>> ^marinara:

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.
Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.
When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.
A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.
Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.
As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.
Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.
The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.
Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.
Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other side.


**I need to give attribution, this blog was posted on reddit by a so called street medic attached to occupy oakland

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.

Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.

When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.

A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.

Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.

As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.

Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.

The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.

Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.

Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other sid

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
*quality Sift

Your video, U.S. v. Whistleblower Tom Drake - CBS News 60 Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Delusional, or sociopathic liar? I really have a hard time deciding.
It's hard to believe he could be this delusional and still be articulate... But it's almost as hard to believe anyone could be this evil a Republican intentionally.

---

Mine are mostly in Oklahoma -- Kansas is just.... right.... there.

It is weird, isn't it, the disconnect between being "pro-life" and then being so all-fired quick to kill grown people? Maybe that is the crux of their problem -- clearly unreflective on even the most glaring inconsistencies in their thinking. Understand how they can be so blind to their obvious hypocrisy and you will understand their ability to be "evil."

Sorry. I don't believe in evil. Even Hitler had his demons from his childhood that he externalized rather than deal with.

In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Do you know any conservatives personally? I am related to lot of folks like this. For the most part, they are fearful, boxed in people who look at the world with blinkers on. In my experience.

Not evil. Scared. And angry. And possessive about "their" stuff -- out of fear.

Conservatives talk about "me and mine." Liberals talk about "us and ours." In my experience.



In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
Delusional, or sociopathic liar? I really have a hard time deciding.

It's hard to believe he could be this delusional and still be articulate... But it's almost as hard to believe anyone could be this evil intentionally.


I do know a few, if for no other reason than my sister lives in the Kansas boondocks, and they're incredibly common out there. And I'm constantly amazed by many of them. What they claim to believe and what they do is so completely out of sync that it's mind-boggling. Especially among the "social conservatives", i.e. the Christians. "Love thy neighbor", unless it's going to cost me a penny more. And "abortion is murder", but "we should just wipe out all the towelheads." I've seen both of those attitudes more times than I can count.

I still say Cantor is evil...holding millions ransom for the benefit of a few is flat-out evil (a word I've only recently come to accept as something that actually exists in the real world). The only possible defense that I can see is "not guilty by reason of insanity", such that he doesn't even see reality.

Do you know any conservatives personally? I am related to lot of folks like this. For the most part, they are fearful, boxed in people who look at the world with blinkers on. In my experience.

Not evil. Scared. And angry. And possessive about "their" stuff -- out of fear.

Conservatives talk about "me and mine." Liberals talk about "us and ours." In my experience.



In reply to this comment by Stormsinger:
Delusional, or sociopathic liar? I really have a hard time deciding.

It's hard to believe he could be this delusional and still be articulate... But it's almost as hard to believe anyone could be this evil intentionally.

So, my unexpected result this year.
I've been trying to lose weight for 15 years. 5'8" 205 lbs. I've tried dieting and always struggled, like most people, with that feeling of starvation and all the temptation that makes you fail.

In March I started walking at lunch 5 days a week and cut my calories down to about 1100 per day. At first I had no workout gear and after a mile and a quarter walk I was winded and sweating. Kept on going with the brisk walking and pushing myself harder and further. After a month and a half walking wasn't enough to wind me so I started alternating some jogging. Bought walking shoes and shorts/shirts to work out in. I kept pushing myself and counting my nutrition using a smart phone app so I wouldn't be deprived of vitamins and stuff on the lower calorie diet.

Surprisingly, no hunger. I started to find it hard to over eat because I wasn't hungry. I fealt nasty when I ate high calorie food. The app helped me make smart decisions when it mattered.
Over time I had to jog more and walk less to get a workout. After 4 months I was varying my workouts daily but averaging 4 miles per day during my lunch break. After 3 months I'd reached my goal of getting under 190. After 6 months I'd lost more than 30 pounds.

I have more stamina, look good, feel awesome and grew a beard for winter. ;-) Just had a physical and my cholesterol and blood pressure are perfect for the first time in 10 years. Every result on my physical was perfectly in range.

The only thing I did different from all my other attempts in 15 years was walk.

If you try to imagine walking/jogging 45-60 minutes a day, 5 days a week...you will fail before you start. Just go the first day and walk fast for as long as you can. Then make the decision to go the next day and push yourself again. Every day, decide to do it. Before you know it you'll be doing distances and times you never imagined and digging in the back of your closet for old clothes that fit.

Walking works.

>> ^bobknight33:

60 minutes can fine scumbags but somehow the DOJ with even grater research staff available cant manage to find dick.
Our Government is a total sham. VOTE everyone out. Clean house.


60 Minutes doesn't have to worry about silly stuff like, due process, chain of evidence, or even legally obtained information.

60 minutes can fine scumbags but somehow the DOJ with even grater research staff available cant manage to find dick.

Our Government is a total sham. VOTE everyone out. Clean house.

Your video, 60 minutes: Prosecuting Wall Street (12/4/11), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@hpqp

Rational debate often isn't what happens here on the Sift, unfortunately, which is why I have indeed moved on to other sites--sites where the majority of discussion challenges people's assumptions without the need for cheap theatrics like sarcasm or insults or condescension.

I have no problem with upvoting or downvoting comments (you seem to have misunderstood my point there). I have a problem to the pandering for upvotes through insulting another poster without addressing the content of their post in any rational way (and thereby dismissing the original poster's argument--ad hominem in its purest form). That's a practice that is becoming a bit too frequent here in my opinion and the way this thread has developed is damning evidence for it (to your credit, you started out in this whole thing by actually addressing the point of Shiny's post rather than just harping on his evangelicalism--it's too bad things went downhill from there).

As I posted in @ChaosEngine's profile, whether Hitchens is or is not an alcoholic is a matter of opinion--and I happen to believe very much that he is. I posted my rationale for why I believe he is an alcoholic in that post, so check out Chaos's profile if you're interested in reading why.

As I also said in that post (on Chaos's profile), regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not we can all agree (Hitchens would absolutely agree, I think) that he has been an excessive drinker. And this excessive drinking is likely one factor in the development of his cancer. Which brings me back to the original point which everyone seems so intent on missing--toasting an alcoholic excessive drinker is incredibly ironic, particularly when it is said alcoholism excessive drinking that's a contributing factor in his early death.

You disagree that he is an alcoholic? That's fine. Go ahead write your support for your point of view here. In fact, I can already guess what you'd provide as support: Hitchens "60 Minutes" interview in which he is asked point-blank whether he believes he is an alcoholic. And I would refute that interview and you could provide more support for your opinion and so on... But we'd just be arguing semantics at that point and missing out on Shiny's original point.

Now, we could have a fine and friendly disagreement about this whole issue without the name-calling, without the sarcasm, without egos getting in the way.

But this is the Sift and, as you have once again proven to me, this is not the place for that to happen.

By the way, while I did rather enjoy the condescending arrogance of your "FTFY" in your original reply to me, had you actually bothered to ask me why I wrote it we could have probably had an interesting discussion about a number of things, such as whether insulting someone's beliefs does or does not insult them personally and how some of Hitchens' comments are not actually directed against beliefs but specific people (Mother Teresa, for instance). But so convinced of your position were you that you chose to burn that bridge of dialogue before we could even cross it.

Also, I never answered your other post because I have a full-time job with unpaid overtime and a 6-month old at home, so I only get a limited amount of Net time. Given how this thread has gone, I now have zero inclination to continue talking with you. I said my peace in that thread. You replied. Let people who come later read the comments and decide for themselves what they want to believe or whether they even care. I simply don't anymore.

Thanks for reminding me about why I don't post comments on the Sift (at least, not anything that expresses much of an opinion).

Happy Sifting to you.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Congress Trading stock on inside information Insider' to '60 minutes, insider trading, congress, honest graft' - edited by bareboards2

Now that's hard hitting journalism, well done 60 minutes & well done Steve.

>> ^Skeeve:

Agreed, for the most part.
He obviously has talent, but to be a great artist one tends to need life experience (often of a darker nature) and that is something he doesn't have.
It should come with time though.
As for why we haven't seen a Mozart, etc. in hundreds of years, maybe its because the great artists of our time aren't composing classical music (which tends to cultivate the misbelief that it is somehow superior). Now, I'm a fan of classical music, but listen to While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Gimme Shelter, or All Along the Watchtower and tell me you don't feel as moved as when listening to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or The Marriage of Figaro.
>> ^TheFreak:
Bullshit.
Try listening to Jay Greenbergs Symphony no 5. It's horrible.
It's an unorganized cacophany. One moment it sounds every bit like an action movie score then immediately it swings the other way and you'd think you were listening to the music from a 30's cartoon. There's no rhyme or reason behind any of the sounds you hear, no progression, no building of emotion, no story being told, no subtlety or purpose...just great big sloppy swipes of an oversized lyrical paintbrush.
That 60 Minutes segment describes Jay's early and enduring interest in writing music. I believe that's about the only element of the story that's not pure hyperbole. From listening to his music you can tell that he has obviously learned a great deal at a young age about arranging orchestral music. He has knowledge. What he lacks is everything else necessary to create great music.
Boys his age do one thing with great expertise and skill....masturbate. And that's what "Blue Bird" is doing with his music...masturbating all up in your ear holes.
Jay Greenergs interest and dedication to study clasical music composition, as well as the encouragement he's received, has brought him a long way. The real shame is the uncritical feedback he's getting from the people around him. Without anyone to tell him that his music is ham fisted and clumsy there's every likelyhood that his narcisistic self appraisal will lead him to nothing.
Jay Greenberg has demonstrated an impressive ability to learn how to compose in a classical style. It remains to be seen if he can turn that technical skill into artistic achievement.



Brilliantly said. If you really listen to some music of "recent" times, it can be amazing. Gimme Shelter is a perfect example. Listening for the voice cracks when the lyric is being yelled "rape! murder!".. I could reel off an entire bunch of pink floyd songs that i think are on par with classical music.

I think that the reason there were "more musical genius" around back then is for several reasons - what else was there for an intelligent and interested young person to do then? Let's face it, the most interesting thing around back then was a piano. We have more instruments now, the world is more connected, we can sample each other's music and combine it. There's too many reasons. And you died by the time you were 40, so when else were you gonna do your burst of creativity if not from a young age?