Home > Uncategorized > Occupy Eureka on alert

Occupy Eureka on alert

Occupy Eureka has been regularly sounding the alarm about an imminent police crack-down on their encampment in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse, but tonight they report a credible source.

An email circulating from the group says Eureka City Councilwoman Linda Atkins attended its Wednesday night General Assembly meeting with warnings that EPD will dismantle the camp soon, but an exact date is unknown.

According to the email, which can be seen on Tom Seabourn’s blog, the request is coming from the Humboldt County officials who are asking EPD to do the dirty work.  Why EPD and not the sheriffs whose offices are in the courthouse?  We’ll have to see how this shakes out.

[Image source]

  1. High Finance
    November 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Linda Atkins should be impeached if not thrown in jail.

  2. November 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Rob Arkley can join her there.

  3. Anonymous
    November 2, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    While HiFi swabs the prison toilets.

  4. Pitchfork
    November 2, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    John your such a tough guy.

  5. 69er
    November 2, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    The protesters should be removed or held responsible for any and all costs and/or damages arising from their actions. This burden should not fall on the sholders of the county taxpayers. As far as who does the evicting, whose jurisdiction is it within. If it were me I would seek a cease and desist order from the court and procede from there.

  6. Eurekan
    November 2, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    If Rob Arkley drops the soap in the jail shower, you know HiFi will be there to get it for him.

  7. Ghost of Bushes Past
    November 2, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    Well, ok, lets talk about taxpayers bearing the burden. How about Iraq? How about TARP? How about protecting big-oil flowing? How about …………….. “all costs and/or damages arising from their actions”?

  8. Anonymous
    November 2, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Hearldo you don’t know jack shit!

  9. 69er
    November 3, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Ghost of Bushes Past, you are just like those idiots in congress, let’s just add some more to the tab. We are paying for what you are yammering about and you advocate even more debt. You must be one of those on the dole, I’m sure if you were paying the bill you would feel different about those rabble rousers actions.

  10. Because
    November 3, 2011 at 12:40 am

    Heraldo asks, “Why EPD and not the sheriffs whose offices are in the courthouse?”
    Answer: The courthouse is located inside Eureka city limits. Therefore, it is Eureka PD’s jurisdiction (regardless of whose offices are located inside the building).

  11. Auntie Arkley
    November 3, 2011 at 1:12 am

    The First Amendment of the Constitution goes right out the window. We live in a police state that serves the rich and the corporations. This is all about to change, one way or another, and pigs like High Finance and 69er will be on the losing end.

  12. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Anonymous 11:49,

    I’ve had my doubts about Heraldo, but I think you’ve nailed it! I’m convinced, anyway — like a chess master, you simply removed all escape routes from the conclusion you lead us to. I once was blind, but now can see, and all that. Thanks.

  13. Ben
    November 3, 2011 at 7:39 am

    So Auntie, the only people who can say anything are those that agree with you? I believe that your 8th grade classes in the Constitution failed to sink in. We are a society that lives by the rule of law, you seem to believe in anarchy, that is ultimate freedom to impose your will on others.

  14. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Look at it this way. EPD’s reputation couldn’t get any worse, so they have nothing to lose in breaking up the camp. And the city council’s stance boils down to: in for a penny, in for a pound.

  15. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 7:44 am

    I hear swabbing people’s eyes with liquid tear gas works really well. What could go wrong?

    But just in case, can’t EPD bring back that sharpshooter guy who fled the state? That wuss Garr is gone.

  16. Bloom Burg
    November 3, 2011 at 7:48 am

    Eureka is low hanging fruit.

    With the combined brain trust of Tyson and Harpham the lawsuits resulting from the repression of civil rights will pay handsomely. and the taxpayers will once again pay the price. A couple of egotisical narcissists will cost Eureka millions.

  17. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Yet another way to make money by just sitting around, Mitch!

  18. Percy
    November 3, 2011 at 8:23 am

    How is protesting considered anarchy Ben? You better bone up on your own 8th grade constitution classes, maybe start by reading the 1st amendment. Or does it only apply to corporations?

  19. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 8:33 am

    Do these kinds of protests really ever work to promote change? Whether a person is for or against their cause, I am skeptical. I am for the 99%, being one of them, but the cause has been watered down by bongo drumming hippies and ner do wells so much that those citizens with their head in the right place are not able to be taken seriously.

    I think a protest like this just makes people angry.

  20. November 3, 2011 at 8:48 am

    “I was disappointed, not because we had lost the war but because our people had allowed it to go on for so many years, instead of heeding the few voices of protest against all that mass insanity and slaughter.”

    George Grosz

  21. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 9:05 am

    “the cause has been watered down by bongo drumming hippies and ner do wells so much that those citizens with their head in the right place are not able to be taken seriously.”

    Your complaint should not be with bongo-drumming hippies who, after all, are in the right. Your complaint should be with the media, who consistently de-emphasize the participation of people more in the mainstream.

    A tv report on an event with 99 middle class mothers and one bongo-drumming hippie will inevitably include footage of the bongo-drumming hippie.

    A tv report on an event with 999,999 (too much Cain lately) men wearing suits and one naked guy will inevitably devote practically all its time to the arrest of the naked guy.

  22. Bolithio
    November 3, 2011 at 9:18 am

    Im skeptical too. But in no way should we advocate for not allowing protesting. Ever. This is the USA.

    For each side who views TEA or OCCUPY with disdain, lets figure out how to refine these people’s frustration and bring them together actually improve conditions for the majority of us. Not continuously beat each other up and polarize. That is what the people inside the skyscrapers what us to do. Define our differences doesn’t seem to be helping. What are our similarities?

  23. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Agreed, Mitch, except for the part about the bongo drumming hippy. They are not in the right when they persist in impinging on other people’s space by making a noise that you can’t escape from. There was an ordinance against it in Arcata I think.

  24. November 3, 2011 at 9:31 am

    What about the fifes and drums I see at all the Tea Party rallies? I mean they can get a bit irritating too. Let’s put this on the council agenda we don’t have enough serious business to take care of.

    have a peaceful day,

  25. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Bolithio is exactly right.

    The Tea Party is the result of massive anger at the shafting of the middle class by Washington. Unfortunately, clever astroturfers were able to direct the anger in what is too often a racist and shallow direction, but the anger is real enough, and completely justified.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is a result of precisely the same anger, but OWS does not take Fox seriously. The miracle of OWS is that it has actually got people talking about income inequality and the way in which the very top of the income distribution has pulled ahead, when the focus used to be 24/7 on the Reagan-fairy-tale “welfare queens in Cadillacs.”

    The challenge is to meet with the non-racist, non-stupid membership of the Tea Party, and obtain their support. That is an extremely difficult task, and it won’t be aided by those who demonize all tea party members as racist and stupid.

    There are a lot of people in the left wing who act as if they think human nature is magically transformed when people leave corporations and enter government. It’s not, of course, and people in the tea party are right to be very suspect of government bureaucracies. Those need as much watchdogging as the corporations that now own them, and the left could start vocally acknowledging as much, as a way of opening common ground to the tea partiers.

    The whole design of American government was meant to ensure the branches would keep an eye on one another; in the corrupted environment we have now, that is not functioning, because everyone is on the same payroll: that of the wealthiest few.

  26. November 3, 2011 at 9:36 am

    I’m glad this issue is getting out. I hope people see that it’s not just a camping issue, a homeless problem, or a tax liability. These objections are put forward to make the occupation appear criminal, dirty, and a burden to the hard working citizen. To justify a night raid, Oakland style, and get those people back behind the mall where they belong.

    Of course on any week day there are homeless people, unemployed people, and some old retired farts like myself–who else can get away from their two or three jobs? But other cities have agreed that the occupation is an expression of first amendment rights. The county and the city need to treat these people as citizens–they are protesting the same forces that are driving our public treasuries into bankruptcy.

    Please join them and support them.

  27. November 3, 2011 at 9:48 am

    I think there are many younger folks who a year or two ago identified with the Tea Party – the original Tea Party that came out of Ron Pauls movement before it was coopted by Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers – who are now joined in the Occupy Movement. They have become one of the factions in a largely non-partisan protest movement.

    When you think about it the Occupy movement has issued an implicit invitation to Tea Partiers when they call themselves the 99% as obviously there are many Tea Party folks who are in the 99%.

    have a peaceful day,

  28. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 9:50 am

    I vote that they use the protesters as a training session for the sharp shooters & weapons certification for the officers, so there!!
    Now call me names and insult me to no end. I can take it cuz I am expressing my right to say what I want & I will respect your right to comment.

  29. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 10:05 am

    9:50 thinks advocating the murder of protesters on the street is mitigated by approving of free speech on the internet? It’s just too kind.

  30. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Which reminds me, did you all see the news about those old fart militia members in Georgia who were plotting to kill people with ricin made from castor beans?

  31. RefFan
    November 3, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Well, isnt that what ppl like you PJ say about our law enforcement & government. THat they shoot to kill with no justification & send our children (who sign up on their own) to wars that are meaningless. Cops & government are ppl like you & me, not robotic murderers.

  32. November 3, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Plain Jane, those terrorists were white so most of us didn’t hear about them.

  33. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 10:23 am
  34. RefFan
    November 3, 2011 at 10:27 am

    PJ, thats the kind of stuff I wld read in James Patterson books. It doesn’t seem real that there are actually ppl out there like that. Im not ignorant to whats out there in the big bad world but stuff like that seems to far out there even for me.

  35. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I hadn’t seen it, Jane, thanks.

    I want everyone to know that I have nothing against most white men in their 60s and 70s, even those with southern accents. What they believe is their own business. I just don’t think they should be allowed on airplanes without a lot of extra attention — it’s not profiling, it’s common sense. Thank the lord these men were caught, but how many others are not?!

    Again, I have nothing at all against white southern men in their 60s and 70s. But come on, people, let’s face facts and defend ourselves.

  36. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Unlike you, Reffan, I don’t think all cops or all people in government are the same any more than “people like me” or “people like you” are all the same. Have some cops killed people without justification? Have some leaders in government sent our children to kill and die for no good reason? Why you saw the need to qualify that they were volunteers is a mystery but seems to imply that you think volunteers’ lives have less value than others.

  37. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 10:47 am

    The Tea Party is the result of massive anger at the shafting of the middle class by Washington.

    Bullshit, the teabaggers are angry that a black man got elected and that his presence is blocking their Koch-funded attempts to dramatically re-write voting laws, corporate donations in politics and and the destruction of union bargaining rights. The idea that the teabaggers, overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly on some sort of government assistance are anything but an astroturf attempt to destroy any vestige of a social safety net is absurd.

    Occupy is a visceral reaction to the past 15 years increasing corporate and financial control over our media, our government and our society. Teabaggers are a group of angry, petulant racists who can’t stand the fact that a black man is not only in the most powerful political position in the nation but that he also gets to set the agenda. Don’t insult a true grassroots movement by conflating it with the lackeys that are teabaggers.

  38. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Homeland Security should get the AARP list and search gardens for WMD. I wouldn’t restrict it just to old men either. Those old grannies may look sweet and harmless, but they could be dosing those cookies with castor bean ricin, foxglove or white oleander. They hate us for our youth.

  39. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Here’s a much more in-depth look at the four ideologically deranged old farts in Georgia who were allegedly plotting mass murder against their fellow countrymen:


  40. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Very sensible precautions, PJ. A misguided white southern 70 year old homemaker could get enough ricin into an Apple Pie to destroy half the eastern seaboard. Remember: it only takes one!

    Don’t forget there are Christian ministers (nothing against Christians, PJ, some of them are the nicest people you’ll ever meet) who hate our country:


  41. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Shame on you anonymous 10:47, he is NOT a black man, he is a mixed race as is most of us. That has nothing to do with my extreme dislike for this man. His past, present and the future he has designed for us has determined my extreme hatred for him.

  42. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Just to reiterate, 11:09 is not a racist. He just hates a black man, oops, sorry, a “mixed race” man, for fictitious reasons.

  43. 69er
    November 3, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Have you ever read any of his rants and studied his past, present and planned future? I doubt it, I have and it is scary, in his own words and I will leave it at that.

  44. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Anonymous 10:47am said: “The teabaggers are angry that a black man got elected…Teabaggers are a bunch of angry, petulant racists who can’t stand the fact that a black man is not only in the most powerful position in the nation but that he also gets to set the agenda.”

    And yet polls show that many of them prefer a black man, Herman Cain, as their presidential candidate.

    Now I’ve heard some pretty convoluted arguments to explain why racists would throw their support to a black candidate, despite having a slew of conservative white candidates to choose from — but I haven’t found any of those arguments (usually featuring the concept of “President Uncle Tom”) very convincing. It seems to me that the idea that most Tea Partiers are “a bunch of racists outraged by the election of a black president” has always been a convenient oversimplification of who the Tea Party rank and file are.

    Look, I don’t doubt that there are some hard-core racists among Tea Party supporters, and probably more than their share of petty bigots as well, but I’m not convinced that racial prejudice is really what motivates most rank-and-file Tea Partiers.

    It seems to me that Cain’s popularity with many Tea Partiers suggests that their ideological priorities — both economic and religious/cultural/social — can outweigh whatever racial prejudices are there.

  45. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Wow Tra! Tea Party members of the Georgia Militia, one a commander of a squad plotting to indiscriminately kill innocent people with ricin and to blow up government buildings and vehicles, all in the name of PATRIOTISM!

  46. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 11:27 am


    Is it his opinion that all Americans should have health care that causes your “extreme hatred” of him, or his decision to withdraw from Iraq? Is it that he killed the head of Al Queda without reading him his rights? Is it that he was wishy-washy on gays in the military and has refused to withdraw DOMA? Or is it something else?

    Was he too easy on the banks? Too hard? Is it that he didn’t put a sufficient stimulus program in place, or was the stimulus too large? Is it that he basically put in moderate-conservative economic advisors, after campaigning on change?

    Is it the economic collapse that he caused by being elected? Or the incredible power he had to make the economy collapse even months before his election? That one scares me, too, I’ve got to admit.

    Which of these, 11:09, if it’s not that he’s mixed race as is most of us?

  47. Mitch
    November 3, 2011 at 11:29 am


    The Tea Party loves Clarence Thomas, too. Blacks are just fine if they’ve got a record of harassment.

  48. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 11:29 am

    If you will recall all the charges from the right that liberals were only voting for Obama to prove they aren’t racist and assuage white guilt, their early claimed support of Cain makes sense, Tra. However, I’d bet the farm that when they get inside the booth to pick their candidate, they won’t even pause over Cain’s name.

  49. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Well that’s clever, Mitch, but of course Cain was popular with the Tea Partiers before the sexual harassment allegations surfaced recently.

    I think the more accurate statement is that, at least for most Tea Partiers, “Blacks are fine as long as they agree with our ideology.”

    Which is exactly my point: For most of these folks, ideology trumps race. That doesn’t’ mean they’re 100% color-blind, it just means thatObama’s race isn’t really the issue with most Tea Partiers.

  50. High Finance
    November 3, 2011 at 11:44 am

    There are reasonable protests and then there protestors who abuse the process.

    This trash filled protest on the courthouse lawn crossed the line weeks ago. The protestors are happy campers and won’t go away. They must be removed.

    Anybody who thinks those bums have anything in common with the Tea Party people have rocks for brains.

  51. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 11:47 am


    I’m pretty skeptical of Cain’s chances, too, though perhaps for different reasons. Yes, he won’t get the votes of the hard-core racists among Republican primary voters, but I think more importantly he’s going to continue to wither under the lights, now that he’s getting the scrutiny of a “top-tier” candidate.

    I don’t think the sexual harassment thing will hurt Cain all that much in the primary (heck, it might even help him) but it seems to me that he’s a hothead, oversure of himself, and a bit of a loose cannon and therefore almost assured to embarass himself further throughout the primary season.

    As far as the Tea Partiers go, I’d be willing to bet that his time on the Federal Reserve is more of a problem for him with Tea Party voters than his race.

  52. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    And HiFi will defend TO THE DEATH the right of people to protest for what he agrees with for as long as he thinks they should protest! Those who protest what he doesn’t agree with or who protest until they achieve something are BUMS unworthy of the rights granted to people he agrees with.

  53. Bolithio
    November 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    For every nihilist junkie involved with occupy you have an ignorant racist teabagger.

    Good thing populations follow the standard bell shaped curve. Who are we? We are the 80%. The people in the middle, the people with the most in common.

    Its a slippery slope to try to discredit the group you don’t like when your group has an equal share of radicals. More reason to embrace a climate of acceptance over divide and conquer.

  54. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Looks like there’s some new polling data that backs up my guess that the sexual harassment thing probably won’t hurt Cain much in the Republican primary:


    I think Cain will fail to capture the Republican nomination, but I think it will be for reasons other than race and for reasons other than the sexual harrassment charges.

    I think he’ll fail because he’s got a tendency to make outrageous, attention-grabbing statements — which is a great way to grab attention, but not necessarily a great way to build a solid base of supporters. Just ask Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry, two of the previous flavors-of-the-week that went rancid fast.

    But, who knows? Maybe Cain will back off the “electrocute the illegal border-crossers” type stuff, and stick with his nonsensical-but-simplistic-enough-to-be-pseudo-populist “9-9*-9” tax plan, and just ride a wave of innumeracy, general ignorance and Romney-aversion all the way to the Republican Convention.

  55. High Finance
    November 3, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    “ignorant racist teabagger” is an ignorant racist statement.

  56. Plain Jane
    November 3, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  57. a high flying plan for removal
    November 3, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    That’s right HiF, people you disagree with need to be

    “taken out” to “make the country right again.” Because there “is no way for us, as militiamen, to save this country, to save Georgia, without doing something that’s highly, highly illegal. Murder. That’s fucking illegal, but it’s gotta be done.”

    “When it comes time to saving the Constitution, that means some people gotta die,”

    “Let’s shoot the bastards that we discover are anti-American or enemies of America, treasonous,”

    Why should Constitutional rights be extended to people you don’t like? Don’t you GET it? The Constitution only protects right wing speech and demonstrations.

    I say take ’em out! Kill the bastards! And who is better prepared and willing to do the shooting than the EPD?

  58. the 99%
    November 3, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black
    try another one, low-fi, please!!!

  59. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Uh-oh, the one percenters have a new “class traitor” in their ranks — Bill Gates, who is advocating for a Financial Transactions Tax:


  60. tra
    November 3, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Associated Press
    Posted: 11/03/2011 10:38:42 AM PDT

    About 100 military veterans marched in uniform Wednesday from the Vietnam Veterans Plaza near Wall Street through Manhattan, joining the Occupy Wall Street protest.

    They were fired up by what they called brutality against a Marine veteran in Oakland, Calif., whose skull was fractured.

    Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas, who went toe to toe recently with officers policing activists in Times Square, said soldiers who risked their lives have the right to protest an economy that gives them a slimmer chance of finding jobs than most Americans

  61. anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    What! again? OWS is using soldiers to protest? FORCING them to do it. No right-thinking soldier wants to exercise the rights he/she risks life and limb to defend. Right-thinking soldiers know they serve for one reason: to defend the 1% and their money.

    Bunch of spoiled brats.

    HiFi said so. Isn’t that right, HiFi?

  62. Ruben Flores
    November 3, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    Open Letter to the Rank & File of the EPD


  63. jr
    November 3, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    Great Craigslist post. I hope that it gets noticed and read among all the other Craigslist posts. Thank you to whomever posted it.

  64. Anonymous
    November 3, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    I sincerely hope that it rains tonight and gets down to about 35 degrees so those “protesters” will have something else to snivel about.

    And a big thank you to tra, Plain Jain, and Mitch. I just don’t know how I could get by in life without your timely and thoughful comments. You are really dumber than dirt.

  65. 69er
    November 4, 2011 at 12:39 am

    I agree about the rain and cold for the protesters. Will hold my tongue on the criticism of those you mention, I sometimes agree with them.

  66. Mitch
    November 4, 2011 at 7:20 am


    What kind of dirt? Sandy loam’s always seemed pretty smart to me.

  67. Plain Jane
    November 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

    My mind “dirt” is rich with organic compost, earth worms and microbes which grow brilliant flowers and vegetables. The hard scrabble “dirt” of the right wing mind grows thorns and thistles.

  68. Toto
    November 4, 2011 at 8:31 am

    To the Rank & File of the Eureka Police Department

    You are the working class. You are part of the 99%

    The people who are peacefully assembling and voicing their grievances are acting within their Constitutional Rights.

    The people who are in the Occupy movement support worker’s rights.

    The people who you work for (David Tyson and his Republican puppet masters) want to strip you of all your union rights – the right to strike, the right to negotiate wages and benefits, and even the right to form a union.

    Your choice is clear. If you are asked to clear the camp you should refuse. It is time for you to take a stand with the people.

  69. Harris
    November 4, 2011 at 11:03 am

    The bolithio’s and high finances of the world live with a fear they will never admit to…especially having childrend…the knowing that their whole lifestyle is dependent on the status quo funneling everybody’s efforts up. So they call foul balls and criticize when the ladder is shaken, knowing that if they don’t come up with $xx,xxx every month, their whole way of life will change dramatically, to something along the lines of how those of us who only have to come up with $xxx per month live.

    They are the sellouts, bringing us the likes of clearcut forests and urban blight while they live in fear of the impending chaos that their support for the status quo fuels. They want us all to blame eachtother for their industry’s damage to society, they teach their children to blame somebody else’s parents for the effects of their own profitable ventures.

  70. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 11:20 am

    What is your solution? What should a regular working person?

  71. Harris
    November 4, 2011 at 11:39 am

    11:20, consider bolithio’s very telling quote:

    “Good thing populations follow the standard bell shaped curve. Who are we? We are the 80%. The people in the middle, the people with the most in common.”

    In common with whom? What standard? By his own math, he doesn’t belong to the 80%, but the 19% who happily serves the 1% and would comfortably fall into their rank. They’re the cops who don’t mind shooting teargas at protestors, who defame the efforts of the protestors in media, etc. They are afraid of real change.

    You, whoever you are reading this, need $xxx every month to maintain your lifestyle. Or do you need $x,xxx? or $xx,xxx? or $xxx,xxx? And do you have kids as well? The more you’ve conditioned yourself to need, the greater the fear of real change that you will never admit to.

  72. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    So your answer is that we should live on less? No matter what the income range is there will always be a top 1% and a bottom 1%. I do not hear a solution to the problem voiced by so many commenters. No allow capitalism? That means that individuals can not own property, not a good answer to say the least. If individuals do not own property, who does?

  73. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    property is theft Ben. Ask any Indian.

  74. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Property includes money, stocks and bonds, and real property which is land. So Anonymous, do you have land and are ready to deed it over to a local Native American?

  75. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Real property is the basis for the other properties Ben. And I am a native American.

  76. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    So, Anonymous, are your “changes” that only Native American’s can own land?

  77. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    You need some logic Ben.

  78. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Again, what is your logic? So far I hear only slogans.

  79. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Ah, silence, so spouting slogans is the answer, oh darn it there is no answer after all. This is like talking to a teenager who is mad and is just mad at the world and has no reasonable solution, just anger.

  80. Mitch
    November 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Maybe this quote from Wendell Berry will help. Berry is Christian, but I hope his point will be recognizable independent of belief in the Christian god. When he talks about property “belonging to another,” he means property belonging to no human.


    “The idea of usufruct gives this point to the idea of stewardship, and makes it practical and economic. Usufruct, the Oxford English Dictionary says, is “the right of temporary possession, use, or enjoyment of the advantages of property belonging to another, so far as may be had without causing damage or prejudice to this.” It is hardly a “free-market economy” that the Bible prescribes. Large accumulations of land were, and are, forbidden because the dispossession and privation of some cannot be an acceptable or normal result of the economic activity of others, for that destroys a people as a people; it destroys the community. Usury was, and is, forbidden because the dispossession and privation of some should not be regarded by others as an economic opportunity, for that is contrary to neighborliness; it destroys the community. And the greed that destroys the community also destroys the land. What the Bible proposes is a moral economy, the standard of which is the health of properties belonging to God.”

  81. Mitch
    November 4, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    I feel confident that Berry’s thoughts are in sync with at least some aspects of Native American spirituality, though I am neither Indian nor Native.

    Also, I don’t in any way mean to imply that Christianity as practiced by white settlers in North America has anything to do with what Berry is talking about. I can imagine few more offensive suggestions.

  82. Ben
    November 4, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I certainly agree with stewardship but our economic system relies on ownership of property, not necessarly land. In the absence of that, how then do we manage our day to day lives, since your definition of stewardship may not be the same as others. Even our local Native Americans had “ownership” of certain areas that were the traditional rights of families for fishing or gathering. Different tribes had “ownership” of their territory. Yurok and other local tribes had individual ownership of wealth which determined status. Your status was based on how much your father paid for your mother. So the concept of “capital” is not just a European idea.
    So if privitation is contrary to neighborliness, what are the bounds that manage individual actions. When is your neighbors “property” available for your use, and when can your neighbor choose to use your assets.
    Your quotes sound like the utopian philosophies that failed in the past because all individuals do not share the same values as you may possess.
    Looking forward to continuing the conversation.

  83. Mitch
    November 4, 2011 at 1:58 pm


    There is a wide spectrum of opinion among those who are sympathetic to the occupiers. Personally, I don’t think elimination of private property is likely in the next several lifetimes. I’m of mixed feelings about the idea even in the abstract.

    What Occupy Wall Street symbolizes for me is more a recognition that the path we’ve been on is so deadly that people feel the need to stand up and say “STOP!”

    There are a million steps between here and a utopian society, but we can at least turn around and look in the right direction. For me, and I’m just an old bystander, the most important political change would be campaign finance reform. I’m sure to many of those actually engaging in Occupy events, that seems very weak.

    On a social level, our society needs to stop thinking that more is better. We all need to free ourselves from the unlimited desires that advertising instills, and we need to stop admiring people because they are wealthy. What a mistake to equate wealth with success! We need to wake up to the fact that we are in a world with seven billion other people, and that we have responsibilities beyond ourselves.

    Politically, I think that can be recognized through the tax system, but I don’t feel it will be until campaign finance form is implemented.

  84. tra
    November 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    There will always be those who will try to portray progressive taxation, recognition of worker’s rights, aid to the poor, subsidizing education and so on as being inherently anti-capitalist, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

    Historically, the overall effect of these sorts of measures has been to shore up the system and prevent capitalism from collapsing under the weight of unsustainable wealth accumulation at the very top.

    Now even some at the very top of the wealth pyramid, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are waking up to the fact that the current trajectory of income and wealth distribution is simply unsustainable.

    Steal too much material from the foundation and the ground floor to build fancy towers and verandas and gilded domes up on top, and sooner or later the whole structure will collapse, fancy verandas and all.

  85. Harris
    November 4, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    >> “So your answer is that we should live on less?”

    If I told you you had terminal cancer, would you think i was also telling you what to do with the rest of your life? i’m saying the system is collapsing and everybody who has lots has more to lose, and will fight to maintain their lifestyle all the more. That means siding with the 1%, as some resident ranters consistently demonstrate.

  86. Ferd.
    November 4, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    “Now even some at the very top of the wealth pyramid, such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are waking up to the fact that the current trajectory of income and wealth distribution is simply unsustainable.”

    They’ve known all along. Do not forget that. They are the opposite of naive and unitelligent, they know how business works as-is, that’s how they got where they are. They are backdoor handshakers, law bending crooks leaving a wake of poverty and pollution behind their industries. They operate under a cloak of legality. They have as much money as somebody could have, and they use it to get wha tthey want. It behooves them to keep their noses clean in the limelight, because their entire foundation is built on the status quo.

  87. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Property is theft. Ask any Indian.

    Yeah, well, Indians used to kill people of other tribes and make slaves out of the women and children.

  88. anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Nobody’s talking about making slaves out of anybody, 4:44. Put the bottle down.

  89. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    The point was that they weren’t perfect either. Any group who gets a little power has those subgroups who will abuse it.

  90. Thunder Road
    November 4, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10
    Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonpartisan research and advocacy group, and The Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy has engaged in tax policy research since 1980. Their New Report provides a detailed information on corporate taxation in recent years. It looks at the federal income taxes paid or not paid by 280 of America’s largest, most profitable corporations in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Over these three years the 280 companies in this survey reported total pretaxU.S. profits of $1.4 trillion.

    The federal corporate tax code requires big corporations to pay a 35 % income tax rate. The 280 corporations surveyed paid about half that amount on average, and many paid little or nothing. Some corporations pay their fair share, but corporate tax loopholes are such that General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, and many other large companies combined paid less in taxes than any person who reads this. The effective tax rate for all 280 companies in the past two years averaged only 17.3 %, less than half of the statutory 35 percent rate. Read the full report here:


    Here is a brief summary of some of the reports findings.

    The table on this page summarizes what the 280 companies paid (or didn’t pay) in effective U.S. income tax rates on their pretax U.S. profits.

    The good news is that 71 of our companies, 25 percent of the total, paid effective three-year tax rates of more than 30 percent. Their average effective tax rate was 32.3 percent.

    The bad news is that an almost equal number of companies, 67, paid effective three-year tax rates of less than 10 percent. Their average effective tax rate was zero.

    Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010.

    Thirty corporations paid less than nothing in aggregate federal income taxes over the entire 2008-10 period. Their effective tax rate averaged –6.7 percent.

    Over the 2008-10 period, these 280 companies earned almost $1.4 trillion in pretax profits in the United States while receiving tax payer subsidies of $222.7 billion.

    In 2009, 49 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes yet they earned combined U.S. pretax profits of $78.6 billion while receiving tax payer rebates totaling $10.8 billion.

    In 2008, 22 companies paid no federal income tax, and got $3.3 billion in tax payer rebates.

    In 2010, 37 companies paid no income tax, and got $7.8 billion in tax payer rebates.

    More than half of the total tax subsidies over the three years ($114.8 billion) went to just 25 companies, each with more than $1.9 billion in tax subsidies.

    Wells Fargo topped the list with $18 billion in tax subsidies over the three years.

    Industrial machinery companies (such as GE) enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate over the three years of –13.5 percent in federal income taxes. This industry’s taxes declined sharply over the three years, falling to –36.4 percent in 2010.

    Only two industries, Retail & Wholesale Trade and Health Care, paid an effective tax rate of 30 percent or more over the full three-year period.

    Notably, 56% of all tax subsidies went to just four industries: financial (16.8%), utilities (14.0%), telecommunications (13.8%), and oil, gas & pipelines (10.8%).

    Corporate taxes paid for 25% of federal expenses in the 1950s and 20% in the 1960s. This began to decline during the Nixon administration to about 11% in the 1990’s. In fy 2010, corporate taxes covered only 6% percent of federal expenses.

    Two-thirds of these U.S. companies paid higher foreign taxes on their foreign profits than they paid in U.S. tax on their U.S. profits (about one-third more).

  91. jr
    November 4, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    Just saw the film Inside Job. Everyone that is concerned with the problems facing this country, and the world, needs to rent this film.

  92. Anonymous
    November 4, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    What abouat Linda Atkins actions? Councilwoman Atkins!

    That is a serious issue. Why not comment on that? Why not discuss that?

  93. Anonymous
    November 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    recall Linda Atkins

  94. Rep
    November 5, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    You don’t have enough balls to stand on a corner with a clipboard dumbass. You have to gather signatures and you can’t do that anonymously.

  95. High Finance
    November 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    10.00pm, They don’t want to talk about Linda Atkins because she probably broke the law.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s