Note to couple wanting to have sex in a public place:
Please fuck where you won't be anyone's way, where you won't be occupying a needed bathroom stall, where you aren't blocking a fire exit. If that public thing is too much to resist, why don't you do it like dogs do - in the front yard at high noon? Public, out of everyone's way, and you can work on your tan!
President Obama is exploiting the tragedy at Newtown not for personal gain but for safer children and families. The gun manufacturers are exploiting it to sell more guns. Guess which side self righteous Palin is on. The NRA is proof that the root of all evil is money.
Ferguson's attack on Keynes was to be expected (but is no less despicable for that).
Keynes was among the first to understand how the money supply works in the global economy—how to pull along a dragging economy and how to brake a speeding one.
Since the Reinhart/Rogoff paper touting austerity was discredited, nitwits like Paul Ryan and Niall Ferguson have become increasingly shrill and desperate.
Reinhart, Rogoff... and Herndon: The student who caught out the profs
By Ruth Alexander
BBC News 19 April 2013
This week, economists have been astonished to find that a famous academic paper often used to make the case for austerity cuts contains major errors. Another surprise is that the mistakes, by two eminent Harvard professors, were spotted by a student doing his homework...
Did cheerleaders wear Poodle skirts? Did AR-15s fly off the.shelves to the public in the age of the poodle skirt? So the Elite Media is an anachronistic holdover?
You're right, Sarah, the President is exploiting the tragedy of Newton to force a national conversation on gun safety, healthcare, violence, and overall sanity in America. A conversation that should have taken place decades ago (and probably still won't happen, given the current GOP). This is almost as bad as a president exploiting a national tragedy brought on by his own incompetence to start a war based on false pretenses. Almost.
That tear gas/ bird flipping incident makes me so fucking angry. The officer appeared to be very angry at the insult, and that appeared to be all that justified the tear gassing.
What the fuck? I just wrote the mayor requesting action, and I hope you do too.
If you listen to the way Palin talks in unprepared moments vs the speeches she gives she obviously had a ghost writer. My guess is her oh so clever insults are from her own stagnant brain though. They sound like they came from the brain of a smart ass 12 yo and that's about where Palin's maturity level is at.
so, wait... if you flip off a cop, you deserve to be pepper sprayed? If this wasn't a protest scenario, if some beat cop punched a guy on the street for telling him to fuck off, folks would be pissed, and rightly so. It would be another example of why the SPD needs this monitoring board and reform process. But, since this guy is a protester, a big scary "anarchist", he deserves a stream of pepper spray right in the eyes for flicking a cop off?
Also, if you watch a video of the incident, you see that the cops had just thrown a flashbang grenade at he and his friends, which is what prompted him to go up the line of bike cops and flick them off. So we have the cops with concussion grenades ("bang balls"?) and pepper spray and this protestor with angry words and a middle finger. Measured response? Restraint?
Part of me wants to write such a letter. Philosophically, flipping someone off shouldn't be justification for being tear-gassed.
But another part of me wants to applaud the cops for tear gassing such a monumental asshole. And at least they didn't club him, shoot him, or break any bones. My sympathy meter for this douchebag is at near-zero.
He touched a 120 KV line? It sounds like a suicide then. At that voltage you will both hear and feel the corona discharge as you get close (which is why even birds don't get near lines of such high voltages). Nobody would approach a 120 KV line without a strong feeling of danger.
It kiiiinda looks like these photos show Ian getting almost everything he'd been trying to make the cops do to him in front of the camera. He didn't get his ultimate prize, to be lightly bloodied by the cops somehow in a well-Instagrammed way. Better luck next year, and congratulations!!
Seattle certainly has more than it fair share of self important, self absorbed protesters who do absolutely nothing to help anyone, yet still believe they are so noble. Baltimore would eat your pretentious asses for breakfast.
When January 20, 2017 rolls around, Obama will always be abe to find a job as a gun salesman. As it is, he's responsible for the sale of over 43,000 AR-15s every month. Pretty impressive.
@25 - Silly comparison. In that antiquated scenario the police are the aggressors (wrongly of course) but in a dangerous riot situation the threatening anarchists (which includes flipping the bird in a cop's face) are the aggressors. Next step for those degenerates are to throw rocks and bottles, which they did, along with massive property destruction - every May Day to boot!
At the club, the male member of the couple trying to get it on, took a swing at security but only ended up smashing his head into a pole.
There is something missing in that part of the story, and probably elsewhere.
Another fella got dragged out of the club when his jacket fell on the floor one too many times. Dragged out of a club... when your jacket was on the floor. Really?
@19) I don't think you should have been pepper-sprayed, actually. I think the SPD used a weapon when it wasn't necessary. But I also believe you deliberately antagonized the cops and their reaction was totally predictable..
@31, its predictability is the key. The bird was timed well enough that he'd get at least a spraying, maybe something even more photogenic if he was lucky. I am glad he was able to trust the cops to do at least what they always do, if only for now before the consent decree has had any effect. SPD complied with his expectations. It's what Jack Donaghy would declare a Six Sigma Win/Win.
@39: Misogyny is childs play, so to speak, for some `kids`.
Sarah Palins` word is so flimsy, you couldn`t wipe your pristine ass without getting some on yourself. Her `word`? You are usually just insufferable.`your are`(sic) treading on dullardship(TM). ATKS; `something not-fully-developed human beings are dumb enough to say`. In-fucken-credible.
How much time does SPD get between getting insulted and being OK to attack someone's face? If there's no time limit, Will in Seattle should join SPD and pepper spray Fnarf in the face about 60,000 times.
@ 48, given that Fnarf is pro-SPD (or more accurately, anti-vandal), along with Will's apparently terminal social awkwardness (I can see him being the special guest at a nightstick party within five minutes of trying to join the force), I have to say that I'm impressed anyone could imagine that scenario.
I'm a little baffled about what sort of force the police are supposed to use when protestors ignore an order to disperse and instead charge at the cops.
Pepper spray is painful, but the risk of lasting injury is much lower than that of a blow with a baton, a "take-down," or a gunshot.
It would be nice if the protestors would simply cooperate, but since they don't, is there a form of force less dangerous than pepper spray that I haven't heard of?
@31, it wasn't predictable. It was planned. Planned since May 1, 2012. There was a time when the police were meant to keep the peace, and would allow people to assemble and speak. Apparently if you don't have a permit these days, it's a riot and force is necessary.
Sarah Palin is a sideshow freak. My point was she needs a brain transplant.
Was there also a time when the police would allow people to assemble and hurl rocks and bottles and break windows?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the lack of a permit that prompted the police to give the assembled the order to disperse; the march did go on for a little while before that order was given, didn't it?
51: Anyone who the police thought was being violent, threw fireworks, had anything that looked like a weapon, or looked too anarchist-y was arrested if it happened around police. The police pepper sprayed people who flipped them off, yelled at them, or tried to take photos of the "wrong" thing.
There's no reasonable excuse to use any sort of force in that situation, or else every pro sports game would turn sodo into a fog of pepper spray. The only reason the police did here is because the protestors seemed anti-police.
That seems like a rather farfetched description of events. From the video clips I've seen, the people who were pepper-sprayed were mostly moving toward the police when they were quite clearly being asked to move in any other direction.
@55, I'd suggest the police and media not anticipate violence. The local news buildup to May 1, 2013 was typical lazy reporting. The police should let people protest unless they turn violent. They should not go out there with the intent to confront protestors. The window breaking and rock throwing followed the escalation. I'd also suggest the police not target members of the media for pepper spray.
All very reasonable, but what should the police do when they've told people to move away, and they instead move toward the police?
The problem I'm interested in isn't how police ought to deal with protesters who aren't being physically confrontational. What I'm wondering is how the police are supposed to deal with the other sort, if not with pepper spray?
As to giving special consideration to "members of the media," I doubt we could determine who exactly qualifies for that distinction if we blog-commented about it for days, and certainly not in a matter of moments while in the midst of an attempt to disperse an unruly crowd.
You know, if today's protesters would just study nonviolence - not just how to do it, but why it's an effective tactic - they would achieve a lot more.
You know why the Birmingham police and fire departments were universally reviled in 1963? Because the protesters did nothing to justify their treatment - not just from an objective standpoint, but all non-White Supremicist subjective standpoints as well.
But the May Day protesters? All it takes to lose the support (and your message) is to flip off a cop. Tell us how that's your First Amendment right. So what if it is? You've alienated anyone who doesn't style themselves as "anti-system," which is 99% of the population. That's why I refer to these people as the other one percenters.
If you truly want change, you have to persuade a skeptical and suspicious general public. In order to do that, you have to understand that they will always side with the police unless they think the police are overreacting. They'll only sympathize with you when it's clear that you're being victimized by the cops, and that will only happen if you ensure that you're not confronting them in any way.
@46: I'm always amused when I'm referred to as a conservative troll when I am basically middle-of-the-road politically. But I suppose the middle does look conservative if you're at left edge of the political spectrum.
@59, that's a good point, the protestors fall right into the trap and give the police what they need to justify the violence. The media get their video, and a good chunk of the public applaud the denial of basic rights.
If someone's action is not worthy of apprehension and prosecution, it most certainly is not worthy of assault with chemical weaponry or with explosives. It's frightening that so many people around here express their acceptance of assault by police officer as a reasonable reaction to actions which police officers find bothersome.
@51, Robotslave wrote, "I'm a little baffled about what sort of force the police are supposed to use when protestors ignore an order to disperse and instead charge at the cops."
If charging at the cops under that circumstance is a crime, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
"It would be nice if the protestors would simply cooperate, but since they don't, is there a form of force less dangerous than pepper spray that I haven't heard of?"
Have you heard of handcuffs?
@55, Robotslave wrote, "From the video clips I've seen, the people who were pepper-sprayed were mostly moving toward the police when they were quite clearly being asked to move in any other direction. What would you suggest the police do about that?"
If it is a crime to move toward a police officer while a police officer requests--not orders or demands--that one move in a different direction, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
@57, Robotslave wrote, "what should the police do when they've told people to move away, and they instead move toward the police?"
If it is a crime to move toward police after one of those officers or another in the vicinity has told people, possibly not including the person who is moving, to move away, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
"[I wonder] how the police are supposed to deal with [protesters who are being physically confrontational], if not with pepper spray?"
If it is a crime to be physically confrontational while engaging in political demonstration, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
This is so simple. Why does anyone accept the idea that people the police aren't even bothering to arrest have done something so serious that the response should be to assault those people?
@59, Matt wrote, "All it takes to lose the support (and your message) is to flip off a cop. Tell us how that's your First Amendment right."
It's not our "First Amendment right." The freedom to express ourselves is a right with which we are born. The First Amendment protects our right to express ourselves by prohibiting our government from infringing upon that right.
It's funny when police talk about facilitating people's "First Amendment rights," as if they're doing anyone a favor by refraining from infringing upon civil liberties as required by the United States Constitution.
As I'm sure you're well aware, refusing an order to disperse is, in fact, a crime.
And as I'm sure you're also well aware, police do have discretion in deciding when to make an arrest, and when to take other actions that are less likely to result in lasting physical harm.
I do understand that it's a bit of a wet dream for anti-police activists like yourself to revert society from the current era of pepper spray back to the era of truncheons and water cannons, because it's so much harder now to make martyrs of people who disobey orders to disperse and physically resist arrest.
But for people who aren't nursing that sick fantasy, my question remains unanswered: is there some form of physical force, entailing less risk of lasting harm than pepper spray, that the police can avail themselves of when coping with people who refuse to obey orders to disperse, who physically confront the police, and who do not peacefully submit to arrest?
The order to disperse was not given at the beginning of the march. The protesters did have the opportunity to peaceably assemble, and to express their opinions.
But that was not the only purpose of the march; many protesters also wanted to confront and delegitimize the police, and that, alas, can not be accomplished via peaceable assembly.
@ 65, anyone who believes rights are something we just have, just because, is being childish. That includes all those Gadsden flag flying teabaggers who call them "God given."
Rights aren't given. They were demanded and fought for, and must continually be fought for. Because it isn't inherent to authority to recognize them. A casual reading of American history - you know, the world's beacon of liberty, and also the place that denied those Constitutional rights to African Americans for about 90 years - ought to be enough to make one realize that.
If it comforts you to believe that rights somehow exist in thin air, akin to the typical religious person's faith in God, I won't stop you - hell, probably nothing I say is capable of penetrating the fog of faith - but I'm not going to pretend that rights are anything but a human social construct.
@ 62/69, to reiterate, the word "peaceably" is in the First Amendment. If they aren't being peaceable, then it's not a protected right.
I guess the question is what the purpose of the protest is. What message do you want to get across.
In years past what I've seen is a protest which was trying to show how much support there is for unions, workers rights, immigrants rights, etc. devolve into violence. Then we'd have several nights of anti-police brutality protests.
This year it seems like the protest on Capitol Hill went directly to the anti-police brutality phase and generated the brutality which they needed to protest. It looks to me like everyone won. We were reminded how terrible the police are, not much got broken, and nobody got too badly hurt.
@51, Robotslave wrote, "It would be nice if the protestors would simply cooperate, but since they don't, is there a form of force less dangerous than pepper spray that I haven't heard of?"
@64, I responded, "Have you heard of handcuffs?"
@66, Robotslave responded, Have you ever tried to put handcuffs on somebody who didn't want to be handcuffed? It isn't easy.
Which, if any, of the offenses you described are so minor as to be unworthy of a difficult handcuffing operation in order to apprehend the suspect and try him in court, but worthy of assaulting both suspects and bystanders with explosives and chemical weapons?
You all can hate or mock the protestors all you want (I think I'll join you), but do you really and truly believe that being a rude ol' meanie (flipping off a cop) merits getting pepper-sprayed? Or that if a cop asks nicely and you refuse to move, then all bets are off?
@77: Those people are failing to enjoy their rights due to government infringement of the sort the Bill of Rights prohibits.
@78: BINGO! Of course not. If it was a group other than those scary, scary, anarchists, I suspect people around here would less forgiving of our peace officers' inappropriate use of explosives and chemical weapons.
@ 84, but we don't all collectively believe in the same rights. "Freedom of speech" means many things to different people. A lot don't think it should include burning an American flag, and a lot don't think freedom of religion should include practicing Islam.
Please fuck where you won't be anyone's way, where you won't be occupying a needed bathroom stall, where you aren't blocking a fire exit. If that public thing is too much to resist, why don't you do it like dogs do - in the front yard at high noon? Public, out of everyone's way, and you can work on your tan!
Keynes was among the first to understand how the money supply works in the global economy—how to pull along a dragging economy and how to brake a speeding one.
Since the Reinhart/Rogoff paper touting austerity was discredited, nitwits like Paul Ryan and Niall Ferguson have become increasingly shrill and desperate.
Reinhart, Rogoff... and Herndon: The student who caught out the profs
By Ruth Alexander
BBC News 19 April 2013
This week, economists have been astonished to find that a famous academic paper often used to make the case for austerity cuts contains major errors. Another surprise is that the mistakes, by two eminent Harvard professors, were spotted by a student doing his homework...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223…
Did cheerleaders wear Poodle skirts? Did AR-15s fly off the.shelves to the public in the age of the poodle skirt? So the Elite Media is an anachronistic holdover?
What the fuck? I just wrote the mayor requesting action, and I hope you do too.
Also, if you watch a video of the incident, you see that the cops had just thrown a flashbang grenade at he and his friends, which is what prompted him to go up the line of bike cops and flick them off. So we have the cops with concussion grenades ("bang balls"?) and pepper spray and this protestor with angry words and a middle finger. Measured response? Restraint?
Part of me wants to write such a letter. Philosophically, flipping someone off shouldn't be justification for being tear-gassed.
But another part of me wants to applaud the cops for tear gassing such a monumental asshole. And at least they didn't club him, shoot him, or break any bones. My sympathy meter for this douchebag is at near-zero.
Haven't you ever been an asshole? I know I have at times. Should you have been teargassed?
There is something missing in that part of the story, and probably elsewhere.
Another fella got dragged out of the club when his jacket fell on the floor one too many times. Dragged out of a club... when your jacket was on the floor. Really?
I imagine. Their bathrooms are quite roomy.
@39: Misogyny is childs play, so to speak, for some `kids`.
Sarah Palins` word is so flimsy, you couldn`t wipe your pristine ass without getting some on yourself. Her `word`? You are usually just insufferable.`your are`(sic) treading on dullardship(TM). ATKS; `something not-fully-developed human beings are dumb enough to say`. In-fucken-credible.
This after billion and billions were poured into Seattle over a two decade long period in the name of transit and density.
Yet here we are, with Jobs Sprawl to the suburbs exceeding urban growth. We're San Jose. With a choo choo train.
Pepper spray is painful, but the risk of lasting injury is much lower than that of a blow with a baton, a "take-down," or a gunshot.
It would be nice if the protestors would simply cooperate, but since they don't, is there a form of force less dangerous than pepper spray that I haven't heard of?
Sarah Palin is a sideshow freak. My point was she needs a brain transplant.
Was there also a time when the police would allow people to assemble and hurl rocks and bottles and break windows?
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the lack of a permit that prompted the police to give the assembled the order to disperse; the march did go on for a little while before that order was given, didn't it?
There's no reasonable excuse to use any sort of force in that situation, or else every pro sports game would turn sodo into a fog of pepper spray. The only reason the police did here is because the protestors seemed anti-police.
That seems like a rather farfetched description of events. From the video clips I've seen, the people who were pepper-sprayed were mostly moving toward the police when they were quite clearly being asked to move in any other direction.
What would you suggest the police do about that?
All very reasonable, but what should the police do when they've told people to move away, and they instead move toward the police?
The problem I'm interested in isn't how police ought to deal with protesters who aren't being physically confrontational. What I'm wondering is how the police are supposed to deal with the other sort, if not with pepper spray?
As to giving special consideration to "members of the media," I doubt we could determine who exactly qualifies for that distinction if we blog-commented about it for days, and certainly not in a matter of moments while in the midst of an attempt to disperse an unruly crowd.
You know why the Birmingham police and fire departments were universally reviled in 1963? Because the protesters did nothing to justify their treatment - not just from an objective standpoint, but all non-White Supremicist subjective standpoints as well.
But the May Day protesters? All it takes to lose the support (and your message) is to flip off a cop. Tell us how that's your First Amendment right. So what if it is? You've alienated anyone who doesn't style themselves as "anti-system," which is 99% of the population. That's why I refer to these people as the other one percenters.
If you truly want change, you have to persuade a skeptical and suspicious general public. In order to do that, you have to understand that they will always side with the police unless they think the police are overreacting. They'll only sympathize with you when it's clear that you're being victimized by the cops, and that will only happen if you ensure that you're not confronting them in any way.
@51, Robotslave wrote, "I'm a little baffled about what sort of force the police are supposed to use when protestors ignore an order to disperse and instead charge at the cops."
If charging at the cops under that circumstance is a crime, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
"It would be nice if the protestors would simply cooperate, but since they don't, is there a form of force less dangerous than pepper spray that I haven't heard of?"
Have you heard of handcuffs?
@55, Robotslave wrote, "From the video clips I've seen, the people who were pepper-sprayed were mostly moving toward the police when they were quite clearly being asked to move in any other direction. What would you suggest the police do about that?"
If it is a crime to move toward a police officer while a police officer requests--not orders or demands--that one move in a different direction, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
@57, Robotslave wrote, "what should the police do when they've told people to move away, and they instead move toward the police?"
If it is a crime to move toward police after one of those officers or another in the vicinity has told people, possibly not including the person who is moving, to move away, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
"[I wonder] how the police are supposed to deal with [protesters who are being physically confrontational], if not with pepper spray?"
If it is a crime to be physically confrontational while engaging in political demonstration, then police should arrest anyone suspected of having committed that crime, take notes, and place the suspect before a judge.
This is so simple. Why does anyone accept the idea that people the police aren't even bothering to arrest have done something so serious that the response should be to assault those people?
It's not our "First Amendment right." The freedom to express ourselves is a right with which we are born. The First Amendment protects our right to express ourselves by prohibiting our government from infringing upon that right.
It's funny when police talk about facilitating people's "First Amendment rights," as if they're doing anyone a favor by refraining from infringing upon civil liberties as required by the United States Constitution.
As I'm sure you're well aware, refusing an order to disperse is, in fact, a crime.
And as I'm sure you're also well aware, police do have discretion in deciding when to make an arrest, and when to take other actions that are less likely to result in lasting physical harm.
I do understand that it's a bit of a wet dream for anti-police activists like yourself to revert society from the current era of pepper spray back to the era of truncheons and water cannons, because it's so much harder now to make martyrs of people who disobey orders to disperse and physically resist arrest.
But for people who aren't nursing that sick fantasy, my question remains unanswered: is there some form of physical force, entailing less risk of lasting harm than pepper spray, that the police can avail themselves of when coping with people who refuse to obey orders to disperse, who physically confront the police, and who do not peacefully submit to arrest?
The order to disperse was not given at the beginning of the march. The protesters did have the opportunity to peaceably assemble, and to express their opinions.
But that was not the only purpose of the march; many protesters also wanted to confront and delegitimize the police, and that, alas, can not be accomplished via peaceable assembly.
Rights aren't given. They were demanded and fought for, and must continually be fought for. Because it isn't inherent to authority to recognize them. A casual reading of American history - you know, the world's beacon of liberty, and also the place that denied those Constitutional rights to African Americans for about 90 years - ought to be enough to make one realize that.
If it comforts you to believe that rights somehow exist in thin air, akin to the typical religious person's faith in God, I won't stop you - hell, probably nothing I say is capable of penetrating the fog of faith - but I'm not going to pretend that rights are anything but a human social construct.
@ 62/69, to reiterate, the word "peaceably" is in the First Amendment. If they aren't being peaceable, then it's not a protected right.
In years past what I've seen is a protest which was trying to show how much support there is for unions, workers rights, immigrants rights, etc. devolve into violence. Then we'd have several nights of anti-police brutality protests.
This year it seems like the protest on Capitol Hill went directly to the anti-police brutality phase and generated the brutality which they needed to protest. It looks to me like everyone won. We were reminded how terrible the police are, not much got broken, and nobody got too badly hurt.
Anyone who rants about "Obamacare" is not middle-of-the-road. Fuck, Obama isn't "middle-of-the-road", he's right-leaning.
@64, I responded, "Have you heard of handcuffs?"
@66, Robotslave responded, Have you ever tried to put handcuffs on somebody who didn't want to be handcuffed? It isn't easy.
Which, if any, of the offenses you described are so minor as to be unworthy of a difficult handcuffing operation in order to apprehend the suspect and try him in court, but worthy of assaulting both suspects and bystanders with explosives and chemical weapons?
I know it's a semantic quibble, but it is an important thing to discern. Humans HAVE rights all the time.
@78: BINGO! Of course not. If it was a group other than those scary, scary, anarchists, I suspect people around here would less forgiving of our peace officers' inappropriate use of explosives and chemical weapons.
No codification is needed. We in the United States of America hold those truths to be self-evident.
What makes it real is legal code.