http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/occupiers-dump-condoms-on-catholic-school-girls.html

Heroic!

I have protested as well and peacefully. There is no point in getting violent or harming someone else, it doesn't help prove your point and just makes you look bad and gives sympathy to the other person.

I didn't wear a protective hood or mask.
I didn't have a shield.
I didn't have a backpack full of rocks and bottles. I did have a concealed weapon by law that I am allowed to carry but it never was shown, exposed or even talked about. I only had it for self defense if crap got out of control and no one knew what I had.

For those that are actually carrying rocks, for the purpose of throwing: they are idiots, in my opinion. Juvenile, short sighted fools.

But how many people are actually carrying rocks and glass bottles? I'm sure there are a few, but how many, really? I've heard from first-hand witnesses that water balloons were thrown at the recent OO action.

When it comes to the protective masks and the shields - civilians absolutely should bring protective gear when the local police have shown they are will assault peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and skull-cracking gas canisters.



Carrying rocks shows you either have aggressive intent, or a willingness to respond to police violence with your own violence.

Bringing protective gear is just good sense.

Bringing 'protective gear' is an advertisment of intent to violence.

Kumbyah is a stronger shield than any bit of wood or metal.

and much harder for an overworked and scared police officer to be 'violent' about.

Kumbyah would also mean one should stop breaking things and leaving trash in your wake.

and makes even a wisper a loud shout.

So everyone wearing sunscreen at a march has intent to violence?

Or maybe it depends on the kind of protective gear?

OPD has repeatedly demonstrated that they will assault peaceful protesters. They are under federal court review for their excessive violence in their department.

Bringing a thick jacket and some kind of protection against gas attacks is just common sense, and in no way is an advertisement of intent to violence. Its an advertisement of intent to peacefully protest, with the intention to minimize the harm you might suffer as a result.

Well, here I am in the heat of the city - THE CITY FOR SUPER-BOWL WEEKEND - Indianapolous, IN.

And just last week our fearless (sometimes senseless) leader Govn'r
Mith Daniels signed AT-WILL into law.

WEEELLLL - howdy OCCUPY and our good friends the labor unions. Hotel workers, food service workers, have scheduled a strike, an estimated 150,000 super-bowl fans in a city OCCUPIED.

It's utterly amazing the conspicuous lack of news coverage. However, bus loads of Occupiers, teamsters, and other union members from distant counties and out-of-staters are scheduled to arrive for Saturday and Sunday 'festivities'.

In the midst of an already (pre-occupied) overcrowded city, the Occupiers expect thier numbers to block the roads (that aren't already closed).

As they say in Chicago "It'll be a hot time in the old town."

It ought to be interesting!

You go girl!!!!

Using water balloons is not peacefully protesting either.

I agree.

Interesting timing for the signing. They had to know it would bring the union machine.

Just in time to be fleeced by the Super Bowl.

and all the city merchants that have 'clamped' on to the event.

Few hours of stupid people making useless noise.

Millions in revenue.

So are soldiers who wizz on the dead bodies of their newly slaughtered ok with you then. Do they make ALL soldiers look bad?

Your public servents have been throwing tear gas and macing people in the face, and shooting rubber bullets at people's heads.

Public space is there to be occupied by the public and never is it so well used as when it serves justice. Protest of injustice IS legitimate use of public space.

As a law abiding taxpayer worried about the destruction of YOUR public places, I would think you'd be more concerned about the destruction of that's caused by fracking, mining and oil procurement. I would think you'd be upset by the toxic chemicals that you drink with your water and inhale as you breathe. I would think you'd be concerned with the break down in FDA practices that allow carcinogens to be flourish in the food you eat.

But never mind about the big picture, there are Occupiers out there working for you, so that you can be upset over those two teens who are fornicating in a movie theatre, whose seat you may have to sit in someday.

Yea, unfortunately concentrated mass consumerism is more appealing to the media and apparently is more soothing to those who have been effectively programmed to be drawn into the colosseum of the new gladiators. Occupy got ignored but I expected that, it was the sqeezeing out of the "right to work" protests that is most unfortunate.

Indiana is considered to be a pivotal state in getting that legislation passed and if the 'right to work' legislation appears to have passed unfrettered, others (those who like to follow) are more likely to allow it in their own states.

Despite the fact that unions have some issues, I still think that destroying the system which gives workers the means to have a balance between their work and their private lives is a grave mistake.

Just something else for the 99% to add to their growing list of grievances.

I have lived in 'right-to-work'.

When you have both this law AND Unions the system works real good.

The Unions keep the non-union houses pay high (else the company soon loses its workers).

The Right to not work for a Union keeps the Unions honest. (else they start losing members to good companies.

You are absolutely correct in that union shops have greatly affected the pay and benefit scales of non-union. However, the 'right to work' legislation breaks up the union shop by allowing workers in a union shop to decide if they want to pay dues and be part of the union or not.

While that would cause some problems, especially if negotiations broke down and a stike was called, but the law has catch - those who do not what to pay dues must still be protected by the union, like the members who pay their dues.

Those who do not pay dues must still have the right to vote for union officers and be part of the vote for funds usage and in the case of calling a strike.

In that environment, if union negotiations break down, a stike can be totally ineffective as the law would prohibit stiking union members from preventing non-union members from continueing to work. And it doesn't prevent the organization from hiring temporary workers. In effect a strike could likely lead to an end of the line for union members' jobs and for the union altogether.

Union shops and non-union shops work fine together and those who need unions the most should have the right to establish one (hotel workers for example.)

Without unions, more organizations could simply get away with paying by some minimun wage standard. Can you live on $7.25 an hour - even as a single person? Some states have min wage of $10.00 an hour, could you support a family of 4 on that?

And benefits - without unions as a gage for other organizations, what incentive do they have to maintain employee incentive and benefits programs?

Collective bargaining works best in a union environment because there is an infrastructure in place. There is no such infrastructure without it.