Friday Funny – TV news accidentally parodies the “occupiers”

From TVSpy:

KGW, the NBC-affiliate in Portland, is under fire after accidentally airing a graphic listing numbers of “stinky people” and “angry people” at Occupy Portland.

The graphic (pictured below) aired briefly, for less than a second, in the middle of the opening graphics sequence on the noon newscast Wednesday. “Somebody punched the wrong button, basically,” KGW news director Rick Jacobs told Willamette Week

Full story:

KGW Airs Graphic Counting ‘Stinky People’ and ‘Angry People’ at Occupy Portland

In other news, an occupy protestor attacked TV news reporters in NYC. Proof positive they are clueless:

A disgruntled Occupy Wall Street protestor confronted WNYW‘s John Huddy this morning, as he was covering the latest developments in Zuccotti Park, and the situation quickly turned ugly.

“This is somebody I’ve come across several times for the last few days,” Huddy told viewers following the altercation.  “He threatened to stab me in the throat with a pen.  He ripped the mic out of my hand.”

That won’t help. I can tell you this, in my own small world of TV and radio contacts, the sense of the “occupy” movement seems to be one of arm’s length satirical treatment. When the media starts panning a movement privately, organizers might want to think twice about what they are doing.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Current News, Humor, media, Satire and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Friday Funny – TV news accidentally parodies the “occupiers”

  1. Kevin Harris says:

    Hello Anthony,

    I generally enjoy reading your blog, but I find your recent negative coverage of the Occupy to be disturbing for two reasons. First, there is an issue and peaceful protest is a civil right in a free society. Second, supporting a right wing agenda opens the door for pro-CAGW to label skeptics as more politically motivated than science motivated.

    Thank you for all your hard work,
    Kevin Harris
    Austin, TX

    REPLY: There two reason why I covered it here

    1) Bill McKibben turned it into something about climate – when it isn’t
    2) Being in TV news myself, this boo boo sort of thing is something I relate to in my work there.
    3) Note the “current news” on the masthead

    If not for points 1 and 2, I’d probably never have paid any attention. You worry that ” label skeptics as more politically motivated than science motivated” well given the behavior we’ve seen about climate and occupy, surely they fit that mold. They can protest all they want, as you point out, that is their right in a free society. It is also the right of a free society to criticize something. While there might be a thin veener of noble cause in this originally somewhere, it has been stripped away and varnished with a plethora of other movements (like climate) and has been horribly managed.

    Besides, note the tags on this post, humor, satire. We have political cartoons being drawn about “occupy” in major media but I’m not allowed to poke some fun at it on this blog? Get real.

    -Anthony

  2. pat says:

    LOL. The staff strays from the approving political message the journalists are attempting to send regarding these scum. This is sort of like AGW. You have the entire mainstream media portraying a delusion as reality.

  3. More Soylent Green! says:

    How did they come up with those numbers? Create a model from a sampling? Did they send somebody around with clipboards to poll/smell each protester? Do people fall into more than one category, was somebody counted once as angry, and once as stinky, or were they only counted once, so if the stink was greater than the anger, they were counted a stinky? Lastly, what was the count of non-stinky people.

  4. PaulH says:

    I love this little clip/promo from Toronto Sun Media TV :-)

  5. oMan says:

    Anthony: “…organizers might want to think twice about what they are doing.” That statement assumes a number of facts not in evidence: (a) that there indeed “organizers” and (b) that they can “think.” Not being facetious here. Regarding (a) there may be nominal elements of organization (“General Assembly” and committees for this and that) but (1) this is all pretty ad hoc work mostly among strangers whose history and ethos does not suggest a penchant for much orderliness or obedience; that is, Boy Scouts they are by nature not and (2) with this kind of intense sustained and granular coverage by official and unofficial media, there are bound to be unfortunate moments, particularly with Occupiers (see point (1)). Regarding (b) I am being a bit snarky but in the larger sense “thinking” here means “rigorous definition of guiding principles and goals; then applying/pursuing them in a sensible, efficient and politically astute way, based on deep experience and mature judgement, so as to gain a successful outcome.” And what little I’ve seen of the Occupy stuff, these qualities are in short supply.

  6. Ray says:

    Are the 250 Stinking people part of the 450 Angry people or are they a separate bunch?

  7. Severian says:

    Well, they have a point! How could these kids ever have guessed that going 100K in debt with college loans to get a masters in transgendered Eskimo poets with a minor in womyn’s/diversity studies wouldn’t garner them a high paying job.

  8. Disko Troop says:

    I am occupying WUWT.

  9. vboring says:

    As far as I can tell, the difference between “planking” and “occupying” is that the first involves one person lying around in an unusual and uncomfortable location hoping someone will notice them, while the second involves more people.

  10. H.R. says:

    They missed a category on the graphic: Criminal Cluelessness

    P.S. Are the OWSers still working on their demands? They’ve had a committee working on that for weeks. Maybe I missed it, not that I’d lose any sleep if I did miss it.

  11. Gary says:

    Guess those overflowing toilets were “Occupied” too.

  12. Douglas DC says:

    Probably some sort of grid counting. From a Helo or upper story. Take a number of
    dreadlocks then divide by trash and fecal material…
    Maybe standing downwind,,,
    I don’t think this was an accident..

  13. John F. Hultquist says:

    . . . (Rick) Jacobs said the error was “unacceptable.”

    “It was just a lapse of judgment,” he said. “I’m going to take appropriate measures to make sure it never happens again.”
    ————————————————————-

    Now that’s funny. The station will get millions of $$ of publicity from this. Jacobs should embrace the tactic. He should ask the bright person(s) that did this to do a new one everyday for some random topic. Then viewers could call in and say they saw it. Then one person, say the 7th caller, could win a free something from one of the station’s advertisers.

    Priceless. Way to go bright graphics person!

  14. Al Gored says:

    First Chinese aerosols. Now these ones.

  15. Al Gored says:

    This is what democracy smells like!

  16. Mike M says:

    Anthony: “While there might be a thin veener of noble cause in this originally somewhere”

    So you’re holding out for the possibility that there ever was one?

  17. ZT says:

    Strangely the UK occupiers seem to have been going home at night and leaving their tent city unoccupied. i.e. The tents hid the decline in numbers.

    Similarities with other forms of fervent activism have not gone unnoticed, e.g.:

    http://order-order.com/2011/10/28/hot-air/

  18. James Sexton says:

    The Occupy movement is quickly becoming a punch line.

  19. Kevin Harris says:

    Just to be clear, my main concern is giving fuel to the fire of the uninformed.

    I 100% agree that most of the occupiers are uninformed when it comes to climate change and that movement as a whole lacks focus.

    Also, I agree that you have every right to criticize whatever you see fit. I’m not a troll and I genuinely enjoy your blog.

    Cheers!

  20. Elftone says:

    Ray says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Are the 250 Stinking people part of the 450 Angry people or are they a separate bunch?

    I think we’re straying dangerously close to the world of Venn diagrams and set theory with that thought… ;).

  21. Dave Worley says:

    Sooner or later these folks will have an epiphany.

    This “strike” by the kitchen staff may be the catalyst:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL

    The 99%-ers are now the 98%-ers, since they don’t want to feed the swelling ranks of freeloaders either.

    A perfect microcosm of an evolving capatilst society.

  22. Dave Worley says:

    A most beautiful irony developing.

  23. onlyme says:

    There are reports that Acorn is providing organization to the OWS movement, as seen in numerous articles found with a simple google search. Also supporting and assisting with organization, paying for protestors and/or other supportive or related activities are SEIU, the US Communist and Socialist parties, and Weepy Bill among others.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053967/Is-ACORN-secretly-running-Occupy-Wall-Street.html

  24. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Severian says:

    “How could these kids ever have guessed that going 100K in debt with college loans to get a masters in transgendered Eskimo poets with a minor in womyn’s/diversity studies wouldn’t garner them a high paying job.”

    +++++++

    It is a widely forgotten fact of English that male humans are weamen and female people are women. The word ‘weapon’ refers to tools used only by males. Many old innuendos used to the word!

    One of the dumbest things done in the name of gender equality is replacing ‘-men’ with ‘-myn’ in the belief that is renders the word gender-neutral. ‘Man’ from ‘manus’ (hand as in farmhand) just means ‘a person’.

    Re the occupy movement, there is plenty to be angry about but you can see the manipulating vultures circling with their eyes on the seats at the front of the bandwagon.

  25. Sadly, these demonstrations may be the only ‘occupation’ many young people can look forward to. If they are angry and somewhat confused, they have every reason to be; they are inheriting a very troubling future. As more and more people feel shut out by governments and financial systems that only serve the greedy, these demonstrations will grow and destabilize our societies. The population balance is shifting from ‘haves’ to ‘have nots,’ and one can’t help but feel similarities between 2011 and 1789.

  26. Ulrich Elkmann says:

    H.R. says: October 28, 2011 at 10:03 am
    P.S. Are the OWSers still working on their demands?

    Of course they’re not yet finished. This is boot camp for future politicians.

  27. James Evans says:

    Oh grow up, for god’s sake.

    Politically speaking, I am vaguely of the left. But I struggle to understand these absurd protests. What EXACTLY do they want? An end to bad things? An end to inequality? An end to nastiness? An end to naughtiness?

    What exactly are their proposals? What are their demands? I continue to search in vain for these things.

    It’s a bunch of protestaholics, pretending that they are an off-shoot of the Arab Spring.

    Tell you what, I’ll jump up and down on one leg for ten minutes, as a protest against the economic problems of the world. It’s a protest that will help about as much as the “Occupy” movement.

  28. Sandy says:

    Napoleon’s advice applies here:
    Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

  29. _Jim says:

    This morning, Friday, FDNY declared the generators (both diesel and gasoline as seen in the video) and stored fuel represented a hazard and moved in to remove same:

    Actually, in close quarters, with light wind and multiple generators running a CO (Carbon Monoxide) hazard can exist, not to mention the possibility that some individuals might be inclined to place the generators under a lean-to if not within enclosed areas e.g.tents.

    Also noted, has been the discussion on the live chats by the protesters and supporters about the use of space heaters, hot plates and electric radiant heaters (think: overloaded extension cords et al) to keep warm and in combination with tents and in close quarters with a diverse, constantly-changing occupation ‘force’ I think a tragedy has been averted …

    .

  30. Steve says:

    James, as you are doing your one-legged pogo, remember to tell everyone that you are doing it to ‘raise awareness’ of the problem … ;-)

  31. Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:38 am

    peaceful protest is a civil right in a free society

    I’m sorry that you feel that rape, death threats, and calls for violent revolution are peaceful.

  32. James Evans says:
    October 28, 2011 at 11:17 am

    It’s a bunch of protestaholics, pretending that they are an off-shoot of the Arab Spring.

    Maybe they think we’re being ruled by a muslim dictator.

  33. DirkH says:

    _Jim says:
    October 28, 2011 at 11:26 am
    “This morning, Friday, FDNY declared the generators (both diesel and gasoline as seen in the video) and stored fuel represented a hazard and moved in to remove same:”

    Can’t be the AGW crowd protesting, then. Somebody tell McKibben.

  34. _Jim says:

    Submitted for the purpose of discussion; normally, I’m not one to proffer or promote theories based on wide-spread con spir acies, but, in looking for common denominators I stumbled upon the video linked/shown below.

    One common denominator which is hard to refute is the use of “The Fist” symbol which appears in all these revolutionary ‘protests’ including their websites (presently directly to the left of the name they wish to be known by).

    Note the upload date on this video shows June 9, 2011.

    .

  35. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From H.R. on October 28, 2011 at 10:03 am:

    P.S. Are the OWSers still working on their demands? They’ve had a committee working on that for weeks. Maybe I missed it, not that I’d lose any sleep if I did miss it.

    The US groups are making some progress.

    99.4% want the free food to continue.
    8% want anchovies as a pizza topping.
    24% oppose anchovies due to overfishing and other concerns about the oceans.
    32% think all the pizza should be exclusively vegan.
    86% think non-vegan pizza should be allowed if it won’t offend anyone.
    23% agree the pizza should be certified as containing only Fair Trade ingredients.
    18% are willing to pay 20% more than they currently are for Fair Trade-certified pizza.
    35% would like cannabis as an optional topping, for medicinal purposes.
    33% think that everyone would like cannabis topping if they’d try it.
    73% agree the cannabis should be certified as Organic.

    Discussions of the Pizza Subcommittee are currently suspended while they figure how to incorporate the concerns of the gluten-free, lactose-intolerant, and nut-allergic pressure groups. This was helped with the revelation that those demanding a “nut free protest” weren’t rabid conservative Tea Partiers. To mention it, there was also one resignation at their first official meeting when it was explained that the term “subcommittee” did not relate to any protesters that identified with the BDSM community.

    In completely unrelated news, the sole Pizza Subcommittee member who stated the only sane way to end the disagreements was to ban the pizza, was found savagely beaten in an alleyway next to a dumpster, discovered by a fellow protester who was urinating on him who had initially assumed he was merely another street person crushed by the excesses of unrestrained capitalism. The PS has released a statement condemning this obvious act of police brutality and regretfully accepting his resignation.

  36. Myron Mesecke says:

    They are against corporations making money but they buy and use generators, laptops, heaters, tents, sleeping bags, blankets. How dare they enrich those evil corporations that make and sell all that stuff.

  37. D. Patterson says:

    Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:38 am
    Hello Anthony,

    I generally enjoy reading your blog, but I find your recent negative coverage of the Occupy to be disturbing for two reasons. First, there is an issue and peaceful protest is a civil right in a free society. Second, supporting a right wing agenda opens the door for pro-CAGW to label skeptics as more politically motivated than science motivated.

    Thank you for all your hard work,
    Kevin Harris
    Austin, TX

    Your comments are offensive. You claim “there is an issue and peaceful protest is a civil right in a free society”, and then you proceed to complain that Anthony does not censor the viewpoints which are the opposing part of the same issue and the same exercise of “a civil right in a free society.” In other words, you blatantly complain in effect that this “civil right in a free society” is reserved exclusively for the Occupy protestors and their supporters, while the same civil right for their opponents is to be censored, suppressed, and prohibited, especially in a forum which routinely invites opposing viewpoints to be published and debated. If you genuinely valued free speech. I would think you would welcome the opportunity to test and challenge both viewpoints engaged in the issue, even with deprecating humor. Instead, it appears you appear to embrace and champion the attitude that free speech as a civil right is for me and not for thee.

    Your claim, “there is an issue and peaceful protest,” is a blatant misrepresentatoin intended to deceive. You would have the readers believe the Occupy protests are peaceful protests, when they are in fact not “peaceful” by their own self-described name, “Occupy.” These protestors are engaging in acts of criminal trespass, assault, battery, destruction of private and public properties, riot, and more. To “occupy” is the use of physical intimidation for the purpose of compelling people to comply with demands the victims would not otherwise choose to honor absent the threat of violence or the actual violence of the protestors. Consequently, the Occupy protests are not peaceful so long as they defiantly and with threat of violence deprive other people of their own civil rights and quiet enjoyment of their own properties, free speech, and other freedoms. To qualify as peaceful protestors and be respected as such, these people must cease their illegal occupation, physical intimidation, and trespass upon the civil rights and freedoms of their opponents. The rest of us have civil rights too, and we will not be intimidated by anyone to keep silent and meekly surrender our Constitutional freedoms and human rights without a fight.

    Worse yet is your comment falsely equating criticism of the Occupy protestors as “supporting a right wing agenda[....]” You have evidently missed or deliberately disregarded the fact there are still large parts of the public of many, assorted, and starkly opposing political persuasions who disapprove of the Occupy protestors because of their intimidating threats of violence and interference with and theft of the public’s own rightful freedoms..

    Perhaps you would care to reconsider the accuracy and widom of retracting your comments upon reflection; or do you perhaps fear that doing so could result in your also being labeled, misrepresented, discriminated against as an uncaring, selfish, self-centered, loathsome, and ignorant conservative with a “right wing agenda [that] opens the door for pro-CAGW to label skeptics as more politically motivated than science motivated”?

    While you are at it, could you also explain how in the world did you ever come up with the strange notion that the Global Warming, Climate Change, or other monikers for the protestors’ actions in regard to the climate was science or anything else but politics?

  38. DirkH says:

    _Jim says:
    October 28, 2011 at 11:59 am
    “Submitted for the purpose of discussion; normally, I’m not one to proffer or promote theories based on wide-spread con spir acies, but, in looking for common denominators I stumbled upon the video linked/shown below.”

    There have been other candid admissions that the revolutionaries in Northern Africa were taught by Westerners how to organize; Facebook was mentioned prominently. So that was probably OTPOR – highly likely.

  39. Mark ro says:

    With 2-4 inches of snow predicted in New York, New York all I can say is don’t you eat that yellow snow!

  40. Theo Barker says:

    Thanks Anthony! Great humor, Kadaka, James, et al.

  41. Billy Liar says:

    Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Peaceful protest never used to involve camping. Once it does, it raises issues such as safety, public health, policing etc.

  42. mike g says:

    @ oMan

    Get a clue this “movement” is better organized than just about any movement that has come down the pike.

  43. mike g says:

    What these people are really mad about is they owe $150,000 in student loan debt and can’t remember if they learned anything at all in college.

  44. Rational Debate says:

    @Severian says:

    “How could these kids ever have guessed that going 100K in debt with college loans to get a masters in transgendered Eskimo poets with a minor in womyn’s/diversity studies wouldn’t garner them a high paying job.”

    Don’t worry, Obama’s going to fix that little problem! Soon, everyone can get $200,000 dollar federal loans (e.g., courtesy of the taxpayer) and only repay $28,000 over the following 20 years – all the rest of the debt to be forgiven after that point. Thanks to the gov. takeover of all student loans and the way in which that happened, this can now apparently be done without the need of congressional approval. Just “Obama Says.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/26/obama-taps-taxpayers-for-student-stimulus/

  45. Janice says:

    In Richmond, Virginia, the TEA Party is asking the city for a refund of the permits, fees, and other expenses that they have paid over the past three years for their rallies. They were holding their rallies in the same park which has been taken over by the Occupiers. Since the Occupiers haven’t paid for permits or fees, they are asking why they had to. Matter of fact, any organization during the last few years should also be asking for a refund of the money they have paid for use of public land.

  46. Rational Debate says:

    @Jack Maloney says: October 28, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Sadly, these demonstrations may be the only ‘occupation’ many young people can look forward to. If they are angry and somewhat confused, they have every reason to be; they are inheriting a very troubling future. As more and more people feel shut out by governments and financial systems that only serve the greedy, these demonstrations will grow and destabilize our societies. The population balance is shifting from ‘haves’ to ‘have nots,’ and one can’t help but feel similarities between 2011 and 1789.

    While I can agree with the sentiments of people feeling shut out of government and financial systems, I have to say that it sure seems the very people “occupying” these protests are the ones bringing that future on all of us. They’re not “inheriting” the problems, they are creating the problems. They don’t appear to be protesting the plight of the poor around the world, and rushing to give their own property to those who are vastly more destitute than they are – no, they are protesting that they are entitled to free or nearly free money, goods, and services, no matter the effect on society as a whole and the people who are involved in providing those very items.

  47. Smokey says:

    Rational Debate,

    Severian’s quote reminded me of a woman’s complaint [I think I read it here a while back] that she couldn’t get a job after graduating with a PhD.

    Her PhD was in German polka dancing.

  48. Rational Debate says:

    @Smokey says: October 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    Her PhD was in German polka dancing.

    OMG! ROFLMAO. I sure as heck hope that was someone spoofing the list – but these days, who knows. I can’t believe some of the university class titles I see these days. I gather (hopefully incorrectly), that many (most?) universities have moved away from required basic core curricula that includes all the basics such as english, math, chemistry, biology, physics, history, civics.

  49. mike g says:

    If you still need a reason to vote a straight party ticket in all future elections, it might be that you want to make these SOB’s pay every dime of federally guaranteed student loan debt they took out. I want Obama’s decree overturned and I want the existing law granting forgiveness at 25 years overturned. I’m struggling to pay my kids way through college while these sacks of @^*% take massive debt they have no intention to repay, which signals the colleges to raise the tuition still further. Capitalism is not a choice. It is a law of nature, whether you like it or not.

  50. timg56 says:

    As someone who has kept his home in Portland, I was down there this past weekend and had to go downtown to the Apple Store to buy an iPad for my daughter. I saw several people in the mall and outside it who were dressed the same as the folks camped out in the OP encampment. I can confirm with observational data the stinky part of that graph (if not the accuracy of the actual number). Didn’t see anyone who appeared angry.

  51. Gail Combs says:

    1.
    Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Hello Anthony,

    I generally enjoy reading your blog, but I find your recent negative coverage of the Occupy to be disturbing for two reasons…..
    _________________________________

    I would not call this negative coverage of Occupy, instead it is catching the News Media in a Candid Camera moment.

    Our local news paper got caught in a similar moment when a internal joke headline got sent to print by mistake and made it to the public.

    The editor in Chief of the paper was forced to resign.

    I wonder whose head will roll for this one.

    Still, it gives a good look at the real opinion of this news media vs the “politically correct” official stance.

  52. onlyme says:

    “18% are willing to pay 20% more than they currently are for Fair Trade-certified pizza.”

    18% of free is still free, or more accurately is just additional expense paid by those who actually work for their living, using their disposable income to subsidize the OWSers.

  53. Kevin Harris says:

    I’m really disappointed in all the hostility. I’m used to a way more civil tone on this blog.

    Also,I wish you all wouldn’t extrapolate from my my comments. I’m not calling anyone names. I don’t believe that being a skeptic comes with any inherent political affiliation.

    What I’m saying is that being overly critical of the occupy movement increases the perception of the proCAGW that politics are more important than science to the skeptical community.

    If you feel the need to continue hating, by all means, continue to do so.

  54. JohnWho says:

    I believe one of the primary things the OWS folks are saying is that

    rich people have a lot of money and poor people don’t have a lot of money.

    Beyond that, the OWS folks don’t seem to agree on much.

    :)

  55. JohnWho says:

    Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    What I’m saying is that being overly critical of the occupy movement increases the perception of the proCAGW that politics are more important than science to the skeptical community.

    Nah Kevin -

    Being overly critical of the occupy “movement” only shows that one is a rational person.

    “Breathing” increases the perception of the pro-CAGW folks that politics are more important than science to the skekptical community.

    Which is somewhat odd since to the pro-CAGW folks, politics is more important than science.

    Odd, that.

    :)

  56. Laurie Bowen (trolling) says:

    pat says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:47 am . . . . . “regarding these scum.”

    50 Amazing Numbers About the Economy
    Motley Fool
    In 1952, corporate taxes were 6.1% of GDP, and employment taxes were 1.8% of GDP. In 2009, corporate taxes were 1% of GDP, and employment taxes were 6.3% of GDP. 46. The day after Standard & Poor’s downgraded US Treasuries was the second best day for …
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/21/50-amazing-numbers-about-the-economy-.aspx

  57. Kevin Harris says:

    Johnwho,

    That’s two good points that I can definitely agree with.

  58. H.R. says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    [In stunning detail, KD answers H.R.'s question re OWS demands]

    Brilliant!
    And – no kidding – it’s probably worse than you thought.

  59. JohnWho says:

    @ Kevin -

    I had to go back and read to see if I actually made two points.

    :)

  60. IAmDigitap says:

    We no’d it wuz BIG AhWUL wut dun sneekt it in thayur. Hit wuz BIG AhWUL wat STOLE AhR glObaL WARMin too.

    Just in kase you thawt we fergot about all them world endin climut stuff.

    Yew has got yer foot on ahr nek ayund wee aint gonna take thayut any mower.

    Do you wawnt to SUPER SIZE them FRIES?

  61. zmarkran says:

    I expect the OWSers will all be gone as the weather turns and I won’t be sad to see them go. Not so many decades ago my upper-ish middle class parents paid my state college tuition (about $600) and gave me $30 a week toward expenses (I still lived at home). I was grateful for the help. I knew it was a lot more than their parents were able to do for them for them (my dad grew up as an impoverished sharecropper in the deep south).

    When I moved out from home I had nothing but an old Honda CVCC (the really tiny one) and a few thousand dollars I’d saved from working various part-time jobs. Since then, I’ve worked hard to make a living and build a happy life for my family. As the businesses I started became more successful, I directly created good jobs for literally hundreds of people. I still work every day. My wife worked every day until she was laid off in February. Today, according to a chart I just saw, I’m well into the upper .5% based on net worth (which includes our battered retirement savings). I just don’t get it. *I’m* supposed to be the fat-cat getting rich by cheating the common man? I still get nice notes from folks thanking me for the creating a job and career opportunity for them.

    I think a lot of regular people, who may not go out and protest, still buy into the idea of this mythical “fat-cat” class. I know people who have been more successful than I (well into the upper tenth of one percent) and they worked hard for their success too. They could probably retire and live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their lives – but they don’t. They’re still working too. I guess there may be a very small number of uber-wealthy crooks who got there by screwing everyone else. But they are flukes. The world just doesn’t work that way. The Madoff types are very, very rare (and I think most are in jail).

  62. Jeff D says:

    Where is grandma when you need her. Parenting is not what it used to be.

  63. _Jim says:

    Kevin Harris says on October 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I’m really disappointed in all the …

    Also,I wish you all …

    If you feel the need to continue hating, by all means, continue to do so.

    I, for one, would appreciate that your comments address some subject or an issue directly or perhaps someone specific, otherwise, I feel like they are addressed to everyone and that is a very broad brush you are painting with and not everyone is deserving of that ‘brush’ …

    .

  64. Jay Davis says:

    Kevin, calling the OWS crowd names is free speech. I for one believe they are selfish, hypocritical leftists who may be in the pay of people whose only interest is to damage the economy of this country as much as possible. Or they may be idiots who were too stupid to get an education that would enable them to get profitable employment upon graduation from college. Or they are kids from families who are themselves rich, and are merely doing what a lot of kids from upper class liberal families do until they mature and turn into capitalists. Or they are opportunistic homeless people taking advantage of the situation and getting free food and shelter. But more likely they are a combination of all the above. Regardless, the AGW crowd will always think skeptics are evil, ignorant, corrupt people, no matter how much we try to be civil.

  65. DirkH says:

    oMan says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:52 am
    “Anthony: “…organizers might want to think twice about what they are doing.” That statement assumes a number of facts not in evidence: (a) that there indeed “organizers””

    This should answer the question of whether there are indeed organizers.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagos-chuck-goudie-wls-tv-tells-truth-about-occupys-radical-origins-bigotry/

    (I mean, how silly is that question to begin with. As if some losers randomly aggregate at some place, all having camping equipment with them. Even if they were, say, the usual suspects of the black blocs in Europe, somebody would have to be in charge of organizing the gathering, no? Even if they’re professionals in covering up their traces.)

  66. Rational Debate says:

    re: JohnWho says: October 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    What he said! :0)

  67. timg56 says:

    Laurie,

    I was just looking at tax numbers. The corporate tax rate and the Capital Gains rate have been pretty steady since the inception of income and earnings taxes. What has changed is the top marginal rate for wage earners. With the exception of the Depression (the real one) this rate was between 70 & 90 %. Until about 1986. The rate for median income earners has increased a few percentage points (although the real rate – which I believe represents what is actually paid after deductions – has only increased by about 1%).

    After looking at this, I have to admit some support for the concept of increasing the tax rate on say the top 1% of earners. Of course the devil is in the details.

    Where the OWS folks lose me is with the anti-corporation talk. How many times do we hear about evil Big Oil getting billions in subsidies and not paying taxes. Imagine my surprise last night when CNN reported that last year Shell paid out taxes at a rate above 40%.

  68. Kevin Harris says:

    I just want to say that there are only a couple of comments that I was offended by.

    Thank you to everyone else, especially to Anthony Watts. I only have two blogs that I follow religiously, and this is one of them. Obviously, we don’t agree on everything, but you provide the only climate relates website that provides a forum that allows uncensored civil disagreement.

  69. Alan Watt says:

    I was in Seattle last weekend and wandered down from the hotel to the Occupy Seattle event at Westlake Center. I only observed the crowd for about 20 minutes, so what I experienced is a very small sample. There were several hundred people milling around in the square and I estimate there were at least 50 cops, mostly in bicycles. I could see four or five police vehicles, including a large van. I don’t know what Seattle is spending for all this police presence, but it has to be substantial. Lest anyone think this is excessive, in 1999 when the World Trade Organization held their meeting in Seattle there were riots. The city response at that time was tardy and inadequate.

    I listened briefly to one speaker telling a story about the police shooting someone right in front of him and saying it wasn’t enough to end police brutality; we had to overthrow the whole f***ing system. The crowd cheered. I went into Westlake Center and did some shopping with my wife. Coming out 30 or so minutes later someone was leading the crowd in a responsorial chant (“we belive” … “WE BELIEVE” … “that we must adopt” .. “THAT WE MUST ADOPT” … “a policy of tolerance” … “A POLICY OF TOLERANCE” …). I couldn’t help but think of Animal Farm where the animals are taught the simplified rule that “Four legs good; two legs bad”, repeating it over and over. Power to the sheeple.

    A cousin once removed (senior at a local University with sympathies for the protest) was there with her father, both carrying shopping bags from Mario’s (an extremely exclusive fashion store with locations in Seattle and Portland). My son observed that shopping at Mario’s automatically made you part of the 1%. I agreed and thought a picture of someone in the protest crowd with a Mario’s bag would be priceless.

    However my main reason for this comment is to provide an historical perspective on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, which most people today do not appreciate. The text reads:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

    If you want to weight the relative importance of these freedoms based on where they appear in the text, then the authors probably thought the freedom of religion was more important than the freedom of speech. But that’s not my point here.

    The authors of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not just inventing stuff out of thin air; they were trying to correct the observed defects in the English law with which they were very familiar. Under the practice of times, the Crown could accuse anyone of “treason” for something said or written or communicated to others. The accused would be arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London until such time as it pleased the Crown to try him, by such a court as it pleased the Crown to appoint, which after due deliberation would return whatever verdict it pleased the Crown to demand. Whereupon the unfortunate wretch would be executed in whatever painful and degrading manner the Crown desired.

    Thus the many detailed provisions in the US Constitution severely constraining the prosecution for “treason”, making it extremely difficult to do.

    The First Amendment guarantee is for political speech and must be understood as additional protection against English practices of the times: anyone in the US has an absolute right to criticize the government, its policies, its elected or appointed officers and to communicate with others to enlist them in similar views; and to take such dissatisfaction to the government in the form of its elected and appointed officers and demand changes. And failing to receive redress, the people have the right to change their government through the electoral process.

    However the First Amendment does *not* say that you can form a mob and stop other citizens from going about their lawful activities, or block access to public buildings, or in any other way create a public nuisance.

    The intent of the First Amendment is fully realized in new media: you can post on blogs, or create your own. You can express your views to others in email, facebook pages, cell phones, and even put pen to paper and post in the mail. You can meet with others in person or virtual venues and enlist support. You can run for office or support others doing so who share your views. Your rights to do so completely free from government restraint or prosecution are guaranteed. This was a radical departure from the norms of the time.

    But freedom of speech does not mean anyone, including the US government, has any obligation to provide you with a microphone or a venue or in any other way subsidise your political activities.

    You have the right to say anything you believe, even if others think it is stupid. You do not have the right to force anyone to listen. If you stand on a corner on your podium and shout your message to the public who just pass you by, maybe the problem is your message.

    I accept that people are greedy; certainly some big corporate CEOs are paid way beyond what I think their efforts are worth (ditto many movie stars and professional athletes). But the worst evils in history have been done by people greedy for power, even if they live personally ascetic lives. I’m much more worried about the public education bureaucracy which has taken hundreds of billions of dollars to run a monopoly cartel producing “graduates” who are completely inadequate to hold a job in the modern technical economy than I am about overpaid corporate executives.

    And to try to bring this back to something within the sphere of WUWT’s focus, I am most worried about people who think we can empower some central government office to determine what we must spend to meet the threat of “catastrophic climate change”.

    Living organisms, including people, can adapt to environmental changes. Just as societies of free individuals can solve most of the problems that come their way without a Big Brother to tell them what to do.

  70. mike g says:

    @Kevin Harris

    Why should it not be so when, clearly, politics is more important than science, in the scientific community?

  71. mike g says:

    @Laurie Bowen

    Are you saying we should raise corporate taxes? We are already so out of line high that we can’t compete with the rest of the world, to the detriment of those of us who see the need to remain employed.

  72. mike g says:

    @zmarkran

    Very well said. The OWSer’s need to study the parable of the ant and the grasshopper. They are grasshoppers.

  73. Dave Wendt says:

    One of the best pieces of coverage I’ve seen is this video of 1%er Peter Schiff trying to dialogue with the OWSers in NY.

  74. Kevin Harris says:

    _Jim:

    I appreciate your concern. My main concern is to differentiate us(CAGW Skeptics who oppose lunate alaiam from an informed perspective) from those who oppose climate alarmism from a purely political standpoint.

    Jay Davis,

    I agree to certain extent. Being of Jewish heritage, I almost jump out of my skin when someone calls me a denier. I truly believe that we can overcome the negativity by staying above their level. Maybe I’m an idealist, but I think that puts me in some pretty good company.

    Mike G,

    I wish there was an easy answer, but I would hate to answer your question with a platitude. It might sound trite, but hopefully we can overcome the attitudes of the uninformed with positivity and rationality.

    I really appreciate your honest criticism.

  75. Matthew says:

    99%of real science is done on 1% of blogs.

    Occupy WUWT.

  76. Kevin Harris

    It is an unConstitutional protest. They are blocking traffic. They are costing the taxpayers money. They are occupying the police from far more important duties. They are not protesting peacefully. They are interfering with others life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I, and 1000′s of other people, have been late for work because of them. They are unAmerican. Sorry Kevin, the Occupy protest is not American. It is wrong to assume a protest is always the American thing to do. America is, at present, far away from its original intent. It is closer to a Marxist model than a Founding Father model. These protests would not exist if not for the paycheck that the organizers of it are making. We shouldn’t have some kind of Pavlovian response to any protest that it is the American way. We need to slow down and start thinking in America.

  77. Socratease says:

    A disgruntled Occupy Wall Street protestor confronted WNYW‘s John Huddy this morning, as he was covering the latest developments in Zuccotti Park, and the situation quickly turned ugly.

    I guess that would make him one of the “angry people”, wouldn’t it?

  78. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Smokey says

    October 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    “Her PhD was in German polka dancing.”

    She could get a job in an oil company as an environmentalist.

  79. Jimmy Haigh says:

    I think I’m probably right in saying that political correctness offends the vast majority of the WUWT community.

  80. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Anthony.

    As WUWTcontinues to supply the goods I’ve made a donation to the fund. Well worth it.

  81. Ed Mertin says:

    This entire global Occupy Movement is a WAKE UP call to all rational Americans that this is a planned and a looming agenda for America. The true “transparency” of the Obama Administration and their tacit approval of this international left anti-capitalist agenda just couldn’t be more clear. Guess we have the Occupiers to thank for removing the mask behind which Obama had used to hide his true anti-capitalist agenda . Know why our economy has not improved? Guess.
    Wonders what Rick Perry really feels about the OWS crowd? Since he was a big Al Gore supporter. Like that other Texan Gore supporter that used to be a democrat, foreclosure Phil Gramm.
    Reflubitcans really need to be more careful. Lou Dobbs is seeing trouble beating Obama.
    Quit shooting yourselves in the foot. After the Las Vegas debate the next morning about the only things people recall is, “will you please let me speak? I have 30 seconds to respond let me speak. You’re out of time!” Yada yada yada…

  82. Gary Pate says:

    Oh man, who wants to deal with 250 stinky AND angry people???

    You could not pay me enough to be a cop…

  83. John A says:

    Left wing or right wing, the message is still the same – the Occupy people don’t have a clue about how to organize an effective protest, how to engage with the media, how to get their message to the vast majority they are supposed to be representing.

    For example, starting a street protest in the late fall (autumn) in New York is as stupid an idea as Napoleon attacking Russia in mid-winter.

  84. Chuck Nolan says:

    Kevin Harris says:
    October 28, 2011 at 9:38 am………………………………………..
    “supporting a right wing agenda opens the door for pro-CAGW to label skeptics as more politically motivated than science motivated.”
    ————————–
    Now I’m really confused.
    When did CAGW (global warming) start being about science?
    This must be new and please don’t anyone disappoint Al Gore with this bad news.
    With the snow coming to NY I wonder if that means Al’s on his way to OWS.

  85. Ahhh, if only I were 20-something again, I would also be at OWS.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047168/Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-make-love-class-war-sex-drugs-tap.html

    But, I suspect that an inch or so of snow would put a chill on this kind of carrying on!

    Everybody on the left, from “I am the ONE we have been waiting for” on down to Michael Moore have been saying that OWS is their “Tea Party” and represents the finest of the Liberal Thought and Character. Body painting can obviously be protected as street art or a political statement. But, just exactly how would you characterize defecating on a police car? I guess that it is in keeping with the rest of the event. And the individuals involved. Like Michael Moore.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  86. Latitude says:

    Michael Moore have been saying that OWS is their “Tea Party” and represents the finest of the Liberal Thought and Character
    ======================
    Another man takes to the microphone and says it’s not just the drink and drugs that have given the protesters a bad name.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054912/Occupy-London-St-Pauls-protest-rabble-cause.html#ixzz1cBjhpbNG

  87. Laurie Bowen says:

    Occupy Wall Street Anthem | “Finally Here” by The Roaring FT. Ari Herstand

  88. Laurie Bowen says:

    Occupy The Street Song (The Official Anthem)

  89. Laurie Bowen says:

    Occupy Wall Street Song , “Stand tall” by Rya Fraser

  90. Ed Mertin says:

    Do not ever jump to conclusions about anyone a media flaunts. No doubt there are paid plants. That is also how former political figures get to be well paid lobbyists.

  91. Dan Evens says:

    The idea that these are non-violent people is wrong. Blocking traffic and tresspass is violence. Low end, first step on the ladder, but violence. Meant to intimidate, bully, and force their view on others. And more violence is clearly bubbling just under the surface.

  92. Laurie Bowen says:

    Latitude says:
    October 29, 2011 at 9:24 am
    Michael Moore . . . . . .

    Michael Moore confesses: I am the 1 percent
    http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

  93. DirkH says:

    Occupy Wall Street Anthem, “Bang On The Drum” by Todd Rundgren

  94. Ed Mertin says:

    http://www.investmentu.com/2011/October/major-new-threat-your-stock-portfolio.html

    The Federal Reserve took interest rates too low for too long, making mortgage loans dirt-cheap and priming the real estate bubble.

    Congress exempted the first $500,000 in capital gains on primary residences held for two years, creating a huge incentive for Americans to flip their homes.

    In a misguided effort to promote home ownership for everyone, both Republican and Democrat legislators passed laws effectively criminalizing banks that failed to lend to subprime borrowers (and particularly minority subprime borrowers).

    The federal government sponsored Fannie and Freddie – or (as I prefer) Phony and Fraudie – to warehouse these crummy loans and then put taxpayers on the hook to clean up the mess.

    The $615-trillion market for credit default swaps accelerated the financial collapse. These should have been traded through central clearinghouses, on exchanges that provide transparency. Who decided against this? Congress in December of 2000 by passing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and preventing any real oversight of the over-the-counter derivatives markets.

    And who’s responsible for the regulation of banks, savings and loans, mortgage companies and rating agencies to make sure the mortgage market is fair and transparent? Why the federal government, of course.

    The problem wasn’t corporate greed. It was government incompetence.

  95. TheBigYinJames says:

    Socratease says:
    “I guess that would make him one of the “angry people”, wouldn’t it?”

    I guess by elimination, if he was one of the stinky people, John Huddy would have smnelled hiom coming.

  96. Brian H says:

    Allan Watt;
    Good, balanced rant. Agree.

    Laurie Bowen;
    Those songs are witless bilge.

  97. Keith Sketchley says:

    Kevin Harris:
    What you are missing is that the “Occupy” protesters have the same anti-human ideology as climate alarmists, the same evasion of reality, and the same tendency to violence (exhibitted at the Smithsonian in DC, for example). “Occupy” itself is violence, as Alan Watt and Dan Evens correctly point out.

    While the Occupy protesters have correctly complained about government giving bailouts, I ask you if they have complained about government actions that caused the mortgage crisis in the US that is the subject of their accusations against “capitalists”. The US government coerced banks into lowering lending standards, enticed individuals to borrow what they couldn’t afford, manipulated interest rates, made it easy to pass the flawed mortgages to someone else, and ran a ponzi-like scheme of increasing numbers in its huge agencies like “Fannie Mae”. All in the name of helping the very people most hurt by the mortgage problems their actions resulted in.

    Note that some banks were well run so did not need help – Wells and BBandT, for example.

    I am not surprised the Occupy protests have turned to explicit environmentalism, because they view humans as uncreative and untrustworthy, hence have a fixed-pie exploitation view, based substantially on the fantasies of Karl Marx. Why aren’t the Occupy people trying to improve what works instead of wanting to replace it with what results in starvation in the dark, as in North Korea today?

    You throw out the inaccurate “right-wing” smear, then you accuse your critics of “hating”, which is a favourite tactic of the neo-marxists. You need to look in your mirror and ask why you support the anti-human nature of the Occupy mob.

  98. Keith Sketchley says:

    Dave Worley:
    Your comment about the strike by the Occupy kitchen staff is odd.
    I see it as the evolving of a Marxist society. Except in a real Marxist society the kitchen staff would be forced to keep feeding freeloaders.
    Perhaps you mean that the producers are going on strike against exploitation by the freeloaders, as in the novel Atlas Shrugged

Comments are closed.