what I'm trying to do to help," and then he gave a couple of lobbying statements written by his Wall Street financial lobbies...

    They're disgusted with the Obama administration, they're disgusted with the Bush administration and the republicans, they're disgusted with politics being for sale to the highest lobbyists. And they're disgusted with the debt overhead... The system doesn't work, and they don't want to reduce this to a set of technocratic little fix its and paste-its."

    Should the Gators even play today? (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    Why not (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    Sports is played on every holiday.

    Now if you said should they even play because they have to start their third string true freshman quarterback that started school 6 weeks ago, then you have a good point.


    Ha. No, actually they shouldn't (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    play b/c they are losing!   (I had to google to figure out BTD's laconic post--please disregard my musings.)

    Got high ground somewhere? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    In an interview on BBC yesterday [October 08], International Monetary Fund (IMF) adviser Robert Shapiro said something quite alarming: without a plan to save the Euro, the global economy will collapse "in two to three weeks."


    Fairly well stocked here with (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    survival goods and cash.  Except fer the guns.

    Btw, who knew that Sigourney Weaver had reinvented herself as a British expert on int'l finance?


    Well, we've got (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:49:14 PM EST
    plenty of food up here on the mountain, plus wood for warmth and cooking.  And, oh, yes, we do have guns.    ;-)

    Indian Summer here (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:33:21 PM EST
    Sunny and in the mid 70s.

    Oooh. Nice here too. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:35:16 PM EST
    Beautiful day here (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:17:13 PM EST
    Sunny, around 82 degrees with a nice breeze. Absolutely gorgeous.  

    Definitely not ready for snow or even cold weather any time soon. So, TL please keep it in Colorado for at least the next month or two (...or 3, or 4).  


    It is Mother Nature... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    smiling on OWS:)

    This is funny: (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    While majoring in piano at Iowa's Drake University, he began developing a style that was a fusion of jazz, classical and pop.

    When a school official overheard him playing the show tune "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," he was expelled because the school had a "classics only" policy, Williams later said.

    From LAT obit. of Roger Williams.  

    Footage of October 5th, Occupy SF (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    Apologies: in keeping with... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dadler on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    ...the movement's utterly ramshackle evolution and makeup, this footage, I now realize, ends with a completely ridiculous Jew slur made by a protester.  How perfectly perfect.  Why end your footage with that?  Literally everything that comes before is gold, and then to end the footage with a nice ol' Hebe-ho, Jaysus, pun intended, what can you say except what the f?  So no offense to anyone, I hadn't made it to the very end when I posted it, and then when I did, you can imagine.

    A happier anecdote.  One of the kids I helped out yesterday, when retrieving stuff you saw the police order to be hauled away, when I introduced myself to the kid, he replied that I could call him Just One.  After a little initial confusion, the name sunk in, and there was something poetic and just, I dunno, beautiful about it.  


    Poured rain all day, and still going (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    My poor dogs have cabin fever. Could be worse- I spent half the day at the vet with my neighbor and his old golden retriever dog, who has a really bad urinary tract infection. My neighhbor is retired on a pension, his wife is unemployed, daughter in jail on drug related crimes. It was a real day in the life of the 99%. I was happy to help with the vet bill and just feel so bad for everyone suffering in these times. What a dreary day.

    What a good soul you are ruffian (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    to help your neighbor with your both presence and your money. Hope your generosity comes back to you a thousand fold.

    Oh, thank you. (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:29:34 AM EST
    I hope I would do the same for a sick human, but I'm pretty sure I like dogs better! So let's not hand out any peace prizes just yet ;-)

    Well by helping your neighbors (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 06:40:47 AM EST
    sick dog you also did a good deed for his/her humans. ;o)

    The validity of the peace prize has been seriously devalued so I will just repeat that you are a kind soul.


    Armando/BTD has a "talkin' law" (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    post at DK today.  Stretch your brain.  link

    U.S. Drug Policy Would Be Imposed Globally (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    - By New House Bill.  

    The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) -- even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they're carried out.

    From your link (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    The law could also potentially affect academics and medical professionals. For example, a U.S. doctor who works with overseas doctors or government officials on needle exchange programs could be subject to criminal prosecution. A U.S. resident who advises someone in another country on how to grow marijuana or how to run a medical marijuana dispensary would also be in violation of the new law, even if medical marijuana is legal in the country where the recipient of the advice resides. If interpreted broadly enough, a prosecutor could possibly even charge doctors, academics and policymakers from contributing their expertise to additional experiments like the drug decriminalization project Portugal, which has successfully reduced drug crime, addiction and overdose deaths.

    This country is going from bad to worse in a hurry.


    or this . . . (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    The Controlled Substances Act also regulates the distribution of prescription drugs, so something as simple as emailing a friend vacationing in Tijuana some suggestions on where to buy prescription medication over the counter could subject a U.S. resident to criminal prosecution. "It could even be something like advising them where to buy cold medicine overseas that they'd have to show I.D. to get here in the U.S.," Piper says.

    Yes, well, (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    We really have always thought that it's "Our way or the highway."  American exceptionalism.  You're entirely right, MO Blue.  It's getting worse.  Tell me again why I voted for a Democrat?  Oh, yes, because "but the other party is so much worse!"  So instead of going right into the toilet quickly, as we would under the Republicans, we're suffering "death by a thousand cuts" under a Democratic administration.  Do you want to die quickly, or just a bit more slowly?  Makes emigration seem much more desirable.

    Capture or kill? Drone? (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 02:03:26 PM EST