Questions for our American friends

[Xexemedes]

Originally Posted by smutwerx

Howard Stern is a shock jock whose reason for being is to make everyone look stupid. He finds stupid people everywhere he looks. It's his job...

There was a time, not so long ago, when Howard Stern would have been 100% behind the OWS movement. Perhaps his own astounding financial success has changed him, as he is no longer an underdog?

Closer to home we have Occupy Boston. I googled Occupy Boston several days ago and was puzzled to have to follow several links before landing upon the purpose of the protests. Many of my peer group do not even know it is going on = no mass media coverage

The local media is, instead, rabidly pursuing the globally important, heart crushing, top story as to whether 2 Red Sox Baseball players drank a beer in the dugout during a game in which the players were not scheduled to play. By God!!!! How can the rest of the world even sleep with such horrific accusations hanging in the balance!

The local media did the same thing with the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords (it took three days before that was a "real" story, and by then was past tense); therefore I know that some people at the top are getting uncomfortable with OWS and trying to divert the public eye from the message; therefore I believe Occupy Wall street and its splinter groups are a very good thing.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Xexemedes

Closer to home we have Occupy Boston

Excellent, Comrade

But what if they call out the National Guard?

Won't they shoot you, like they did before?

[Xexemedes]

Originally Posted by palo5

Excellent, Comrade

But what if they call out the National Guard?

Won't they shoot you, like they did before?

palo this is America, we will shoot back.

[DTravel]

Well, that was interesting. One of the local late night news broadcasts reporting on the Occupy movement's encampment in the park in front of Oakland City Hall reported that their reporter on site who was going to do a live report was unable to do so because the protesters were creating too much noise and confusion in a deliberate attempt to prevent her from broadcasting from a public park. This makes no sense to me as the whole point of the movement is to raise public awareness and communicate their message to as many as possible, which means they should want news coverage.

I foresee violent riots in the near future.

[smutwerx]

Two interesting stories.

A ex-marine Sergeant named Shamar Thomas confronts a group of NYPD police monitoring protesters. Thomas has seen the behavior of the police over the weeks and isn't happy about it. He tells them that if they think they're so tough maybe they should go to Iraq or Afghanistan (these statements, I'm pretty sure, aren't meant as an endorsement of those wars, but only a takedown of the cops' macho attitudes). And then the interesting part, he's interviewed on some cable show later and mentions that he had to do crowd control overseas numerous times. And those crowds were throwing rocks, and just about anything else that was handy. He says that he and his fellow marines used less force on those crowds than the NYPD are using against unarmed American civilians (and yes, I know that there are many killings of unarmed people there, but let's stay on topic here). The response to Thomas from some anti-OWS people? Tirades against him about everything personal you can imagine, including that his uniform (though he isn't on active duty anymore) isn't worn to spec. Which goes back to my point about OWS being leaderless being a good thing. If some random marine gets ripped apart in the conservative press despite having made a devastatingly pertinent point, what do you suppose will happen to an OWS leader?

Second bit. A recent Supreme Court decision affirmed that reporters need not have press passes to cover public events. A reporter went to test this out by covering OWS. The cops routinely have zones accessible only to the press. This reporter goes into this zone with his cameras and is immediately approached by a cop who asks for a press pass, then tells him in threatening terms to get lost or go to jail. The reporter explains the recent court decision and specifically what it implies: that if the cop arrests him, he will actually be in violation of the law, not compliance. The further implication is also clear: police, when given the choice between upholding the law or breaking it to please their masters in the tall glass buildings will always break the law. They implicitly know what they are there for (to act as a siege wall around the powerful), and react accordingly, the law be damned. But this cop backed off. Later, when the reporter went to the opposite side of the protest and the press zone there, the same cop approached him. The cop said, "Oh, you again," and left the reporter alone to do his job. So there's a story of thoughtful action from an NYC cop, and we can assume there are many. Nevertheless, I think this reporter did a service, which was to highlight the fact that, though the role of police in serene times is to enforce laws, in turbulent times it is to protect the rich. Even though this particular cop reacted properly, the point was still made.

[sweatyhat]

Is a cooking oil that humans can't digest so it passes through our digestive systems like bran, just don't eat too much.

Sounds perfect. I should be able to live on fries and other foods that won't be doctor's nightmares if they're cooked in it.

I know it's banned in Britain. I'm interested in your everyday experience of ingesting it. Is there a proper medical reason for its restriction or is it just commercial protectionism?

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by sweatyhat

Is a cooking oil that humans can't digest so it passes through our digestive systems like bran, just don't eat too much.

Sounds perfect. I should be able to live on fries and other foods that won't be doctor's nightmares if they're cooked in it.

I know it's banned in Britain. I'm interested in your everyday experience of ingesting it. Is there a proper medical reason for its restriction or is it just commercial protectionism?

It is still in use over here but usage dropped considerably because of the side effects.

[tygrkhat40]

Originally Posted by sweatyhat

Is a cooking oil that humans can't digest so it passes through our digestive systems like bran, just don't eat too much.

Sounds perfect. I should be able to live on fries and other foods that won't be doctor's nightmares if they're cooked in it.

I know it's banned in Britain. I'm interested in your everyday experience of ingesting it. Is there a proper medical reason for its restriction or is it just commercial protectionism?

One of the brand names of olestra is "olean," pronounced "o-leen." However, Olean, pronounced "O-lee-ann," is a small city in SW New York. It's the largest town near St. Bonaventure University, where I went for a couple of years. I don't want to eat anything that spelled olean and that causes as it was so euphemistically put, "anal leakage."

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by tygrkhat40

One of the brand names of olestra is "olean," pronounced "o-leen." However, Olean, pronounced "O-lee-ann," is a small city in SW New York. It's the largest town near St. Bonaventure University, where I went for a couple of years. I don't want to eat anything that spelled olean and that causes as it was so euphemistically put, "anal leakage."

Or as they say in polite circles "loose stool"

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by blueballsdc

Or as they say in polite circles "loose stool"

You mean "liquid stool", don't you?