Look. Lets get this straight. There is an obvious smear campaign going on. Rather than airing, openly discussing, and trying to come to terms with the complaints of the many thousands of protesters out there all around the US and the globe, the new media decides to post smear articles about specific individuals.

The mainstream media doesn't want a dialog. They don't want to come to an understanding of what this movement is about. They just want to shut it down because the government doesn't like it, and the news media fears retribution by regulators when it comes time for them to renew their licenses. Its all about greed and self preservation of the corporate profit structure.

That woman should file a slander suit and kick that paper's ass. Facts are facts. If they had facts to back up their accusations. Fine. But they don't. It is bullshit. The reporter(s) and editor involved in the article should now be fired and made into a public spectacle. She then needs to hope whatever judge she ends up with isn't bought off or appointed by a political figure who is anti-OWS.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

She didn't push him off the catwalk though. But I think her time will come...


That's basically why I didn't like this scene. Should've just let her do that if you wanted to break rules and shit. This is one of my problems with Game of Thrones...it'll break some rules but not the ones I want, which makes it as bad as Jersey Shore.

>> ^schlub:

Reading the books now, finding it difficult to keep up with all of the characters


I just let the names wash over me, you can place them eventually after enough repetition

It's just so genius. It's exactly what elections have become...just giant PR spectacles that have nothing to do with democracy.

Because most people seem to interpret my not wanting to hear about 9/11 as not giving a shit, I said the following on Facebook yesterday:

It's not that I don't care about 9/11 or the people who lost their lives, it's that I think it's disgusting how much people use the whole thing to get attention for THEMSELVES.

Perhaps today would also feel less vulgar if there was more focus on the peoples' lives rather how they died. Nobody should be mourned as a spectacle.

Never heard of Toure before now and I don't know his opinions on anything else but, yes, what he says in that clip is dead on, though it's only part of what bothers me.

I'm already sick of the news telling me what to think about even mundane shit like politics. Now they want to package up the murder of ~3000 people as "America", sandwiched by commercials, and tell me how I should feel about it. PS: buy some sneakers (or the terrorists win).

Douchebag God: his "ordained" presidential candidate Perry makes a public spectacle (and official governmental act) of praying for rain, God sends him drought and wildfires.


*promote! (rewatch value: read the scrolly thingy and the other text)

Other than the insane things happening here, one of the things I like best is something I've noticed and experienced myself about human behavior: When crazy things are happening whether it's a car crash or another spectacle, strangers immediately take up with each other and form a bond. I see a lot of that in this video and that's one of the things I like best.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I think people think they just go up into the sky and disappear. While I can see that it's an incredible visual spectacle, all of those things are going to come down somewhere and cause such a massive mess. It's just pretty littering, and just as wrong as ugly littering.


Sorry, Littering is only a first world problem.

A chemistry teacher I once had supposedly used to do this with Sterno canned heat and dry cleaning bags. I guess they're quite the spectacle and have led to UFO reports before; the transparent bags glow purple and can make it to the stratosphere if they don't fall on a house and burn it down first.

It's illegal according to FAA:

§ 101.7 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any moored balloon, kite, amateur rocket, or unmanned free balloon in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons, or their property.

(b) No person operating any moored balloon, kite, amateur rocket, or unmanned free balloon may allow an object to be dropped therefrom, if such action creates a hazard to other persons or their property.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I think people think they just go up into the sky and disappear. While I can see that it's an incredible visual spectacle, all of those things are going to come down somewhere and cause such a massive mess. It's just pretty littering, and just as wrong as ugly littering.


Yeah, I kept thinking the same thing. What goes up, must come down. And someone is gonna have to clean it up.

I think people think they just go up into the sky and disappear. While I can see that it's an incredible visual spectacle, all of those things are going to come down somewhere and cause such a massive mess. It's just pretty littering, and just as wrong as ugly littering.

I think it's interesting that everyone wants to voice their opinion whenever someone gets suspended or banned, but the consensus on Siftquisitions was that they were too much of a public spectacle.

Seems a little hypocritical of us.

>> ^dag:

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.


You know, I was almost convinced by the arguments about non-public places and how the right to dance is like the right to artistically defecate in public.

Then Dag reminded me of the law against disturbing the peace.

Now, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how it currently works, but let me explain how I think it should work. If a "Peace Officer" is making his rounds through a public place, and somebody is making a spectacle and obviously harassing others in the area, then that person should be warned and potentially arrested. This would include the extreme examples of defecating in public and indecent exposure, and more moderate and disputable examples like dancing at a memorial. Those people would then be tried before a jury of peers, who would make the judgement call. Was the disturbance large enough to warrant being arrested in order to stop it? If so, then the person would be found guilty. And if the police had arrested people for silently swaying in a rhythmic manner, then perhaps the jury could find them innocent, which might leave the police open to a counter-suit. That way the police would also have to make a judgement call instead of following some absurd zero tolerance policy.

So there you have it. I don't think those laws should try to enforce a "tranquil atmosphere for solemn reflection", I think that juries should decide what is acceptable behavior under a given circumstance.

In this system, there would still be penalties for breaking the bounds of common decency, but also some wiggle room for common sense to survive.

While I mostly agree, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find atheists that approach the WBC level of kook. That's a special kind of crazy.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You ever been on youtube? I'm not going to get into a battle of nutjobs here, but I'd be happy to direct you to a couple privately.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
Shiny, I am not saying that you are wrong here but I am wondering if you can provide any specific examples of atheist kookiness? Now remember, this can't be general kookiness, it must be kookiness that is specific to atheism.
Please provide the source where possible.
Thanks
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^ponceleon:
Where's shiny to tell us how loving and wonderful Christians are?

What, you don't think there are any atheist kooks out there? I just don't have the poor taste to try to make a spectacle out of atheism by dredging up the lunatic fringe. I have the intelligence to realize that those people don't represent atheists as a whole.

You ever been on youtube? I'm not going to get into a battle of nutjobs here, but I'd be happy to direct you to a couple privately.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
Shiny, I am not saying that you are wrong here but I am wondering if you can provide any specific examples of atheist kookiness? Now remember, this can't be general kookiness, it must be kookiness that is specific to atheism.
Please provide the source where possible.
Thanks
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^ponceleon:
Where's shiny to tell us how loving and wonderful Christians are?

What, you don't think there are any atheist kooks out there? I just don't have the poor taste to try to make a spectacle out of atheism by dredging up the lunatic fringe. I have the intelligence to realize that those people don't represent atheists as a whole.