Home > Protest > OCCUPY HUMBOLDT: The Next Move


[From the Occupy Humboldt Facebook page.]

The Occupy movement has awakened us to something we all knew, but hardly anybody was saying: WE HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED.  Not by people in tents, but by Wall Street banks and corporations. Our elected representatives scurry to do their business. Our police are made to serve them, and treat ordinary citizens like insurgents. Our County Courthouse looks like the Green Zone because the Occupy people tried to take back a patch of lawn to say to us: wake up.

Now that we’re awake, let’s broaden the issue beyond illegal camping and biohazards. The homeless among the Occupy groups deserve our strongest support and recognition of their basic human rights. People wrongly arrested and falsely imprisoned should have legal defense. [see humrights.org] Charges should be filed against those responsible for violence against persons and property.

And now that we’re awake, take a look around. It’s true: we are an occupied country. Corporate dollars are protected speech and they have the dollars. We are out-gunned, out-spent, and out-voted even when we win elections.

Now that people are awake, it’s time to find the common cause in all our causes. To find a common voice and speak common sense. Health is wealth. Ecology is economy. To restore those basic values, to re-occupy our work places and our homes and our lives, will require all of us. Young and old, working and jobless and retired, nurses and secretaries, farmers and waitresses and vets, teachers and trades people: WE ARE THE 99%.

All are invited to a General Assembly in front of the Humboldt County Courthouse, on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. There will be speakers and music and conversation. There will be opportunities to form alliances.

Let’s be thankful for what we’ve managed to hang on to, and celebrate what we’ve accomplished. Then let’s talk about the next move. Bring the family. Bring a friend.

NOVEMBER 26, 2011
1-3 PM

[Image source.]

  1. Bernankeisaterrorist
    November 26, 2011 at 8:19 am

    World banks continue to recieve Federal Reserve cash flow by the billions…..this is our money, stolen by unelected criminals. The banking cartel wants us to be slaves…..and the military complex will do anything to protect them.


  2. Ben
    November 26, 2011 at 8:39 am

    I don’t get it. How has the Fed stolen money? My understanding of the Fed is not consistent with that. In the old days, our paper money was backed by gold, the “gold standard” and the government had to have gold reserves to shore up the value of our paper currency. You will probably remember that was when the government controlled the price of gold at about $45 an ounce.
    Our economic system is dependent on the management of available cash to maintain a value of our currency with respect to other country’s currency, which is one job of the Fed.

  3. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Right on comrade occupy brothers! Down with everything! Sieze what we want, we don’t have to work for nothing. No stinking cops can tell us to behave we are special!

  4. Ben
    November 26, 2011 at 9:02 am

    The 1913 act that formed the Federal Reserve system provided for stability of our financial base and to free us of the panics that caused havoc before that time. Yes, the Fed prints and controls our money and it is a private/public system, but financial stability allows for a more secure basis for investment and economic growth. And there are those to this day who feel that Congress should have that role, can you just imagine how that would work!

  5. longwind
    November 26, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Ben, the Federal Reserve is a private bank with public impunity. That’s the essential problem, which only cranks like Ron Paul call attention to. The Fed’s ownership is secret (yes, it’s privately owned, did you know that?). If you wonder why that’s important, consider the strange case of Jamie Dimon, the Chase CEO who claimed not to take a penny of evil Fed money when he said rich bankers are misunderstood–and turned out to be bathing in some $30 billion of Fed bailout bucks that only became public because of Ron Paul’s first-ever Fed audit.

    As bank polices gut our industrial base, it becomes harder to argue that rich bankers pursuing their private interests are good for anyone but themselves. Until recently, Economics 101 taught the ‘moral hazard’ of assuring private interests that they can’t screw up so badly that they won’t be bailed out, forgiven, and paid to screw up again, which is the Fed’s policy towards the great banks that own it. Mistakes become business plans! And the result is our current economy.

    End the Fed.

  6. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 9:44 am

    The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy!

    “I noticed that rightwing pundits and politicians on the TV shows on which I was appearing were all on-message against OWS. Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top. This was clearly not simply a case of a freaked-out mayors’, city-by-city municipal overreaction against mess in the parks and cranky campers. As the puzzle pieces fit together, they began to show coordination against OWS at the highest national levels.”

    “The mainstream media was declaring continually “OWS has no message”. Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online “What is it you want?” answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.”

    “The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics.”

    “No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act.”

    “No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.”

    “But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the “scandal” of presidential contender Newt Gingrich’s having been paid $1.8m for a few hours’ “consulting” to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies’ profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail.”

    (see this link for federal / local coordination in attacking OWS
    http://inthesetimes.com/uprising/entry/12303/mayors_dhs_coordinated_occupy_attacks/ )


  7. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 10:12 am

    There she goes again! Plain Jane, the cut and paste queen queen of mean, with nary an original thought of her own…

  8. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 10:18 am

    It’s a warm sunny day, a great day to get out and show some support for Occupy! I’ll be there and I hope to see you all there too!

  9. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 10:41 am

    A great day ! With all the losers at the courthouse it will make for great photo op’s that will show what the occupied (*&$^&#&) are really like.

    Get a job ! Try to get a job ! The world does not owe you a living ….. occupiers !!!!

    The 99% are tired of your antics.

  10. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 10:51 am

    There he goes again, humping my leg because he isn’t even capable of cut and paste. As even HiFi can tell you, I’ve been making the same case for years, arguing that tax cuts for the rich don’t create jobs but cost jobs because wages fall when employers can keep more and pay less in taxes and it is working class people spending money (and paying taxes) that fuels our economy. The right wing agenda is a peasant / master system where the only power working class people have is to starve if they won’t work for anything the masters feel like paying. I’ve been vindicated. How about you?

  11. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 11:09 am

    You’ve been “vindicated”? Hardly.

    You, by your own admission, are self employed…you wouldn’t have that opportunity under the “peasant/master system”, unless you were one of the so called masters.

  12. Corporate Money Out of Local Politics!
    November 26, 2011 at 11:12 am

    They are the 0.1%.

    With the one clear message coming out of Occupy Wall Street being, “Corporate Money Out of Politics” we should vote for and support local political candidates who are not bought and paid for by the 0.1%.

    Bill Pierson makes an alleged $8 million per year without working.

    The Blue Lake Casino makes millions off of the poorest citizens of our County.

    As both Bill Pierson and the Blue Lake Casino pay their employees barely above minimum wage, while pocketing all the profits for themselves – they are the 0.1% in Humboldt County.

    Both Bill Pierson and the Blue Lake Casino both contribute heavily to local Regressive candidates using corporate funds.

    Support the OCCUPY movement by not supporting local political candidates who are bought and paid for by Bill Pierson and the Blue Lake Casino.

  13. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 11:15 am

    And don’t support the ones who are shills for Security National – can you say “Brady Bunch”.

    At least with Pierson and BLC you know who is footing the bill.

  14. What Now
    November 26, 2011 at 11:17 am

    “Ben says:
    November 26, 2011 at 9:02 am
    The 1913 act that formed the Federal Reserve system provided for stability of our financial base and to free us of the panics that caused havoc before that time.”

    You really should have been following OSHA guidelines in handling all of those chemicals, Ben. They’ve obviously taken their toll.
    Evidetly you haven’t noticed the 2 dozen meltdowns, recessions, burst bubbles, and Mad Hatter’s rides these last 40+ years.

  15. Anon
    November 26, 2011 at 11:23 am

    How’s the bankruptcy going Mr. Arkley?

  16. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 11:33 am

    “Corporate Money Out of Local Politics” allegedly makes millions by blogging and has not worked a day in his/her life. Boycott his/her posts – don’t be corrupted by the 1% of trolls.

  17. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 11:41 am

    11:09, your post was illogical. What the GOP goals are if they succeed has nothing to do with my employment status since they haven’t succeeded and, as is becoming clear, probably won’t. But there would be a lot more “self-employed” people if they did, i.e. people without any protection, minimum wage, job security or benefits, people who are “self-employed” going door to door looking for a few hours work for a meal. THAT’S the country they want back and fools like you think you’re going to be on top with them. The brutal crack-downs coordinated between federal, state and local authorities is because they are getting scared and amping up the fear and anger of the working class people like you who worship wealth over humanity while giving lip service to the religion they use as a cover. You should hope they don’t succeed as well because if they do there WILL be a revolution and it will be the ugliest in human history.

  18. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 11:46 am

    There was an interesting article in this week’s North Coast Journal, in which Ryan Burns goes looking for someone, anyone, who would speak on behalf of Humboldt residents who earn enough to be in the top 1% of income earners.

    Coast Central’s Dean Christensen declined comment, Rob Arkley had “no interest” and numerous others didn’t respond. Apparently nobody wanted to speak on behalf of the 1%!

    The closest they got was Patrick Cleary, who described himself as a former one-percenter, and waxed nostalgic for the good old days when Wall Street traders were not yet viewed as being less ethical than used-car-salesmen.

    Anyway, I just think it’s funny that the NCJ was unable to find anyone who was willing to stand up and say “Yeah, I’m one of the 1%, and here’s what I think about income inequality, corporate power, money in politics, the Occupy Walll Street protests,” etc.

  19. Jack Sherman
    November 26, 2011 at 11:57 am

    “A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress. Indeed, what could be more rational than the suppression of individuality in the mechanization of socially necessary but painful performances; the concentration of individual enterprises in more effective, more productive corporations; the regulation of free competition among unequally equipped economic subjects; the curtailment of prerogatives and national sovereignties which impede the the organization of resources”.

    One-Dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse, 1964.

    Ahhh the pace of change….

  20. November 26, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Who needs a local spokesperson, TRA, when you’ve got a few news networks and most newspapers in the country speaking on your behalf?

    Cynical hugs!

  21. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    So who was aware of the “little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors?”

    I confess, I did not know they could do that.

  22. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    As I read grappling matches between HiFi and PJ, I am reminded sometimes of the grappling matches of the Reps and the Dems in Congress. “Sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It is the rancor that stops all hope of accomplishing anything, leading 88% of Americans to despise Congress, a body which is supposed to represent us. Just sayin’…

  23. High Finance
    November 26, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Tra what would that “1%” person accomplish by doing so except to incur the hatred of a handful of people, like many of those here, jealous of their success ?

    That article was interesting in the numbers they reported earning more than $200,000, the “5%”. I don’t have the article in front of me but I remember the total being almost 1,000 people in the county.

  24. November 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    All that’s necessary is for several other nations to get together, i.e., China, Iran, Russia, Brazil, etc. to come up with another form of currency that equates an equal value for a given commodity of equivalent value that replaces the dollar and you will find the dollar totally worthless. Every dollar the Fed prints devalues the dollar by an equal amount and they’ve printed trillions. The Fed was designed to do one thing and one thing only: totally loot the people. Based upon the current 1% reality, I’d say they’ve done their job. Worthless paper (dollars) are just that, TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

    Problem is, people like Ben here have had their pockets picked, but haven’t realized it yet. Most Occupy people HAVE figured it out and seek value where it really exists. They noticed that there isn’t much value in worthless words either, i.e., “Hope and Change.”

  25. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm


    Sticking with the “jealosy” conceit, I see. As predictable as it is meaningless.

  26. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm


    I have never heard of that loophole, either. I’d like to see some more details about it, the actual text of the law, etc.

    It’s quite an intriguing story, and if true, potentially a huge scandal in the making.

  27. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Look at the time! Time to head out the door and join up with the Occupy folks at the courthouse. You guys can go on squabbling if you wish, but I’m on my way to the courthouse!

  28. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Naomi Wolf (Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) is, IMO, one of the most trustworthy journalists around today and she knows her stuff. I’ll try to find out more about that loophole.

  29. Plain Jane
  30. High Finance
    November 26, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    It was on 60 Minutes last Sunday.

  31. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm


    I agree that Wolf is not one to make claims she can’t back up, but unfortunately she doesn’t go into much detail about it in her piece in the Guardian.

    If true, it seems like such a blatant form of political profiteering would draw outrage from a pretty broad spectrum of Americans.

  32. Plain Jane
  33. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    60 Minutes? Really? Wow, score one for the geezers!

  34. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    I’m not finding anything about it being only Delaware where they can do this. Do other states have laws which prevent it?

  35. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Slaughter first introduced legislation to close this loophole in 2006 but, strangely enough, she couldn’t get anywhere. There’s growing interest now with people realizing the potential for corruption.


  36. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Fascinating: After a bit of googling, it turns out that this loophole thingy is getting a lot of play on conservative websites. For example:

    (Big Government) – Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.

    The revelation appears in Throw Them All Out, the new book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, which was the focus of 60 Minutes on CBS this evening, and which is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek.


  37. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Yeah, it’s hard to figure why there’s no support to close the loophole and why people are eager to spend millions of their own money to get elected to jobs that pay less than they’d make in in the private sector, with the exception of those who get “retirement” jobs in industries they pimped for while in office, of course. Not a lot of real consulting jobs that pay $300,000 a year for 2 hours of history lessons.

  38. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Great. So the two parties can’t agree on anything else, but the one thing that they can agree on is the right of elected officials to enrich themselves through insider trading while in office. Perfect.

  39. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    It wouldn’t be hard to make the case that they also agree they have to keep the masses divided lest we turn on them.

  40. tra
    November 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    From the website that P.J. linked to at 1:12:

    In a separate CNBC interview, Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, said some senators have achieved a rate of return “12 percent higher” than that of ordinary investors. “For House members, it’s been 6 percent higher than the rest of us,” he said. “Either these members of Congress are geniuses or they know something we don’t know and they’re trading on that.

    “Jack Abramoff talked about a dozen examples; it’s far more than that,” Holman said. “A third of senators are actively trading in stocks, 50 percent of the House members are actively trading in stocks. The problem is far more serious than Jack Abramoff told us.” Holman also said that 72 congressional staffers are actively trading in securities involved in legislation on Capitol Hill.

    Interesting to see the diversity of ideological positions of some of the people talking about this issue, from Breitbart and Abramoff to Public Citizen and Naomi Klein. More of an Washington insider vs Washington outsider aspect to it, as opposed to the usual left-right alignments. It looks like this one might have legs.

  41. Plain Jane
    November 26, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    It’s fortunate for them that we have contradictory “truths” reported in our media which keep a sizable majority from consensus on even minor issues like whether there is really a war on Christmas, Happy Holidays or Merry Xmas FFS!, and a vast wasteland between the “truths” of what wrecked our economy and what can fix it. When you can’t even agree on the disease, you can’t possibly find a cure. And then there are the people who don’t want a cure so are deliberately giving a misdiagnosis while poisoning the well.

  42. Kubla
    November 26, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    I just returned from the rally. I counted about 200 people there around 1:30. Attendance dropped off after that, partly because the weather turned chilly and many people hadn’t dressed warmly enough.

    The people there were spirited and friendly. It was a well-groomed crowd and I spotted only two sketchy looking people. There were couples with babies in strollers, people with their dogs, seniors, college students—a whole variety of folks.

    A folk singer started things off with a few songs. Then Dave Meserve took charge of the mike. He gave a short speech and then acted as MC for the other speakers, which included a lawyer who is working pro bono for the cause and a nurse from the hospital. A veteran also spoke. I left before it turned into an open mike.

    All in all, it was a great event. I was glad I went.

  43. Anonymous
    November 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    That movement is suffering from lack of organization and clear goals and purpose. I am not criticizing them. I am suggesting the message be made more understandable to others. I think more people would be interested if they had a better feel for the purpose of the demonstrations.

  44. Kubla
    November 26, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Anonymous 4:26, your concerns were the focus of the demonstration today. It was an attempt to become more organized and to have a clearer and more focused message.

    You should have been there. You would have left feeling better about Occupy Humboldt.

  45. November 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    One reason that there are 6,500 unemployed people in Humboldt and hundreds of thousands unemployed across California is the fact that thousands of jobs are being done by inmates in prisons working for pennies a day. In essence, you are competing with slaves. These are all jobs that could be and should be done by people out here who have been law abiding.

    You find yourself in exactly the same position that the freemen workers and farmers found themselves in that founded the Republican Party in 1856. It was a mixture of abolistionists and freemen who 1) wanted the government to give them free land in the west to farm and 2) freemen workers who could not economically compete with slave labor.

    have a peaceful day,

  46. HUUFC
    November 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Just what would you have the inmate do? Where are they competing?

  47. November 26, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    This is one place where they are competing:


  48. HUUFC
    November 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    Sorry, I should have said, so what, they compete. And what would you have them do?

  49. November 26, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    I would have them quit manufacturing goods and services with slave labor that could better be provided by the private sector. These are jobs that belong in the private sector. These are jobs that are needed in the private sector. These are jobs that have been sucked out of the private sector by the prison-intdustrial complex.

    have a peaceful day,

  50. HUUFC
    November 26, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    What would you have them do? They are not slaves they are inmates.

  51. November 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    I would not force them to work for pennies an hour. And don’t tell me that inmates have any real choice that would be beyond rational thought.

    So for one thing if they are going to work even voluntarily they must be paid market wages.

    have a peaceful day,

  52. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 7:08 am

    Target is looking for seasonal help. It says so on a sign at the entrance.

  53. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Power to the People!!!

    What a movement. You know you’re shaking things up when you get raid’s like this by EPD.

  54. Decline To State
    November 27, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Gotta say that in Anonymous @ 7:41’s video the cop comes across as more courteous and less confrontational than many of the protesters do. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around?

  55. November 27, 2011 at 8:05 am

    …the cop comes across as more courteous and less confrontational than many of the protesters do.

    That seems to be nearly always the case, although I’ll give the protesters credit this time in that they don’t seem as loud and confrontational as they did in the last video I saw.

  56. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 8:27 am

    He gets points for courtesy from the frightwingers as he violates the laws he is sworn and paid to protect.

  57. We are the 99%
    November 27, 2011 at 8:39 am

    Once again the usual suspects of Kim Starr or Verbina or whatever she’s calling herself this week and her whacko band of “Cop Watch” radicals trying to pick a fight with the EPD.

    It just goes to show that great law enforcement training by being polite and courteous to those that aggravate a situation goes a long way.

    I’ve met with and spoken with many of her band of followers. They’re not well in the head.

    That could be why they live in Heraldoville.

  58. November 27, 2011 at 8:50 am

    …as he violates the laws he is sworn and paid to protect.

    Questionable, although if I were the one removing the signs I would have come and removed them after the crowd left so there was no question the signs being removed were discarded and thus trash.

  59. Walt
    November 27, 2011 at 8:54 am

    “Target is looking for seasonal help. It says so on a sign at the entrance.” Gee, and just down the street from the Pink House. You don’t suppose. . .

  60. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 8:58 am


    Please don’t accuse police of “violating the law”, if the law’s are in place. If you don’t like the law, petition the government to change them through voting or through a lawsuit. The police are there to uphold the laws in place. Although they are the most visible form of government “on the ground”, it’s unfair to accuse them of violating laws when the laws are on the books and put in place by your elected representatives in the city, county and state.

    California Penal Code 602(f) Maliciously tearing down, damaging, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice placed upon, or affixed to, any property belonging to the state, or to any city, county, city and county, town or village, or upon any property of any person, by the state or by an automobile association, which sign, signboard or notice is intended to indicate or designate a road, or a highway, or is intended to direct travelers from one point to another, or relates to fires, fire control, or any other matter involving the protection of the property, or putting up, affixing, fastening, printing, or painting upon any property belonging to the state, or to any city, county, town, or village, or dedicated to the public, or upon any property of any person, without license from the owner, any notice, advertisement, or designation of, or any name for any commodity, whether for sale or otherwise, or any picture, sign, or device intended to call attention to it.

    Eureka Municipal Code 130.01 C Posting prohibited.  No person shall paint, mark, or write on, or post or otherwise affix, or erect, construct, maintain, paste, nail, tack or otherwise fasten or affix, any temporary sign on any sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, street lamp post, pole, bench, hydrant, tree, shrub, bridge, electric light or power or telephone wire pole, or wire appurtenance thereof or upon any street sign or traffic sign, or upon any other object located within the public right-of-way which is not maintained for the purpose of communications by temporary signs by the general public.

  61. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 9:08 am

    With that long list of where you can’t post a sign, I don’t see any prohibitions to putting up political signs on temporary fencing at the courthouse. They don’t block the thoroughfare or do any harm at all. On the other hand, removing them violates the free speech of the people who posted them. They volunteered to be cited for their “crime” but all he wanted to do was restrict their speech via stealing their signs.

  62. November 27, 2011 at 9:19 am

    “Please don’t accuse police of “violating the law”” Anon 8:58

    The- OUT OF CONTEXT award winner, with the extra special-
    MISS THE POINT completely.

    Blue Ribbon Idiot of the day, so far.

  63. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:20 am


    Temporary fencing is property of the County (Look at PC 602(f) ). Would you be okay with a political statement being posted on the County building or fence that stated: “All gays will burn in hell and should be stoned to death NOW” (religious statement)? Or, “Abortion is Murder-Capital punishment for the murdering doctors” (political/religious)? Or, a big Neon sign at the top of the courthouse, erected by protesters, which read “The occupy movement is filled with communists and those who don’t pay taxes and want to take from the 53% of the taxpaying american’s”?

    If the protesters carry their signs there is no problem, but a county, or city, or state building represents all people, even those with differing political or religious views.

  64. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:21 am

    The nation is in a steep nosedive. The wings fell off. The environment is shot. People are eating fake food. The end is happening now.

  65. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Well said Mehserle! Oh wait……….what did you say? Was there a discussion in there somewhere???

  66. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:24 am

    “Would you be okay with a political statement being posted on the County building or fence that stated: “All gays will burn in hell and should be stoned to death NOW” (religious statement)? Or, “Abortion is Murder-Capital punishment for the murdering doctors” (political/religious)? Or, a big Neon sign at the top of the courthouse, erected by protesters, which read “The occupy movement is filled with communists and those who don’t pay taxes and want to take from the 53% of the taxpaying american’s”?”

    That analogy isn’t the specific matter being discussed.

  67. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Where have any of you anti-protest trolls been? Why aren’t you outside protesting the protest? Why aren’t you at the rallies to complain? Why don’t you SHOW YOUR FACE, LYING COWARDS!

  68. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:31 am


    It is the exact matter being discussed. Your individual freedom ends when mine is being encroached upon. Like this-You can call me a troll, but if you post it on a sign and tape it to my house, there is a problem. Stand on the sidewalk and hold the sign…that’s free speech.

  69. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:34 am

    No, 9:31, the exact matter being discussed is our quality of life being stripped away from us year after year by the tiny fraction of humanity that doesn’t give a shit about anything or anyone but themselves. Somebody has stolen our childrens’ future.

  70. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:47 am

    9:26. Show my face (like all the occupiers with mask’s on :)?

    The answer to why I don’t stand in “opposition” (even though I agree with many of the tenets of “Occupy”) is this:

    I vote. I volunteer to promote those that I feel would best represent my interest’s in government. I use my money in a way that promotes my viewpoint (organic food for me and my family, products made in the USA, belonging to a union, buying produce from local farmers and local businesses). Protesting on the street is a way to bring ATTENTION to an issue. Protesting with your talents, hard work and money is a way to bring about CHANGE. Using Facebook via your Ipod doesn’t really enact the kind of corporate change so many in the movement espouse.


    I know some will say that if you have no money than you can’t participate in the changing behavior I am writing about. But answer this….is anyone really starving to death in Eureka??? If not, the TALENTS of the homeless or penniless could go a long way to effect change.

  71. November 27, 2011 at 9:52 am

    ” Somebody has stolen our childrens’ future.” 9:34

    9:23, Above is the context. You want to talk of improper
    fliers? Messages you find uncomfortable, violating chain-link?

    I and others would prefer that the focus remains on our children’s
    future not waylaid by worries for the chain-link. If you are a cop, when the hell does this message get through your thick skull?

  72. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:52 am


    Quality of life??? And your point is that the Eureka Police force stripping that away…not the elected politicians who enact the laws and policies that they enforce. This isn’t about police (the most visible day to day encounter with the government that most will deal with). This is about the laws, treaties, policies and political conversation that those with real power enact (politicians, CEO’s, stockholders, lobbyists, voters ect.)

  73. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:56 am

    9:52 Anon, read the post immediately above yours.

  74. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Wow, it was a great event but many left because it was “chilly”, and our guest poster left before the open mike speakers. But glad he/she attended none the less

    Must have just been completely inspirational

    Just wondering, do tra or Plain Jane have gainful employment ?

  75. Load Me Another
    November 27, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Anon 9:26 exemplifies the rage, the anger, the hate, and ultimate frustration of nonacceptance the wacko lib loon fringe represent. They’ll have you believe that they have it more difficult than those in the 1800s- wow, what “survivors” they are. Happiness and unhappiness is an inside job and they choose the latter as misery begs for company. They try to distract us from the real problems and instead focus on their needs. Of course, by pointing this out I am therefore some right wing frightmonger and troll in training. Simply put, the 99% don’t get their asses down to the courthouse to anti protest you because we don’t step on the playing field unless there’s a formidable and worthy opponent. Occupy’s offense is racking up negative yardage and only occupies shitty field position- they’re not even in the game. SF Occupy feebly tried to shut down Black Friday….scoreboard sez retail sales were up 7% this year- seems like everybody is listening, nice job. Occupy loons’ screaming, shouting, in your face, challenge the police tactics illustrate their insignificance, it’s all they have. So, instead of being at home this afternoon enjoying the Raiders shut down the Bears on their HD TVs, they are sadly sitting on the corner downtown rallying around some idiot with vomit covered hair.

  76. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 10:20 am

    9:20, unlike you, I support freedom of speech (and religion) even if I don’t agree with it. I’m smart enough to realize restricting the views of others which I don’t like, no matter how vile, means others can restrict mine. Signs on a cyclone fence don’t restrict anyone access to anything so you come up with the justification that you (or someone) doesn’t like the message? That’s exactly why freedom of speech is expressly protected in the constitution and not left up to corrupt politicians and their suck up cops to decide.

  77. November 27, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Oakland Police Attack and Tase Occupiers for Trying to Use Restroom
    Video Report: Police attack Occupy Oakland residents after Thanksgiving dinner. Porta-potties were delivered, but police prevented them from being unloaded. While attempting to get the porta-potties unloaded, a police officer attacked one resident dragging him to ground and arresting him. Later in the video, you can see a cop drawing his taser, and a resident preventing him from discharging his weapon. This is another example of cops creating civil unrest at peaceful gatherings in Oakland by showing force for ridiculous reasons, such as guarding porta-potties, camping, and exercising freedom of speech and assembly.

  78. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Not as “gainful” as it used to be, 10:03, but it’s gainful enough. Thanks for asking.

  79. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:30 am


    “Suck up cops”? I am trying to have some political discourse, not name calling. I understand your viewpoint, to a point. Freedom of speech is fine, when given the proper forum. Private property and city, county, state buildings are off limits, by law (with reasons stated above).

    If free speech is allowed in ALL circumstances, then I would be able to say unspeakable things to a 5 year old without consequence (I chose not to write the type of offensive things that could be said)!!!!!! There must be some reasonable conversation here.

  80. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:33 am

    For your review………………..


    Occupy needs some direction I think.

  81. November 27, 2011 at 10:36 am

    …Private property and city, county, state buildings are off limits, by law.

    Yep. And no shouting “theater” in a crowded firehouse.

  82. November 27, 2011 at 10:36 am

    3AM- Arsehead @10:30
    “Suck up cops” I thought was gentle yet concise.

    Not such a fan of history are you 10:30?

  83. Kubla
    November 27, 2011 at 10:36 am

    “Wow, it was a great event but many left because it was “chilly”, and our guest poster left before the open mike speakers. But glad he/she attended none the less”

    Dude, I was there for several folk songs and at least 5 speakers. I stayed for nearly two hours. It was warm and sunny when I left the house, and I wasn’t prepared for the sudden change of weather. I’m a senior and all in all it was a big outing for me.

    I’m glad I attended. I’ll return for future rallies whenever I have the energy for them.

  84. Mitch
    November 27, 2011 at 10:40 am

    The officer was extremely respectful. The protesters were wrong to shout at the officer. Thank you to whoever videotaped the incident — I think you were doing exactly the right thing.

    If the officer was breaking the law, which I’m not sure is the case, the protesters should take the City to court, using the video as evidence.

    Shouting at a non-violent cop who is trying to get his job done without acting like the alpha-dog is just plain nasty. It’s also stupid, unless your big project is to make a cop lose his or her cool and thereby look bad in a carefully-edited video.

    It’s not at all the same thing as shouting at a cop who has just casually pepper-sprayed protesters or worse.

    There has been lots of police misbehavior in connection with Occupy. The video of the Eureka officer is a good example of proper police behavior, whether the officer turns out to have been violating the law or not.

    The issue is the incredible injustice that our economic / political system has spawned and nurtured, and the unwillingness of our faux free press to discuss this injustice. The issue is not a cop pulling posters off a county fence.

  85. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:55 am

    PJ, Highboldtage, Suckupcops ( AKA: Mehserle, Pigpoultry) and others:

    I was hoping that the conversation here might get refocused on the real issues, not the redherrings. Police are people. Most (if not all) are union workers (without striking capabilities). They aren’t rich, or even close to the 1%. They are in debt. There house’s are worth less than they bought them for. They have rising healthcare cost’s. They have day to day problems and are suffering as much as anyone in the lower middle class of this country are. They really aren’t the enemy!

    They are charged with enforcing the law. The point of being a police officer is to help people (all people, including those with differing political views). Many are progressive minded and would love to see some substantive change in all aspects of society (including institutions like law enforcement).

    Their bosses are, or come as a result of, the elected officials appointed by the voting public in this representative democracy. The laws they enforce are from; the voting public, or the elected officials appointed by the voting public in this representative democracy (they create the laws). If you don’t agree with the ways that laws are enforced by police or enacted by politicians (or sometimes ourselves through the initiative process)…elect those who fit your worldview.

    PS-Someone will show video or share a story of a police officer being brutal or acting improperly because of this post. But I will say this……………..Stereotyping or being prejudice against all police officers for a minority of police officers behavior is the last ‘ism’ (racism, sexism, ect.) that seems to be very socially acceptable in this country. The day to day service that the police give isn’t publicized all that much, only the bad behavior of some rotten apples. Please keep an open mind.

  86. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:56 am

    I hate to say this, but it appears that Occupy Eureka has too many signs and not enough people to hold them.

  87. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 10:58 am

    “The issue is not a cop pulling posters off a county fence.”

    The issue is all voices of dissent being shoved out of sight. The issue is the establishment ordering (their) police to remove (our) protest.

  88. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Except the protest wasn’t removed, just a sign that was posted on the fence.

    Personally, I think they should have just left the sign there for the duration of the rally. But removing a sign from the fence isn’t quite “all voices of dissent being shoved out of sight,” is it?

  89. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:13 am

    “But removing a sign from the fence isn’t quite “all voices of dissent being shoved out of sight,” is it?”

    Do you know what people mean when they talk about “the big picture”?

  90. Mitch
    November 27, 2011 at 11:16 am


    Not only does the establishment order (the) police to remove (our) protest, but it sees to it that dissent is trivialized, presenting many majority viewpoints as though they are radical positions held only by strange others.

    A good way to assist the establishment in spreading this lie is to shout and curse at cops who are going out of their way to behave decently while doing their jobs.

    The police are not meant to be experts on the law; they are meant to do their jobs to enforce it. If a cop is wrong about a fairly non-obvious legal interpretation, you take the City that employs them to court, so that the City will stop ordering them to break the law. Then, if EPD continues to break the law once a judge has ordered them not to, you don’t need to shout.

    You go to court and get Murl held in contempt of court.

    The police have the natural sympathies of most people, until they turn violent or at least arrogant. It’s not arrogant to remove signs from what they’ve been told is county property.

  91. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:20 am

    “…cops who are going out of their way to behave decently while doing their jobs”

    Corrected: “…cops who are getting paid hansomly to do whatever they’re told whenever they’re told to do it.”

  92. Kubla
    November 27, 2011 at 11:20 am

    “Personally, I think they should have just left the sign there for the duration of the rally.”

    I was there for the rally, and it is clear from the video that the rally was over. The signs were removed after everyone but the regular Occupiers were left.

  93. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Mitch, everything you say demonstrates you firmly believe there are more important fish to fry, so to speak, than this particular nationwide event. Why, then, do you waste so much of your own time complaining about it instead of being productive toward something you feel IS universally worthwhie? You’re definitely not practicing what you preach.

  94. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:27 am

    If the position that the protesters are taking is that everyone should have the right to hang whatever political signs they want to on the fence, what will happen when a pro-lifer decides that they would like to hang a sign on the fence, expressing their opinion that abortion is murder? Will the Occupy Eureka protesters be willing to allow that message to stand alongside their messages? If not, then how would they proceed…are they going to take it upon themselves to censor the signs on the fence? Do they believe they have the right to do so, and if so, on what basis?

    If someone is actually holding a sign, it’s all pretty straightforward: the person holding the sign is taking responsibility for the message on the sign, so clearly the view expressed on the sign reflects the opinion of at least that one protester. Exactly who stands by the message of a sign that’s posted on a fence…not quite so clear.

  95. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:31 am

    An unrelated analogy that only exists in the fiction of your writing, 11:27. Stay focused.

  96. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Heraldo, am I being censored? Or is my post too long?

  97. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:34 am

    “Do you know what people mean when they talk about “the big picture”?”

    So in “the big picture,” the removal of a sign from a fence amounts to “all voices of dissent being shoved out of sight?”

    Sorry, attaching the phrase “the big picture” to your hyperbole doesn’t make it any less of an exaggeration or any more of a persuasive argument.

  98. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Re: 1133

    My post was the one about polite political discourse that includes the viewpoints of public servants, such as correctional officers or police.

  99. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:40 am

    11:34, why are you wasting your own time complaining about this rather than being productive toward something you do feel is universally beneficial?

  100. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:44 am

    “An unrelated analogy that only exists in the fiction of your writing, 11:27. Stay focused.”

    In other words, you don’t have an answer to an obvious question. Can’t say I’m surprised. Thinking things through in a way that goes beyond “I want what I want” is apparently too much to ask.

  101. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “Why are you wasting your own time…”

    I’m offering constructive criticism and a differing viewpoint. That’s only a waste of time if all readers are closed-minded about constructive criticism and differing viewpoints. Apparently, in your case it’s a waste of time. Duly noted.

  102. Mitch
    November 27, 2011 at 12:00 pm


    First, I’m not the Anonymous at 11:51, but I’m inclined to agree with them.

    I think the Occupy movement is extremely important. If I give you the impression I think otherwise, I’ve failed in communicating.

    I don’t think shouting at non-violent, non-arrogant cops is particularly helpful to the Occupy movement, to the shouter, to the shoutee, or to anyone else. And yes, I agree that most police officers view their jobs as doing what they are told to do, with higher pay-grades deciding what should actually be done. I’d like to think that if the police were told to herd protesters into death camps, they’d say no; I doubt their sign-removal policies indicate much about that one way or the other.

    As for practicing what I preach, I try to, but I do it very imperfectly.

  103. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    11:27, I answered that question up-thread. I would expect Occupy protesters to allow the same free speech rights to others regardless how vehemently they disagreed with what they had to say. Free speech isn’t about how popular any particular speech is which is why it is a constitutionally granted right and not a local ordinance subject to the will of ignorant people.

  104. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm


    What is your answer to 10:30?

  105. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Plain Jane,

    So if the city and county announced that they would hencefoth be allowing any and all political signs to be posted on the fence as long as that fence is there, and then someone goes down to the courthouse and posts a huge sign on the fence that says “White Power!” and another one that says “Abortion is Murder!” and one that says “Run All the Homeless out of Town!” and one that says “Off the Pigs!” and one that says “9/11 Truth: Bush did it!” and one that says “Invade Iran Now!” then would the Occupy Eureka protesters just keep standing next to those signs? Or would some of the them tear down, or cover up, or deface those signs, finding that they were offensive (not to mention confusing the occupiers’ message). Or would they just have to move their occupation to a different spot in order to avoid being associated with some of those signs?

  106. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    I didn’t feel such nonsense was worthy of an answer, but the idea that political speech isn’t allowed on government property is patently absurd. It is the government that is prohibited from restricting free speech, not private people. Free speech doesn’t cover criminal speech such as verbally molesting a child, causing a panic in a crowded theater.or inciting a riot, nor should it. It shouldn’t allow politicians to lie either but that’s a different issue.

  107. Ben
    November 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    This whole issue clearly indicates the lack of focus and direction if the debate is about putting signs on a fence. Anyone who has done any political work knows that signs can only be placed with the permission of the owner. The video was sad showing that the protesters clearly only want to cause a problem with the police.

  108. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    It doesn’t matter what the speech is, Tra. The speech of a rabidly pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-gay Nazi is just as protected as their opponents. I personally appreciate knowing who in my community harbors such vile opinions so I can avoid contact. Whether protesters would want to stand near signs displaying such opinions is a personal decision and I can’t speak for anyone but myself. However, anyone who removed or defaced the posters of others while demanding free speech for themselves would be a despicable hypocrite.

  109. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    My point is that the protesters stand a better chance of keeping their message clear if that message is on signs held by actual protesters.

    I recall an anti-war rally there at the courthouse a few years ago. Someone had hung a big 9/11 “truther” banner in such a way that to passersby on 5th street, at first glance it looked as if it was chiefly a “truther” rally. I guess that was a clever move by the “truthers,” but I don’t think they were doing the actual anti-war cause any favors.

  110. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    “I personally appreciate knowing who in my community harbors such vile opinions so I can avoid contact.”

    Well that’s one difference between a sign held by an actual protester, and one that’s just hung on a fence.

  111. Apologist Not
    November 27, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Mitch, Officer Cress deserved the shouts he provoked.

    I asked him if he has ever removed the illegal garage sale signs posted throughout town every Friday evening in the Summer.

    He didn’t have an answer.

    It’s not merely a waste of police time, he broke his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution which protects protest.

    However, if there were nut-cases trying to post anti-OWS posters on the same fence…THEN Officer Cress’s selective enforcement might make sense…to “Protect and Serve” (words that no longer grace EPD squad cars).

    The average American without adequate health care, who is being outsourced, bankrupted, foreclosed and divested from by our government, is required to hire an attorney to get their own small-town cops to behave!????

    Citizens throughout America have sued their own police forces for a litany of abuses but are repeatedly forced to accept settlements without police admissions of wrong-doing….or face YEARS of costly litigation.

    As we’ve seen in Europe, Asia, the Middle-East, and our own past, people’s dignity erodes with their mounting losses and shredded social safety net, turning today’s shouts into tomorrow’s violence.

  112. Mitch
    November 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Apologist Not,

    “The average American without adequate health care, who is being outsourced, bankrupted, foreclosed and divested from by our government, is required to hire an attorney to get their own small-town cops to behave!????”

    Not hire an attorney, but use the courts.

    Yes. It’s always been that way, for better or worse.

    What did the shouting accomplish, aside from causing a lot of people to put themselves in the place of the cop, thinking “wow, he’s got more self-control than I do”?

    Bottom line: let’s say people could watch the scene with the shouting or without the shouting but with quiet and polite questioning — which would make most people more inclined to support Occupy or come to an Occupy event? Which would have more impact?

    That’s a very different question from whether the officer “deserved” the shouts. (Personally, I don’t think he did, but that’s another matter.)

  113. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Let’s look at this from one more angle:

    Let’s say we accept, for the sake of argument, that the protesters have a constitutional right to post signs on the fence. Do they also then have a constitutional right to post signs on the outer walls of the courthouse itself? If not, why not? Is there something magical about the fence?

    Personally, I really don’t have any problem with people who are holding a rally and putting up some of their signs on the fence, or for that matter on the flagpole or on a sandwich board or whatever. You’re there, you’re engaging in free speech, and your signs are part of your speech. But when people start to claim a right to post their signs indefinitely, even when they aren’t there, I’m not so sure about that.

    I guess this is one of those places where the “occupy/encampment” tactic stretches the usual boundaries a bit, because it’s not just the typical use of public space for a rally or a protest or vigil. This “occupation” involves the attempt to maintain an ongoing, continuous use of that space, for a long period of time, until some unspecified point in the future. As such, there’s a natural tendency toward getting bogged down in the logistics and legalities of the occupation itself, and a risk of losing sight of the bigger issues of income inequality, corporate power and political corruption that are the focus of the overall movement.

  114. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Apoligist Not said: “However, if there were nut-cases trying to post anti-OWS posters on the same fence…THEN Officer Cress’s selective enforcement might make sense…to “Protect and Serve.”

    Are you kidding? If they were allowing OWS signs to be posted on that fence, but removing other signs, that would clearly be unconstitutional.

  115. Apologist Not
    November 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Are you kidding TRA? Use your imagination a little!

    This is an ongoing occupation-protest for redress of grievances protected by the U.S. Constitution. If OWS’s action of posting signs on buildings/fences, whatever, are resulting in skirmishes from others attempting to post anti-OWS posters, next to pro-OWS posters…and skirmishes erupt….ONLY THEN is removing ALL posters justified…to “Protect and Serve”! (Assuming the non-existent Wall Street supporters couldn’t find their own place to advocate-on).

    Mitch, are you serious?

    Officer Cress knew damn-well his enforcement was selective provocation. Police have been doing it forever.

    “What did the shouting accomplish”?

    Are you serious?

    It might be possible for a movement to lead to dramatic, desperately-needed social, environmental, or economic change…by remaining calm and polite, there just isn’t any successful historic precedence!

  116. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    A corp is not a person – song.

  117. Mitch
    November 27, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Apologist Not,

    No, I don’t believe politeness is all, as anyone who knows me will tell you to my embarrassment. But I don’t think this particular situation was helped by shouting. If Occupy or whatever it evolves into keeps going, there’s no doubt in my mind that there will be plenty of cause for shouting and more.

  118. tra
    November 27, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Apologist Not said: “If OWS’s action of posting signs on buildings/fences, whatever, are resulting in skirmishes from others attempting to post anti-OWS posters, next to pro-OWS posters…and skirmishes erupt….ONLY THEN is removing ALL posters justified…to “Protect and Serve”!”

    So let me get this straight: The way you think it should work is that if there are just pro-OWS posters, the posters should stay up and the police should leave them alone. But if anti-OWS posters are put up next to pro-OWS posters, then police should take ALL the posters down. In other words you are advocating that the authorities adopt a policy allowing just OWS signs or else no signs at all. That would clearly be uconstitutional. If this is your idea of what “freedom of speech” is all about, you’re deeply, deeply confused.

  119. Apologist Not
    November 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    No, this is a hypothetical red-Herring.

    Two opposing protests fighting to occupy the same space need to be separated before they injure each other.

    If they cannot be separated, they need to be stopped as in any other brawl.

    It never happened, thus, Officer Cress had no legitimate reason to remove the OWS signs.

  120. Apologist Not
    November 27, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    While the sign-removal in both cases could be unconstitutional, only one implies an actual higher-purpose.

    That was not the case yesterday.

  121. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Who are these people complaining about the state of the courthouse lawn, instead of the fact that over 20% of everybody’s income is taken from us to build missiles and bail out corporate debt?

  122. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Mitch, you’ve done nothing but complain. Put your money where your mouth is, be a voice of support.

  123. November 27, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Mitch has stood on the corner and held a sign at least once in the last few weeks. He can be critical if he wants to. He is part of the 99. He is not criticizing the movement or the need for it, just the tactic.

    have a peaceful day,

  124. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    PJ, Highboldtage, ect-

    It came up a little late (unknown why it went to moderation), but please do read my post at 10:55.

  125. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    When faced with a choice between Communism, Anarchy, or Nazism, the German people voted for Adolf Hitler, who promised a return to Law and Order.

    Occupy Eureka participants who are trying to provoke EPD to violence might want to think about the broader implications of their favorite tactic.

  126. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    I quit reading when you accused me of being AKA other posters.

  127. November 27, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Why do dorks like Anonymous 6:10 always bring the Nazis up?

  128. anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 6:17 pm

  129. Load Me Another
    November 27, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    The OWS movement is really going out on a limb claiming to “represent” the 99% in order to put a stamp of credibility on the group’s behavior and that’s very misleading. Actually, they probably only represent the less than 1% of those who militantly agree with the blurred message of OWS and their insane tactics. If they had a line of recruits demanding to sign up like the massive Black Friday shopper lines at Target, Best Buy, etc, that might be impressive, but it’s not happening. Why is it, for example, that Critical Mass failed to catch on?? Occupy is no different and will run it’s course. As I drove by the courthouse today I saw 6-7 folks sitting in absolute filth, filth of their own making and was not “naturally ocurring” let’s say. Those folks wallowing in filth down there is the vehicle for Occupy’s message and the rest of us just don’t relate to that and never will. Again, the movement wants to normalize unacceptable behavior that society at large rejects. It’s 4th down and 50 guys- time to punt. Raiders baby.

  130. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 6:51 pm


    I wasn’t accusing you of anything! The poster known as Suckupcops, Mehserle, and Pigpoultry goes to the same site when you click on the name, so I assumed those 3 different names were the same person. I also know you are a different poster than Highboldtage. My heading was an attempt to open dialogue with all 3 of you, and any others who would like to put their 2 cents in.

    If you don’t want an open discussion, no worries. At least my viewpoint has been expressed.

  131. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I hope to get us off the cop chat and back to the issues. As a life-long conservative, I am happy to share with OWS protestors the following positions:
    1. The bailout of the Big Banks was a monumental mistake;
    2. As a result we have too much power and net worth in a handful of massive banks;
    3. Income inequality has increased in recent years;
    4. We need to bust up the Big Banks using the Sherman Antitrust Law, just as we did Big Oil and the Railroads.

    If the Big Banks are too big to fail, and our government bought that load of crap, we must undo the damage and create smaller banks that are fine to fail. These insider Big Banks pulled the wool over the eyes of Bush and since then the inmates have been running the asylum.

    The bailouts were a mistake. Had we lived through their natural failures, the companies coming out of bankruptcy would have recovered sooner, employed more, and the housing crash would have been a distant memory.

    Free Markets are fine, but nothing in the bailouts is in the model of the Free Market model. In a Free Market, failures are part of the ecosystem. The bailouts have eliminated competition and the remaining few banks are hoarding cash.

    Bust up the banks and get their capital working through many new competitive smaller regional banks. It will be a new beginning, and a major step in the direction of employing and paying fair wages to millions.

  132. Load Me Another
    November 27, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    Agreed anon 6:52, a very very sound analysis. Had this actually occurred, we woudln’t need the cop discussion because we’d all be busy working and enjoying time with our families.

  133. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    I almost agree with you, 6:52. But the “too much power” came long before the bail out and is why your solution will never be implemented, at least until their power is greatly diminished. We have to replace their whores with representatives of the people and then block their ability to buy new representatives. Any other ideas about how to do it?

  134. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Point taken, PJ. They do have a hold on power. My hope is that the large number of true conservatives, not the pawns of the Big Banks, will see the truth in this message and demand the populist, but necessary thing. What Paulson sold to Bush was a fraud.

    Bust up the banks! Let that be our common cheer. It can happen. It is something all fair-minded people can agree on, and it will make a difference in our lives. Down with plutocracy!

  135. Load Me Another
    November 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    I’m holding up a sign in support of what was just said by Anon 6:52 and 8:13 (get a handle my friend, your voice is needed here) and, well, incredibly, Jane’s acknowledgement of the lobby problem in Washington- the “crack” if you will on the hill. Both sides of the aisle are hooked on the crack the lobbyists are selling and we just keep electing more addicts- that is our problem.

  136. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    How anyone who has been reading this blog for even a few days would find it incredible that I, and many Heraldo guests, have been talking about this problem for years. YEARS! Of course, it isn’t just the lobbyists. They just remind the corporate-owned politicians why they got the campaign contributions and tell them what is required to get the next “fix.”

  137. Plain Jane
    November 27, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Oh, and of course the lobbyists also remind their former colleagues of the great jobs they can get if they are thrown out of office because they voted for the corpse instead of their constituents. Another piece of the corruption pie.

  138. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    PJ, don’t let yourself be distracted by the negative thought that “it cannot happen.” A populist cry to Break Up The Banks! can work.

    If you are convinced it won’t happen, you will be right. It is not a time to be right. Unite the left and right with one call. Try that.

  139. Load Me Another
    November 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Jane- does that mean you’ll be part of some strange local Super Committee with me, High Boltage, and High Finance? Maybe Heraldo would sponser the event and spring for pizza.

  140. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    I am sick of wannabe revolutionaries foaming at the mouth and calling our police department Nazis. Our police are much more respected than the out of control losers who have been shouting at them.

  141. Anonymous
    November 27, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Can’t comment much, and other to say I was out of town for Thanksgiving, I heard a few comments about “Poopgate,” found online!

  142. janelle
    November 27, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    Wow, Fascinating read. And pretty civil. I would just like to answer a couple questions:
    Anon 9:20 asks–
    Would you be okay with a political statement being posted on the County building or fence that stated: “All gays will burn in hell and should be stoned to death NOW” (religious statement)?

    The Courts have held that the First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

    And tra at 1:45 asks–
    Let’s say we accept, for the sake of argument, that the protesters have a constitutional right to post signs on the fence. Do they also then have a constitutional right to post signs on the outer walls of the courthouse itself? If not, why not? Is there something magical about the fence?

    I suggest this difference: There is an established reasonable restriction with respect to the courthouse walls. The courthouse lawn on the other hand has been a traditional public forum used for protests, posting of signs and other free speech activities. When that area was fenced off that forum became unusable and speech was restricted. Is denying the use of the fence a reasonable restriction or an extension of the removal of access to the traditional forum?

  143. skippy
    November 27, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    And if you’re still unconvinced the Glass-Steagall act should be restored, give this Bloomberg article a try, obtained only after winning a Freedom of Information Act court case against the Federal Reserve Bank and prying open the 29,000 pages of documents they didn’t want you to see:


    Some surprising excerpts:

    The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing. …Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

    The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates…

    The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma– and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis.

    …The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising… It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

    …The six biggest U.S. banks, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, received $160 billion of TARP funds but borrowed as much as $460 billion from the Fed…

    …Lawmakers knew none of this. If Congress had been aware of the extent of the Fed rescue they would have been able to line up more support for breaking up the biggest banks. The knowledge might have helped pass legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which for most of the last century separated customer deposits from the riskier practices of investment banking.

    There’s far more in the surprising article. It took a lot of work for this information to be made public to you. There’s something very inherently rotten in the system that’s been going on for some time now. The inmates really are running the asylum: the Federal Reserve isn’t federal, there are no reserves, and the Fed really is, by another name, Goldman Sachs. And… shhh… they’ve been looting the treasury, too.

  144. Anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Amen anonymous 11:16 p.m.

  145. Walt
    November 28, 2011 at 6:14 am

    So if we have to have a “balanced budget” how can we give $7 trillion to the banks, run 2.5 wars (and growing), AND give tax breaks to the rich? And now they’re selling ad space on public buildings. . .

  146. Anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 6:17 am

    tra, Mitch, Plain Jane, and apologist not ! You are losers. You talk (type) as if you are consitutuional lawyers and you actuallly know something. You make statements as if they were wfact when they are just your twisted one sided (Ultra left)opinion.

    You act as if you speak for the “99%”, but you most certainly do not.

    You don’t know JACK about the constitution. You might pick yourself up a copy, it’s actually amazing!

    Other than that just STFU and go away, you are not impressing anyone other than yourselves.

  147. November 28, 2011 at 6:34 am

    Load me Another @ 927:

    Sure I would be happy to meet you. Let’s start with coffee so we don’t chance spoiling each other’s dinners. Old Town Coffee, give me a couple days notice.

    You at least show some intelligence. Don’t bring High Finance I won’t waste my time with idiots.

    have a peaceful day,

  148. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 6:44 am

    “Finger-pointing over shady stock dealing in the hallways of the House and Senate is almost as old as Congress itself — the infamous Crédit Mobilier scandal of the 1870s was partially about members of Congress cashing in on discounted railroad stock. Efforts to do something about it have never gained traction, leaving in doubt whether members of Congress and their well-informed staff advisers are subject to laws governing insider trading or free to profit from it.

    But in this era of Occupy Wall Street protests and public loathing of Congress, the sentiment toward any nexus between Congress and Wall Street seems to have changed considerably. In the wake of the “60 Minutes” story on Nov. 13, about 90 House members of both parties have been racing to sign on to legislation limiting Congressional trading, which Representative Louise Slaughter, Democrat of New York, has been introducing since 2006 to little effect.”


  149. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 6:55 am

    No thanks, Load. You still aren’t addressing the cause of the problems, just the symptoms. Banks too big to fail are a symptom of a corrupt political system that follows the “golden rule.” Those with the gold rule. The only solution is revocation of corporate personhood.

  150. November 28, 2011 at 6:59 am

    Its not just the banks that need to be busted up, though they certainly need it. Wal Mart needs broken up, ATT needs broken up, Microsoft needs broken up, GE needs broken up, AIG needs broken up, Exxon Mobil and several other oil cos needs broken up.

    Teddy Roosevelt, now there was a real Republican. He was an imperialist, but at least he understood that the ecomony would not survive unbridled monopoly power.

    have a peaceful day,

  151. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 7:24 am

    The only way to do any of that is to break up corporate political power, Bill. If there is a way to accomplish that without revoking corporate personhood, I’ve yet to hear it.

  152. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 7:34 am

    People and corporations should be free to spend as much as they want on any form of political advertising. That’s free speech.

    And every dollar used for advertising advocating any candidate should be matched immediately by equal public funds to all other candidates running in the contest. That’s a level playing field.

    Finally, as a licensing condition for their use of the public airwaves, broadcasters should acknowledge that they have to yield back those airwaves, at no charge, for several hours for every election, so that every candidate appearing on a ballot can have at least a few minutes of free prime time with which to address the electorate.

    The broadcast spectrum belong to the public. Broadcast corporations license it from us. The public has every right to impose conditions on those licenses, just as I can provide you a license to use my car six days a week, but retain use of it one day a week.

  153. November 28, 2011 at 8:10 am

    Corporate personhood except for some very limited non-human type of personhood should be completely eliminated. Agreed.

    I would also institute a death penalty for corporations that commit serious felonies. This would mean dissolving the corporation and its assets. In addition, I would give corporations a natural death, say after 75 or 100 years. I would make it clear in the charter of each corporation that its duties are not only to its shareholders but to society at large, just as is required of you and me.

    have a peaceful day,

  154. Percy
    November 28, 2011 at 9:12 am

    What you free market conservatives refuse to acknowledge is that a free market will spawn bubble and crash scenarios to infinity till you add regualtion, which you are not willing to do. Can’t you see that busting up banks is a needed form of REGULATION? And the armchair quarterbacks advocating letting the entire economy crash so you can prove your free markets theories by not bailing out the banks are clueless and have a complete disregard for the millions that will be put out of work by that type of economic meltdown. You arrogant assholes disregard any opinions by economists that have actually put in years of studying economics and history if they go against your free market philosophy. Even Greenspan admitted he screwed up!

  155. Anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 9:48 am

    mitch says: “People and corporations should be free to spend as much as they want on any form of political advertising. That’s free speech.”

    Fatal flaw in that is that corporate personhood allows for a fictitious voice in the process. 1 voice should only equal 1 vote. Corporate personhood creates another series of entities within the corporation that have their own heavily weighted voices altogether, and they “count” more than the single voice (vote, contribution, etc.) that we, the people, have as individuals. Remember the corporation channels all “beneath” its own pyramid of power. Corporations have NO place in politics whatsoever.

  156. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 9:57 am

    “NEW YORK (Reuters) – A judge on Monday rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the top U.S. market regulator over the sale of toxic mortgage debt and ORDERED A TRIAL.

    In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee) said the proposed settlement was “neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.”



  157. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Money is a microphone, not speech. Put corporations on the human mic system.

  158. Goldie
    November 28, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Money is getting to be a rarity. ” The Fed gave out over $7.7 trillion to banks all over the world by March 2009, Bloomberg found, well surpassing the stated $700 billion being attributed to the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.” The poor bailed out banks only earned 13 million in interest which they failed to report.

  159. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Anonymous 9:48,

    What you are saying (and I know this is the standard “progressive” blather) is that you should not be able to jointly sponsor a political ad with your neighbor.

    Unfortunately, it’s that simple. Sorry if it’s inconvenient.

  160. November 28, 2011 at 10:21 am

    What you are saying (and I know this is the standard “progressive” blather) is that you should not be able to jointly sponsor a political ad with your neighbor.

    Exactly, except those that want to limit the ability of businesses to advertise for political purposes usually don’t want those same rules to apply to advertisements for progressive causes. Unions, or instance, are almost never included in such proposed restrictions. Local Measure T of a few years ago being an example.

  161. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Is someone impersonating Mitch or holding him hostage?

  162. November 28, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Fred, if money is speech then do you think that the Federal Reserve Bank should be able to contribute to political campaigns? They are a corporation aren’t they?

    Speech is even LOUDER when you can PRINT ALL YOU WANT OF IT.

    have a peaceful day,

  163. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 11:00 am

    No, Jane. It’s me. I’ve always objected to certain aspects of the anti-corporate strategy, which is why I try to make suggestions like, “OK, let them talk, but provide a level playing field with public funds to everyone they are against.”

    A corporation, in law, is just a group of people with a shared goal. Like the conservatives say, it’s the same thing as a union.
    If you can figure out how to silence one without silencing the other, you’re way smarter than I am.

    I agree that corporate charters should be much more restrictive on what they can do, but I don’t see how you can legitimately prevent a collection of people from exercising freedom of speech without creating a loophole-ridden system that will simply work to the benefit of the wealthy. I agree completely with the idea of corporate death penalties, limited term charters, and I would withhold charters that the public did not feel were in the public interest. But once a corporation has been chartered, I don’t understand how it can be kept from advertising about anything it wants to.

    Instead of silencing the corporations, I think it would make much more sense to give an equally loud voice, at public expense, to other perspectives. More speech, not less. That doesn’t have the same real-world risk of running afoul of the constitution as interpreted by the current court.

  164. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 11:21 am

    That’s why progressives have been trying to amend the constitution for years, Mitch. It’s great that you want to fill the campaign coffers of politicians with corporate and taxpayer money, but we can’t afford to outbid them.

  165. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 11:21 am

    As MISinterpreted by the current court.

  166. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 11:26 am

    The other thing that gets me somewhat cranky is when groups get into what I perceive as “ideological purity tests,” where people who share ultimate goals are deemed enemies if they have different views on tactics. It’s always seemed to me to be a common situation on the left; perhaps it exists on the right as well.

    If the goal is framed as “let’s move towards a society in which everyone can flourish,” there’s a lot of common ground for people with different tactics. When priority is given to a particular tactic, and people have different views of that tactic, the circular firing squad tends to show up very quickly.

    The fact is, the banks are and were crooked, and the government has handed them blank checks of taxpayer money. That is an issue that I’d bet large majorities are fed up with, and it’s a consciousness-raiser regarding what tends to happen to large entities in an economic system when they are not kept in check.

    It’s a long, long way from the common ground that banksters are crooks and need to be reined in to prevent (only) corporations from buying political advertising.

  167. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Impeaching a couple of corrupt SCOTI (a joke, spelling nazis) in the next few years could change that. Let’s start with Thomas for failure to disclose his wife’s employers and partisan political activities and Scalia for being a douche who wouldn’t recognize a conflict of interest even if the entire country depended on it.

  168. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “I perceive as “ideological purity tests,” where people who share ultimate goals are deemed enemies if they have different views on tactics. It’s always seemed to me to be a common situation on the left; perhaps it exists on the right as well.”

    ARE YOU FCKIN KIDDING ME? This can’t be Mitch.

  169. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 11:35 am


    My original point is that we don’t need to outbid the corporations, we just need to ensure that all sides of an issue are given equal resources to engage in free speech. If Corp A contributes $1 million to candidate A or side A, then the treasury should automatically provide $1 million to each candidate or side in opposition to A.

    Also, TV political advertising should not require payments to broadcasters — every candidate should be entitled to a substantial chunk of free air time, since the broadcast spectrum is ours in common.

    More speech, not less.

    I can guarantee you that if there were to be “success” in preventing corporations from making campaign contributions, the exact same contributions, bundled in new ways, would arrive in support of the corporations in well less than one election cycle. The better solution is insisting on a level playing field, supported by the taxpayers.

  170. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 11:43 am

    It seems to me that we need a two-pronged approach: (1) Strategies like those suggested by Mitch, to work within the current framework of corporate personhood, and (2) Efforts to challenge the current framework of corporate personhood.

    As far as working within the current framework, the idea of a “voluntary public financing” system that would match the private money flowing to candidates who decline to take part in the public financing is an idea which was first instituted in Maine, and now in several other states. Maine’s law is based on the Clean Elections model developed by the campaign finance group called Public Campaign.


    Here are a couple of the success stories so far:

    Maine: Clean Elections have become a vital part of the election process in Maine since first being instituted in 2000. In 2010, 79 percent of the legislature is represented by people who won using their Clean Elections program. Officials who ran under the Clean Elections program now hold 86 percent of the Senate, or 30 seats, and 78 percent, or 118 seats, in the Maine House of Representatives.

    Connecticut: November 2010 saw Connecticut’s second general election under its Citizens’ Election Program and the results were outstanding again. Participating candidates made up approximately 70 percent of those seeking office in Connecticut’s General Assembly. A total of 145 out of 187 seats, or 77 percent, are filled by officials who used Clean Elections. In the state Senate, 28 of 36 seats, or 78 percent, are now held by Clean Elections officials. In the House, officials who ran under the Clean Elections system will hold 117 of 151 seats, or 77 percent.

    I remember reading accounts from the first couple of elections that took place in Maine in which the Clean Elections system was in place, and what stood out was that more moderate-income folks, including all kinds of workers, small businesspeople, teachers, nurses, firefighters and the like, were able to run for and win elective office. From my understanding, the result has been a state legislature that is not really any more liberal or any more conservative, but is decidedly more community-based and less money/insider/party-influenced.

  171. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Well, brace yourself, P.J., because I agree with Mitch’s sentiment that:

    The other thing that gets me somewhat cranky is when groups get into what I perceive as “ideological purity tests,” where people who share ultimate goals are deemed enemies if they have different views on tactics. It’s always seemed to me to be a common situation on the left; perhaps it exists on the right as well.

    I’m not sure what you find so controversial about that statement, which is basically bemoaning in-fighting among people who mostly agree on the fundamentals and ought to be able to accomodate different points of view about tactics.

  172. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 11:50 am

    So if the taxpayers don’t have a loose billion laying around to spend on political campaigns the corporations don’t get to spend it either, Mtich?

  173. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 11:50 am

    tra said: “decidedly more community-based and less money/insider/party-influenced.”

    Exactly. The public option has to be large enough that everyone has a chance to get their message across without it being swamped by the most well-funded candidate. I think that means it should match the non-public funding dollar for dollar, but it might take a while to get there.

    I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t know there were such systems functioning anywhere in America.

    If politics could be changed enough by such systems, there’s an eventual possibility of getting enough independent-of-big-money candidates into office that future fair legislation might have a chance. But I’m not much of a believer that the larger step can take place until the smaller step has been put in place.

  174. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 11:56 am


    Funding all candidates should be a high priority for a democracy.

    Could corporations spend the country into bankruptcy if the rule was that whatever they spent had to be matched? I suppose it’s possible in theory, but it would be quite a spectacle.

    More likely, once a group realizes that they are raising money for their opponent by raising money for their shil, they will learn to moderate their “contributions.”

  175. Apologist Not
    November 28, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    For someone who disagrees with the righteous tactic of shouting at misbehaving police, how does Mitch propose to politely win equal funding to match the corporate megaphone, when the meager Fairness Doctrine was killed a generation ago?

    If the “tactic” you disagree with happens to be an integral aspect of every successful, major advancement in social, economic, and environmental justice in history, then it’s clear why Mitch senses a “circular firing squad” in liberal organizations.

  176. Walt
    November 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “Funding all candidates should be a high priority for a democracy.” But Mitch, there were six new mortgage default notices in the TS today. People will soon start missing meals. . .and we’re supposed to write blank checks for political lies? I have a little problem with that. Since we know all ads are lies, what if we just did away with the lies? That wouldn’t cost a nickle.

  177. Plain Jane
    November 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “perhaps it exists on the right as well.”

    I’m just stunned that people I considered informed could not know about the ideological purity demanded by conservatives to the point that they have to take oaths not to raise taxes to get elected, not to mention the other sure-fire issues of guns, god, gays and abortion. The Democratic party is infinitely more diverse than Republicans, especially since the Tea Party terrorists got a little power.

    I don’t like being told if I’m not sleeping on the ground at a protest that I’m an Occuposer, or if I am sleeping on the ground I’m just a homeless bum destroying the cause; but I’m not about to smear those fighting the same battle by implying that the right may or may not have such tests. I can’t imagine anyone not knowing the right is fanatical on ideological purity. Not just a few here and there, but a very large percentage.

    Any means to restore this country to a democracy with competent, honest government is fine with me. You can work to get taxpayers to match corporate donations and I’ll try to reform elections so they are funded by real people,who want good government and not legal fictions tilting the table in their favor and make it easier to catch the crooks.

  178. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Done for another while. Sorry to have bothered you. Shout away.

  179. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 12:17 pm


    One of the challenges in a voluntary public financing system is that if the taxpayers are required to match, dollar for dollar, every single dollar raised by any privately-funded candidates (with no limit) that kind of commitment is pretty hard to budget for, and therefore hard to get a legislative body to approve.

    The existing Clean Elections systems in places like Maine and Connecticut work like this: They provide a basic grant to the publicly financed candidate, and then if their privately-funded opponent raises more than that, the publicly financed candidate then receives matching funds…but only up to a certain limit. (I believe the whole thing is funded from the state’s general fund, I don’t recall all the details but I think in some states there is a voluntary income tax check-off in which taxpayers check off a box on their state income tax return to indicate their support for puttting a few bucks of their tax money into the Clean Elections fund. There might also be some fees on lobbyists or something like that, again I don’t recall the details.)

    The idea is that the publicly-funded candidate doesn’t necessarily have to have exactly the same amount of money that their privately-funded opponent has, but they do need to have enough money to effectively get their message out there, respond to attacks, etc. I think part of the equation is that because the publicly-funded candidate doesn’t have to spend a bunch of time “dialing for dollars,” and attending fundraising events, and so on, they can instead spend their time getting their message out to voters.

    My guess is that it will take quite a few more states adopting these kinds of voluntary public financing systems at the state level, before there will be a realistic chance of getting something like that enacted at the federal level. But, who knows…it seems like every day, both the policiticians and their corporate benefactors are giving Americans new reasons to get off our asses and demand far-reaching reforms.

  180. Auntie Arkley
    November 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    The right-wingers are so stupid that they don’t realize that most of them are part of the 99%!

  181. Anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Jane and others, you draw the line constantly, polarizing between the right and left. There are lots of conservatives, republicans, and middle of the roaders who share some of your ideals and are not committing the “idealogical purity” you speak about. I think to have a decent conversation people need to start by realizing that overgeneralizing their “enemy” is not understanding that they have oversimplified and not giving enough credit to those who want to come to some agreements. I think the many difference lie in not knowing many facts and each side only listening to their “own” people.

  182. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Thanks, tra.

  183. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 12:35 pm


    You’re not alone in being unaware, up to this point, about the Clean Elections systems enacted in Maine, Connecticut and some other states. It hasn’t exactly been big news outside of those states. But if those systems are able to withstand the onslaught additional corporate spending unleashed by Citizens’ United, and the model is replicated in some more states, those state Clean Elections systems could become a starting point in the debate about how to reduce the influence of special-interest money in politics at the national level.

  184. Mitch
    November 28, 2011 at 12:49 pm


    Before I go, I’ll clarify my phrase about circular firing squads possibly existing on the right.

    About 30 years ago, I worked as a canvasser, community organizer, and, later, at the central office of a lefty community organization on the East Coast. I’ve also been involved, to a lesser extent, in other lefty efforts. Then, when I moved here fifteen years ago, I witnessed a very smart and well-meaning acquaintance being hissed when trying to make some useful points at a discussion regarding whether Arcata would control fast food restaurants. So I can speak from personal experience about the incredible unwillingness of lefty groups to hear other opinions.

    I’ve never worked for a right wing organization. I do realize that in its Tea Party incarnation, the right has created electoral problems for itself in ways that echo what I’ve seen on the left. But I haven’t personally witnessed the vitriol, so I didn’t want to jump to conclusions about the right. I consider my opinions about the left, formed from experiences over decades, to be pretty solid — perhaps wrong, but opinions I feel confident to state.

    I have long felt that the American left is a tragedy. I still feel that way.

    If people think shouting at the police is going to change anything, I can only wish you luck. The police have the guns.

  185. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Just to be clear, a “voluntary public funding” system is not a panacea, and it is admittedly a somewhat complicated workaround designed to get around the (in my opinion) flawed Consitutional framework adopted by the Supreme Court in which corporations = persons and money = free speech.

    I would love to see the framework adopted in Citizens’s United and, before that, in Buckley v Valeo, overturned.


    And I’m all for redefining the legal status of corporations, which goes back even farther than the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision.

    Of course the only way to accomplish those things is to get the existing members of the Supreme Court to dramatically reverse themselves (unlikely), or to get new Supreme Courty justices appointed who are open to reversing those decisions (possible, but will take time), or to amend the Constitution itself (possible, but very challenging, and certainly time-consuming).

    So actually changing the Constitutional framework on these issues, as adopted by the Supreme Court, is a long-term effort, likely to take many years, if not decades. So to me it makes sense to proceed on parallel tracks, working toward overturning the existing Constitutional framework, but at the same time continuing to try to enact campaign finance laws that can, at least somewhat, counteract the influence of Big Money in politics, and at the same time can still pass muster under the current Constitutional framework. The Clean Elections model is one approach that attempts to thread that needle.

  186. Walt
    November 28, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    But how will we PAY for it, after the right drags government down the hall to the bathroom and drowns it, as they’ve all pledged to do?

  187. skippy
    November 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Some may argue that the OWS’ message is vague. These folks are pointing out that something is very wrong with our system– being the canaries in the coal mine, so to speak– leaving it up to you to determine what that is for yourself.

    Reading the comments at the beginning of this thread, the previous link of the Fed’s $7.7 trillion secret bailout details here, and the OWS protest efforts, led me to call our Senators to weigh in on restoring the Glass-Steagall Act. This may be only a minor effort that goes nowhere, I know, but we all have to try and speak out on what we feel needs to be done, as best as we are able. How we take the money out of politics is a whole matter altogether…

    If you want to offer your message:

    Boxer, Barbara
    #(202) 224-3553
    Web Form: http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

    Feinstein, Dianne
    #(202) 224-3841
    Web Form: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

    We can bitch about things gone wrong and make some pretty good and righteous comments here but maybe it’s time we partake and weigh in where it could count. OWS is pointing the way… but we have to take the necessary steps. Otherwise, it all goes nowhere. Thanks, all.

  188. November 28, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    I just saw the occupiers in Eureka holding protest signs about 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace. What is up with that?

  189. Apologist Not
    November 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “If people think shouting at the police is going to change anything, I can only wish you luck. The police have the guns”.

    But, that’s not “only” what you did Mitch!

    If people think that any systemic injustice in America ever changed without citizens shouting at police repression, they’ve never studied an ounce of history.

    “Mitch” is the last poster here I expect to read such ignorance from.

    Please Mitch, wish this nation’s patriots luck, but don’t condemn the disobedient tactics that we’ve all benefited from, over and over and over again in the U.S.!

    The civil disobedience of shouting in the face of those selectively enforcing the law has given millions of others the courage to share their outrage…when enough people express righteous outrage the media cannot avoid coverage, nor can they afford their own spectacle of provocation against a movement.

  190. November 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    It has been suggested that our very own
    Mark Lovelace made or was involved in
    the decision to raid at 3AM.
    Anyone know?
    The left in Humboldt has more than its share
    of goose-steppers and
    and lock-step thinking. Hope this is not reflected

  191. High Finance
    November 28, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    You guys keep it up and you will soon be the 1%.

  192. tra
    November 28, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    “Suggested” by whom? Lovelace is a County Supervisor, one of five. Was the County Board of Supervisors involved in the decision to remove the encampment from the lawn of the County courthouse? That wouldn’t be surprising. But I certainly don’t see how Lovelace would have been in any position to “make the decision” on his own.

    As far as the 3:00 am timing and other operational details, it seems even less likely that Lovelace was the one calling the shots on that stuff. I would guess that the operational details were probably mostly left up to the police agencies that participated, with EPD taking the lead. If so, then those decisions would have been made by EPD Acting Chief Murl Harpham, perhaps in consultation with Sherrif Downey.

    It’s possible, of course, that members of the Board of Supervisors had some kind of input, either formal or informal, into the timing and/or some of the other operational details of the raid, and it’s possible that others, like the county’s CAO or the Eureka City Manager, may have had some input as well. But I doubt Lovelace had any real involvement beyond whatever role he played as an individual member of the Board of Supervisors.

  193. Anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Nice video. Vebana in the background with the other “peaceful protesters”. She’s also calling for some action to get back the cardboard signs on her copwatch site. We’re glad the occupy Humboldt movement has morphed into the Verbana copwatch movement. We were worried that normal people might actually sympathize with the occupy movement. With her around, we aren’t worried a bit. Make sure to keep this local occupy chapter about hating the police, and we’ll keep on with the status quo.


    The 1% of Humboldt :)

  194. anonymous
    November 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    *Demand Return of All Property
    including Signs, Literature,

    *Insist the Police Respect Our
    Right to Protest, Stop Abusing
    Us & Stop Violating
    Civil Rights.*
    EUREKA POLICE: 707.441.4060

    Property, Erin McBride

    Temp Chief: Murl Harpham

    DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Office 707.445.7411 Gallegos
    707.267.4400 districtattorney@co.humboldt.ca.us,

    BOARD OF SUPES: 707.476.2396 jrsmith, cclendenen,
    mlovelace, vbass, rsundberg @co.humboldt.ca.us

    EUREKA CITY COUNCIL: 707.441.4144 fjager, mbrady,
    latkins, mnewman,mciarabellini, lmadsen, city clerk

  195. The 99%
    November 28, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Forget you anonymous 4:57. Don’t call attention to Verbana. The Occupy Eureka website already does enough of that. Let’s get back to the substantive issues of Occupy:

    1)The movement is about promoting homelessness and protesting police!!!

    2)We will become so open minded that we allow the fringe to alienate those who are really with us!

    3)You don’t agree? Well, you must be a pig, a capitalist, a middle class worker, or someone who is upset with the status quo (but won’t associate with anarchists, professional protesters or communists to bring about positive change).

    This movement CANNOT include conservatives, libertarians, middle class America, Christians, or those who don’t believe in the dissolution of government/the expansion of the services that government provides (opposing yet working together in this case). Try to bring another viewpoint, and we’ll shout you out. GOT IT!

  196. November 28, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    Cheer up, 99%. You can always find comfort over at the Mirror. They’ll help you figure out your “dissolution of government — expansion of services” paradox.

    Oxymoronic hugs!

  197. November 29, 2011 at 7:34 am

    we need to replace Verbina if Occupy Eureka is to be taken seriously… sorry ‘bina fans, she is less than a credible leader for the rest of the 99%

  198. Ace Bandura
    November 29, 2011 at 8:00 am

    The right wing trolls try to focus attention on Verbena.

    At the core of the Occupy movement both nationally and here in Humboldt are people who are twenty years younger than Verbena. This is reality.

    Soorner or later you are going to have to deal with these young people who are getting screwed and know it. It is not a left-right movement. Smart young tea partiers have already joined Occupy and are voicing their concerns in GA just like everyone else.

  199. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 8:06 am

    I saw a smart young tea partier once.

  200. Plain Jane
    November 29, 2011 at 8:17 am

    You LIE, 8:06!

  201. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 8:49 am

    >> “Soorner or later you are going to have to deal with these young people who are getting screwed and know it.”

    I agree. How much have I paid into social security? I’m told it’s only good for another 25 years if lucky, that means zip for me and everybody I know. How much social security money has been swiped by the military over the years? How much social security has been given to corporations over the years?

    What everybody’s waking up to is the fact that the whole system is a big lie from top to bottom. It operates without compromise or consequence under a calculated cloak of deception. Recipe for disaster among all but the wealthiest. Anybody who cares about the future and their children (and their children’s children) have every right and reason to be royally pissed off at this country’s state of affairs.

  202. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Yeah. It’s the right wing trolls focusing on Kim Starr/Verbana. Not the Occupy Eureka website with the multiple “thank you’s” and video’s on their page. You are soooo right Ace.

  203. been there
    November 29, 2011 at 10:17 am

    It was only a matter of time after the Occupy movement hit Humboldt that Verbena would co-opt it. There is nothing more enticing for her than an audience, and a new crop of activists to hear her speeches and back up her self righteous ravings.

    The new crop is necessary because the mentally healthy activists that have tried to work with Verbena in the past have long since moved on to saner environments. She is a detriment to Occupy and will work tirelessly to mold it into an army for her own purposes. She will drive away anyone capable of working well with others who won’t mindlessly follow her lead.

  204. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 10:23 am

    wow, been there. I don’t even know who that is. Speak for yourself, chump. You’re distracting yourself. The intelligent have already figured it out for themselves. Get with it.

  205. Ace Bandura
    November 29, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Verbena was “occupying” City Hall just about two years ago now. Maybe she is just an early adopter.

    Don’t distract us with the focus on Verbena. She has a voice but no more than any one else at GA.

  206. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Well said Ace! Verbana is ahead of the curve and her record of protest was really just an example of what the Occupy movement is truly about. Thank you,

    The 1%

  207. tra
    November 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has already accomplished a lot by raising awareness and focusing public attention on income inequality, corporate power and political corruption.

    Raising awareness and drawing media and public attention to important problems is just a start, but it’s a necessary start.

  208. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Since these idiots condemn activist’s tactics, surely they’ve refused their GI Bill, and their health and safety regulations at work?


  209. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Two Occupiers have a court hearing today at 2:PM.

    See you there.

  210. tra
    November 29, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    The NCJ’s blog has a post up about the Occupy Humbolt meeting last night in HSU’s Kate Buchanan Room.


    Looks like there are some folks trying to get things more organized, but it’s a challenge to reach an actual consensus about whether to actually consolidate the HSU, Arcata and Eureka groups into, effectively, one group.

    The NCJ post also points to the #OccupyHumboldt twitter feed for the contemporaneous reporting from the meeting.


    Glancing through the twitters posted during the meeting (mostly by Andrew Goff) I came across this one, posted by Deric Mendes:

    “dericmendes Deric Mendes
    Proposal to consolidate the camps was raised. Man wearing a mask in favor of Spanish-Catholic rule in England blocked it

    I have to admit, that made me laugh. I don’t quite get why anyone would really want to wear a Guy Fawkes mask. I understand the “V for Vendetta” thing and all, but…well, it’s still Guy Fawkes.

  211. tra
    November 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Anyway, I hope Deric’s description of consensus being blocked by someone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is not for real. Because if you allow someone wearing a mask to be able to block the rest of the group, then the group is pretty much doomed to be disrupted as long as they have at least one opponent willing to take the time to put on a mask and attend their meetings. Consensus is hard enough to reach in a group of that size (about 125 people), and I think limiting it to the consensus of those willing to actually show their faces is not too much to ask.

    Consensus works great in relatively small groups, and where everyone in the group already agrees on most fundamental questions of goals, strategy and tactics. The larger the group and the greater disagreement over those fundamentals, the less practical consenus-based decision-making is. Majority rule works pretty well for lots of groups, though when the numbers get large enough, then that too can become unweildy, at which point elected representation is usually the answer. (Or otherwise, groups go the other way entirely, with a hierarchical structure and a self-perpetuating clique at the top.)

  212. Anonymous
    November 29, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    From the NCJ-

    “Turner wants to bring all the local movements together and then divvy up occu-duties under four (or five) subcommittees. Occupy Arcata’s Trish Ti thought they might need more commitees. Occupy Eureka’s Verbena wants that damn fence (the one around the Humboldt County Courthouse lawn) down!”

  213. Anonymous
    November 30, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    I recommend to everyone that they experience for themselves the number of cars honking in support of protesters. Every hour or two there’s an individual who shouts “get a job”….And when enough of them join the officially uncounted, chronically underemployed masses, a movement will be born, whether it’s this movement, or the next, matters little.

  214. November 30, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    “Occupy Eureka’s Verbena wants that damn fence (the one around the Humboldt County Courthouse lawn) down!” 4:09

    Me too. Maybe time for a 3AM fence removal?
    Safely and securely put fence pieces away for shuttle back to the rental agency. Have straw ready for application over the lawn,
    move-in before Murl has a cup of coffee.

    Can we get a big OK on this one, Mark?
    I’ll alert that Fox person.

  215. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 6:22 am

    Kristof’s column today is about a former Chase banker, a must read for anyone still buying the frightwing lie that the banks were forced into issuing high risk mortgages. The facts is they deliberately went after that virtually unregulated market, enticing poor, economically illiterate people into subprime mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford just so they could bundle and sell them for more profit and huge bonuses without any concern for the taxpayers they knew would have to bail them out.

  216. Anonymous
    December 1, 2011 at 8:07 am

    Ace Bandura; does that mean you are a left wing trioll?

    Plain Jain and tra you need to give it up or change handles. You have proven that you don’t have anything to do, like a job

  217. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Leg humper at 8:07. You need to change your handle or give it up. Your idea of proof is really funny since both Tra and I are self-employed. We aren’t cheating by posting on blogs on the bosses’ dime like you are. Or is that what you are paid to do?

  218. jr
    December 1, 2011 at 10:32 am

    Re: Kristof column. In what publication to I find it. Thanks for this alert. (On a related subject, see the Media Maven column in the current North Coast Journal.)

  219. Anonymous
    December 1, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Sorry Jr, I intended to include the link.


    That was a good Burstiner column, but it’s not like the media hasn’t reported on the real cause of the crisis. There are lots of well written news stories available which explain it in detail. However, when leaders make false claims as to the cause, they are rarely challenged. That is left up to “fact checkers” that most people don’t read. I don’t see how the chasm between political factions can be healed when we are relying on such divergent “facts” delivered by our media and leaders. Makes me long for the days Walter Cronkite, the newsman that everybody trusted.

  220. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Anonymous 11:33 was me. Don’t want the leg humper to lose count.

  221. tra
    December 1, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    To those who doubt that the Occupy Wall Street movement is having any important impact, you might want to reconsider. Republican pollster and message guru Frank Luntz feels quite differently:

    The Republican Governor’s Association met in Florida this week and featured pollster Frank Luntz, who offered a coaching session for attendees about how they should communicate to the public. …Luntz told attendees that he’s “scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” The pollster warned that the movement is “having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”


  222. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Even that is Luntz spin. The reality is the current brand of capitalism as practiced in this country has outraged the American people. Occupy was needed to join our voices so we be could heard over the corporate megaphones. Luntz understands about political pendulums and undoubtedly realizes they pulled it too far to the right which means it will go further to the left on its return swing. Now he’s trying to figure out how to stop it mid swing. They’ve ignored, laughed at and attacked the people demanding economic / political reform. Now they’ll try to appease with carefully framed speeches and talking points echoed throughout frightland, and if that doesn’t work they’ll throw some money as us – anything to prevent actual reforms..

  223. Apologist Not
    December 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Surely Luntz if referring to America’s systemic crony-capitalism that OWS is exposing….forcing insiders to work overtime to maintain the illusion that the rest of us are benefiting.

    The current PBS Frontline episode on Egypt exposes their crony-capitalism which looks identical to ours.

  224. Anonymous
    December 1, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Middle Class America! Wake up! Join your brothers and sisters who are in this video!

  225. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Well, the Senate passed the defense budget with the provision included that even American citizens on US soil can be arrested by the military and detained indefinitely without trial. Now it’s up to President Obama to veto it and take the inevitable political hits. Is it paranoid to suspect this might be related to the elite’s fear of the growing anti-corporate / crony capitalism movements?

  226. tra
    December 1, 2011 at 5:03 pm


    I just saw this update about the language in the defense budget:

    Senate Brokers Agreement On Detainee Provision
    Senators brokered an agreement late Thursday on a detainee provision in the current defense authorization bill that paved the way for its passage.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) offered the compromise amendment that would change nothing in current law for the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S.

    The amendment passed 99-1.


  227. just middle class
    December 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Well, 4:34, I am a middle class person who is not convinced by this video. I agree with the message that there is too much concentration of wealth in the .01% not the 1%. I also think that most middle class people are part of the 98% not including the top and the bottom shown in this video. If this were an effective technique the numbers would grow not diminish. There are 130,000 people in Humboldt and the less thatn 1% demonstrating seem not to represent the 98%.

  228. tra
    December 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    If that’s different from what the House voted for, then presumably it has to either go back to the House for approval, or else go to a conference committee and then back to both houses.

  229. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Contradictory news reports, Tra.

    From the AP, “The Senate rejected an effort by Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein to limit a military custody requirement for suspects to those captured outside the United States. The vote was 55-45. Feinstein, D-Calif., said her goal was to ensure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists.”


  230. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 5:22 pm

    From CNN:

    “Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it’s not the bill’s intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.
    “It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language,” Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

    “It supports present law,” Feinstein added.”


    So confusing.

  231. tra
    December 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Yeah, I’ve seen a couple more reports now and they’re just all over the map in terms of what the final outcome was and what it will actually mean in practice.

    Piecing it together it looks like the final version will continue to include mandatory military custody for any “terrorism suspects” detained overseas (something military leaders themselves have said they don’t want), but it’s not clear whether that would include U.S. citizens detained overseas.

    Looks like for U.S. citizens and legal residents, the indefinite-detention-by-the-military-and-without-charges-or-access-to-the-courts is no longer in the bill, at least as long as the person is within the U.S. when they are detained. But, again, none of the reports I’ve seen so far are very clear.

  232. anonymous
    December 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    From a Klamath newsletter:

    A driver is stuck in traffic. Nothing is moving. Suddenly, a man knocks on the window and reports that “terrorists have kidnapped Congress and are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car taking up a collection.”

    “How much on average is everyone giving?”

    The man replies, “About one gallon.”

  233. Plain Jane
    December 1, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    I think I figured it out, Tra. Feinstein’s amendment was defeated but before the vote on the budget they reached an agreement which essentially did what Feinstein’s amendment was intended to do. That’s my best guess any way.

    Good joke 6:10.

  234. December 1, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    “Since [they] condemn activists’ tactics, surely they’ve refused their GI Bill, and their health and safety regulations at work?”

    I’m sure that they imagine that the eight-hour day was a benevolent gift from the American Manufacturers Association.

  235. Walt
    December 1, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Joel, Jane and 6:10, you’re all under arr. . .indefinite detention for terrorism: you’ve dissed the American Manufacturers’ Ass’n and the ruling elite, and 6:10 advocated assaulting members of Congress! See you in Gitmo, inshaAllah!

  236. December 1, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    They basically got what they wanted. The bill passed. Whenever they say: “….it’s not our intention….” That means there’s enough room for that intention and a lot of other intentions we don’t know about. Look how long corporate personhood was accepted as real on the basis of an opinion by a court clerk.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood All they need is the language in the law.
    Just the fact that it’s being reported as a win-win, means we lose again.

  237. tra
    December 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Apparently the Obama administration is still threatenting a veto over this issue. A rather lengthy explanation can be found here:


    There’s a lot of detail there, but it seems like the fundamental point of objection for the Obama administration is that it reduces the flexibility that the executive branch currenty enjoys in deciding who to keep in military custody indefinitely and who to investigate and prosecute through the civilian courts. The administration isn’t objecting to the idea of indefinite detention, they just want to be the ones to decide who to detain indefinitely, and where, rather than having to follow a blanket mandate from Congress.

  238. Apologist Not
    December 2, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    The issue of illegal and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of “terrorism” eclipsed a decade after its first appearance in the World Section of U.S. newspapers and late-night TV.

    This remarkably effective censorship also conceals the insatiable appetite of elites, and the inevitable enforcement of economic inequality required to insure that the rapidly dwindling spoils of empire trickle-up.

    Throughout imperial history “We The People” become impoverished in our tens of millions….ultimately becoming unpleasant enough to warrant the creative repression of selective enforcement of law…with violence being the inevitable outcome when human beings lose their dignity and “terrorism” becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    History’s interment camps offer endless examples of official pretexts for the brutality necessary to contain the “terrorist” behavior of human beings forced into animal-like conditions.

    Unless the media self-destructs from its own irrelevance, we should have been “Occupying” them all along.

    Widespread censorship has fueled the resurgence of a very old tyranny.

  239. Plain Jane
    December 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    The documentary “Orwell Rolls in His Grave,” available online free, is a good reminder of the power of the press.

  240. jr
    December 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Desperate people do desperate things. “When you ain’t got nothin, you’ve got nothin to lose.” And you don’t need a weatherman…….

  241. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The U.S. empire, like all past empires, and Like every biological creature, will fight to survive to the last breath before succumbing to its terminal disease.

    As an appendage, the media is first to whither.

  242. Anonymous
    December 3, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    ““Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it’s not the bill’s intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.
    “It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language,” Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

    “It supports present law,” Feinstein added.”


    So confusing.”

    Very telling, actually! Change the language, the words, with all their sound and fury and deeper meaning, program the people to think an exact physical reality is in fact something else entirely.

  243. Yayouknowme
    December 3, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    How much, if any, state and or federal taxes did any of you occupy phucktards pay last year?

    If you don’t contribute, don’t expect anything in return.

  244. Anonymous
    December 4, 2011 at 10:47 am

    “If you don’t contribute, don’t expect anything in return.”

    All spending is contributing. More telling would be how much state and federal taxes YOU paid last year…and how happy you are about it. Care to share? dumbass.

  245. Jim White
    December 4, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Traitors always focus on the speck in the eye of the poor, while ignoring the log-jammed in the corporate-eye.

    The majority of U.S. corporations pay zero taxes for the privilege of kicking this nation while we’re down.

  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