my understanding is that they aren't allowed to use megaphones during their protest for some reason... and so aren't (to not give authority the right to come in and shut them down)

there's a vid of Michael Moore saying some words with the crowd repeating what he says too

I assume it's so that everyone can hear what he's saying, as there is no microphone.

It's particularly horrible when the crowd doesn't understand his accent. Someone should have given him a megaphone or something.>> ^packo:

>> ^Skeeve:
Zizek: "You are all individuals"
Crowd: "We are all individuals"
This is horrible...

just wondering if you know why they are repeating what the speaker is saying,
but yes that is ironic

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

For some it really would - and increasingly does. The bad thing is that those people also hold the megaphone.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^dag:
Hotel jobs are some of the worst shitty jobs. The pay is crap and they put employees under a lot of pressure. They need to be unionised. http://www.hotelworkersrising.org/
>> ^offsetSammy:
Oh hai Joey's boss!
>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Fusionaut:
I love how the boss showed what a douche he was, and why Joey was quitting, right before the band started playing.

Yeah, so douchey to want to remove a random group of people from an obvious employee only area... If I were a hotel guest and a marching band stormed through in the middle of the night, I would have no complaints at all.
The nerve of some people for wanting to keep the peace in a place of business. sticks nose up



UNIONS ARE BLEEDING US DRY!!! THIS COUNTRY WOULD FUNCTION PERFECTLY IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THESE FUCKING PEOPLE!!!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.
2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?
Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.
Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.


>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.



Hey QM! I did phrase that incorrectly; it's another case of me taking a paragraph to say what I should probably say in 2 or 3.

I don't think Fox viewers represent 2-10% of the overall populous; I'm right with you there. When I say 2-10 I'm referring to the sector of the population that determines the "flavor" of the channel. They're highly influential by way of the money they throw around to make their viewpoint heard. I'm not saying that this isn't the same with most major media outlets... they're almost all beholden to sponsors of some sort. My point is that Fox is the lone popular media voice for the ultra-rich, and in a vacuum of any media coverage whatsoever the ultra rich wouldn't have the amount of popular acceptance that they currently enjoy. In a democracy free of influence from corporations, unions, and enormous individual wealth I believe we would be free to make better choices for the actual majority.

Be you "conservative" or "liberal", I think we all can agree that we need to get our democracy back in the hands of people free from the influence of financially backed interests.

Edit: and let me just say that I don't mean to infer that this in particular is the answer; it hasn't been thoroughly vetted enough yet. Just working to get there eventually...

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.

2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?

Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.

Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.





>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.

Man... if they did that in my city the megaphone and quite probably the lecturn would have been gone in 60 seconds.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.

LOL. This is funny. The city of Rochester won't stand for this. I suspect Louise Slaughter will get involved.

To be fair to the cops in the original video, I spent 8 years in Rochester, and if I recognize the neighborhood, it's the one I lived in. Most people don't realize this, but Rochester isn't exactly green acres. It has a substantially higher murder rate than NYC, active gang populations, drug running, the whole nine yards. As often accompanies that sort of activity, neighborhoods such as the 19th ward, where I used to live, have a pronounced anti-cop attitude. If I were doing an arrest there, at night, I'd rather not have people snooping around. Those stoops know you by your badge number. There were multiple murders/muggings/burglaries in the neighborhood while I was there, including a drive-by my friend witnessed right up the street. I could even tell you the story about how I naively offered the "mayor of the 19th ward" (the head of the crips) a ride home. He introduced me to all his "nephs" that would proceed to hand him bigger rolls of cash than I've ever seen, brought me to the crack house up the street where the toothless dude living in a closet was "saving up for a sandwich, but would buy some bags to lick if he had any," and finally explained to me that when he called me "cool as a bitch" it was a good thing, because he fought dogs, and "ain't no dog gonna fight longer and harder for you than a pit bitch." He further explained, "if somebody says 'you gonna die bitch,' that's not the bitch you want to be." Then there was the part where he tried to offer me car parts, bulletproof vests, guns, drugs, girls, you name it.

That said, clearly there are much better uses of officer resources in that city than curb-distance parking citations.

Also, this isn't in keeping with their typical attitude surrounding activism. When the Iraq war broke out, I worked with a group of radicals organizing anti-war protests. We had protests every week on Fridays leading up to, and into the beginning of the war for months. We shut down the streets in front of the federal offices downtown with about 500-1000 people routinely, and really were pretty obnoxious to the cops in retrospect (doing things like changing our route so they couldn't keep us out of the streets, and yelling in their faces with a megaphone). While we had our own "special investigator" nothing ever really came of it. They let us say our piece, do our CD, and didn't even arrest us for it. They'd talk big, but honestly, given our attitude at the time, they could have been much less civil than they were. Although, how they treat the college kids, and how they treat the bangers in the hood at night is a different ballgame.

Automatically anything that someone else says that you individually disagree with?

For some people - yes. I like to believe that most people are more sensible than that. But when you say something in public, it reaches not just that majority of sensible people. It also reaches the INsensible minority. And sadly that noisy, nasty minority is the group that all too often has the megaphone. Case in point with this rather amusing op-ed by one Micheal Shear...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/obama-and-palin-a-tale-of-two-speeches/?ref=politics

Palin is "bubbling anger and resentment", and Obama is "soft & restrained". No bias there, eh? I saw both speeches, and this guy is full of it. He interprets Palin so as to be what she "really is" in his mind. They hate Palin, so it is 'truth' to say she is hateful, spiteful, angry, or responsible for the violence (directly or indirectly).

Two polls recently performed show that the VAST majority of the American public completely disagree with the left-wing punditry's wishful interpretation. They don't blame Palin, conservatives, Limbaugh, or anyone else except for the one deranged young man behind the trigger. But the SENSIBLE people don't have the megaphone. Instead, a tiny minority of the biased and spiteful are screaming their opinions in the hope that people will agree with them. Thankfully, that is not happening.

If I do something, like say, type "hate speech" into google, do you think I will find a more narrow definition? Is that google engaging in "hate speech"?

Normal people probably are more inclined to define hate speech as language that directly calls for or encourages acts of physical violence towards individuals or groups. They may find other forms of speech to be distasteful, insulting, or vile - but would not necessarily classify it as 'hate speech'.

Further, is hate speech some use of speech that is morally reprehensible? Should it be condemned? Or is condemnation of hate speech...also hate speech?

Calls for violence are morally reprehensible. I take your intent here to mean stuff like, "I hate minority group X" or "Group Y people are all stupid" and "gender Z should do what I say..." and that sort of thing. I.E. Words that offend people.

I believe in freedom. That means I believe in freedom of speech, even when I don't like it. My opinion is that political correctness, and other speech 'codes' are a form of soft censorship. I disagree with it, and reject it.

I believe that the nation is strengthened - not weakened - when opposing ideas collide in the marketplace of the national discourse. That means there is even room for people who believe things I find morally repugnant. I think any effort to stifle free speech - particularly one that seeks to specifically stifle only 'one side' - is misguided and destructive.

Should 'offensive speech' be condemned? Sure - by anyone and everyone who wants to condemn it. But regulated? Heck no, because what is deemed offensive or reprehensible is often a matter of personal opinion.

>> ^dag:

That the 10% plutocrats have managed to get the feeble minded (let's be honest) to vote for tax breaks for millionaires is an amazing hoodwinking.


those 10% plutocrats own a very large megaphone,they also have purchased PR to change the perception of the common person to further their own self-interest but i wont go as far to call these people "feeble-minded" but rather just victims of propaganda,which employs fear rhetoric to appeal or incite irrational emotions rather than a critical and reasoned conclusion based on facts.

i truly believe that if people were given the correct information they would make a reasonable decision but that is not what people are being given and while the information is out there..you have to look for it and it seems many are STILL giving american news media authority to inform them, when for us it has become obvious that american journalism has failed at every level to critically question and report for many a year now.

interesting anecdote.
i was talking to a self=proclaimed "tea-partier" who was attempting to convince me of the evils of social security.she hit all the key talking points:"entitlement","non-sustainable" and how we have to either do away with it all together to reduce the deficit (which is a non-issue,SS has nothing to do with the deficit)or to "privatize" it (which is what wall street has wet dreams over).
the irony of this story is that SHE receives social security benefits!
my response was if she felt that strongly about the issue the next SS check she got she should tear up in protest.
she called me a satanist and a few other choice words and stormed off.
seems irony is lost on some people.

my point to all this is simply:would this woman have reacted the same way if she had all the pertinent information?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Why is it you have to watch fucking RUSSIAN TV to get straight news these days???

I'd be careful about calling RT "straight news", it's just got a different agenda than domestic news orgs. It reminds me a lot of Al-jazeera English -- it gives a lot of attention to any story that indicates America isn't the utopia it sells itself as around the world.

As far as factual accuracy, they're interviewing a guy from alternet.org -- maybe they're more accurate than the mainstream press, maybe they're not, but it's not like RT has done original reporting here. They've just given a platform to a fringe-y group in the US to say that the US electoral process is deeply corrupt.

I agree on a gut level with the alternet guy in this case, but I think RT giving this guy a platform doesn't mean they're "straight news." If anything, I think they're just in the business of giving a megaphone to anyone who can make a persuasive case that America sucks, or at a minimum that all that talk from Americans about freedom, democracy, rights, equality, and prosperity is just a load of propaganda.

>> ^Truckchase:

Here's a large part of the over-arching issue as I see it: There now seems to be some sort of inherent equity in ideas in our culture. When any news outlet can create two sides to an issue, they do, regardless of the strength of the "sides". To see the world in such a way is scary; very few things are inherently "right" or "wrong", there are all sorts of variables that must be weighed. Since we've (we as a society) begun splitting what once were relatively complicated issues into polarized opposites we unintentionally enabled the side effect of this sort of equity of voice, in that people entirely unqualified to weigh in on a topic now feel empowered to do so by hitching their wagon to whichever "side" more closely resembles what they believe to be their set of values. People who at one time would have been laughed out of a public forum now fall in line behind an overly-simplistic rallying cry.

That's a big part of what's keeping these kinds of hateful and misguided ideas from being squelched -- the media has become entirely dominated by false equivalence (aka "Opinions on shape of Earth differ" journalism). There's no attempt to illuminate truth, and call bullshit when they see it, instead they just give a megaphone to "both" sides' bullshit, and refuse to validate or invalidate what's being said, at risk of offending either party's supporters (and thereby risk losing their subscription/viewership).

Some blog I read put it really well about how the mindset of business of mass media has changed. It went something like: It used to be that the programming was the product, the listeners were the customer, and advertising was the vehicle that made it possible. Now the listeners are the product, the advertisers are the customers, and the programming is the vehicle that makes it possible.

That essentially sums up the entire reason why we've seen mass media turn into what it has across the board, not just in journalism.

>> ^blankfist:
I'll tell you about full of shit. Full of shit is a party that claims to be the party of peace, yet increases US hegemony and military spending. The Democrats should call themselves the party of wars and lies, but then they'd have to fight the Republicans for that title.
People like me, the Libertarians, are sick of paying for your two parties' wars.


Why do you think the Libertarian party is more likely to end the war than the Democratic party?

Do they have some sort of track record of honesty and commitment to principle that supersedes all other politicians?

Do they have a track record of being able to effectively enact policy at the national level?

Have they been tireless advocates against the war, and putting together PACs that spend money on anti-war ads throughout the years we've been at war?

Have their high-profile, influential voices in the media been using their megaphone to try to build a popular consensus for ending the war?

Or has everything they've ever said about the war been couched as an attack on the Democratic party, equating them to Republicans?

Just curious, because my two most frequent contacts have been you and Ron Paul, and it's all been some formation like "you Democrats would vote Libertarian if you really cared about the war, you warmongering hypocrites."

That's not commitment to ending the war, it's a commitment to use the topic of war as a wedge issue, Karl Rove style.

I vote this a *quality topic for discussion, despite the video spelling. Try to count the number of plainclothes cops involved in the snatch and grab and you'll run out of fingers.

Without additional evidence, in presence of what appears to be a peaceful assembly, can we not begin to reason from this video that the police are openly waging war on our will to conduct peaceful protests? If so, it's time to start conducting protests as though in war. No more megaphones, or enough distributed through the crowd to make it impossible to grab every 'leader'. No more cameras swirling around certain individuals, thus revealing their rank. Anonymity. Manpower. Strength. I don't know nor care what the protest is about anymore - this behavior cannot stand.

I agree the fears are unjustified--but what I do not agree with are people's abilities to get over fears, misconceptions, hatred, jealousy, envy, sadness, and oh yeah, love for pie and all things pie...

I respect the great hope, but I look at it like this. If it ever came down to feeding my own children or doing wrong by someone else--I know where my loyalties lie... Sorry humanity! Heck, most people wrong each other for far less. At least I have those values...

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Hey Net, I agree with you and am in pretty much the same area as you... I would like, however, to point out what runs your opponents' mindset. Fear.
I get that. But...I generally give people the benefit of the doubt about being able to engage their rationality and quash their fears. Get people to think about what they're reacting to a little more, and see if it really makes sense.
Obama has the codes to launch America's nuclear weapons. Obama is, as President, Constitutionally immune from prosecution of crimes -- he could go on a mass murdering spree, and all we could legally do is impeach him. He's allowed to negotiate and sign treaties on our country's behalf (though it won't necessarily have the force of law without Congressional approval).
This has been true of every President since Truman (and before that we just didn't have the nukes).
Presidents wield lots of power, but less than most Prime Ministers from other countries. In other countries, there is essentially perfect party discipline, and flat majority rule. No vetoes, no filibusters, no unanimous consent, nothing.
Being able to use pure influence as the head of state to negotiate a voluntary agreement seems perfectly kosher by any standard. If BP gets denied redress via courts, believe me, we'll hear about it!
Hell, if someone gets screwed by this ICF, we'll hear about it!
It's one of the built-in benefits of having a Democratic president -- their critics always get easy access to a media megaphone. The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...