Occupy Wallstreet

If tallanvor and gwayneco start acting all pissy, then whatever the cause is almost *has* to be righteous.

 

And now we have a pedophile.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/132064518.html

SEATTLE -- A man accused of exposing himself to children at least five times across Seattle was arrested early Tuesday morning.

Seattle police say he was taken into custody at his Kenmore residence around 1 a.m.

Officers had been given a composite sketch of the suspect and detectives learned he had been at Westlake Park taking part in the Occupy Seattle protests.

The man is accused of exposing himself three times on Sept. 29 -- once in Crown Hill, once near Alki Beach, and a third time on Capitol Hill. Three days later, he was spotted at Pinehurst Playfield near Northgate, and then again on Oct. 3 at the Lakeside soccer field in North Seattle.

In one instance, the man allegedly approached two 13-year-old girls on swings, made a comment and was engaged in a lewd act when they turned to look, according to police.

The man was booked into King County Jail for Investigation of Indecent Exposure.

 

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/10/18/occupy-cleveland-protester-alleges-she-was-raped/

LEVELAND, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) – An “Occupy Cleveland” protester tells police she was raped in her tent over the weekend.

Cleveland police are investigating an alleged sexual assault incident Saturday at the “Occupy Cleveland” rally involving a 19-year-old female student from Parma.

According to police reports, the 19-year-old student was instructed by “Occupy Cleveland” personnel to “share a tent with the suspect due to a shortage of tents.” The suspect identified himself as “Leland” to the woman. The woman told police that after she had thought the suspect went to sleep in his own bed, she slept in a sleeping bag provided to her by the rally.

The student went to school Monday and told a teacher about her sexual assault incident in Public Square — which is being classified as “kidnapping/rape” — prompting the teacher to immediately contact the authorities.

“Occupy Cleveland” is one of many movements taking place nationwide in the wake of “Occupy Wall Street,” which is protesting against corporate greed.

Emails from CBS Cleveland to the “Occupy Cleveland” movement were not immediately returned.

 

Are you just going to post the Police Bulletin for every town with an Occupy movement? For any group of people there will be a percentage of criminal opportunists. It doesn't denigrate a whole movement.

But you know that.



WE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the PEOPLE, shall elect and convene a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY beginning on July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia.

 

Agreed. Based on the increasingly shrill tone of their posts it sounds like the Occupy Wallstreet movement is a success.

 

The Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street

Neither movement is perfect but only one has validity

by Jack Hunter

The Occupy Wall Street movement has reminded me of two things: One, how much I hate partisanship, and, two, how silly liberalism really is. For all the Left's talk about how Tea Partiers are racists, extremists, terrorists, and all the rest, liberals have either been giving a wink and a nod to the Occupy protesters or openly praising them.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the protesters "had her heart," telling ABC News, "I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen."

A message to the establishment that change has to happen? What, exactly, does Ms. Pelosi think the Tea Party has been screaming about for two years?

My fellow conservatives have been having a field day portraying the Occupy protesters as a bunch of lawless, unkempt-hippie types, and in many cases, this description has been accurate. But sometimes so was the Left's description of the Tea Partiers who were shouting at town halls, holding wacky signs, and exhibiting other generally crude behavior. Populist movements are often messy, and those in power will often use this messiness to discredit movements they don't like. But is either the Tea Party or the Occupy movement ideologically valid? Does either movement have a message worth hearing? Do they have a point? To answer that, we must look at whether or not the two movements have espoused a coherent message.

The relatively simple idea of cutting government spending and reducing the debt was what created the Tea Party, and as long as that has remained the message, the movement has enjoyed widespread support. Some polls from a year ago showed a majority of Americans agreeing with the Tea Party and even relating to the movement more than either major party. No matter how much leaders like Pelosi and her liberal friends have tried to dismiss the Tea Party as a bunch of right-wingers lacking all sense and sanity, most Americans are concerned about a $15 trillion national debt and endless government spending. But later, when some in the Tea Party began to veer off into Birtherism, religiosity, paranoia about Sharia law, and other diversions, this is when the popular message of less government became obscured.

The Tea Party's liberal enemies like to talk about these nasty aspects because they know it makes the movement look bad. And it does. If the Tea Party stays focused on the goal of limiting government, the movement can continue to change this country. If it veers off into other areas, mindless or not, it will simply become yet another ideological comfort zone for right-wingers that politicians are quick to abuse but little to use. To remain effective, the Tea Party cannot simply be the grassroots outpost for the same mindless partisanship that defines Washington, D.C. The earlier Tea Party was bipartisan in its scorn, and for the movement to remain dominant it must stick to its roots.

The Occupy movement, on the other hand, does not have a path to choose; it was incoherent from the start. They're mad at Wall Street. So am I. That's why I opposed the bank bailouts, which were nothing more than our federal government allowing corporations to privatize their profits but socialize their losses, which everyone from liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich to conservative Sen. Jim DeMint pointed out. Americans from across the political spectrum agreed with the staggering immorality of the bank bailouts.

But what do the Occupy protesters suggest we do about such governmental thievery? They want even more government. Here are some of the demands given at the website OccupyWallSt.org: Raise the minimum wage to $20; free college education; guaranteed living-wage income, regardless of employment; immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness for all; outlaw all credit-reporting agencies; and $1 trillion in infrastructure spending. Granted, one website does not necessarily speak for the entire Occupy movement. But this particular website is constantly cited because it is one of the only consistent messages one can find coming from this movement. And that message is socialism.

For all the commonalities some Occupy protesters might share with Tea Partiers — rejecting the bank bailouts or criticizing the Federal Reserve for instance — the movement's only possible semblance of an actual point is that our current government isn't socialist enough. Not only is this beyond absurd, but it's antithetical to the current anti-government mood held by much of the public. Still, many of the Occupy protesters reject the idea that they're socialists. What are they, then? We're not sure. And neither are they.

------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/6hasx5d

 

The "tea party" has become a joke. It is what the GOP worked hard for it to become. A wing of the Republican Party, an extremist wing, which is saying something considering how extreme the GOP is today. The "Occupy Wallstreet" movement, however, is reflecting how so many Americans feel about the shaft they've been getting from Corporate America and their lackeys, the Republican Party in particular. It's pathetic that some here feel the need to find an individual here, and an individual there, who may have an unsavory history, and are using that to paint an entire spontaneous movement as being the same. That's the same tactics used by others here during the early days of the "tea party," before it was co-opted by the GOP, when a few obvious racists were said to reflect everyone in the movement.

What a sad bunch we have here representing the Right. With a few exceptions, you are doing heavy lifting for the Democratic Party by showing just how muddled and extreme you really are. Keep it up. You have become a joke yourself.

 

^

occupy wall street is a huge joke at this point

 

I disagree. They are still protesting in Austin and I agree with most of what they're saying. It's about time that people raised hell about what is happening to the middle class, and who is responsible.

 

Yep, they love the USA.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZKzGbgSe8lg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

No better way to love the USA than to make sweet love to the USA. The Statute of Liberty, for one, is very much hit-able.

 

more than you do that's for damn sure

 

you could easily say the same thing about the initial tea party movement, i.e. they were against government's wasteful spending.

The message may be valid but the delivery (a bunch of hippies in the street) is comical.

 

Expectorating America haters!

Coast Guard member spit on near Occupy Boston tents

Updated: Friday, 14 Oct 2011, 8:53 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 13 Oct 2011, 10:13 PM EDT

BOSTON (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters.

The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.

Now, the Coast Guard is warning all staff working on Atlantic Avenue to avoid those protesters while in uniform.

Devon Pendleton, a spokesman for Occupy Boston, doesn't believe that those male protestors are actually part of the movement. However, Pendleton wants to be clear, that if protestors are responsible for doing something so disrespectful, he'd like to apologize on behalf of Occupy Boston.

Coast Guard official Luke Clayton tells FOX25 whether or not the people who spit on the woman are part of Occupy Boston or not, what happened is against the law and he expects police to protect them against things like this in the future.

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news...-on-coast-guard-member-20111013#ixzz1bFHi206J

 

You are doing the same thing many on the Right are doing. Dismissing the entire protest movement because some of them look like "hippies" to you. I'm surprised. I was also a hippie back in the 1960's, so you aren't making any friends here with your comment.

 

Obama's Crackdown on Medical mar1juana

By Justin Elliott, Salon
Posted on October 15, 2011, Printed on October 19, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/152748/obama's_crackdown_on_medical_marijuana

Back in July, I interviewed a drug policy expert about an apparent change in Justice Department policy that suggested a crackdown on medical mar1juana — which is legal in many states but illegal under federal law — might be coming.

Now, with the announcement last week by California’s four U.S. attorneys that pot dispensaries will be targeted with harsh criminal sanctions, the shift feared by drug policy reform advocates appears to have come to pass. The rhetoric from candidate Barack Obama about not prioritizing medical mar1juana cases now seems a distant memory.

To learn more about what’s happening in California, I spoke to Bob Egelko, a veteran reporter who covers courts for the San Francisco Chronicle and has been following the story.

Starting with the basics, what is the medical mar1juana law in California and what does it allow for?

In 1996 the voters approved Proposition 215. It allows people to receive mar1juana for medical purposes with their doctor’s approval — not prescription, but recommendation. It also allows them to grow it themselves or get it from a caregiver without being prosecuted under state law. It was the first law like that in the country, and there are now laws somewhat similar to it in 15 other states plus the District of Columbia.

Before this week, what has the federal response been to medical mar1juana use in California?

There was opposition even before Proposition 215 passed. The Clinton administration made it clear that it opposed Prop. 215 and moved almost immediately to try, first of all, to punish doctors who recommended mar1juana to their patients by removing their federal prescription licenses. That was rejected in court. The administration also moved to shut down some dispensaries for violating federal law. That reached the Supreme Court, which agreed with the administration and allowed closure of an Oakland mar1juana collective. So the federal government has been pretty much hostile to the California law from the beginning, with the possible exception of the initial year or so of the Obama administration.

How big is the industry in the state?

It’s a very good-sized industry. A conservative estimate of its size is $1.5 billion per year. There are more than 1,000 dispensaries. There was a recent account suggesting that 400,000 Californians may be using medical mar1juana. Of course there’s not always rigorous screening as to which use is medical and which is not. That depends on how rigorous doctors are.

So bring us up to the present — where has the Justice Department been on this?

In October 2009 the Obama DOJ announced it would not devote prosecutorial resources to people who were complying with their state’s medical mar1juana laws, in California and elsewhere. This was very much in keeping with what Senator Obama said during the presidential campaign: that basically states could go their own way and he was not interested in interfering with them carrying out their own policies. This past June, the Justice Department issued a memorandum saying in effect, “We don’t want to be misunderstood here. What we really meant was, we’re not going to target individual patients and their caregivers. But we certainly are not going to let commercial dispensaries off the hook.” That was in keeping with what they have been doing: a lot of raids, continuing prosecutions of people who had been charged under the Bush policies, pressing for long sentences, and so on.

This past week, all four U.S. attorneys in California held a press conference in Sacramento to announce they would be going after dispensaries, which they regard as commercial entities. They said these entities were hiding profit-making machines under the cover of providing medical mar1juana. The prosecutors said these dispensaries would be subject to civil and criminal forfeiture actions. Each of them announced that they had already notified landlords of various dispensaries that if they didn’t close them down the landlords themselves could be subject to prosecution.

Have there been other concrete steps taken yet?

Several of the prosecutors named charges they had brought against large-scale operators, with hundreds of pounds of mar1juana confiscated. There have been warning letters sent out. Fewer of those have gone out in the San Francisco Bay Area, where the U.S. attorney says she is focusing on dispensaries that are near parks and schools and the like.

This is not the only action the federal government has taken. A couple of dispensaries have been hit with very large tax-enforcement actions recently. The IRS has said they will not be allowed to deduct business expenses or payroll, which essentially would bankrupt the dispensaries. There is a combination of anxiety and anger in the medical mar1juana community.

The prosecutors made a lot of the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit dispensaries. Why does that matter?

When Jerry Brown, now the governor, was attorney general, he issued guidelines in 2008 that said only not-for-profit dispensaries could operate legally. Of course there is always a question of what is and is not for-profit. It doesn’t seem to be in dispute that most of these dispensaries have been operating with either the tacit approval or the formal blessing of the state and local government. A lot of them have permits, or the local police or district attorney haven’t gone after them.

I know the Justice Department has said this is not a change in policy. But is there a clear sense of why the DOJ is cracking down at this particular moment?

There’s a lot of speculation about election-year politics. But there’s always been a certain amount of tension between the U.S. attorneys and Main Justice. Even when policies are announced in Washington, they have to be implemented by these semi-autonomous U.S. attorneys, whose policies vary. Many of them don’t take too kindly to the notion that they’re to ignore violations of federal drug law just because the state sanctions it. There may be internal Justice Department politics at work. It could be that strategies change over time. No matter what the Justice Department says, this is certainly a change in philosophy. Previously they were talking about cutting the states a lot of slack. They’re not talking about that now.


Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin.

-----------------------------------

A Drug Arrest Every 19 Seconds, Says Latest US Data [FEATURE]

mar1juana arrests last year stood at 853,838, down very slightly from 2009's 858,408. But for the second year in a row, pot busts accounted for more arrests than all other drugs combined, constituting 52% of all drug arrests in 2010. Nearly eight million people have been arrested on pot charges since 2000.

The vast majority (88%) off mar1juana arrests were for simple possession, with more than three-quarters of a million (750,591) busted in small-time arrests. Another 103,247 people were charged with sale or manufacture, a category that includes everything from massive mar1juana smuggling operations to persons growing a single plant in their bedroom closets.

The stabilization of drug arrests at record high levels comes as the FBI reports all other categories of crime are dropping. Violent crime was down overall, with murder decreasing by 4.2% and robberies by 10.0%, while property crime was also down overall, with burglary and larceny declining by more than 2% and motor vehicle theft and arson down by more than 7%.

Drug arrests were the single largest category of arrests, accounting for more than 10% of all arrests in the country. They were followed by drunk driving arrests (1.41 million) and larceny arrests (1.27 million). More than three times as many people were arrested for drugs than for all violent crimes combined (552,000) and nearly as many as for all property crimes combined (1.643 million).

African-Americans continue to be arrested for drug offenses in disproportionate numbers. Blacks accounted for 31.8% of all drug arrests last year, while according to the US Census Bureau [10], they constitute only 12.6% of the national population.

[Visit the Drug War Facts Crime section [11] for updated tables presenting arrest data from 1980 through the present.]

The high drug arrest numbers were grist for the mill for drug war critics.

"This shows that, contrary to what Obama and Kerlikowske say, the war on drugs is not over," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance [12]. While conceding that the vast majority of drug arrests are conducted by state and local law enforcement, "the Obama administration sets the tone," he argued. "Kerlikowske said he ended the war on drugs—not the federal war on drugs—but federal money absolutely subsidizes state and local drug arrests by funding programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program and the COPS program. They are supposed to be setting national policy, but they're not doing a very good job of leading by example."

 

I'll admit it. I laughed. And I repped.