Been there, seen that
I'm in San Francisco today, staying right next to Fisherman's Wharf, and a mile and a half or so from Occupy San Francisco.
In as much as it is a nice, if slightly cool day, I decided to assign the Daily Duck's crack San Francisco I'mwitless News Team (me) to some in person on the front lines reporting.
The occupation covers a small park 100 by 300 yards alongside the Embarcadero, and consists largely of large plastic tarps haphazardly providing top cover for REI castoff tents. The Occupation seems determined to deplete the world's supply of ugly signs. They run the gamut from inchoate to incoherent, with more than a dash of illiterate. Only one I saw made a lick of sense: "Don't Piss Here."
As for the oppressors, there were two police officers strolling around looking both very professional and completely bored.
Of course, this being the Wharf and Embarcadero, and a nice day, tourists abound. Not one of whom, even if pressed on the subject, could possibly give the appearance of caring even less about the Occupation than they already did.
A friend of mine who lives in the area says the Occupation leads the local news every night. It is no more apparent to him than to me as to why this should be so.
What is readily apparent though, is that anyone seeing even the slightest similarities between Occupy [anyplace with a lawn available for complete destruction] and the Tea Party, other than that both groups are bipedal, is either delusional or lying.
In as much as it is a nice, if slightly cool day, I decided to assign the Daily Duck's crack San Francisco I'mwitless News Team (me) to some in person on the front lines reporting.
The occupation covers a small park 100 by 300 yards alongside the Embarcadero, and consists largely of large plastic tarps haphazardly providing top cover for REI castoff tents. The Occupation seems determined to deplete the world's supply of ugly signs. They run the gamut from inchoate to incoherent, with more than a dash of illiterate. Only one I saw made a lick of sense: "Don't Piss Here."
As for the oppressors, there were two police officers strolling around looking both very professional and completely bored.
Of course, this being the Wharf and Embarcadero, and a nice day, tourists abound. Not one of whom, even if pressed on the subject, could possibly give the appearance of caring even less about the Occupation than they already did.
A friend of mine who lives in the area says the Occupation leads the local news every night. It is no more apparent to him than to me as to why this should be so.
What is readily apparent though, is that anyone seeing even the slightest similarities between Occupy [anyplace with a lawn available for complete destruction] and the Tea Party, other than that both groups are bipedal, is either delusional or lying.
posted by Hey Skipper at 4:31 PM
25 Comments:
Nice reporting, but I think you might just have the teeniest tiniest suspicion about why the non-newsworthy occupation leads off the news every night.
I strolled by during the mid-afternoon.
There wasn't a single darn thing going on.
Looks like you may have missed the party.
eeeeeewwwwwww.
Actually, something was happening. It's called witnessing. When it happens in Manila and Tbilisi, it's often admired.
When turned against the establishment here, not so much.
But if it was action you wanted, there's been plenty on the other side of the Bay Bridge, where the coppers are shooting unarmed workers nearly every day.
I know, I know. It's been so frequent in the history of the Republic as to scarcely seem to be news. Still, thought I'd mention it.
You really live in an alternate reality. The Old Media coverage of the Occupy Designated Location movement has gone to great extents to cover and burnish the reality. Local governments have been very cooperative (if not outright rolling over) for these protests.
A far better example of your thesis is the response to the Tea Party.
"Shooting unarmed workers nearly every day" -- despite the strongly supportive Old Media and the massive online presences of the activists you can't find a single mention of that. Of course, it's not us who "wanted action", but the protesters. The leaders just want a few eggs broken to make their omellete.
In real life, the workers who are being hurt are the ones near these protests, as they are driven out of business or assaulted.
Sorry Harry, it aint' happening. However, the reverse is almost a sure thing. Someone, a police officer or a child passing by, will be killed by one of the rich brats or their union muscle and then the whole sordid "movement" will end.
The blame for it all fall squarely on the shoulders of elected officials who allowed it to happen, if not, actively promoted it.
Not happening? The Oakland cops have already shot 2 unarmed workers.
Hmmm, that doesn't sound much like "workers nearly every day". One might also wonder at the context, given that the resistance to lawful orders to disperse.
I find it reasonable to presume from your lack of links that the context makes the actions of the police much more justifiable.
But I have to guess because you are, as usual, omitting most (if not all) of the relevant context. Were the workers just ambling along the street? Were they looting and burning? Were they illegally occupying property and ignoring orders to disperse? If two workers go to an illegal, violent protest and get shot, does that fit in to your description here?
Illegal?
Try reading the Bill of Rights.
I have, frequently. Nevertheless, your statement and question remain incoherent.
Then you failed to understand it.
No, it's your comment I fail to understand. I wonder if you do, given your apparent inability to explain it.
Further, I must admit I am highly dubious that the Bill of Rights contains the context you have failed supply for your previous comments, or an explanation of why you omitted it.
If you really had read the Bill of rights you would have noticed that there aren't any exceptions to the right of assembly.
None, nada, not any.
... the right of assembly on property not their own doesn't and can't possibly exist.
Not even that it be done "peaceably"?
I would also note that beyond that, there are implied limits with regard to the other enumerated rights in the Constitution - for instanc, one restriction on assembly is that you can't do it in my house without my permission. You might check the 10th Amendment too.
You may have read the Constitution, but you clearly didn't understand it, so I won't even bother with the multiple century long jurisprudence on "time, place, and manner".
But, as I suspected, none of this explains your "Illegal?" comment, not provided any context for it.
... and Harry before you mention that the tea party met in the mall and other public property, be assured they had the proper permits, followed the rules and regs of use and left the place in far better shape than they found it.
erp,you need to watch some video. The Davis one us instructive, but you are so full of hate against workers I am sure you will not do it.
Guy, don't obfuscate. When people are routed out of sleeping bags, they are by definition acting peaceably.
It's the police that are rioting. I've been on the receiving end of that before.
Mr. Eagar;
"None, nada, not any."
That's now an inoperative statement? That whole mocking me for not understanding the Bill of Rights was just, what, gratuitous psychological abuse? What about "the coppers are shooting unarmed workers nearly every day". Is that tossed off the sled too?
"Guy, don't obfuscate."
I'm not obfuscating, you are.
As I have mentioned multiple time, I have no idea what you are writing about and you consistently refuse to clarify, your last comment here being archetypical. I don't even know what you think I am obfuscating. You shouldn't take the Prosecutor from Kafka's The Trial as a role model.
P.S. When people are rousted out of sleeping bags, they are not by definition acting peaceably. If they're camping in my living room without my permission, that's not peaceable. If they have seized public property for their own uses, without regard to established law and regulation, that's not peaceable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What SH said and I'll add, they're not workers. If they were they'd be at their jobs, not acting like unbroken puppies in our parks... and I forgot to say, I love workers. It's union thugs I hate.
Actually, of course, erp, they are -- in some cases, were, until finance capitalism killed their livelihoods - workers.
Read a daily newspaper, for pete's sake.
And whence this meme about invading living rooms? Guy isn't the only one pushing this fantasy.
And you're wrong about the parks. They are for use of the public.
As a former non-violent protester on punlic streets, I think the satyagraha, especially on Friday & Saturday at Davis, has been magnificent.
Mr. Eagar;
"And whence this meme about invading living rooms?"
It's called an illustrative hypothetical example. I had presumed you were capable of understating the use of hypotheticals (that is, non-factual examples fur the purposes of clarifying a contention). My mistake.
"And you're wrong about the parks. They are for use of the public."
Just like I was wrong about the Bill of Rights, eh?
I will note that you continue to obfuscate by refusing to tell us what you're going on about. You don't get hypotheticals, and you refuse to provide factuals. That kind of limits the scope of a discussion, doesn't it?
P.S.
"None, nada, not any."
That's now an inoperative statement? That whole mocking me for not understanding the Bill of Rights was just, what, gratuitous psychological abuse? What about "the coppers are shooting unarmed workers nearly every day". Is that tossed off the sled too?
Why on earth would I read the liberal rags that go by the once proud name of daily newspapers?
Public parks are for use of the public, but there are many sensible restrictions, like the park closes at sundown or some stated time. Also signs that say no skate boarding, etc. Till now they didn't have to add no sleeping, defecating, urinating, raping, stealing, disturbing the peace by loud drumming, chanting, etc.
BTW - your non-violent protests? What were you protesting?
Racism.
Post a Comment
<< Home