My God, you are an idiot.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There are more than 13,000 homeless children in LA. Would that their health concerns aroused the same sense of urgency as the health concerns of political protesters.

If they were all aggregated in the same public place, along with a bunch of other hooligans, drug dealers, derelicts, etc., yes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

If they were all aggregated in the same public place,

I don't know LA geography really at all, but you're saying there aren't places where groups of homeless congregate that don't get raided and cleared out by the police? I find that REALLY hard to believe.

along with a bunch of other hooligans, drug dealers, derelicts, etc., yes.

Well, as long as they are people you can look down your nose at, then fine, imprison them for their politic speech.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Uh, no. But I don't think a peaceful protest in a park is exactly the first step in that direction.

It's not the protest, its the refusal to abide by the law.

Really? Were they endangering anyone but themselves? If not, doesn't that sounds like a pretty convenient pretext to you?

But again, if they weren't a pretext, why wouldn't the city tell them they can come back after things are cleaned up?

All of these raids seem pretty blatantly meant to get the protester to go away, and again, I'm not terribly comfortable with arresting people only for that reason.

Um, yes. Have you ever heard of disease? No this doesn't sound like a pretext to me. We have laws, some of which require protestors to get a permit and to comply with it.

The pretext is that these protests have anything to do with free speech. They do not. When I was in SF, the protests over Iraq were essentially an excuse for the anarchists to cause trouble, and I do not see anything different here.

Please tell me, what exactly are they protesting?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

I don't know LA geography really at all, but you're saying there aren't places where groups of homeless congregate that don't get raided and cleared out by the police? I find that REALLY hard to believe.



Well, as long as they are people you can look down your nose at, then fine, imprison them for their politic speech.

There is skid row, which is the most awful place I have ever been. It is truly horrific, like being on a different planet among walking cracked out zombies in utter squalor. The down and out have essentially been aggregated there more or less under the theory that it's better than having them spread out around town. The police roll through there to keep the peace, but that's about it.

I don't look down on the protestors, but I think they are dangerous. They are also killing local industry downtown. This isn't about free speech.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

So you are essentially for anarchy? There were public health concerns that the mayor believed needed to be addressed. This seems rationale to me. Those camps, from what I have read, have become disgustingly unsanitary over the last few months.

Can anyone really say public health concerns anymore without laughing? Come on. Some lawyers figured out that was a way to get around free speech issues, and now it's used every time ten kids show up on a quad.

Perhaps if there is someone doing drugs, the police should arrest that person rather than the twenty people around him.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Can anyone really say public health concerns anymore without laughing? Come on. Some lawyers figured out that was a way to get around free speech issues, and now it's used every time ten kids show up on a quad.

Perhaps if there is someone doing drugs, the police should arrest that person rather than the twenty people around him.

Fair enough -- but is there any point at which you say that the encampments and occupation of a central part of a city (which, in some places at least, has completely fucked the small and family businesses that are not exactly avatars of Wall Street) have gone on long enough? It's easy to criticize the police but less so to say what should be done. Do you really just let the Occupy protests continue forever if there is no violence?

You and Adder have an easy option -- it'll be too goddamn cold soon, where you live. Not as true where I live, vastly less so for club.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

It's not the protest, its the refusal to abide by the law.

What's the law here? And why is it something other than "we don't want you to protest that way?"

Have you ever heard of disease?

What diseases were spreading through the camp? Which of them risked spill over outside the camp?

None and none?

No this doesn't sound like a pretext to me.

Since when are you so credulous of government? Is it just because they're just cracking down on dirty hippies (I'm sorry, "hooligans and derelicts")?

We have laws, some of which require protestors to get a permit and to comply with it.

To protest in the park in front of city hall? I really can't square the notion that you need permit for that with the concept of the first amendment at all (but you might be right that the supreme court can).

But was there a violation of a permit here? I've not seen any mention of permitting issues in the press coverage.

The pretext is that these protests have anything to do with free speech. They do not.

Seriously? People with signs, drum circles and meetings have nothing to do with free speech? That's completely irrational.

When I was in SF, the protests over Iraq were essentially an excuse for the anarchists to cause trouble

Of course, because no one could possibly be sincerely anti-war.

But even if you're right, anarchists have free speech rights too.

and I do not see anything different here.

You don't? How much rioting and looting has happened?

Please tell me, what exactly are they protesting?

Everything I've read and seen suggests that they are a disparate group, but the common theme seems to be discontent with a political system that's overwhelmed by the influence of money.

If you went by in Minneapolis, you'd see signs about higher taxes for the rich, bailouts for people instead of banks, some pro-labor messages and a few of whatever the heck Ron Paul supports believe in.

But fine, your ignorance, or their lack of precise coordination and tight messaging makes them merely hooligan out to have a good time by camping out. Uh huh.

I now picture you with a flat top and a cardigan. When's the last time you yelled at some kids to get off your lawn?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I don't look down on the protestors, but I think they are dangerous.

Dangerous? How? Have you been to the protest site?

What other dangerous elements do you support locking up for their political activities?

They are also killing local industry downtown. This isn't about free speech.

What's it about then? They are really just rival suburban business men who are trying to reduce competition from the downtown industries they are "killing?"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Can anyone really say public health concerns anymore without laughing? Come on. Some lawyers figured out that was a way to get around free speech issues, and now it's used every time ten kids show up on a quad.

Here the County Commission, whose doorstep the now-tiny Occupy camp sits on, has made noises about having to clear them out because it's going to get cold and they could get frostbite.

Um. They are Minnesotans. They know how to avoid frostbite. And if they fail, that's their problem.

As the landowner, you've told them they can't be there and you've told them of the risk. I don't think you need to arrest anyone to avoid potential liability.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

So you are essentially for anarchy? There were public health concerns that the mayor believed needed to be addressed. This seems rationale to me. Those camps, from what I have read, have become disgustingly unsanitary over the last few months.

A friend of mine goes down to feed breakfast to the protestors every now and then. He never said anything about it being unsanitary there, though I never thought to ask. I'll ask, the next time I talk to him.

He said the riot police on Sunday were very nice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Fair enough -- but is there any point at which you say that the encampments and occupation of a central part of a city (which, in some places at least, has completely fucked the small and family businesses that are not exactly avatars of Wall Street) have gone on long enough? It's easy to criticize the police but less so to say what should be done. Do you really just let the Occupy protests continue forever if there is no violence?

You and Adder have an easy option -- it'll be too goddamn cold soon, where you live. Not as true where I live, vastly less so for club.

This all started with me saying I've got nothing against cops peacefully arresting someone who is peacefully protesting. As long as that protestor is breaking the law.

In Boston, there is a court process underway to establish the extent of their free speech rights. Only after a court approves it will the city be free to remove them. The city has used force to limit the encampment to a particular area, and within that space has enforced laws against those breaking them, but not attempted some kind of broad clearance.

Seems reasonable.

A never ending protest would be pretty damn tedious, but, then, so was the Fantastix. We've got a couple of them around here, though - don't you?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Fair enough -- but is there any point at which you say that the encampments and occupation of a central part of a city (which, in some places at least, has completely fucked the small and family businesses that are not exactly avatars of Wall Street) have gone on long enough?

How have they done that? Obviously it's going to specific to the location.

But take Zucotti Park. It's an empty square block in lower Manhattan. Did they prevent people from getting to the Burger King and the local deli, or were they extra customers for those places?

Same here in Minneapolis. They are impeding exactly no small businesses, and probably providing more customers.

Is LA different?

Do you really just let the Occupy protests continue forever if there is no violence?

I guess I don't get why that's a hard question. Of course. It will fade away eventually, and trying to do something about it almost always pushes that eventually further into the future.

LAPD seems to have handled it well, which is really impressive and might make the raid less counterproductive than the Oakland approach, but it still isn't likely to solve anything.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

When I was in SF, the protests over Iraq were essentially an excuse for the anarchists to cause trouble, and I do not see anything different here.

Are you basing that on actually seeing the protests, or on seeing news coverage of them?

Back when the first Iraq war broke out, I was in a number of protests. These were huge marches -- I was in one that started at Justin Hermann plaza and reached Civic Center plaza; Civic Center plaza and Market Street were completely packed, and there were still many people in Justin Herman plaza.

And yet, the news coverage of these protests was all about the "anarchists" doing stupid shit. In reporting on one march, with many tens of thousands of people, the TV news showed the same 3 guys running around and knocking over newspaper boxes. Undoubtedly there were people doing stuff like that -- but the fact that they had to follow these three guys, and no one else, was a pretty good sign that it was very minimal and rare.

I stopped watching TV news after, and specifically because of, this idiotic coverage. So I can't say if it was that biased in the run-up to the more recent war on Iraq. But i would not be surprised -- the country was more gung-ho for W's war than for Bush I's, the news has gotten ever-more biased, and perhaps you were watching FOX?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This all started with me saying I've got nothing against cops peacefully arresting someone who is peacefully protesting. As long as that protestor is breaking the law.

In Boston, there is a court process underway to establish the extent of their free speech rights. Only after a court approves it will the city be free to remove them. The city has used force to limit the encampment to a particular area, and within that space has enforced laws against those breaking them, but not attempted some kind of broad clearance.

Seems reasonable.

A never ending protest would be pretty damn tedious, but, then, so was the Fantastix. We've got a couple of them around here, though - don't you?

Right -- it did start that way. I forgot that post.

Would you complain if riot police broke up the Fantastix? Or Cats?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

How have they done that? Obviously it's going to specific to the location.

But take Zucotti Park. It's an empty square block in lower Manhattan. Did they prevent people from getting to the Burger King and the local deli, or were they extra customers for those places?

Same here in Minneapolis. They are impeding exactly no small businesses, and probably providing more customers.

Is LA different?

Don't know about LA. In Oakland, they are. In SF, they are pretty much ignored.

I'm not suggesting that concern for small businesses is what motivated the Oakland cops to start busting heads.

I guess I don't get why that's a hard question. Of course. It will fade away eventually, and trying to do something about it almost always pushes that eventually further into the future.

LAPD seems to have handled it well, which is really impressive and might make the raid less counterproductive than the Oakland approach, but it still isn't likely to solve anything.

I remember years ago when homeless tents sprouted around SF City Hall. Most people I knew really didn't want to go anywhere near the area. I do think there's a point where you say enough. I'm not convinced that any, and certainly not most, of the Occupy protests have been anywhere near that point.