Occupy Wallstreet
 

I was wondering what everyone thinks about this movement? Personally I'm torn. I think the movement identifies serious and real issues, but my fear is that the solutions that will be found will be government-based and therefore just make the problems even worse.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I went for a couple of days to Zuccotti Park for a few hours at a time and it's definitely interesting there. A lot of lively conversation going around. Some more sane than others, but basically it's a lot of like-minded people of different ages and races standing up for something...and unfortunately drum circles, but what can you do?

I agree with you in that it seems like lots of the problems are governmental and systematic, and I don't see how that changes very easily, but at least this movement is trying to pointing that out. It's still tough to say what will come out of it, but I support the idea for sure.

I thought this article has a pretty good statement about what exactly is wrong while pointing out misconceptions about why people are protesting. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ating-20111025

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I admit I haven't read too much into or kept up very well, but from my perspective it looks like the protesters are very angry and have very valid criticisms and concerns...but I haven't seen or heard of any possible solutions they have put forth.

Do they actually have a plan, or any demands that they want met? Obviously they feel that the distribution of wealth is severely skewed (and it is), but what exactly do they want done about it?

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Therein lies my distress. These protests seem to be a reflection of a general, primal consensus that "something ain't right", but to most of the protesters what that is ranges from completely blaming corporations to completely blaming government. My problem with protests like this are that they tend to only engage an individuals reptilian brain, and that encourages shallow thinking based on emotion and not complex thought. My hope is that people take the opportunity to really examine our current economic system as a whole, and not simply attack the wealthy, but ask what is currently in place that has allowed the wealthy to grow so much more quickly over the last 15 years than everyone else?

"For every problem there is always a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong." ~ Mark Twain

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Well... it's certainly an interesting movement, but without point or purpose, I don't see it going far. There have been comparisons to the tea party, but I doubt it will have a similar political impact.

From what I can surmise, the protesters are angry about increasing income equality - to that, I would say two things.

1. It's true:


(CBO)

Recently (as in yesterday or today) CBO estimates do indicate the richest 1% have seen their income increase exponentially more than any other income tier. Why? Hard to say. I have a theory that if you take out the richest 1% of that 1%, the increase would dramatically decline (i.e. the rapid increase is due to a select few high-earners).

2. Everyone is better off than in the past:


(From a study done by two profs from Notre Dame & U Chicago)

3. Would taxing the richest 1% on the first chart at a higher marginal rate have any effect on the second chart? I really doubt it. There's a disconnect between these two issues, but because of politics, they're intertwined.

Anyway, I think the Occupy Wallstreet movement should be attacking cronyism - an issue liberals and conservatives could possibly agree upon.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

This. Unfortunately, people are trying to make this about punishing the wealthy instead of evening the playing field to allow for greater income mobility. It's amazing how we continue old arguments without finding solutions.



If you boil the arguments down, one believes in the power of people to better themselves, and the other simply wants to make people more comfortable in their inevitable meager existence.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I enjoy the concept of Occupy Wallstreet. People keep saying there is no easy solution and it is going to take time. We've been hearing that for a while, and it makes you wonder if we need a big event to propel the necessary changes forward.

Historically, you have major political unrest followed by civil war; your country gets taken over by another country; you introduce a new political party (back when this option was relevant).

And we are more global than ever. The US problems are the world's problems.

I'm just saying, I hope we continue to feel the air of energy and political unrest, because I much prefer this energy to sheer apathy. Give it time and some real thinkers will emerge with a solution. I feel like you're bound to recruit more problem-solvers when you have wind under your sails.

I can't think of any more plays on the English language or metaphors to pepper my post with. So I'll disclaimer by saying Obama is full of shit. But we do need change.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I think this movement is underestimated by a lot of people. In part, this is because the mainstream media coverage has been shamefully bad. But also, because many of the people who should be protesting are the people who can't afford to leave their jobs to do so.

As I see it, the main roadblock to progress between protesters and those on Wall Street (and frankly, a large portion of congress) is a difference in psychology.

Most successful individuals tend to give themselves credit for everything they've earned, and think people that are unsuccessful must be lazy, apathetic, or otherwise undeserving. Less successful individuals tend to see the cards stacked against them. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, history warns that telling the masses to eat cake is a bad idea.

The Occupy movement, in my opinion, is about more than just economic reform. Obviously, a lot of people are frustrated that the list of demands seems somewhat nebulous. Part of it is that we haven't had a large demand for social reform in a long time, so a lot of different groups are trying to get their concerns tacked on. But I think many of the changes being asked for are quite popular and some will stick.

Something I would like to highlight is some of the police tactics that are being used to clear out parks of protesters.

A two-tour Iraq vet protesting in Oakland that was hit by either a rubber bullet or a tear gas canister is undergoing brain surgery today as a result. After he was hit, a riot cop ran up and through a flash bang into the crowd of people trying to provide him medical assistance. Dozens of people complained of police using rubber bullets, police called them liars until people started posting pictures of the bullets found in the park the next day.

Meanwhile the police union in Oakland is threatening to sue protestors who injure cops when not one cop was injured by a civilian (though the opposite was true), the people throwing stuff are a tiny minority, and cops have no legal way of suing individuals. Despite all of this, the DoJ has officially stated they won't even be looking into the matter. Most major news outlets didn’t even report the clash between police and protestors on their websites until thousands of people on Reddit and other social networks started a campaign to harass them about it.

Isn’t it fascinating that when riot cops in Egypt used tear gas and batons to clear out Tahrir Square our own government condemned it, but our protests (which have been more peaceful) bring no such attention despite tear gas, rubber bullets, and batons all having been used?

But enough about that.

What I’d ultimately like to see:

• Money being removed from politics.
• Corporate lobbying power diminished.
• An end to corporate personhood.
• Adjust average hourly earnings for inflation (hasn’t increased in 50 years).
• Better hiring incentives and significant consequences for firing workers while raising executive pay.
• Harsher punishments for white collar crime (with great power comes great responsibility, not impunity).
• Limits on executive bonuses, raises, and incomes.
• A complete audit of the Federal Reserve.
• Revelation of the secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and/or its abolishment.
• Legislative/Congressional reform (takes too long to pass important legislation).
• Demilitarization of America’s police forces.
• Sensible reforms to the drug war.

Good read about the financial side of concerns:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...t-2011-10?op=1

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

TML, you make some good points, but your solutions are the exact type of top-down, centrally controlled "reforms" that helped get us into the place we are in now.

How would you do this? Who pays for the campaigns, who decides who pays? Actually, in this age of free and available information I am very sympathetic to this idea, but a lot of thought needs to be put into it to avoid abuse and further corruption.

Only corporate lobbying power? What about other large, powerful organizations that wield large amounts of lobbying power and influence? Should only corporations have their voice silenced?

Depends on what you mean by personhood. I would say that if we treat them like a person, we need to treat them no differently than we would an individual, meaning if we bail out a corporation we bail out individuals.

So if we force companies to increase pay, what happens when these companies eliminate the position? Current minimum wage laws have already cost teens and the elderly thousands of jobs. Isn't a wage dictated by the market better than no wage at all?

Why would a company hire someone they don't need regardless of incentives? A $5,000 tax credit doesn't even sniff at the cost of hiring a new employee.

Agreed, in principle.

Why? Is their raise going to prevent new jobs that companies don't need?

Agreed.

Please explain the "secret interpretation" part.

How so? The devil is in the details.

Explain

100% agreed.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Removing money from politics is an interesting suggestion ... it would certainly piss off the unions and major corporations ... other than that, I'm not sure what effect it would have on our current political system. It's worth noting that the consequential parts of McCain-Feingold were struck down by the Surpeme Court, so I'm not sure how far any of this reform would go.

What do you mean by adjusting the average hourly wage for inflation? Do you mean adjusting the minimum wage? The average hourly wage has increased over the past decades if you reference the chart I posted above. The increases are measured in real terms as well, so that nullifies inflation.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

The occupy protester camp in Vancouver reportedly has a bad rat infestation. Also its getting a lot colder out now and wet too. Maybe that'll teach them to occupy a job instead :D

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Good. They don't have a reason to be there anyways. We're not in the US. I hope those idiots freeze.


Personally, i think all of these Occupy Wall Street douchebags should occupy a library, and read up on how to actually stir social and political change, rather than being smelly, obnoxious jobless weirdos. Get educated, get a plan, take proper steps.

And on the other hand, the business owners getting all "well maybe I'll just close my business down and then fire 150 people. Let's see what that does." Very fucking mature, rich Dempublicrats. "If you raise my taxes, I'll quit!".

That is the new American way. Fuck all that "American ingenuity and stick-to-it-ivness". Now it's good 'ol fashioned "American taking your ball and going home."

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

At least you're always fair when talking about America :unsure:

Businesses look at every expenditure as a cost. Taxes are simply another line item that needs to be accounted for. If you raise taxes on a business they are left with only a few ways to make up the loss:

1) Increase the cost of their product or service
2) Reduce profits to owners/investors
3) Reduce compensation to employees or reduce unneeded employment

The third option will always be preferred because 1 and 2 can be disastrous for a company (just ask NetFlix and Bank of America). Remove emotion from the equation. Businesses employ for one reason: They need the employee to maximize their profit potential. Any other reason is nonsensical and irrelevant because it is not based in reality.

So we're left with a simple choice: Govern out of anger, fear, and populist policies that do more damage to our economy... or work with reality and help job creators instead of attacking them publicly and through policy.

And for the record, Canada has a lower corporate tax rate than the US, and I believe they are looking to lower it further, but you'd know better than I.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Pre edit edit: In all seriousness, don't take me the wrong way. I'm just attempting to have a face-to-face conversation over text, not start some argument or derail a thread or anything.


You take me far too seriously when I say ridiculous things, then don't take me seriously at all when I say things that should have worth and value. :lolz:

I seriously do think the Occupy _____ is a waste of time. If those people want change, educate themselves. Take proper steps, you know.


What I simply meant was that the Occupy Vancouver/Toronto started because of Occupy Wall Street. What harms you doesn't [necessarily] directly effect us in the same way. This is why our dollar has gained on the US dollar, and surpassed it a number of times. Albeit by pennies, but still. If we were directly tied, our dollar would have stayed well-below the American dollar. Instead we've constantly been creeping up to parity, and [slightly] surpassing it.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that our countries are indeed symbiotic, at least on our end - however what disturbs me is that the people occupying areas in Canadian cities are seemingly oblivious to the fact that in the end, it might harm us as a country. We are not the US. It's fine and dandy that your people are fighting for social change and I'm all for that. Wealth should indeed be shared in a broader bracket. But my people shouldn't have to fight for your social change. All or nothing. If my people are going to Occupy Vancouver so that your people get their message heard louder, my people (hell, yours, too) should also have some riots going for Greece and all that euro bullshit. This is a joke. I do not think they should do that.

The reason we in Canada probably have/need a smaller corporate tax rate (I'm currently trying to find the rate itself) is because we have 1/10th the population, therefore we have (let's assume) 1/10th the corporations. Being that corporations do indeed actually create jobs with some form of wealth in a centralized location (A city, opposed to rural people with rural jobs), we want to entice more of them to come here. The way you do that is to lower taxes. And I can see them lowering it a little more in Canada, with the talk of raising American corprorate tax rates, because then some corporations will surely (I assume is the goal) come north and set up here, and hire Canadians.


I'm not going to break this down, but just because I was looking for it, just a little quip:


Edit: After wikipedia-ing, I found this lovely string of hilarious things.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

So why does it make sense for Canada to lower taxes to attract jobs, but when American companies complain about high corporate taxes it's:

Logically, it makes sense for Canada to have low taxes to attract businesses. Logically, it makes sense for America to lower taxes to attract businesses. I fail to see why what is good for the goose fails to be good for the gander.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Like I said, when I'm joking you take me far too seriously, and when I'm not joking you don't take me seriously at all.

That whole "This is the new american way" thing was a joke. Stop focusing on that. I just found it disgusting that a small few American business owners have that mentality because it's such a childish way of thinking. Obviously I don't think every business owner is like that, nor that most people think that way. I'm not dumb, just bored.



I never said it didn't make sense for the US to have low taxes to attract jobs. That sort of speaks for itself. Low taxes attract whatever is taxed low. You brought up Canada having lower corporate taxes in comparison, so I was just stating my opinion on why I think Canadian corporate taxes are lower than the US'.
No matter what your tax is, it makes sense for ours to be lower in order to attract your jobs, because your jobs will not only employ our people, but they will also bring some of yours. I'm not saying that's not a schemey way of doing things; essentially trying to coax people over the border with high-paying jobs and international connections - but it just makes sense.
Even if your country removed all corporate tax, my country would probably start some rebate campaign for American business owners to bring their companies north. That was a joke. Although it probably would happen if that impossible scenario ever existed.


Besides, what you were trying to bring up doesn't even really make sense to me right now.
American business owners are complaining that Americans want to raise taxes on American businesses, and you're asking why I think it makes sense for Canada to lower corporate tax to steal away the pissed-off business owners [the ones who'd would fire 150 American jobs per company]? I don't understand what you were trying to probe me on, in your post. Honestly, I don't.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I'm a little confused as to where this is going, but the point that Canada has lower corporate tax rates than America (did not fact check that) to attract jobs analogy holds true for any country. Having a lower tax rate than a neighbor will always be looked at as a plus when businesses evaluate where to hire and build. There are other factors though as well, of course. The American dollar is the reserve currency of the world, even more so now after the financial collapse. That, is perhaps the single biggest advantage to doing business in the American dollar.

I would also say, perhaps somewhat provactively, that Canada is able to have a lower corproate tax rate because you have a lower defense budget and needs than we do (and in turn need to levy less revenue). You're probably going to say being our neighbor has its downsides, many of which I would agree with, but the pros far outweigh the cons.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I'm not arguing otherwise. In fact I pretty much agree 100%. Nothing that makes me think "Man, fuck those guys.", just as I'd think there's nothing about being South of Canada that makes Americans say "Man, Fuck those guys." There aren't many downsides other than cultural influence (But even then, who the fuck cares). But we even have laws to counteract American influence. (CanCon for example. Radio stations have to dedicate at least 30% of it's music to Canadian Musicians in everything they play.)

Don't get me wrong, I've never said I've had any qualms with living North of the US, nor am I really negative to the country itself, and rather the corruption that resides within it. But again, to be fair - I don't like corruption in general. it's not like when it happens in Canada I turn a blind eye to how much it disgusts me that people are capable of being so greedy; but we're just overflowing with your news channels. And it's much, much easier to critique another country than your own. ;P I'm well aware that my country is practically equally as bureaucratic and corrupt. Our leaders in Canada love their committees and paperwork.

Plus Your military means I don't need a big one. I enjoy that. It means we can spend our money on things like healthcare, and poor people. :lol:


But this has gotten way, way off-topic. My bad.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

So far there have been 2 over doses, which have resulted in 1 fatality at the Vancouver site. There was another confrontation where firemen went to put out an out-of-control barrel fire they were using for warmth, and were attacked. The police stepped in and 2 officers had to be taken to hospital with bite wounds.


I SHOOT HEROIN, BITE POLICE OFFICERS AND ATTACK FIREMEN, I AM THE 99%.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

This image should find a happy home here:

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Anyone paying attention to the crack-down against democracy going on today?

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I empathize with many of the protesters, but squatting on public land does not equal democracy. To be honest, these people have made their point, but their continued nonsense is just another symptom of what they claim they rail against. Protesting is basically complaining on a large public scale. If you complain, you expect someone else to fix something for you, giving that entity more power to abuse you with their "altruistic" solutions.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Not that I'm really siding with the idiot-protesters, but how does one "Squat on public land"? It's public. They are the public. Technically they have every right to be in that public park.

The protesters blocking the roads and bridges and shit like that should smarten the fuck up, however. It's not a protest against infrastructure.


I still think they should smarten up, read some books, and propose some legitimate fucking ideas rather than saying "Lol, uhhh, change stuff in favour for us or we'll stay here in the cold weather."

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I still see this as the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not saying today. Or tomorrow. Or next week. But the energy is just electric right now. I honestly do not see the protesting going away.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

They absolutely have a right to be in that park, as long as they follow rules and laws regarding its use, and they are NOT. Homeless people are not allowed to squat and public land, so why should we let another bum do the same thing because they happen to have an iPhone and simplistic message?

Just because land is public doesn't mean that I get to do whatever the fuck I want with it. In most cases these parks have hours of operation, and laws regarding their use, in order to protect the public lands for EVERYONE and not just the "99%". These public areas have been defecated on, littered on, and numerous other laws have been broken. So far law enforcement has been LENIENT and allowed these laws to be broken to avoid confrontation. At some point enough is enough.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I just wanted to add that Zuccotti Park in NYC, where the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd is hanging out, is actually not public land. Brookfield Properties (a private company) owns the park, but has an agreement with the city of New York to operate it as a "privately owned public space."

So, without the evil corporate slobs at Brookfield Properties, there would be nowhere to protest... hmm...

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Then they should definitely get the fuck out of there. They're trespassing. Charge 'em all. (That sounds like sarcasm but it's not.)


I wholeheartedly agree.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Regardless of whether or not anyone is concerned about the classification of the outdoor spaces currently or previously being occupied, I was more concerned with the violent dispersing of protesters rather than the fact that they were being dispersed. (And I was also perturbed by the news that NYC police would deny access to an area of the city unless you had corporate documentation proving that you work on wall street.)

Acts like taking billy clubs to the stomachs of Berkley students or indiscriminately pepper spraying crowds in Seattle show that the police is more about protecting corporate interests than protecting the first amendment rights of the citizens they're supposedly sworn to protect.


I view this movement as a positive thing. People like to complain that they don't have a concise objective, but reaching consensus among a giant and diverse group of people is never going to be a simple task. The movement is the first step in a process that would hopefully lead to some kind of change. The movement can't create a new system for society or anything, but at least people are voicing the fact that they're not happy. And if nobody stands up and does this, the conversation in the political realm will never change.

However, violently breaking up demonstrations is only going to cause things to escalate in a very negative way.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

What!? Damn kids need to get off my lawn!



I fear it is going to get violent from the protestor side based on how quickly and frequently the police have been trying to deescalate these protests with violence.

If someone pepper sprayed Rosa Parks for not giving her seat up on the bus....

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Here is a question: People are unlawfully occupying as space, and repeatedly asked to leave. They refuse to leave, and make it a point to do things to resist being removed (such as linking arms, making human walls, etc.).

How do you remove them without some form of violence (dragging someone away against their will is a form of violence)?

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

You don't/can't. Which is why protesting is effective.

I think the protesting at the University is somewhat unique. It seems that the University decided to call in the authorities. I doubt the protestors where actually obstructing physical space; I mean walk around them, cripes. But I don't doubt that the protestors were a distraction.

At the end of the day a University is private property and so the police can show up and try to remove the protestors. If the protestors refuse to move and act as dead weight...then the police will take the steps to remove them.

The gray area is "what steps are necessary?"

It doesn't change the fact that America has always celebrated the spirited right to free assembly and to free speech. I almost empathize more with the authorities in the above video than I do with the police removing protestors from New York City.

What is more American than New York City? New York City is the biggest stage in America. If there is a place to express free speech and your right to assembly, New York is the place.

Historically, there has always been "sanctioned" areas where people can protest...and not be seen or heard. That kind of defeats the purpose of protesting. Protesting is supposed to be aggressive, loud, and problematic.

When you saw videos of Civil Rights protestors being sprayed with fire houses and being beat by police...you felt passion and rage. Passion and rage leads to mob beatings, and again, I ask:

If the police continue to deescalate the situation with violence, how long will it be before the protestors mob the police?


So it seems to me that the real question isn't "what can the police do?" The real question is, "what can we do to stop the protestors?"

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

That pepper spraying was TOTALLY over the line and completly uncalled for. Pepper spraying a bunch of college students who are just sitting there defenseless? Rediculous. Its a bunch of kids for gods sake, doing nothing wrong. They werent tipping cars or starting fires. Just sitting there. The more I think about it the angrier I get.

Where does it go from here? Kent State? This is America. I hope those police, and whoever higher up than them that authorized them to use pepper spray, are fired immediatley. I also hope they pursure legal action against them.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Guys, seriously. If there's a bunch of no-good poor people hanging out outside on this planet Earth in an area that I say is mine, and they won't leave when I want them to, and I don't like what they're saying:

How do I get them to shut up without punching their throats?

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

Yes, because what I wrote and what you wrote are EXACTLY the same. :unsure:

The question still stands (as I wrote it) and I have yet to hear a good answer, and I don't think pepper spray and billy clubs is a good answer either, but people aren't allowed to do whatever they want simply because they aren't violent. Laws are laws, and if they would simply not squat on the property there probably wouldn't be an issue. In the end, the protesters have to understand they are inviting pepper spray by refusing all other options given to them by those trying to enforce the law. And the pepper spray was likely used because it doesn't cause permanent damage, and it incapacitates you (I know from experience). In the end, it was used to avoid unnecessary violence and injury.

This episode just goes to show that in the end all laws are enforced at the end of a gun.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

You could argue that human interests/rights supersede laws.

And, apparently pepper spray crossed the moral line this time because UC Davis is in an uproar. The police officers who used the pepper spray are on "administrative leave.*" The UC Davis chancellor apologized for the pepper spray...but now professors are speaking out and there are additional protesters. Students are pissed and feel unsafe on campus. Professors were saying that the protesters weren't blocking anything, and you could walk around them.

They were protesting tuition raises I guess. If no one pays for tuition, how is the University going to stay afloat? I think payers of tuition should have the right to protest. There are worker strikes and unions over unjust treatment.

At any rate, it doesn't look so good for the University, which is now on the national stage. Their students, who pay for the University, were pretty maliciously pepper-sprayed. And now the actual Professors who make up the University are speaking out? Sucks to be UC Davis.

*administrative leave is such bullshit....we could have a whole thread on how cops suck.

But back to this point:
This is the rabbit hole.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

The problem is that public property is the only good place to protest if you would like anyone to pay attention to you.

If you are asking them to protest in private then you are neutering their statement and frankly the very concept of protest.

What the hell do you care that they're protesting on public property anyways?

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

You could, but I completely disagree for various reasons.

1) No one has the human right to occupy someone else's property, and conversely people do have the right to protect their property and the government has the right to guarantee others the right to use public property and protect it from damage.

2) We are a nation of laws, not people, but our laws (should) reflect the will of the people. If our nations only serves people and ignores laws that are created by their representatives, then what we have is mob rule/anarchy.

The minute that we lose the ability to choose our own government, I agree with you, but until then we have to let laws prevail.

Back on topic, it occurs to me that the protesters WANT these public confrontations. I actually think the best way to deal with the situation is to kill them with kindness. Schools and cities should provide corporate based sanitation, corporate based porto-potties, lunches from McDonalds and SubWay, Verizon Wireless wifi, etc. It won't be long before people are get bored with the lack of conflict or are shamed into leaving. That and winter is coming.

Re: Occupy Wallstreet
 

I wouldn't if they weren't destroying many of the public spaces through littering, vandalism, defecation/urination. The public areas aren't just for them. I also have an issue with camping out. There is a thin line between protester and vagrant once the bubble tent pops out.

Long story short - If the protesters kept to public property, went home every night, and cleaned up after themselves I think they should be allowed to do it as long as they like. That is their right. My issue is that they are flagrantly violating laws in order to create confrontation for public spectacle.